http://www.fbcaa.org/bible-resources/MattPostiffBlog Matt Postiff's thoughts on Biblical interpretation, theology, and random stuff Matt Postiff, 2007-2019 CGFeedMaker 1.0.20 on CMS Made Simple postiffm@umich.edu (Matt Postiff) pastor@fbcaa.org (Matt Postiff) https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2026/02/The-Sinful-Practice-of-Religious-Threats "If you do not do X, I will never talk to you again." Or, "I will never let you see my children again." Or, "I will not allow you to see your family." These statements are made by someone trying desperately to get his own way by using strong verbal threats. These threats do not bespeak love or a holy disposition filled by God's Spirit. Instead, they are manipulative and unloving. There is a sub-category of threat which I will call a "religious threat" or a "spiritual threat." This happens when the threat has to do with the religious part of the victim's life. For example: "If you do X, I will never forgive you." Or, "If you do not do Y, you are going to Hell." Or, "You are an unbeliever." Or, "God will punish you by killing you." The desired action "X" is could be something that violates the better judgment or conscience of the victim, but would be somehow helpful to the perpetrator to cover up an action or maintain control of a situation. Or, "X" could be a good thing like, "you children need to be quiet while I am on the phone, and if you don't, I will never speak to you again." Here, the desired outcome is reasonable, but the threat is ungodly. (There are "threats" that are in line with Scripture, like "I will send you to your room." There is nothing ungodly about that in itself; it is more of a promised consequence rather than a threatening sort of thing.) The strength of the threat comes from the effect that it has on the religious sensibility or conscience of the person. Who wants to go to Hell or not be forgiven or never be talked to again? Such amounts to what modern people call "gaslighting" because it attempts to convince the Christian victim that they are not a Christian unless they do "X." This gets some people to second-guess themselves. Since the religious type of threat lays claim to the Bible, let us see what Scripture says about threats. Acts 4:17 But so that it spreads no further among the people, let us severely threaten them, that from now on they speak to no man in this name. Acts 4:21 So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no way of punishing them, because of the people, since they all glorified God for what had been done. Acts 4:29 Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word. Acts 9:1 Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest... Ephesians 6:9 And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him. The verb "threaten" and its cognate noun form are used six times in the New Testament. The words means to warn sharply or threaten, with an implication of very bad (but often unstated) consequences. It can be a declaration of an intention to inflict some sort of harm on another person. In the case of a religious threat, it is a person stating that God will inflict harm on the victim. The goal of the perpetrator in the Acts occurrences is to stop the progress of the gospel. In Ephesians, the threats have to do with overbearing, abusive, or inconsiderate management to get the servants to be compliant. Notice in each of the above examples that those making the threats are not models of godly conduct: the Jewish San Hedrin, Saul before he became a follower of Jesus, and ungodly masters who are mistreating their servants. These are not our Christian role models. 1 Peter 2:23 Who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously. Here is the Christian example, the model for us to follow. Jesus did not threaten those who actually harmed him. Compared to what the San Hedrin and Saul and the slave-master experienced, Jesus was suffering a far greater and personal loss in being crucified. Yet He did not resort to tactics such as threatening, even when He had the power to call legions of angels to His aid or to effect various remedies and punishments upon those who mistreated Him. May I offer a few thoughts on all this? First, someone who says they will never forgive a person—even if only a verbal threat not ever carried out—demonstrates that they have not grasped the full scope of God's forgiveness of sin. Refusing forgiveness shows a self-centered motivation that appeals to the victim's conscience in a very damaging way. It takes advantage of their desire to be guilt-free and forgiven, to be in a good relationship with the threat-maker. A person cannot take God's place by withholding forgiveness: only God can forgive or not forgive sin. Taking the place of God is arrogant. Second, another way that someone can take the place of God is to set oneself up as judge regarding someone's eternal state. If you level a threat against someone that if they do not do X, they are going to Hell, you are taking to yourself the role of divine judge. You have no place to do that, and to do so is a clear violation of James 4:11-12. Third, should a threat-maker reply that they are using this tactic to bend a sinner's behavior toward some good outcome, I simply lay this charge: pragmatism. In saying that the end justifies the means, the threat-maker is disregarding the great damage done by threats to the victim, and also to his own mindset. That is not a godly approach in any scenario. Because the means are sinful, this very often indicates that there is something very wrong with the end as well. If the ends are good, there are good means toward it and there is no need for threats. Fourth, religious threats do not arise from love. Rather, the motivation seems to be either fear (self-protection) or an inordinate desire to control a situation (another form of gratifying oneself). If you are caught in sin, you might threaten the party who found you out so that they will not tell others. If you do not like the way someone is doing something, you may assert your desire for control by means of a threat to force conformity to your preference. These arise from the perpetrator's selfish ambitions. Fifth, in the case of parents threatening children, this tactic serves to teach the children to become manipulators in their own behavior. This does not advance the cause of godly child-rearing but rather does great damage. Finally, religious threats, simply put, constitute evil speech. They set a bad example for those watching, they are unloving, unkind, badly motivated and do not reflect the character of God, the fruit of the Holy Spirit, nor a heart of contrition. Allow me to implore you if you have ever used a threat like what I have discussed above, and especially if you are guilty of a pattern of such behavior. You need to confess your sin to God and have a contrite heart. You need to apologize to those you have harmed. You need to look at your motivations. You need to re-evaluate the thing "X" that you are angling for, because it is likely evil in some way. Instead of trying to manipulate others or live by fear, focus on walking with Christ yourself and let "X" happen or not depending on God's will, not yours. If someone is verbally threatening you in this way, do not give in to it and do not let it move you away from godly behavior. Confront the person about their ill behavior, and refuse to disobey God under the power of their threats. Remember, do not fear man. Fear God. Trust Him to help you. If it is possible, separate from that person. Seek Christian counsel. If this is happening in a marriage situation, seek Christian counsel with the spouse. Reconciliation is the ultimate goal, but it may not be possible. Verbal threats are odious and are very damaging. Physical threats are another level of seriousness. They warrant immediate action by those threatened and their loved ones. In a domestic situation, that action may include removal from the home, reporting to the police or child protective services, among other remedies. The one making the threat must repent and begin to live in love. Wed, 18 Feb 2026 14:42:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2026/02/The-Sinful-Practice-of-Religious-Threats https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/12/The-Proper-Interpretation-of-Zechariah-134-6 I received a question today about Zechariah 13:4-6, which says this: 4 "And it shall be in that day that every prophet will be ashamed of his vision when he prophesies; they will not wear a robe of coarse hair to deceive. 5 But he will say, 'I am no prophet, I am a farmer; for a man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.' 6 And one will say to him, 'What are these wounds between your arms?' Then he will answer, 'Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.'" The bold text has been taken out of context to refer to Jesus, probably because of the word-association that our brains do with the word wounded (Isaiah 53:5) and perhaps also with friend (Matthew 26:50, John 15:5?). But the Zechariah context does not support a Jesus reference from this text. That is a non-literal, spiritualized use of the text. I do not follow the non-literal school of thought in hermeneutics. It is best to understand this in a more plain fashion. The authorial intent seems to convey that "in that day" = the day of the Lord = the Messianic Kingdom = the future Millennial Kingdom...people who are false prophets will have to fly under the radar lest they be found out and punished by death for trying to deceive the people away from the King of kings. So, they will not wear the typical prophet's clothing of coarse hair. Go back to verses 2-3 and see that God is going to cut off the false prophets and idols. Even parents will not support their own child who has abandoned faith in God and gone into false religion. So, times will be "desperate" in the false prophecy business. The false prophet will not wear the regular prophet's clothing, he will claim he is just a farmer, and he will deny the markings that he got from his false prophecy rituals (wounds between the arms). These markings would indicate scars from cutting themselves, like the false prophets of Baal cut themselves on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18:28). The undercover false prophet will make an excuse that he got these scars or wounds while at some friends' house. Bottom line: in the kingdom of Christ, religious pluralism will not be cool. Wed, 10 Dec 2025 12:14:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/12/The-Proper-Interpretation-of-Zechariah-134-6 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/12/The-Firmament-of-Genesis-1 Today's question has to do with the firmament or expanse that God created in the early days of the creation week. The Bible says something about the waters being separated by sky. Is the sky water? What we know: Genesis 1:6-8 describes how on the second day of creation, God created a vault or firmament. This firmament separated waters below from waters above. We also know that God called this firmament "heaven" (some Bible translations) or "sky" (NIV). We also know that in the Bible, heaven can refer to three things: the atmosphere that we breath and in which the birds fly; outer space where the sun and moon and planets and stars reside; and finally, it can refer to the place where God dwells. Sometimes these are called the first heaven, the second heaven, and the third heaven. We also know that "heaven" in the original Hebrew language was in the plural, so "Heavens." You might have heard before a phrase like "turn your eyes toward the heavens and see the eclipse" or "the starry heavens above." There is only one atmosphere, and one outer space, and one Heaven where God lives, but we group them all together under the term "Heavens" in a way similar to how it appears in the plural form in Genesis. We also know that in verse 9, the waters underneath the firmament were gathered together into bodies of water that we call seas or oceans. This allowed the dry land to appear. So we know the dry land was also under the firmament. What we do not know for sure is how far the waters below were separated from the waters above. Some people have suggested that there is a layer of water around the universe, which we cannot see. A more common belief is that God created a sort of "canopy" of water above the earth, protecting the earth from harmful UV rays (that cause skin cancer) and maybe made the earth like a greenhouse where vegetation would grow very well. If this is true, the canopy was temporary, because it is no longer present. Probably it collapsed during Noah's flood and created some of the rains that flooded the earth (read about that in Genesis 6-9). But since we do not know these facts for sure, we hold them loosely and explain that they are potential theories, but we do not believe God is displeased if we do not know exactly what to believe about it. Now, about the sky being water. It is not water, but it does contain a lot of water vapor (clouds, fog, mist, which create rain, snow, sleet and hail) mixed in with the oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, etc. Wed, 03 Dec 2025 23:41:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/12/The-Firmament-of-Genesis-1 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/12/Regret-in-God Today’s question: In 1 Samuel 15:11, 35, what does it mean that God regretted that He made Saul king? It is confusing especially in light of verse 29 which says that God will not relent. Regret and relent (from the NKJV translation) are from the same Hebrew word. In English, regret can mean to feel sorry for a mistake or sin, or sorrow caused by circumstances maybe beyond your control or power to repair. Oxford Languages defines it as "feel sad, repentant, or disappointed over something that has happened or been done, especially a loss or missed opportunity." (In Christian theology, regret and repentance are importantly different.) Relent means to change one’s mind about a course of action, to become less severe, strict, or harsh, to let up, slacken. Oxford Languages gives this definition: "abandon or mitigate a harsh intention or cruel treatment." The Hebrew verb naham has a semantic range that encompasses both English words, and only the context can determine which meaning is intended. To simplify, let us say that the Bible word in the Old Testament could mean to feel sad (regret) or it could mean to let up (relent). In verse 29, Samuel emphasizes that because of Saul’s rebellion, God will not relent, meaning God will not change His mind about rejecting Saul. He will not become less severe or let up on his punishment. The decision is fixed, like a law of the Medes and Persians. This is similar to what we read in Numbers 23:19 where we read of God not repenting of his promise to bless the nation of Israel. God is faithful and reliable, and will keep His word. Now that He has said Saul is out, Saul is permanently done and that fate is not going to change. The context is different in 1 Samuel 15:11 and 35. God regretted making Saul king because of Saul’s misbehavior. In other words, God was sad about making Saul king. For a similar regret, see Genesis 6:6 where God was sad about making mankind. In view of the wicked behavior of both people in general in Genesis and Saul specifically in 1 Samuel, God was saddened. Notice that he was saddened that "He" had set that in motion. I believe that God does have feelings, but these feelings arise from his holy, infinite, and immutable nature. Such feelings do not have exactly the same effect on God as they would on man, but nonetheless God is not a being with no “feelings.” At the same time, someone cannot force emotions onto God, but God can have emotions based in Himself and based on His own actions. We can understand these feelings in part as anthropomorphisms or anthropopathisms, but these should not to be understood to fictionalize that God actually has emotions. We get our emotional makeup from Him in the image of God. God had not set up Saul as king with an unbreakable promise of continuance in that office. In fact, Samuel had said to the people in 12:25: "If you still do wickedly, you will be swept away, both you and your king." Thereafter, Saul offered an illegitimate sacrifice, made a foolish oath, did not kill the Amalekite king, and did not destroy all the spoils as he was specifically directed by God. This would certainly qualify as doing wickedly. It is appropriate that this show of disrespect by Saul elicited a negative feeling from God and a subsequent judgment. Despite the fact that God knew what would happen (He is omniscient, after all), it can still be said that He had a negative emotion about putting Saul in power. In God’s infinite wisdom, He sometimes places people into offices or decrees things to happen that are not themselves good things, but advance His plan in some way. We cannot fully understand it, but we can certainly understand the feeling of regret at putting someone into an office who later proves to be incompetent, or worse as in this case, rebellious. The regret is not about God having second thoughts about what He did, as if He now realizes something that He did not understand before, but it is about what mankind did with the opportunity God gave them to be faithful, and what God had to do in order to correct the misbehavior. The misbehavior was sinful, and the corrective was extreme, and it would have been better in a sense to not have appointed Saul and thus not have to take that drastic action. So from one perspective it is regrettable, but from another it is necessary. It appears that God can be grieved by what He has wisely ordained. That seems complicated, but God is an infinite being beyond our complete comprehension. There can be dynamics in the Divine mind that we cannot grasp. We do not have omniscience and omnipotence and love in the way God does, so we find it hard to fathom how He has put the world together in a way that will ultimately please Him but presently has significant shortcomings. Think of it like this: He could be grieved in the short term about Saul but He ordained that for a bigger purpose. He could be grieved at the time about the wickedness of mankind, but that was a consequent necessity after the fall of mankind and the plan that God had ordained for redemption and the eventual future bliss of the redeemed in fellowship with Him. We can safely say that God was saddened at the poor outcome Saul created, and that He would not lessen the severity of Saul’s punishment. And we can also safely say that God did not have second thoughts, nor would He change His mind if He had it to do over again. There is a collection of other Bible passages that refer to the idea of God regretting or relenting of something: Exodus 32:12–14; 2 Samuel 24:16; 1 Chronicles 21:15; Psalms 106:45; Jeremiah 4:28; 18:8; 26:3, 13, 19; 42:10; Joel 2:13–14; Amos 7:3, 6; Jonah 3:9–10; 4:2. Wed, 03 Dec 2025 14:55:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/12/Regret-in-God https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/12/Why-Im-Not-a-Seventh-Day-Adventist-Part-6 Part 5 The sixth reason that I am not an Seventh Day Adventist is that the Bible forbids judging another person based on whether he esteems one day above another, or every day alike. Worshipping on Sunday is not a matter over which one Christian is allowed to judge another. Two texts justify this conclusion. The first is Colossians 1:16 which says, "So let no one judge you...regarding...sabbaths." I am not permitted to view myself as condemned by someone who disagrees about the proper practice of the Sabbath. In fact, I take the text to indicate that I can push back against such a judgment. The second text is Romans 14:4-5. There, the apostle teaches us that we are not to judge other servants of God, particularly on the matter of the observation of one day over another. They will stand or fall before their own master, not before us. A Seventh-Day Adventist is stepping out of bounds to adjudicate a non-Sabbatarian believer to be a sinner because he does not worship on Saturday. Some people regard one day more sacred than another, and others every day alike. Each has to be fully convinced in his own mind. Part 7, Conclusion Wed, 03 Dec 2025 14:00:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/12/Why-Im-Not-a-Seventh-Day-Adventist-Part-6 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/12/Why-Im-Not-a-Seventh-Day-Adventist-Part-7 Part 6 In conclusion, I agree that the principle of resting one day in seven is important. But Christians are not obligated to worship on Saturday because: The Apostolic example of was worship on the first day of the week. The centrality of the resurrection of Jesus to the Christian faith. It is very appropriate to worship Christ each and every Sunday because that is the first day of the week, the day on which He arose from the grave. The Bible's teaching is that the Mosaic Law has been fulfilled. Historic Christian practice has been to worship on the first day of the week. The writings of Ellen G. White are not equal to Scripture. The Bible forbids judging another person based on whether he esteems one day above another, or every day alike. Neither view (Saturday or Sunday worship) is a matter of judgment or condemnation among God’s people. Wed, 03 Dec 2025 13:52:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/12/Why-Im-Not-a-Seventh-Day-Adventist-Part-7 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/11/Bible-Reading-2026-Edition Here is FBC's annually-renewed set of Bible reading schedules. The dates are adjusted on these to match the beginning of the weeks for 2026. Spiritual growth is correlated to Bible input. So, put more Bible into your mind! Read the entire Bible in a year, in a somewhat chronological order Read the New Testament once Read the New Testament twice Read the New Testament four times Read the Old Testament once Some other reading plans might catch your interest from prior years, easily adaptable to the coming year: Ligonier Bible Reading Plans ESV Bible Reading Plans Professor Horner's Reading System Read the Gospels Every Day Mon, 24 Nov 2025 17:13:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/11/Bible-Reading-2026-Edition https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/10/The-Holy-Spirit-Speaks Credit for this blog post goes to one of our church members who sent me an observation this morning about Hebrews 3:7. Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says: "Today, if you will hear His voice, do not harden your hearts..." Indeed, the Spirit of God speaks, something which no impersonal force does. He is a real (divine) person. We see the same idea in several other passages: "Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas..." (Acts 1:16) As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." (Acts 13:2) So when they did not agree among themselves, they departed after Paul had said one word: "The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, saying, 'Go to this people and say: "Hearing you will hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you will see, and not perceive..."'" (Acts 28:25-26) The Spirit of God spoke through the vehicle of the prophets in the Old Testament, and similarly via the apostles in the New Testament. What He spoke, they spoke, or wrote. Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21) Tue, 21 Oct 2025 07:18:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/10/The-Holy-Spirit-Speaks https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/06/Question-about-Saul-and-David-Offering-Sacrifice Today's question from someone who attends Fellowship Bible Church: In 1 Samuel 13 Saul offered sacrifices before Samuel arrived, thus disregarding Samuel's specific instruction. He was rebuked for not obeying the Lord's command, and seemingly for stepping into the priestly office when it was not permitted. But then in 2 Samuel 6, David offered sacrifices but was not rebuked. What is the difference between these situations? Why exactly was Saul in the wrong? After Saul had impatiently went ahead and made a burnt offering to get ready for the imminent Philistine attack, Samuel rebuked Saul. He said that Saul had done foolishly and did not keep the Lord’s command (1 Samuel 13:13-14). He should have waited the additional minutes or hours for Samuel to arrive. The wording of the Bible text seems to indicate that Saul did the offering himself. He said to bring the burnt and peace offerings to him. He "offered the burnt offering" and "finished presenting the burnt offering" (1 Samuel 13:9-10). Saul had ready-made reasons: the people were leaving, Samuel was not coming, and the Philistines were near. He said he felt compelled under those circumstances. But no compulsion is enough to disobey God’s command, which included the command to wait until Samuel arrived. We can verify this by going back to 1 Samuel 10:8: "You shall go down before me to Gilgal; and surely I will come down to you to offer burnt offerings and make sacrifices of peace offerings. Seven days you shall wait, till I come to you and show you what you should do." The command is clear. And since Samuel is a mouthpiece for God, this is God’s command. Saul had thus violated the express command of the Lord. Whether Saul’s hands actually touched the sacrifices or killed them or set them on fire is not as important as the fact that he actively caused the sacrifices to be done (or commanded others to actually do the bloody work) without Samuel being present. Samuel said in chapter 10 that he would offer the sacrifices, but Saul did instead. That is a problem. Nevertheless, my understanding of the text is that Saul actually did the bloody work of making the offering and putting it on the altar. Although the offerer sometimes did kill the offering (Leviticus 1:10-11), it appears that the priests did the "altar work" in arranging the sacrifice on the altar, manipulating the blood, etc. (Lev. 1:13, 15-17). Saul should not have done so. We recall another time that a king usurped priestly authority: Uzziah. 2 Chronicles 26:16-19 tells us that he became proud, entered the temple, and tried to burn incense on the altar of incense. That was only permitted for the priests who were consecrated to do so. After being struck with leprosy, he hurried to reverse course and get out of the temple. Saul’s sin was similar in the sense of usurping the priest’s office, but also that he disobeyed a direct command to wait. He should have waited, trusting in the Lord to protect him and the people instead of in the act of making a sacrifice. A question comes up when we read in 2 Samuel 6:17-18. David "offered burnt offerings and peace offerings" and "finished offering burnt offerings and peace offerings." This language is almost identical to what Saul did at Gilgal. The sacrifices are the same type as Saul's sacrifices. Why was David not sinning when he did this, but Saul was? David also made offerings in 2 Samuel 24:25 and Solomon did the same in 1 Kings 8:64. Was Solomon also guilty? I take it that David was not guilty for two reasons. First, he did not disobey a direct command from a prophet of God to wait to allow the offerings to be made by another. Second, it seems reasonable to assume that David in this instance reflected his status as a man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel 13:14). So whether his hand was directly involved in killing sacrificial animals (as a normal offerer would sometimes do), I do not believe he transgressed the priestly boundary. The priests probably did all the necessary ritual with regard to the altar. It is also doubtful whether David was directly involved in all or any of the animal slayings since there were so many and he was dancing as well (2 Samuel 6:13-14). We note too that a high official "doing" something does not mean that he actually did the act himself. He likely delegated parts or the whole task to others. 2 Samuel 6:12 says, "David went and brought up the ark of God." Later, "David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD" (2 Samuel 6:15). We know that for this second attempt, the Ark was carried by the priests. It was not carried on an oxcart or by unauthorized persons, and David did not carry it himself. So, David "brought" the Ark, but he did not physically "bring" the Ark with his own hands. He was in charge of the operation, decided when it would happen, and how. But he did it properly. I think the same line of reasoning shows that Solomon was not in sin for being involved in the initial dedicatory sacrifices for the new temple. It appears that King Saul did not delegate the task of sacrifice to anyone, but rather took it to himself. And he did so impatiently—not trusting the Lord. He did not honor God before the people. May we strive to honor the Lord in all things and not get ourselves into a situation like Saul did. Author's note: I thank the Lord that, with this post, He has permitted me to write 500 articles on this blog! My goal has been to honor the Lord and edify His people and I hope these articles are accomplishing that goal. Wed, 04 Jun 2025 13:09:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/06/Question-about-Saul-and-David-Offering-Sacrifice https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/06/Our-One-Another-Negative-Responsibilities Yesterday I posted about our "one another responsibilities." Today, I follow up with our "one another un-responsibilities." Ask God to help you by His grace and Spirit to repudiate these attitudes and practices in your life. Do not lie to one another (Col. 3:9, Eph. 4:25) Do not provoke or envy one another (Gal. 5:26) Caution: do not devour/consume one another (Gal. 5:15) Do not deprive one another (spouses, 1 Cor. 7:5) Do not go to law against one another (1 Cor. 6:7) Do not judge one another or put a stumbling block in one another’s way (Rom. 14:13) Do not burn in lust toward one another (principle of Rom. 1:27, particularly of homosexuality, generally true also) Do not plot evil against one another (Zech. 7:10) Do not hate one another (Titus 3:3) Do not speak against one another (James 4:11) Do not grumble/complain against one another (James 5:9) Sun, 01 Jun 2025 15:40:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/06/Our-One-Another-Negative-Responsibilities https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/05/Love-One-Another In my sermon preparation, I ran into the "one another" commands yet again. Here they are: Pray for one another (James 5:16) Confess to one another (James 5:16) Love one another (John 13:34 (2x), John 13:35, 15:12, 15:17; Rom. 12:10; 13:8; 1 John 3:11, 3:23; 4:7, 4:11-12, 2 John 5; 1 Peter 1:22, 4:8; 2 Thess. 1:3, 4:9) Show preference to one another (Rom. 12:10) Share fellowship with one another (1 John 1:7) Be humble toward one another (1 Peter 5:5) Serve one another (1 Peter 4:10) Be hospitable toward one another (1 Peter 4:9) Spur one another on toward love and good works (Heb. 10:24) Exhort/encourage one another (Heb. 3:13, 10:25) Pursue good for one another (1 Thess 5:15) Be at peace with one another (1 Thess 5:13) Encourage and build up one another (1 Thess. 5:11) Comfort one another (1 Thess. 4:18) Teach and admonish one another in songs based on the word of Christ (Col. 3:16) Bear with one another and forgive one another (Col. 3:13, Eph. 4:2) Regard others as more important than yourself (Col. 2:3) Submit to one another (Eph. 5:21, 22ff show how) Speak to one another in song (Eph. 5:19) Be kind to one another and forgiving each other (Eph. 4:32) Recognize that we are members of one another (Eph. 4:25) Through love serve one another (Gal. 5:13) Greet one another (Rom. 16:16, 1 Cor. 16:20, 2 Cor. 13:12, 1 Peter 5:14) Exercise mutual care one for another (1 Cor. 12:25) Wait for one another (1 Cor. 11:33) Admonish one another (Rom 15:14) Accept/receive one another (Rom. 15:7) Be of the same mind with one another (Rom. 12:16, 15:5) Pursue peace and building up of one another (Rom. 14:19) Be at peace with one another (Mark 9:50) Speak truth to one another (Zechariah 8:16) Have compassion for one another (1 Peter 3:8) By God's grace these things will be a significant part of your life. Sat, 31 May 2025 18:18:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/05/Love-One-Another https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/05/The-Temple-in-Ezekiel-9 Another question today: Is Ezekiel speaking of the destruction of the temple to come in chapter 9, or more of the end times? We can unravel somewhat the mystery of Ezekiel's prophecies by looking at the overall outline of the book: Chapters 1-24 concern prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem. These are fulfilled in the "near term" from Ezekiel's perspective. He prophesied around 593 to 572 B.C. and the city and temple were destroyed in 586 B.C. in the midst of his ministry. Chapters 25-32 concern near-term fulfilled prophecies against the nations. Chapters 33-34 are a call to repentance by the watchman Ezekiel. Chapters 34-48 are about the future restoration of Israel with a focus on the future millennial temple and its worship. These things are almost all to be fulfilled in the far future in the end times. To look a bit more into chapter 9, let us back up to chapter 8. There, God shows Ezekiel the awful idolatry of the nation of Israel, with idols even inside the temple. In chapter 9, God explains to Ezekiel that there will be a severe judgment against the people for their idolatry. This judgment, in agreement with the outline above, is soon, within Ezekiel's lifetime. As that information was being revealed, Ezekiel saw in his prophetic vision some movement of the glory of God in and around the temple. This movement shows that God is slowly, sadly leaving the temple. The Shekinah glory was moving out because idolatry had moved in. Notice the movement: 9:3 - Now the glory of the God of Israel had gone up from the cherub on which it rested to the threshold of the house. (ESV) 10:4 - And the glory of the LORD went up from the cherub to the threshold of the house, and the house was filled with the cloud, and the court was filled with the brightness of the glory of the LORD. Next, the glory of God leaves the temple, accompanied by the cherubim, to the east gate: 10:18-19 - Then the glory of the LORD went out from the threshold of the house, and stood over the cherubim. 19 And the cherubim lifted up their wings and mounted up from the earth before my eyes as they went out, with the wheels beside them. And they stood at the entrance of the east gate of the house of the LORD, and the glory of the God of Israel was over them. Next, the glory of God leaves the city: 11:23 - And the glory of the LORD went up from the midst of the city and stood on the mountain that is on the east side of the city. The glory of God had now departed. It will not return to a temple until the new temple in the millennium. But the Lord Jesus did suddenly appear at the temple in the first century, but He was rejected by the officials of that temple, just like God was rejected in Ezekiel's day. Thu, 29 May 2025 07:40:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/05/The-Temple-in-Ezekiel-9 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/05/Son-of-Man Today's question has to do with Ezekiel being called the "son of man." Sometimes it is in lower case, and sometimes in upper case. Is there any significance to that? The question arose because last Sunday I spoke on the "Son of Man" terminology from Luke 22:69 and connected it to Daniel 7:13-14. I said that the phrase did not merely indicate the humanity of Christ, but is also connected to His deity and right to rule as divine King over the Messianic kingdom. The San Hedrin council understood this connection because they then asked Jesus, "Are You then the Son of God?" When Jesus affirmed that proposition, they condemned Him to death. In Ezekiel, God refers to the prophet as the son of man, but in those uses it has no Messianic implication. God is referring to Ezekiel as a man, who is unlike God, as in Psalm 8:4—"What is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that You visit him?" See also Psalm 144:3, 146:3; Isaiah 56:2; Jer. 49:18, 49:33, 50:40, and 51:43. About the capitalization of "son of man" in Ezekiel, I did a case-sensitive computerized search in the NKJV and found that "Son of Man" (both capitalized) does not occur in the book. That dual capitalization would mean that the translators believe the phrase to refer to the Messiah, as it does in Matthew 8:20. In Ezekiel, "Son of man" is capitalized with a single capital 'S' at the beginning of a sentence or direct address in quotation marks. And sometimes it is dual lowercase, "son of man" when the phrase does not occur at the beginning of a sentence or quotation. So, there is no significance to the capitalization in Ezekiel; all references are to Ezekiel the prophet, not to the Messiah. It is also interesting that Ezekiel is never called "the" son of man. But in the gospels, Jesus is often called "the" Son of Man. So for Ezekiel, "son of man" refers to his humanity. For Jesus, "Son of Man" does refer to His humanity, but in a different way. He is the perfect man, the second Adam, and as such, the title points us to His Messianic office and in effect His deity. Thu, 29 May 2025 07:11:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/05/Son-of-Man https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/05/The-Sovereign-Citizen-Movement In the United States, the Sovereign Citizen or Sovereign Citizenship (SC) movement is a collection of groups who believe that the U.S. government is illegitimate and that they can through various means liberate themselves from the laws, regulations, taxes, and penalties of the government. According to the Bible, SC a false teaching. Here is why: 1. It denies governmental authority over the individual, when in fact God has ordained the governing authorities and they are to be obeyed inasmuch as they do not command something contrary to Scripture (Romans 13:1-7). Scripture commands the payment of taxes, and respect for law enforcement. 2. It has a strongly anti-authoritarian bent, which runs contrary to the Christian doctrine of submission (Eph. 5:21, 1 Peter 5:5) and respect of leaders (1 Thess. 5:12-13). 3. It suggests schemes to “legally” default on debt or have it paid by some other entity, running contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture that those who borrow and do not repay are wicked (Psalm 37:21). Tax fraud is also a common theme in SC thought, with some creating fake churches and claiming to be ministers to take advantage of tax benefits. 4. It teaches squatter’s rights, which amounts to theft of property that belongs to someone else. Again, this is contrary to God’s word, which forbids stealing (Exodus 20:15). 5. Some SC adherents have borrowed theological concepts: Christian patriot, created sovereign by God, Kingdom of God, Synagogue of Satan, and mark of the beast. They claim that sovereignty of the citizen comes from God and the Bible and common law, among other things. Some claim that the world is controlled by corporations only interested in their profit and power. These ideas run contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture that God is the true sovereign over all things (Psalm 103:19) no matter what temporal powers He may permit to exist at any given time. The SC doctrine has caused some adherents to reject organized religion because it limits the person’s autonomy, and they may reject any guilt or shame as manipulation tactics. This meshes well with the culture’s common thought that people can be “spiritual” but not “religious.” This allows a sort of spiritual free agency with no accountability to others, which agrees with the anti-authoritarian bent of SC but not with God’s design for the church. Churches should be ready to stand against the SC doctrine, because people who start to believe it will likely be drawn away to follow these false teachers instead of Christ (Acts 20:30). References A Quick Guide to Sovereign Citizens, UNC School of Government, 2013. Sovereign citizens: A narrative review with implications of violence towards law enforcement. The religious concepts of the Sovereign Citizens Movement by Daryl Johnson. Links to This Article Bert Perry, The Sovereign Citizen Movement. Mon, 05 May 2025 05:26:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/05/The-Sovereign-Citizen-Movement https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/04/Ruth-a-Moabite Another question: This question is about Deuteronomy 23:3 and the prohibition of Moabites entering the assembly out to 10 generations. How does Ruth's Moabite heritage and inclusion in Jesus's lineage square with this verse? Does Ruth's assertion that Naomi's God is her God indicate that she is now a proselyte and has given up her original national heritage? Moses spoke/wrote Deuteronomy 23 roughly around 1405 B.C. (assuming a conservative date for the Exodus at 1445 B.C., plus 40 years of wandering in the wilderness). It is hard to pin Ruth on a timeline, but some suggested dates are around 1290 or 1115 B.C. The earlier date would put Ruth about 115 years after Moses wrote Deuteronomy 23:3. That is only perhaps four or five generations assuming 20 to 25 years per generation. If Ruth entered Israel around 1115, that would be 290 years, which is about 11 generations. That would surpass the "10 generations" requirement. A complication arises when we read to the end of verse 3 and also the end of verse 6. There, the word "forever" is used. Perhaps it is the case that "ten generations" is a figure of speech that really means "never." That would make your question more difficult because the condition would be more stringent. Another issue is the genealogy of David: Boaz and Ruth had Obed, who bore Jesse, and Jesse bore David (Ruth 4:18-20). David was 30 years old when he became king (2 Samuel 5:4) in what we best estimate is about 1010 B.C. If we suppose that Obed was 20 when he had Jesse, and Jesse was 20 when he had David, plus the 30 years until David reigned, working backward that would be 1010+30+20+20 = 1090 B.C. That would put Ruth closer to the 1115 date than the 1290 date. And from all the genealogies we have of David in the Bible, the list Boaz-Obed-Jesse-David does not seem to have any missing links or gaps in it so we cannot stretch it too far. Even if we suppose the men were older, say 60, when they had their children, that would only work out to 1010+30+60+60 (if I have my math right—you can check it) and that would only put is back to 1160 B.C. which is still safe for the 10-generation requirement. And one other point on this: since David was at least eighth in the birth order of his family, assuming 20 years of age for Jesse above is somewhat unrealistic. He was probably closer to 30, putting Boaz and Ruth's marriage closer to 1100 B.C. Anyway, there are a few other points, one of which you have raised in your question. The first point is that Ruth has abandoned her idolatrous religion and connections. The beautiful confession of Ruth 1:16-17 shows that she had become a Jewish proselyte. I believe that is completely sufficient to remove her from the curse on the Moabites in Deuteronomy 23:3, because she is disowning them and what they did/do. She is fully embracing Yahweh. The second point is that Ruth was a woman, and once she was married to a Jewish man, and then again to a very faithful Jewish man (Boaz), she would come under his wing. Her Moabite heritage would be not erased, but in some measure it would be emptied of significance if she was faithful to her husband. Of course, any woman could bring her idolatrous beliefs into a marriage and ruin the man and the family, but that was not the case here. A third point: The Moabites and Midianites were confederated in the Balaam incident in Numbers 22 (see 22:4). Later in Numbers 31:18 Moses permitted the people of Israel to keep the young virgins of the Midianites for themselves after the battle had destroyed everyone else. It seems that the women were exempt from a curse and could be integrated into the nation. Perhaps this same principle applies to Ruth. God is gracious, and I think this truth justifies exception cases like this one, regardless of whether all of the above reasoning is somewhat flawed. For example, God will not justify the wicked. But he justifies us who are definitely wicked, on the basis of His grace in Christ. He includes in the genealogy of Jesus Ruth (Moabite), Tamar (Jewish prostitute), Rahab (Jericho prostitute), and Bathsheba (Jewish adulteress). We do not know if Tamar and Bathsheba had saving faith in God, but Ruth and Rahab did. In any case, God is full of grace and compassion, and general rules can be overcome by grace-based exceptions. Tue, 08 Apr 2025 08:16:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/04/Ruth-a-Moabite https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/04/Poor-or-No-Poor Today's question: In Deuteronomy 15:4 it says there will be no poor among the Israelites because of the abundance of the land they are entering. Then later in the same chapter (15:11) it says there will never cease to be poor in the land. I know the Bible isn’t contradicting itself, but I wondered how to understand these two statements. I just received this question, and I happened to notice the same thing in my reading of the Legacy Standard Bible earlier this year. I had not considered it before because the NKJV, my normal reading Bible, offers a different translation: NKJV Deut 15:4 "except when there may be no poor among you; for the LORD will greatly bless you in the land which the LORD your God is giving you to possess as an inheritance." But when I read the LSB, I noticed the problem: LSB Deut 15:4 "However, there will be no needy one among you, since Yahweh will surely bless you in the land which Yahweh your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess." The supposed contradiction arises in 15:11 where the translations are in agreement: "For the poor will never case from the land" and "For the needy will never cease to be in the land." I think the NKJV translators noticed the discrepancy and wanted to help the reader understand what is going on. But I believe the key to understanding that there is no contradiction is that verse 5 contains an IF clause that controls the prior verse. IF you will carefully obey God, then you will be blessed. The idea is that if they are obedient to God, they will be so blessed that they will not have any poverty. This is in accord with the general promises of blessing under the Mosaic covenant. However, given the reality of depravity, the condition of verse 11 will be the normal situation—because of sin, oppression, disobedience, and God's disfavor, there will be poverty amongst the people. That poverty will be one of the curses of disobedience. To this the words of the Lord Jesus agree, for in Matthew 26:11 he says, "For you have the poor with you always." Tue, 08 Apr 2025 07:57:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/04/Poor-or-No-Poor https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/02/Ecclesiastical-Freeloading An entitlement mentality has crept into the church over the years. For example, some people do not seem concerned that they are reliant on government handouts when they should be working diligently to supply their needs (or drawing off savings that they earned while doing such work). The entitlement mindset is not befitting a Christian. But there is another type of freeloading that is even more concerning, and I call it ecclesiastical freeloading (or church mooching, if you prefer). A little background teaching first: 1 Corinthians 9:11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? (NKJV) Romans 15:27 It pleased them indeed, and they are their debtors. For if the Gentiles have been partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister to them in material things. (NKJV) The Bible makes it clear that “the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel.” This refers to pastors and missionaries and those in vocational ministry. Those who benefit from the teaching, ministry, administration, counseling, writing, sermons, etc. of these ministers must support the work that is providing that edification. The problem is that some people are watching church services from home without any real attachment to the church that they are watching. This became very common during the COVID pandemic of 2020-21 and now beyond. The feeling of entitlement has settled in so that we want to get our church like we get our sources of entertainment, or like we get our schooling by watching online lectures. And we want it for free—but it is not free. The online audience does not offer financial support to keep the cameras going, the lights on, the Internet bill paid, etc. They do not support the pastor’s time, or the missionaries or general budget of the church. They do not attend the worship service, participate in singing, help with cleaning, join in evangelism, use their spiritual gifts, or anything else. They benefit but do not pay. They use all their finances for other things. This is what I mean by ecclesiastical freeloading. If you are in that category, please begin to support the church that is feeding your soul. And I do not only mean with money because that is not the most important part. Begin to be a true part (member) of the church. On the other hand, if you are supporting a local church’s ministry in the kinds of ways I outline above, THANK YOU! Keep up the good work. God is using good churches to make His will known in His word, to seek the lost, to restrain evil, to uphold the weak, to admonish the unruly, and to comfort the fainthearted. This takes people, time, and money, and your support in doing God’s will will result in fruit in your heavenly account. Sat, 01 Feb 2025 17:54:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/02/Ecclesiastical-Freeloading https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/01/What-About-Tracts A tract is a pamphlet, usually of a religious nature or sometimes political. Someone could hand out a tract advocating the gospel, or the pro-life movement, or support for Gaza. Christians have passed out tracts for generations. Some people call them “tracks,” but the actual word is tract with a T at the end. Tract is a shortened form of the word tractate which is a formal and often more lengthy version of a tract. Both words derive from the Latin tractatus which is a discussion or treatise about some topic. A treatise is a detailed and organized written document about a topic. In common usage, a treatise is usually quite long. A tract is always very short, usually no more than four or six small pages folded as a booklet or tri-fold. People have been saved by reading Christian tracts. It would be good for you to carry a few with you in a pocket or purse so that you can give one to someone you meet at a store or restaurant or wherever. We have a couple nearby our front door so that if a salesperson comes and we think it is appropriate, we can give him or her a tract. We like using the so-called Bridge tract but there are others as well. Finally, consider studying a good tract so that you can store its contents in your mind. You never know when you may need to share the good news verbally with someone and you can draw on your memory and adapt it to the circumstance at hand. Mon, 27 Jan 2025 04:57:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/01/What-About-Tracts https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/01/Fellowship-Bible-Church-Hosts-ARROW-Radio-Club-Testing FBC was recently mentioned in the local amateur radio club blog. The ARROW club holds FCC license testing once a month and recently held training at our church building to prepare to move from paper testing to electronic testing. Our church opened a space for them after the Red Cross building became unavailable during COVID. Amateur radio is a technical hobby having to do with radio reception and transmission, antennas, electronics, and the like. It is squarely in the STEM knowledge area. Many of these hobbyists also participate in emergency and community services. For example, some are storm spotters, others are ready to assist hospitals and general communications in the event of a disaster such as an earthquake or fire. Some assist with passing messages at community events like bicycle rides. Others—the volunteer examiners or VEs—do testing and training to help young people get into the hobby, which sometimes directs them onto a career path in electronics and communications. We are glad to be able to provide a community service to this group and to help them, as Dan KB6NU says, to "religiously" carry on their radio testing. Thu, 23 Jan 2025 05:59:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2025/01/Fellowship-Bible-Church-Hosts-ARROW-Radio-Club-Testing https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2024/12/Halloween-and-the-Christian Here is a question I received a few months ago from a young parent. How should we address the problem of evil with young children, specifically the evil associated with Halloween? It is so very present and surrounds us everywhere we go these days, and naturally our daughter is asking a lot of questions. I often state that it is bad and evil and just "not good." But I don’t know how to present to her Scripturally "why" besides that it is scary and that it is not kind, or that it is not good things to think about, and God wants us to think about good things. She often asks "why do they have those things?" Or "why is it bad?" Another young mom friend I know is struggling with the same thing with her toddler. How can I explain our disagreement with Halloween in general? This is a very good question, and very timely when it was asked in October (I know, I'm late posting this to my blog...hopefully it will help someone in 2025 and beyond!). Here are some thoughts for you. 1. It is ok to say it is bad, but as you have sensed, you need to be able to say why. 2. Many of the holidays that we celebrate, and indeed all of them that we should celebrate, exist to honor God in some way. They are Godward in their focus. Consider Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, even our birthdays (because God gave us life). Even holidays like Memorial day and independence day and Veterans day should have a Godward focus because it is the sovereign God who provided these blessings to us and the sacrifices that they represent point us to a greater sacrifice. In fact, the word itself, holiday, is derived from "holy day." 3. But Halloween is not celebrated to honor God nor to uplift holiness. 4. Halloween focuses on celebrating the dead. But our focus is not to be on the dead. 5. Halloween focuses on things like skeletons, ghosts, witches, all the realm of death and the Devil, again not about God. It has a tendency to stimulate interest in death, which is not a healthy subject for young people to dwell on. Similar things are done with young people in secular schools today, trying to stimulate interest in sexuality, gender transition, etc. This "holiday" also desensitizes young people to the demonic realm. We do not want them to treat that lightly. 6. Today Halloween is also about having fun. There is nothing wrong with having some fun and giving away and enjoying candy (in moderation) but modern culture has turned it into a huge commercial holiday about money and candy and costumes. This is not necessary for us. 7. Conservative Christians want to avoid the pagan association of practicing Halloween: "Halloween's origins can be traced back to the ancient Celtic festival known as Samhain, which was held on November 1 in contemporary calendars. It was believed that on that day, the souls of the dead returned to their homes, so people dressed in costumes and lit bonfires to ward off spirits." (Britannica online encyclopedia) There were other very abominable acts such as sacrifices and immorality. This is very incorrect theology and we cannot be associated with it. The celebration of evil, death, and demonic activity is not befitting a Christian. These things are coordinate with pagan "theology." 8. Christian parents should not ignore Halloween. But they are not required to do something in place of it. It may be instructive and helpful to not do something in place of it “just to make my child feel included.” Feeling included is not a spiritual virtue that we need to teach about dark holidays. But you could do something in place of it, like a harvest remembrance, as long as it is more a “holy day” than a “secular day.” We can thankfully welcome the fall harvest of God’s provision. 9. You have given good answers about the kinds of things we should fill our minds with. Fear and violence and boundary-pushing costumes are antithetical to the Christian faith and ought not be the subjects of our meditation, much less our money which belongs to God. Things that are true, honest, just, pure, lovely, of good report, virtuous and praiseworthy should fill our minds. 10. Christians are to be children of life and light, not death and darkness. 11. Things like fortune-telling, seances, etc. are forbidden in the Law of Moses and we see no instruction in the New Testament that makes those things now permissible (Deut. 18). 12. Halloween brings to the surface some of the spiritual battle in which we are engaged. Things sometimes "under the table" through the year are brought to the surface. Daniel 10:13. 13. In short, Halloween is closely associated with spiritual darkness instead of spiritual light. We are to be all about light. 14. Watch the slippery slope for yourself, and the generational slope that you can create for your children. Instead, set them on level spiritual ground, a stable position which they can move forward on into the next generation. It is likely that cultural practices will only become more edgy and debauched as time goes on. 15. Is there a redeeming value to Halloween? No. 16. Is celebration of Halloween necessary? No. 17. See this article by Phil Cecil. Tue, 31 Dec 2024 20:00:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2024/12/Halloween-and-the-Christian https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2024/12/After-the-Death-of-a-Beloved-Pet I heard that your pet dog or cat died today. I am very sorry to hear the news. When this happens, I am reminded of Proverbs 12:10. Why don't you take a moment to look that up in your copy of God's word and see what it says? Christian people care for their animals, as they should because animals are part of God's creation and we have been assigned stewardship over them. Animals cause us toil and tears from time to time, but they also bring great joy. God has created them for our enjoyment and use (Gen. 1:26-28). They also to help us learn responsibility. But they can also become a misplaced priority that reduces our love for God or our resources to do God's work. We are thankful to God in every situation (1 Thess. 5:18). I am thankful that you had the years of enjoyment that you did with your beloved pet. I am sure you are ten times more thankful than I am because you had a personal stewardship connection with the animal. I hope you will make the conscious choice to thank God for His gift of your pet, so that instead of focusing on what you no longer have, you thank God for what He gave. Sometimes people ask me if their pet will be in heaven. We naturally hope that the answer is "yes," but we do not have Biblical data to indicate this is the case. We know there will be animals in the millennial kingdom (Isaiah 11:6-9). Scripture does not say explicitly that there will be animals in Heaven. However, it seems plausible that there will be animals there because when God created animals in the beginning, they were part of his "very good" creation (Gen. 1:31). In other words, there is nothing "wrong" with animals that would prohibit their presence in Heaven. In fact, we know that some of the angelic beings appear to be part animal in form (Ezekiel 3:10). A diverse and peaceful animal kingdom in the Heavenly state would glorify God because they would show His handiwork for all eternity. Of course, redeemed people will show God's saving handiwork in a far more significant way. Animals were hurt as a result of mankind's fall into sin (Romans 8:22) and in the restoration of all things it would be fitting for the animal kingdom to be restored from the suffering of death. But the Bible does not indicate salvation or after-life for animals. So while I cannot say that your particular pet will be in heaven, I believe that animals like your beloved pet will be there. There will likely be some that look similar or are even more wonderful than your pet (if that is possible!). But of course, our focus in heaven will not be on pets or the environment; rather, it will be focused squarely on the Triune God. Meanwhile, look to the Lord for comfort and guidance so that you are not overwhelmed with sorrow and lose sight of why you are here on this planet--to trust in God through Christ, to live for God, to honor God, to worship God, and to do good works. May He help you do that in these days and also give you wisdom about your next steps. May God's grace direct you toward Himself so that you not be overtaken with inordinate grief. Tue, 31 Dec 2024 19:45:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2024/12/After-the-Death-of-a-Beloved-Pet https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2024/11/Does-Gods-Desire-Sometimes-not-Come-to-Pass Here is today's question: How do you answer in your own heart His words in Matthew 23:37-38 where Jesus says, “How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate...” This desire is not a reflection of special grace, but how can you explain this longing of God that never in fact came to pass? Answer: This saying comes immediately after the Lord’s lamentation that the Jewish people had a habit of killing the prophets and rejecting God’s messengers. This wicked tendency grieved God not only because it indicated a damaged relationship where the people were not welcoming Him as their God, but that it had terrible temporal and eternal consequences. Despite these necessary and natural consequences, God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11). Like an extremely patient human father or national leader, instead of rejection, what the Lord was hoping for was that they would receive him, along the lines of making a commitment to this effect: “You will be our God, and we will be your people.” God is pictured as a caring hen who wants to protect and provide warmth for her chicks. But the little chickens were unwilling. They refused God’s care and protection. They wanted to go their own way. The longing of God which did not come to pass is parallel with many other of God’s desires in Scripture that are morally right but which do not come to pass because, ultimately, God did not decree those things to come to pass. God’s decree is the primary or first cause. But there is a secondary cause which is the human element, because people are immoral and desire bad things. People do not always (or often?) follow God’s desired or moral will. God has good reasons for His decree, the highest of these to demonstrate His great glory—including the glory of His longsuffering, love, grace and forgiveness. He also has in mind the long-term good of His creatures. My answer touches on what theologians call “theodicy,” or “justification of God” which attempts to explain exactly how God does such things which we see as contradictory or difficult. A full “theodicy” in this brief article is not possible. Suffice it to say that in some things, God decrees what He hates in order to bring about what He loves. God decrees in temporal history those things which are unpleasant to Him in order to achieve a greater eternal good. God decrees that which is undesirable in one sense so that He can accomplish something more desirable. God decrees things that we would not in order to accomplish results, like His greatest glory, which are beyond the horizon of our present sight and understanding. Jesus speaks of Himself as God in human terms (using the figure of speech called an anthropomorphism) so that we can understand His stance toward mankind. It is not a harsh stance. It is not a judgmental, hyper-critical, hateful kind of stance. It is a forbearing, caring, loving stance. Think of a good human judge. He cares for the people who come into his courtroom. But he also is bound to execute justice. If he is visited by someone who does wrong, and he gives a light sentence and an admonition to do better, he shows his care for them. He hopes that they will listen and heed his warnings. He earnestly hopes so because if they do not, he knows that they have to face consequences for wrongdoing. If that person comes into his courtroom another time with a more serious offense, the judge might say, “Oh, how I wish you had heard what I said, but you refused. Now I have to punish you in accordance with what is right.” God is like this judge, but the offenses have been multiplied over and over again by the Jewish people and their leaders for generations. At some point Jerusalem has to face the consequences. Finally, we should remember one more fact. The initial question assumes that God’s desire never in fact came to pass, that is, that Israel was not gathered under His wings. But that is only for the time being. In the future, God will gather Israel, and they will at that time be very willing. Ultimately, God’s longing will come to pass, for the nation as a whole, though not for specific historical individuals who might otherwise have enjoyed God’s blessing had they not been so hard-hearted. Wed, 27 Nov 2024 08:24:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2024/11/Does-Gods-Desire-Sometimes-not-Come-to-Pass https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2024/04/The-River-of-God Back in 2004, Pastor Charles Mason filled the pulpit at Fellowship Bible Church for a couple of months. During that time he shared with us a song that he wrote which was entitled The River of God. An ensemble sang it this morning. Here are the words, with a link to the audio below. There's a river, says the Psalmist, Prophets saw it deep and broad, Flowing ever outward, ever springing From the throne of God, Coming from the well of Joseph, Making fruitful branches crawl, Ever upward, ever outward, Casting fruit beyond the wall, (Refrain) Oh the Spirit and the Bride say come! And everyone that thirsteth now may come! Without money, without price, drink the sweet water of life, So come without delay, my friend, please come! Strangers taste it sweet as honey, Others say it tastes like gall, Come and buy it without money, Whoso on the Lord shall call. River flowing, trees there growing All along the blessed stream, Showing forth the gospel story, Record of the eternal scheme. Let us then be channels yielded, To the Lord of harvest great, Let the river flow unhindered, Souls will meet us at the gate. Crowns of joy will they be to us, Souls who from the Living Well, Drank so deeply and now safely Gathered home their story tell. Could we ever be more useful, Could there ever be for man, A greater, nobler calling Than our God's eternal plan? Oh the Spirit and the Bridge say come! And he that hath no money, yes may come! Take Jesus as your Savior, and you'll never thirst again, so come without delay my friend, please come! You can listen here: RiverOfGodCharlesMasonFellowshipBibleChurch.mp3. You can download the PDF here: River of God Eb Major Hymn Style.pdf. Pastor Mason is very ill right now in comfort care in his home state of Maine. Please pray for him and his wife Gloria. Update 4/28/2024 evening: We learned that Pastor Mason went to heaven the evening before I published this article. Sun, 28 Apr 2024 13:46:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2024/04/The-River-of-God https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2024/04/Hay-or-Straw Today's question was presented in lengthy form, but boils down to this: Why do some Bible verses use the word "straw" to describe what is fed to animals? Straw has little sustenance value. Isiaah 11:7 says that the lion will eat straw like the ox. This translation grates on the nerves of a farmer, for every farmer knows that you do not feed straw to an ox; you feed the ox dried hay or grass or perhaps oats, but not the yellow, dried stalks of wheat. It seems unlikely that the Bible is suggesting a low-calorie diet for the animals; straw can be used to dilute the energy content of the animal's diet or "dry it out" and provide some forage. But a diet completely of straw is infeasible. I believe the most concise answer is that the Hebrew term "teben" (soft b, like a v, like "teh-ven") in some contexts refers to "cattle fodder" and would be better translated as "hay" or "feed." I puzzled over this perhaps 20 years ago but did not come to a satisfactory conclusion because I had more important things to do at the time (and still do!). I thought then and still have some of this thinking left in me now, that the translators are a bit ignorant when it comes to animal husbandry. Growing up myself on a small ranch/farm, I am well aware of the difference between straw and hay, at least in our context of mainly wheat straw and grass/alfafa/timothy hay. Indeed, straw does not have much if any nutritional value. It is used for bedding in stalls, or as a ground cover for muddy areas or to protect areas of newly planted grass. I suspect that the Hebrew term has what is called "wider semantic domain" than our more specific English terms for hay or straw. It seems that it must refer to the portion of the plant above ground, sometimes what is left behind after harvesting grain = straw and other times the whole plant = grass/alfalfa/etc. I would advocate the translation of such "feed" passages as "hay" or "grass" or something similar. I think the translators have simply gotten it wrong in this case, badly so, and nearly universally so as indicated by a brief perusal of several translations in passages like Isaiah 11:7, 65:25. Other passages use straw in a way that is clearly not food: Isaiah 25:10. And others are somewhat ambiguous but could refer to bedding/comfort instead of food: 1 Kings 4:28, Gen. 24:32. Note "hay" in 1 Cor. 3:12 and Prov. 27:25. And then "mowings" in Psalm 72:6, Amos 7:1, and James 5:4. Sun, 21 Apr 2024 04:57:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2024/04/Hay-or-Straw https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2024/04/James-and-John-cousins-of-Jesus Q: Were James and John cousins of Jesus? A: In the NKJV, the only time the word "cousin" is used in Colossians 4:10, and it refers to Mark and Barnabas, not James and John. So much for finding an easy answer! James and John were sons of Zebedee. The mother of Zebedee's sons is mentioned as one of the women at the cross when Jesus died, Matt. 27:56. The other women named are Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joses. Mark 15:40 lists Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses, and Salome as those observing at the cross. The same three women are mentioned in Mark 16:1. From this it is a guess, though not certain, that Salome is the mother of Zebedee's sons and thus the wife of Zebedee. So if either Zebedee is the brother of Mary or Joseph (parents of Jesus), or if his wife, perhaps Salome, is the sister of Mary or Joseph, then James and John would be cousins of Jesus. But there is one more piece of data. John 19:25 says that Jesus's mother Mary and His mother's sister, and Mary wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. It may be that Mary's sister is Salome. This identification of Salome as Mary's sister is possible, but Mark 15:41 says that there were many other women at the cross as well. Since there are a couple of "speculative" points in this reconstruction, we cannot be sure that James and John are cousins of Jesus. At least that's what I can figure out so far! Mon, 08 Apr 2024 17:34:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2024/04/James-and-John-cousins-of-Jesus https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2024/04/The-Heptads-of-Revelation I was reading some old sermons on Revelation and came across a note that there are 19 heptads (seven things) in the book. I wanted to check this. Here is what I came up with. The ESV uses the word seven 55 times in 31 verses. They boil down to the following list. Seven churches of Asia Seven spirits before God’s throne Seven golden lampstands (refer to the above churches) Seven stars (the messengers of those churches) Seven torches/lamps of fire (same as the seven spirits above) Seven seals A lamb with seven horns and seven eyes (the eyes are the same as the seven spirits of God) Seven angels with seven trumpets Seven thunders Seven thousand people A red dragon with seven heads, ten horns, and seven diadems A beast from the sea with seven heads (and ten diadems on its horns) Seven angels with seven plagues Seven golden bowls full of God’s wrath (same as seven plagues) Woman sitting on a scarlet beast, with seven heads and ten horns Seven mountains (the seven heads of the above beast) Seven kings As to the significance of the number seven and its repetition, I do not have all the answers. The traditional answer is that the number seven refers to completeness or fullness. That may well be the case in some of the more symbolic references. Many of the references are simply to a countable number of items that happen to be seven in number. Incidentally, the number ten occurs frequently as well (11 times in 8 verses), though not as often as seven. Ten days Ten thousand times ten thousand angels A red dragon with ten horns A best from the sea with ten horns and ten crowns A scarlet beast with ten horns Ten kings (same as the ten horns above) Wed, 03 Apr 2024 07:22:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2024/04/The-Heptads-of-Revelation https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2024/02/Questions-about-Dreams Are a person’s dreams sometimes God’s way of revealing truth? In the church era, no. We can say this with confidence because the canon is closed, and new revelation is not being given by any means, whether dreams, visions, prophecies, etc. See 1 Cor. 13:8, Eph. 2:20, 2 Peter 1:3. The Scriptures are clear that during prior times, God sometimes used dreams to reveal information (Daniel 1:17 for example, or Matthew 1:20). Given the frequency of dreams, however—every night millions of people have them—it is clear that dream-based revelation had to be very rare as a percentage of all dreams. The Scriptures are also clear that during the future era, dreams will once again be used by God to convey information from Heaven (Acts 2:17). What leads to the content of my dreams? This is a difficult question. Dreams are basically thoughts—thoughts that we have while sleeping. Now think about this related question: what leads to the content of my thoughts during the daytime, when I am awake? There is a combination of factors, including: What you try to think about, which may be righteous or sinful. What your flesh desires, which is sinful. The stimuli that come from the outside world, say through sight, sound, touch, taste, smell. These factors can induce thoughts that may lean righteous or sinful. Your memories. All three of the above factors can interact with one another so that you try to think about bad things and seek flesh-pleasing stimuli that come from the outside and you direct your eyes senses to focus there. Your brain can remember many if not most things that you see, hear, sense, etc. Your brain can remember faces you have seen at the store; and it can even construct new variations of those faces, places and circumstances, sometimes in fantastical or unrealistic ways. All this is fuel for dreams. Sometimes what you think about a lot during the daytime makes its way into your dreams. Other times, what you have not thought about much lately makes its way there. Is there accountability to God for what is “thought” in dreaming? Yes. Your dreams are yours and neither come from nor belong to anyone else. They are not the Devil’s fault. They arise from your own heart and mind, and as such are subject to the truth spoken by the Lord Jesus that out of the abundance of the heart come evil thoughts (Matthew 15:18-20, Mark 7:21-23, Luke 6:45). Our hearts are characterized by sinful depravity to a greater or lesser degree which affects what comes out of them in our thoughts—whether during the day or during the night. Because a dream happens while you are asleep or partially unconscious, it may feel like you can excuse the content of your dreams because you do not have overt control over those thoughts (#1 above). But you can have thoughts or influence thoughts during your dreams. Regardless of whether you have experienced that phenomenon, we must recognize that our flesh (#2 above) still desires sinful things and can affect what we are thinking while asleep. Stimuli from outside of our mind can also affect our thoughts while we sleep (#3 above; perhaps we have a fever, or smell a skunk in the middle of the night, or a hear loud noise outside the house). These stimuli can be incorporated into our dreams as well. The bottom line is that if we dream a sinful dream, we ought to confess it as sin to God, because it is sin. Thank the Lord for pleasant dreams! Can I influence my dreams? In short, yes. As you ingest God’s word, purify your heart more, and are cautious about what you expose yourself to during the day, you can reduce sinful and scary dreams. You are responsible for shaping the influences on your heart because it is the source of your life (Prov. 4:23). Sometimes, there are triggers, such as foods, illness, or lack of exercise or too much stress or mismanagement of stress, that may influence the presence and frequency of dreams. If you become aware of particular things in your life that do this, you can take steps to mitigate their influence on your nighttime thought life. A passage I use often when asked about dreams is Philippians 4:6-9. There, Paul teaches us to fight anxiety with prayer and purpose of thought and obedience to apostolic teaching. If we do that, "the peace of God...will guard your hearts and your minds" and "the God of peace will be with you." We hope to conform our thoughts to Scripture so that we will be godly even in our nighttime thoughts: "when I remember you upon my bed, and meditate on you in the watches of the night" (Psalm 63:6). Resources Heath Lambert, Fighting the Fear of Bad Dreams Wed, 07 Feb 2024 12:07:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2024/02/Questions-about-Dreams https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2024/01/Bible-Reading-2024-Edition Here is FBC's annually-renewed set of Bible reading schedules. The dates are adjusted on these to match the beginning of the weeks for 2024. Spiritual growth is correlated to Bible input. So, put more Bible into your mind! Read the New Testament once Read the New Testament twice Read the New Testament four times Read the Old Testament once Some other reading plans might catch your interest from prior years, easily adaptable to the coming year: Ligonier Bible Reading Plans ESV Bible Reading Plans Professor Horner's Reading System Read the Gospels Every Day Sat, 06 Jan 2024 11:21:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2024/01/Bible-Reading-2024-Edition https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2023/11/Thanksgiving-for-What The following is from my Thanksgiving Eve sermon of November 22, 2023. There is so much for which to give thanks that you might not know where to begin. Just start somewhere and see where it leads! Write a journal of mercies, or a list of things God has given you. I am going to give thanks to the Lord in this message, not just for or from myself, but from our larger church family and even human family. Thankful for our children. Any children God has brought into our lives whether nieces and nephews or neighbors or at church. Thankful for every giggle, smile, funny talking, precious moment. Thankful to see them healthy, and grow, and become young adults, and wiser, and discerning. Thankful for their questions that make us grow in our walk with God. Thankful for their challenging us so we can become more like Jesus. Thankful to be put in a place where we can model what God is like to our kids. Thankful for the responsibility of having children because it makes us more responsible…and forces us to trust God more…and stretch ourselves beyond the limits of our self-centeredness. Thankful for illness that reminds us how blessed we are when well. For wellness. For work to occupy our time, our bodies, and our minds, allowing us to be productive and help others and offer things to God. For our church family. For words of encouragement, praise. Even for words of correction to keep us on the straight and narrow and out of sin. For material things that make our lives easier. Machines to make our work easier. Technology and computers make our communication easier and more enjoyable, and our writing and reading too. Transportation. Large and luxurious homes and apartments. For the good sense to declutter and remove things, as it helps us loosen our grip on the things of this world. And the good sense to pass on things to others or throw them away when we cannot be good stewards of them. For things inherited and given to us that we do not deserve and did not earn. For money earned, and the ability to earn it. For the opportunities to give, more blessed as they are than the opportunities to receive. For our aptitudes, knowledge, opportunities to learn. For discernment. For institutes of learning where good knowledge is taught, where religion, morality, and knowledge are elevated. Thankful for the restraining hand of police, government, laws, parents, and the general civil society that allows us a measure of peace and prosperity. For the work of productivity being on balance more than the work of destructiveness. For our missionaries, who are willingly away from family on all the holidays to serve the Lord and to serve us. For people who have “addicted” themselves to the work of ministry to that extent. For the fact that we have peace in our country, and not war. For general prosperity, despite the attempts to run us into the ground with debt. For God’s care in times of trouble, which our world certainly faces just now in many ways. That God does not leave His children when they suffer, though He may seem silent. For friends to talk to. To give and receive encouragement. For things to keep us busy. For work. For good sleep when we get it. The our good tasting food. For being able to go out and come in. To go outside and do the dreaded yard work! Wait until you cannot do that, and then see if you are thankful for what you used to be able to do. Thankful for people who labor to make large-scale injustices right--people like Frederick Douglas and Martin Luther King, Jr. For love of spouse. For love of family. For love of church family. Especially for God’s Son who died to set us free. Hope in the face of death. Heaven. Forgiveness of sin. Hope for a restored creation with good people, good society, good agriculture. We are thankful for God creating the world and all that it is in it. The beauty of the inanimate creation—sky, sea, mountains, rivers, seas, stars, clouds. And then the plants, trees, vegetable gardens in full fruit, flower gardens in full bloom. And then the animate creation—the way of the beaver, the majesty of a stallion, the intricacy of the hummingbird, or butterfly, the complexity of a human baby, the strength and resourcefulness of a man, the beauty and kindness of a godly woman. All of this created by God. Life itself, something hard to define and its inner workings not understood. God’s guidance, sustenance, His plan for the world and our future. Thanks be to God that he revealed Himself to me, an entirely unfitting candidate for His mercy of His self-disclosure which saved me. Thank God that He does not show favoritism toward the rich and powerful but lowers Himself to people of low estate, low station. That God hears our prayers. That there is a coming resurrection of the dead. Thank God for ample evidence that Jesus is the Messiah, and that He arose from the dead, and that He is the one who will judge the living and the dead. Thank God for proof of resurrection in Lazarus and the widow of Nain’s son, and Eutychus, and Jesus Himself. We give thanks for our thrice-daily (or more) food, but not just the food (Matthew 15:36, Luke 22:17). We give thanks to the Giver of the food, the sanctifier of the food, the one who wisely created the food for our use, enjoyment, health, and strength. We thank God that a much smaller portion of our time is spent getting or paying for food than what many humans have had in centuries past. Thank God for His word. Thank God for Jesus…and the Holy Spirit. Thank God that we are not self-sufficient and that He has helped us to understand that, because if we were self-sufficient, we would miss out on the most important Person there is, God Himself, who is the source of all true joy and happiness. Thank God for that. Thankful to God for God himself—for all of his attributes, all of his power, all of his mercy and grace, all of his provision, all of his wisdom. For the air we breath, for the breath and heartbeat we just experienced. Thankful for every step of progress of God’s good news in Christ throughout the world, and in my life, and in your life. Every church that starts, every church that stays faithful, every Bible book that is translated or preserved, every discipleship class taught. We are thankful for God’s plan, and for our individual sanctification. We are thankful that God is kind and just, punishing evil and rewarding good. He brings conviction, gives warnings, granted us our five senses to experience His world, provided the shining sun, rain and snow in their seasons, waking grace this morning, the rainbow, and many beautiful sunsets and dawns. He allows us to make new friends, have long talks with old ones, the clean feeling of a shower (and running water for the shower!), a freshly pressed shirt, clean bed sheets, unexpected blessings along the way, an enjoyable hobby, a good hug, accomplish a long-sought-after goal, and all of you. Every good gift is from above, James 1:17. We certainly have enough “material” to abound in thanksgiving toward God (Col. 2:6-7). Fri, 24 Nov 2023 06:53:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2023/11/Thanksgiving-for-What https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2023/09/Ministry Random thought from a pastor to his brothers at arms...and the people who support them. Ministry is a strange place to be. It's a calling from God that none of us deserve, but most of us are glad to have. It is a place where some people love you more than you deserve; and a place where some people dislike you more than you deserve. I am glad to be serving the Lord in a vocational ministry capacity. It offers a great venue to glorify the Lord. But it also comes with a weighty responsibility. Wed, 06 Sep 2023 12:42:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2023/09/Ministry https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2023/08/Boxing-Your-Church-into-a-Corner Suppose it comes time for your church to find a new pastor. How easily will it be to find a pastor who believes the particular form of doctrine your constitution requires and will enthusiastically teach that doctrine? It is hard to find a new pastor or an additional pastor, but the job is made more difficult if your doctrinal statement has boxed you into a corner...or stated another way, you have boxed OUT certain otherwise fine candidates. Example: you demand the King James Version in your doctrinal statement. First of all, that is a big mistake. When set side-by-side with the Bible itself, the KJVO doctrine falls short. After all, the KJV did not exist in the first century, so no one believed in that version for the first 1,500 years of the church. Second, the number of good men who believe that way, and who will enthusiastically preach it, is rightly dwindling. Your doctrine unnecessarily boxes you into a corner because KJVO is a constraint that the Bible itself does not put on a pastoral candidate. If the apostle Paul did not have to believe it, then I think I am safe to say that neither am I required to believe it! Example: your doctrine requires a five-point Calvinist theology. Does everyone in your church actually believe that way? And would a good Calvinist man who believes say, 4 points, not be good enough to be the pastor of your church? Look at your doctrinal statement and see if there is anything in there which is unnecessarily restrictive. Certainly there will be doctrines in there with which some people will disagree. Our own statement is quite detailed in its presentation of what we believe and teach. But some things truly are unnecessary additions. And if they are truly unnecessary, you will often find that they are unbiblical. If unbiblical, then harmful. And one harm is this: it will prevent good pastoral candidates, and good members, from joining the church. Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:30:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2023/08/Boxing-Your-Church-into-a-Corner https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2023/03/Why-do-We-Go-to-Church One of our young people raised this question. Here are a few thoughts from Scripture and related to my own personal life. 1. Because we were made to worship God. God made us so that we cannot be truly satisfied or joyful unless we know Him. See Psalm 95:6. 2. Because "man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord" (Jesus, Matthew 4:4). 3. Because our soul is so important--even more important than our bodily health. Why would you neglect it? "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Matthew 16:26). 4. Because we love God and we love being with God's people. If you are really questioning the value of being at your local church, your attitude about church indicates that you love something else. 5. Because we are commanded to not forsake gathering together (Hebrews 10:24-25) 6. For me personally as a pastor, I go because it is my job! Not only that, it is my joy to do so! Pastor or not, all of the above reasons apply to me and you as well. Attending church meetings is not a waste of time! Tue, 28 Mar 2023 05:59:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2023/03/Why-do-We-Go-to-Church https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2023/03/Lords-Table-What-to-Remember-about-the-Lord Jansen Lorch, our assistant pastor, delivered a message last night at our Lord's Table service in which he gave us some specific things to remember about our Lord. After all, the Lord's Table is a remembrance service. He gave us six thoughts to keep in mind about Jesus as we shared the elements: His humility (Phil. 2:5, Romans 15:3) His perfection (1 Peter 1:21, Heb. 7:26, Hebrews 4:15, 1 John 3:5) His death (Eph. 1:7, Mark 10:45, 1 Cor. 6:20) His resurrection (Psalm 16:10, Romans 8:34-35, 1 Cor. 15:22) His accomplishment on the cross (Isaiah 53:5, 1 Peter 2:24) His ascension, exaltation, and return (Phil. 2:9-11) Mon, 06 Mar 2023 08:51:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2023/03/Lords-Table-What-to-Remember-about-the-Lord https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2022/12/Bible-Reading-2023-Edition Here is the annual set of Bible reading schedules that you have become accustomed to seeing here. The dates are adjusted on these to match the beginning of the weeks for 2023. This year, the schedules start on 1/1 since it is the beginning of the first full week of the year. Spiritual growth is correlated to Bible input. So, put more Bible into your mind! Read the New Testament once Read the New Testament twice Read the New Testament four times Read the Old Testament once Read Acts and the NT letters in chronological order One chapter a week for young readers Read the Greek New Testament once Some other reading plans might catch your interest from prior years, easily adaptable to the coming year: Ligonier Bible Reading Plans ESV Bible Reading Plans Professor Horner's Reading System Read the Gospels Every Day Sat, 31 Dec 2022 11:24:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2022/12/Bible-Reading-2023-Edition https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2022/12/The-Apostles-Creed I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to hell. The third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty. From there he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic* [universal] church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen. *The true Christian church of all times and places, not the Roman Catholic church. English translation from https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/creeds/apostles-creed. Sun, 11 Dec 2022 05:18:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2022/12/The-Apostles-Creed https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2022/11/Time-no-More Does the Bible teach in Revelation 10:6 that time will cease? I noted an article by Gitt in 2013 cites Rev 10:6 to support the end of physical time. This interpretation is highly suspect. Here is why. First, in Revelation 10:6, "time" (KJV) should be translated "delay." (See the third definition in the BDAG lexicon.) It refers to the fact that there will be no more delay until the mystery of God is finished. The end times will now fully unfold without further delay. Second, in the context of the eternal state, Revelation 22:2 says that the tree of life which bears 12 fruits, will yield its fruit every month. Evidently the passage of time must occur for this to happen on a monthly basis. Therefore, time seems to continue in the eternal state. Someone might object that in eternity there is no need for the sun or moon. Perhaps those heavenly bodies cease to exist, and so the times they mark (days and months) cease as well. But note that months can be marked without the moon—in fact today we have months that do not correspond precisely to the lunar cycle. Third, and more philosophically, I doubt that finite creatures can exist in a completely timeless way, for a movement from one location to another would take some time. What transpires as the creature is chewing the fruit of the tree of life? Being time-bound is a feature of finite creatures which distinguishes them from the only infinite being, God. Fourth, the passage of time is not a negative feature in the heavenly state. Since time existed during the open days of the creation week prior to sin, and the passage of time did no harm to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, there seems to be no reason that it could not exist in the heavenly state. There are parallels to this. Humans existed in physical bodies in the pre-fall state, and they will exist in physical bodies in the heavenly state. There are three-dimensional objects in the present existence, and there is no reason to suppose that this same sort of thing will exist in the future. After all, the three-dimensional human body of Jesus is approximately the same as the one He had post-resurrection. It exists in Heaven today, and is coming back the very same way (Acts 1:11). The heavenly state boasts a new heaven, earth, new city called Jerusalem with foundations, walls, and gates, a river, and a multi-fruited tree. Such things are similar to the 3-D kinds of things that exist today. I see no reason that time should have to disappear in the future. Finally, when God created all things, including time, in Genesis 1:31 he said that it was "very good." There is no indication that time was bad, nor became bad simply because sin entered the world. Time is certainly used for sinful purposes, just like our human bodies may be used for sinful things. But time itself is not bad, and this is no reason to suppose it necessary to eliminate time in the eternal state. I wrote on this subject a few years ago. Sat, 19 Nov 2022 18:27:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2022/11/Time-no-More https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2022/11/Redemption-and-the-Body I ran into this statement today from an author whose name is unknown to me: The fact is, redemption has 'not yet' been applied to our mortal bodies in any sense. Is this true? I cannot imagine saying this statement to my church family in a sermon on Sunday. I believe it is wrong and leads in a wrong direction. It is like MacArthur's view of "un-redeemed flesh." I know where he gets the idea—that our bodies have not been glorified. True. But to say that redemption is not applicable to our mortal bodies in ANY SENSE is too much. All genuine Christians intuitively recognize that salvation does immediately apply to their bodies. We: present our members as instruments of righteousness to God (Rom. 6:13) present ourselves as slaves to obedience which leads to righteousness (Rom. 6:16) are slaves of righteousness, despite admitted fleshly weakness (Rom. 6:18, 19) put to death our members which are on the earth (Col. 3:5) seek the virtue of self control (Gal. 5:23) which is exercised both internally and externally with the body strive to possess our vessels in sanctification and honor (1 Thess. 4:4) do not hold the carnal Corinthian philosophy of "foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods" (1 Cor. 6:13) know that the body is not for immorality but for the Lord (1 Cor. 6:13) learn that our bodies are members of Christ (1 Cor. 6:15) know our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19) must glorify God in our bodies (1 Cor. 6:20) This all sounds like redemption has 'already' been applied to our mortal bodies in some sense! Fri, 04 Nov 2022 10:31:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2022/11/Redemption-and-the-Body https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2022/11/The-Kingdom-of-God-is-Not-Here-Yet I received this comment from an acquaintance: Some people say there is no present fulfillment of the kingdom for believers. My difficulty in fully agreeing with them on this is based on passages such as Col. 1:13 and Rom. 14:17. And another: There is a present heavenly sphere of the Kingdom of God into which the Church has entered. Here is how I reply to the above thoughts. It took me a little while to become untangled from the doctrine that there are many kingdoms—kingdom of God, kingdom of Heaven, spiritual kingdom, millennial kingdom, kingdom of Satan. After much study, I came to agree with the statement that there is no present fulfillment of the kingdom for believers. One big reason: I believe the disciples' prayer (commonly known as the Lord's prayer) in Matt. 6:10 is still relevant: "Your kingdom come." We should not pray for something to come if it is already here. We pray for the kingdom to come precisely because it is not present yet. A second reason: "heavenly sphere" language is vague. It is better to say plainly something like this: church saints have not yet entered the kingdom; they have entered the CHURCH. That is what this present age is about—the church. We are not in the kingdom age. We are awaiting the coming of the kingdom. See for example Acts 14:22—we have not entered the kingdom of God yet, but we must through many tribulations enter into it. See also 2 Peter 1:11 and 2 Tim. 4:18 for forward-looking and entrance language regarding the kingdom. A third: the sphere idea and the texts that are "troublesome" like Romans 14:17 and Col. 1:13 can be explained—fairly straightforwardly in my understanding—like this: when we are saved, we are immediately constituted as citizens of the future kingdom. Without being born again, we cannot see that kingdom, but being born again does not mean you immediately enter it. God is busy right now calling out a people for His name in the church, and preparing them to be members of the Kingdom which will come in the next dispensation. As citizens and ambassadors of that kingdom, "kingdom ethics" should be displayed in our lives now, in advance of the king's coming. We are not citizens of the kingdom of darkness anymore. Our priorities are not food and drink, but righteousness, etc. Those ethics are not required of us because we are IN the kingdom, but because we are displaced citizens, ex-patriots, ambassadors of that kingdom to the kingdoms of this world. This citizenship idea is a crucial notion for our relationship to God and this world. Our citizenship is indeed in heaven (Phil. 3:20) but the harsh fact is that we are not in heaven. Indeed, in Christ we have a place there (Eph. 2:6), but we are actually on earth. The heavenly connection demands something of us in the here and now. Fourth: if a kingdom has a ruler, realm, and a functional actual reign, a quick look around the world will tell us that we are not in the kingdom at all because those features of the heavenly-kingdom-sort are not present. These features include spiritual and societal blessings that are just simply not present today. Fifth, the Lord's parable in Luke 19:11-27 teaches that He was going to go away on a long journey to a far country. There He will receive a kingdom (be invested with the right to rule) and then return to actuate that rule. Christ has to be back on the earth for the kingdom to be operational. While He is away, other rulers are ruling. Fri, 04 Nov 2022 09:16:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2022/11/The-Kingdom-of-God-is-Not-Here-Yet https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2022/05/The-Christian-and-the-SCOTUS-Abortion-Decision Over the years I have heard professing Christians excuse their lax stance on abortion or even their vote for pro-abortion candidates by saying that there is nothing that is going to be done about abortion, so their stance or vote does not matter. No change is possible, abortion is fixed in law, so conservatives should "give it up." This thought pattern became the philosophical underpinning that excused votes for godless candidates who were supposedly less personally objectionable or who had more experience, or were more "statesman-like," or who were more "compassionate," or who supported desirable entitlement programs. In contrast, we always believed that our stance against abortion and vote against pro-abort candidates does matter to God, even if no change in abortion law seemed possible, so the whole way of lax thinking was flawed from the beginning. In early May 2022 with the leak of a draft decision by the court that would flip Roe v. Wade, it seemed that something could be done about it. And now that the Supreme Court decision has come out (June 24, 2022), and something has been done about it, the wrongheadedness of those professing Christians is all the more clear. They were wrong that nothing could be done about abortion. For the voter, what could be done was to vote for a pro-life president and senators and state legislators and governors. These men and women could stand for the unborn to give them a voice and provide some level of protection to their lives. They did this through passing state laws, defending those laws in court, appointing pro-life justices, and confirming them to the court. As an example of the effect that better abortion law can have, note the story from NPR that abortions were reduced from 5,400 in August 2021 to 2,200 in September 2021. This is a reduction of 60%. If all those moms stayed in Texas and did not travel to neighboring states to murder their children, approximately three-thousand two hundred lives were saved that otherwise would have been aborted. This is a lot of lives saved in a single month—more than died in the September 11, 2001 terror attacks (2,996). If, on the other hand, some of those moms decided to be more careful and use birth control—or demand their men to use birth control—then some pregnancies were avoided. That is OK too, particularly if those potential parents were unwed, because little baby's lives were not murdered. Beloved, righteousness always makes a difference, even if you think it will not. If you previously thought the way I describe above, please repent. For those of you who are angry today because a precious right was taken away, recognize this please: God never thought you had a right to kill unborn children. The support for the right in the U.S. Constitution was very weak, because it did not really exist there either. And recognize too that all the SCOTUS decision does is to push the decision back to the people in their states and through their representatives. There is no reason to go berserk about this. In many states there will be little true change. For us Christians, that is a tragedy, because every womb with a baby in it should be a safe space for that baby. Fri, 24 Jun 2022 07:30:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2022/05/The-Christian-and-the-SCOTUS-Abortion-Decision https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2022/06/Thinking-Scripturally-about-the-Second-Amendment Today's question from a church attender: What are your thoughts about how we are to think scripturally about our second amendment rights? First, let us start by understanding the second amendment text: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The phrase "being necessary to the security of a free State" is a ground or reason clause. It would be equivalent to saying this: "Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to security of a free State", then the following right has to be maintained. That right is that the people, who must be ready to defend the security of the free State, also necessarily must be able to keep and bear arms. These arms are firearms, in short, and of a sort that can be effective to defend the security of the State. To keep means to own or possess, a necessity for security. To bear means to carry and transport with and/or on their person, again, to be able at a moment's notice to defend the security of the free State. The security of the State starts with the security of individuals within the State, so that it can be rightly said that individual self defense is at the core of the second amendment. To hobble the type of firearm to be ineffective in comparison to what would be used against the citizen, or to prohibit gun or other similar weapon ownership, or to make it illegal to carry the weapon where it may be needed to provide security—all three of these restrictions are not permitted to the State. The constitution restricts the ability of the State in these areas. These would all be forms of infringement on the right of the people to defend the security of their persons and property. The limitation in the constitution also serves to limit the power of the State against its citizens. History shows very clearly that when a people is disarmed, they are then often subject to horrific abuses of power and death at the hands of the State. The limitation on power imposed by the second amendment is very useful because people are depraved (a basic Christian teaching), and groups of people gathered into governmental agencies are also depraved. Their power needs to be limited to limit the damage of their depravity. It should be rather obvious that this right is to be protected for individuals, not just corporate militias. Since militias are not even common these days, a militia-only interpretation would gut the amendment of its practical protections for the rights of the people. The point is that the people had to keep and bear arms so that they could join together in their militias to protect the security of the state. Now, how is the Christian to think about this? Does this accord with Scriptural teaching? The right of a person to defend himself or herself is present in Scripture. Consider the following: Exodus 22:2 If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. The homeowner is permitted to defend the security of his family, even by taking the life of a night-time intruder. The assumption is that a threat to personal safety justifies even homicide. The homeowner would not be guilty of murder in that case. The astute reader will notice verse 3: Exodus 22:3 If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. The difference is the daylight. If a thief comes during the day to steal property, then taking his life is not justified, and the homeowner would be guilty of bloodshed. However, if at night, the intentions of the intruder are not well understood, and in the confusion of the situation, the homeowner is given the benefit of the doubt. This mirrors advice that I heard from a police officer once. He said when people break into a home at night, they do not have good things planned for the residents there. This justifies using deadly force if necessary to protect the lives of the occupants. On the other hand, if a homeowner has daylight enough to see a thief carrying away his big screen TV, the homeowner is not justified to shoot the thief. That would certainly land the homeowner in jail, because the response was disproportionate to the crime. Only when death or great bodily harm is likely can deadly force be justified. Property crimes do not merit or justify the death penalty. The men who killed Ahmaud Arbery should have learned this fact long before they committed their heinous act against a man who they (wrongly) believed to be guilty of a property crime. Now they are justly jailed because of what they did. One would be safe to assume that if the home invader comes in armed with an instrument of death, the homeowner should be able to "keep and bear" an arm of equal or greater firepower to defend his life. Thus the second amendment is not at all out of accord with Biblical teaching. Guns did not exist during Bible times. However, another deadly weapon—the sword—did exist. Listen to the words of Jesus: Luke 22:36 Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." Here the Lord expressly tells His disciples to acquire a sword. Does that sound strange coming from the lips of Jesus? Not if you understand that He is speaking of the "new normal" for the disciples. Previously, (see v. 35) He had sent them out with special divine provision. They would be cared for by a special divine providence. But now, He is sending them out again, after He will be gone, and they will be going out as sheep among wolves. This is the new normal. While they will try to be as harmless as doves, this does not mean that they cannot defend themselves from robbers or murderers. This is what the sword is for. It is not for offensive use, forcing conversions or enforcing a "Christian law" upon the places where we live. It is for defensive use. It is most obviously not for show. Like the Roman police, we do not "bear the sword in vain" (Romans 13:4). If it is carried, it is meant to be used in those situations where it is needed. What are some objections to this? I heard a very well-known evangelical preacher say that he would not use a gun against an intruder, for the criminal presumably needs eternal life, and the preacher already has it. If the preacher shoots the invader, then the invader goes to Hell. If the criminal shoots the preacher, the preacher goes to heaven, so he does not have anything to worry about in the end. I respond to that objection this way: I have more than myself to "worry" about. I have a family—wife, children, and perhaps house guests, some of whom may not be going to heaven yet. I am charged with their safety, like Lot who welcomed two angels into his home instead of letting them stay overnight in the dangerous city square (Genesis 19:2-3, 8). Also, I feel that I have a moral duty to not only help when I see a person in need where it is safe to help them, but also, if necessary, to assist in the task of restraining evil where it pops up its ugly head. I certainly would rather not have to do that, and hope never to have to do so. But if it comes down to a question of "me or him" I know which I will lean toward. The innocent homeowner must not feel guilty if he defends himself. It is the criminal intruder who was in the wrong the entire time. I take it then that the Lord could equivalently say, "he who has no gun, let him sell his garment and buy one." There is nothing wrong with the second amendment, and Christians can support it and defend it thoroughly. There is nothing wrong with guns of all sorts and sizes. In this day and age, however, there is increasingly something wrong with people who have access to guns. Witness the Uvalde, Texas school shooting, or the many other gun, knife, or bomb crimes committed by mentally disturbed individuals around our land and throughout the world. Making new restrictive laws does not solve those problems, it only shifts them around. What we find most often, as in the Uvalde case, is a cascade of errors that resulted in a tragedy. The young man should never have had access to weapons because he was deeply disturbed. He was mentally incompetent to be responsible with a firearm. One other point. Let us suppose that the elected officials in this land change the law to ban guns or certain kinds of guns. Or suppose that the second amendment were repealed. Would that justify an uprising of the gun-owning public? From a Christian standpoint, no, it would not justify revolution. It would be very undesirable to the ongoing of a free people, and it would be bad, and it would be out of accord with the founding spirit of our country, but if passed lawfully, it would be the new law of the land, and that law should be obeyed (1 Peter 2:13, Romans 13:1-2). Wed, 22 Jun 2022 17:10:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2022/06/Thinking-Scripturally-about-the-Second-Amendment https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2022/06/One-God How do you inform someone who makes the following assertion: Christians believe in polytheism—they have three gods. The best way is to explain that we believe what the Bible says, and then let Scripture speak for itself (all quotations from ESV): 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 ...there is no God but one. For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. Ephesians 4:5-6 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all... Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Isaiah 43:10 Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. Isaiah 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god." (See also verse 8.) Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God. Isaiah 45:6 That people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other. Isaiah 45:18 I am the LORD, and there is no other (see also 45:21, 22). Isaiah 46:9 for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me... After demonstrating that the oneness of God is a foundational truth of the Christian faith, you can explain that the one God exists as three persons sharing a single divine essence. This is the doctrine of the Trinity. Hard to understand? Certainly, because God is not like we are. God is not a human being. He is an infinite, un-caused, un-created, no-beginning being who is unique. There is no one else like him. Mon, 20 Jun 2022 04:34:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2022/06/One-God https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2022/06/Romans-330 Today's question: Romans 3:30 says that one God will justify the circumcision by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Why are two different prepositions used? First, let's double check that there are in fact two different prepositions in the Greek text, and there are: the first is "ek" faith and the second is "dia" faith. Now to the question of why this is. Bottom line: this is most likely a stylistic variation and the prepositions are not conveying any difference at all. This conclusion is supported by the truth gleaned from our systematic theology studies that there is only ONE way of salvation, by grace through faith. There is not one way for Jews and a different way for Gentiles. There is no such thing as a dual covenant or "automatic pass" for Jews because they are "God's people." Today, if they do not exercise faith in the Messiah Jesus, they cannot be saved. And if Gentiles do not exercise faith in the Messiah Jesus, they cannot be saved either. Douglas Moo points out that there are two other places where these prepositions are neighbors to each other with the same object (The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT, p. 252): Romans 11:36 ESV For from (ek) him and through (dia) him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. 2 Peter 3:5 ESV For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out (ek) of water and through (dia) water by the word of God... In these verses, context demonstrates that the different prepositions do mean different things, that is, they are not used as synonyms. But in the context of Romans 3:30, they are used as synonyms. This reminds me of an important principle of interpretation: you have to be VERY sure if you are building a big theological point on a small preposition (or two). Prepositions are outsized in their importance in language in general, and in Scripture particularly, in that they modify and connect ideas together to create larger and more significant ideas. But they are not that outsized whereby you can undermine a clear theological truth with an argument based on a dubious distinction between what can most easily be explained as synonyms. You are saved by faith. You are saved through faith. Those two sentences mean the same thing. And thank God for them, otherwise we would not be saved at all! Fri, 17 Jun 2022 07:41:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2022/06/Romans-330 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2022/06/Unemployment One of our church leaders wrote to me a few months ago about what he called a "strange shortage of workers" in spite of the high demand for jobs by employers (over 10 million at this writing). I would add that the large number of side-lined workers and people on unemployment (today numbering over 1 million) make the causes of this worker shortage somewhat mysterious. Where did all the workers go? This has become an issue at corporate meetings and in the media. The person who was communicating with me commented that this whole scenario represents an opportunity for Christians to stand out as being different, which we are in everything, including labor. I agree with him. Although I am unable to determine the root causes of the great worker shortage, let me offer a few thoughts sparked by my friend at church: 1. Wages are stagnant. They are not keeping up with inflation. If wages are going up at 3%, that sounds wonderful. But with inflation at 8.6%, that means wages are actually going down by 5%, more or less. It can be a depressing situation. But this does not mean that Christians give up work. God put Adam in the Garden of Eden to work the garden. Work is a gift from God, and it is something we can do and enjoy to a certain extent. 2. The government dole is easy to access. Many people are on unemployment. Some are on disability but are perfectly able to hold some job—not any job, but some job. We have a dear senior citizen in our church who has a disability and rightly receives disability support. But she wants to work, and does work, to supplement at the level she physically is able, and within the constraints of her low income housing and such. My point is that she works. Good for her! 3. There is a poor work ethic. An entitlement mentality exists in many people whereby they feel that they are "owed" some basic level of subsistence. The calls for UBI (universal basic income) and other "free" money are manifestations of this. Christians should be far away from this trend. Any family man who, in this economy, is out of work for any length of time is not looking hard enough for work. It is not as if there are 1 million job openings and 10 million seekers. There are 10 million job openings and 1 million seekers. It is easy to find work. You might not like the work, but that is why it is called work! If a man will not work, then neither should he eat! (2 Thessalonians 3:10). 4. Anecdotally, I spoke with a business owner in our area who said that he has noticed many families are switching gears to have mom stay at home. This trend is because, according to his explanation, sending the kids to daycare at $400 per week means that mom earning $650 outside of the home per week does not get the family significantly farther ahead, when you consider the other costs of having a second vehicle, gas, insurance, etc. The American Psychological Association laments the movement of women out of the workforce. They attribute it to "insidious societal messages that women should be mothers and that mothers should put their families first...Instead of opting out...women are being pushed out." I actually rejoice at this trend because children need mom at home. That is ridiculed as an old-fashioned patriarchal thing to say, but many women are recognizing the blessing of being at home with their children in the young years. If you want to be a mom at home, go for it! There is nothing wrong with it, and there is no higher calling to which you can aspire than to influence the next generation. I have long believed that the entrance of many women into the workforce over the years has had the completely predictable impact of increasing worker supply; this depresses wages. As a result, it has become harder for a family to make it on the income of one spouse. But if some (women) pull out of the work force, this reduces the supply of workers and should push up wages a bit. I do not count that as an "insidious" thing. 5. There is the great resignation. Some of these resignations were what we might call permanent, but others were simply to move on to another better job. Some people left work because they disagreed with the COVID and vaccination policies of their employers (either too strict or too lenient). Others left their job because the pandemic caused them to realize things about their quality of life, dissatisfaction with their career, or a desire for more liberal remote-work policies. Thu, 16 Jun 2022 19:11:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2022/06/Unemployment https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2022/06/Question-about-Slavery A website visitor asked the following: I would like to know if slavery was ordained by God and tehreby existed in the Old and New Testament to reflect God's order (like marriage)? Or, was slavery man-made, and, thus, more of a reflection of culture and man-made traditions? Which is it? I prepared a brief answer that I shared last Sunday evening. Basically, this is it: Slavery was not created by God to reflect creation order. It is therefore unlike marriage. God did not "institute" slavery in the way that most westerners understand slavery. It came about as a result of the sin of man. Slavery was therefore man-made. However, everything that comes to pass is ordained/permitted by God, so we would have to say that in some sense, God did ordain slavery, just like he did all other sins. I understand slavery to be unlike marriage, but more like divorce in that slavery and divorce were not instituted by God but God permitted and regulated them because of the sinfulness of the human heart. The Law which God gave through Moses did make provision for a kind of slavery that we could call debt-servitude. It was used instead of what we have—modern bankruptcy—and to avoid imprisonment for petty thieves. Instead, they had to work off their restitution if they could not pay it up front. Probably the most important passage on the subject—at least for a modern westerner—is this: Exodus 21:16. In that section, God outlaws man-stealing. The entire slave trade in early American history was based on this method of obtaining and selling and buying slaves. It was an abominable enterprise from start to finish—and God made it clear by assigning it the death penalty. Here are the messages I preached on this subject in 2016: The Bible and Slavery, Part 1 The Bible and Slavery, Part 2 The Bible and Slavery, Part 3 Another brief but helpful resource. Tue, 07 Jun 2022 06:56:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2022/06/Question-about-Slavery https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2022/04/Importance-of-Membership-in-a-Local-Church Many churches do not understand the importance of local church membership. They do not talk about it or care about it. It is as if that level of "commitment" is too much for many people to handle. Even our church family, in years past, did not emphasize membership. Let me share with you the words of one of our members who wrote them in response to an answer I gave to one of his questions: I think our membership in the church is very important. As you know, one of the main reasons I wanted to become a member was to be held accountable by the church. Being held accountable is an act of love. It is too bad so many people name the name of Christ but do not view church as important as they should. The assembly of the brethren is forsaken too easily as the cares of this world are deemed more important. Maybe using a sports analogy will help. Today, many Christians want to exist in a state of permanent free agency. They do not want to commit to anything. They want to say they are followers of Christ, and they "stand with" the church, but not too strongly, because when things get a little sticky, they want to disappear without any accountability. Tue, 26 Apr 2022 10:23:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2022/04/Importance-of-Membership-in-a-Local-Church https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2022/03/Christianity-Contrasted-with-Earning-Gods-Favor At some point when I was studying Matthew 12:1-14 a few months back, I jotted this note down, but I do not know where it came from or if I came up with it: Christianity provides the rest and joy of an internal righteousness wrought by God, in contrast to the blasting burden of legal regulations and mere external obedience required by attempting to earn favor with God. Obviously my thoughts were not on justification at the time, which provides a "from-elsewhere" alien righteousness for forensic justification. That in addition to the transformation created in regeneration gives the believer a package of righteousness before God and in the heart that is a source of great joy and rest. Tue, 01 Mar 2022 06:57:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2022/03/Christianity-Contrasted-with-Earning-Gods-Favor https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/12/Background-on-the-Conscience-Part-4 Round 4 of background on the conscience-based COVID-19 vaccine exemption letter that I posted on December 29, 2021. The conscience may in fact be misinformed, but it is still dangerous and not consistent with Christian principles to violate it. Since this is the case, it is cause for patient education, not governmental mandate. Why? Mere fiat cannot change a person's conscience, and they must live with that conscience whereas the governing authorities do not have to live with a violated conscience. Historical factors can weigh on the conscience of later generations. For example: The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male permanently destroyed the trust of many of our fellow citizens in the CDC and other government departments involved in health research. How can one trust a group of humans who would run Nazi-like experiments on their own countrymen? (Note that I hesitate to use the full title of the study because of the second-to-last word; yet it seems important to include that fact for best understanding.) The COVID-19 vaccine may not in fact be a population-wide research project, but after such an awful 40-year experiment, it will be difficult to convince some. Some people simply will never be convinced. It is the Christian viewpoint that withholding from those people the means of support of a job or food or medical care is immoral. The willingness of some pro-vaccine-mandaters to treat non-vaccine-takers as sub-human and not worthy of the right to life or work is very disturbing to the religious conscience—even to those who have taken the vaccine. Think of it: if the vaccine mandates were carried out universally in New York, objectors would be prohibited from working; prohibited from eating in restaurants; prohibited from social activity; and eventually probably prohibited from living in certain locations. That kind of death penalty has no place in a civilized society and is an unjust form of punishment for the "crime" of not wanting a certain vaccine. Also bothersome to the conscience is the fact that no religious exemption requests have thus far been approved by the U.S. Navy. This appears to be a complete denial of religious free expression, which makes the conscience of some feel "put upon" and pushes such people to take an even stronger stand in an attempt to exercise what seems to be dying religious liberty in our land. To many, that liberty is an important part of their conscience as well, because the religious principle of separation of church and state is integral to our life and worship. Sun, 02 Jan 2022 09:38:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/12/Background-on-the-Conscience-Part-4 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2022/01/Bible-Reading-2022-Edition Here is the annual set of Bible reading schedules that you have become accustomed to seeing here. The dates are adjusted on these to match the beginning of the weeks for 2022. This year, the schedules start on 1/2 (or 1/3 for Monday-Friday plans) at the beginning of the first full week of the year. This way, you have a few days to catch up on last year's reading, or get ahead on this year's reading. Spiritual growth is correlated to Bible input. So, put more Bible into your mind! Read the New Testament once Read the New Testament twice Read the New Testament four times Read the Old Testament once Read Acts and the NT letters in chronological order One chapter a week for young readers Some other reading plans might catch your interest from prior years, easily adaptable to the coming year: Ligonier Bible Reading Plans ESV Bible Reading Plans Professor Horner's Reading System Read the Gospels Every Day Sat, 01 Jan 2022 19:12:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2022/01/Bible-Reading-2022-Edition https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2022/01/Background-on-the-Conscience-Part-3 Round 3 of background on the conscience-based COVID-19 vaccine exemption letter that I posted on December 29, 2021. The conscience can be "forced into a corner" by difficult dilemmas. "If you say you believe in Jesus, I will shoot you in the head;" or "If you do not take this vaccine, you will lose your job." Those dilemmas should be avoided by authorities if possible. Reasonable accommodation must be offered to avoid impingement on free religious exercise. The reasons for conscience objections to the COVID vaccine are varied. Some are: (1) The vaccine is made and/or tested with fetal cell lines resulting from abortion, and abortion is an abominable act that is clearly rejected in Christian teaching; (2) The vaccine is mandated with severe economic penalties such as loss of livelihood, inability to purchase food at restaurants, etc., which set precedent for future Christian and Jewish persecution predicted in the Bible. Not that the vaccine is exactly this, but here is the idea: "No one can buy or sell unless he has the vaccine," which sounds eerily similar to the mark of the beast (Revelation 13:17). It sets precedent for that future terrible event. (3) The vaccine is mandated, which runs counter to God-given natural rights which are recognized the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. (4) There are health risks to the vaccine which, if experienced, may impact one's ability to live productively and serve God. (5) The vaccine is an artificial chemical to which some Christians object because they prefer to trust God's design of the body to fight infection. (6) If one has been naturally immunized by a prior COVID infection, the unnecessary additional risks of taking a vaccine (such as myocarditis) are simply too costly to outweigh the vanishingly small incremental benefit (if any) that might be obtained over natural immunity. The religious principle in this case has to do with stewardship of one’s body: Christians are taught not to do things to their bodies which may reduce their ability to live for and serve God. (7) Children are at extremely low risk of complications from COVID-19, therefore giving them a vaccine that has potentially long-lasting side effects even in a small percentage of cases seems to be putting the Lord to the test. That is too much for the conscience of some. (8) The risk of becoming ill and dying prematurely pushes the conscience of others to really desire the vaccine to reduce their own human suffering. (9) The risk of spreading illness to others encourages the conscience of some to take the vaccine to provide whatever protection is available, even if imperfect. Importantly, remember that the conscience is not informed only by "purely" religious factors. All information—even scientific—has some religious connection because of the information itself, where it comes from, the motivations behind it, the manner in which it is conveyed, etc. It is the view of many Christians that science is a discipline under the dominion of God, not man. Inasmuch as it has ignored God, it has run amok. A person’s conscience may be fully convinced that if God permitted her to be infected with COVID and survive, He has provided through His creative design all the natural immunity that is required going forward, and in fact that immunity is very likely far better than artificial immunity from a vaccine. This weighs in decision-making regarding the risks-versus-benefits of the vaccine. The risks are entirely unnecessary in this case, and subjecting oneself to the vaccine would be putting God to the test. Sat, 01 Jan 2022 09:38:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2022/01/Background-on-the-Conscience-Part-3 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/12/Background-on-the-Conscience-Part-2 I offer further background on the conscience-based COVID-19 vaccine exemption letter that I posted a couple of days ago. Stated from the perspective of the church and its leadership, conscience decisions are often not uniform within a single church or denomination. In the non-religious community and even in the religious community, it is commonly thought that a particular church or denomination either has or does not have a conscientious objection to vaccines, or certain medical procedures like blood transfusion, or to war, or other such matters. While this sometimes may be the case, it is not always so. The Bible teaches explicitly that there may be within a single church some who conscientiously object to a certain practice while others do not. Two individuals who differ on a particular matter can still be members of the same church and in good fellowship with one another. From the church's perspective, these are matters of indifference that should not divide the community of Christians. There are some issues which do not fall into the "matter of conscience" bucket at all. "You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, pay taxes," etc. are not matters where conscience exemptions can be claimed. Vaccines are in the conscience category. One’s conscience can choose differently at a later time if it receives new information that impacts how it adjudicates the matter at hand. Therefore, if information comes to light in the future, a person's decision about some matters may change, without there being any validity to a charge of inconsistency. The frequency of such conscience objections can be reduced by the authorities giving good, objective, full disclosure, rather than merely making pronouncements from on high. A mandate itself grates against the consciences of some (see Part 3), and to some is evidence that the thing mandated cannot stand on its own merits. The conscience can be troubled by inconsistent information. For example, the COVID vaccine was said unequivocally to be effective. Yet we now know that it was only partially effective for a short period of time, approximately 6 months. This inconsistency is a significant input to the conscience decisions of religious citizens. Another example: general masking of the population was known for decades to be largely ineffective against airborne viruses like the influenza; so at the start of the pandemic masks were not needed according to Dr. Fauci; then masks were mandated; now on CNN we hear that cloth masks—the type most people are wearing—are not appropriate for an airborne virus. Which is it? The inconsistency throws the conscience into a confused state and weighs against a clean-conscience decision in any direction. Fri, 31 Dec 2021 09:38:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/12/Background-on-the-Conscience-Part-2 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/12/Background-on-the-Conscience-Part-1 I offer the following thoughts in support of the conscience-based COVID-19 vaccine exemption letter that I posted yesterday. Conscience operates on a case-by-case basis. It does not operate on a class or category basis. That is, if a person took some vaccines but not others, he could not necessarily be charged with inconsistency. For example, an individual’s conscience might be fine with some vaccine given that it is satisfied with the information about it, its risks to life and ability to serve God, side-effects, efficacy and longevity of efficacy, testing, length of usage, etc. But another vaccine may not be satisfactory to that individual’s conscience because of shortcomings of that particular vaccine in the aforementioned categories. Conscience operates freely and fully at a mature age. A person may have received vaccination as a child when his sincerely held religious beliefs were not yet fully formulated nor freely exercised. This does not undercut a present conscience objection to a particular vaccine. Conscience operates in such a way that a person must be fully convinced. Romans 14:5 teaches that each person must fully convinced in his own mind about his choice in which there are differences between people. The example given in the Bible is that some may choose to eat certain foods; others may not. Those choices are up to individual discretion in accordance with the conscience. Conscience operates on a person-by-person basis. Two people in the same Christian church may disagree on a particular issue, both parties being fully sincere in their beliefs. This idea is itself a Christian teaching and recognizing it is part of our free religious exercise. To reiterate: this idea—that not every person in a church has to share the same view on matters of conscience—is a matter of doctrinal importance in the Christian faith. To demand that my views line up exactly with that of my church or denomination is an impingement on my free exercise of religion. The fact that I cannot “find” a church that agrees with all my views or will support an exemption based on those views does not mean that my views are unworthy of conscience protections. It may simply be that I have different views than the church, or that the churches I have asked to help with an exemption do not want to put their names “out there” as supporting an exemption because of potential persecution by authorities. Thu, 30 Dec 2021 09:38:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/12/Background-on-the-Conscience-Part-1 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/12/Sample-COVID-19-Vaccine-Religious-Exemption-Letter December 29, 2021 Re: COVID-19 Vaccine Religious Exemption To Whom it may Concern, As a follower of Jesus Christ and one who sincerely adheres to His teachings, I believe that following my conscience is integral to my free religious exercise—not only as respects the United States Constitution, but as required by God, who is the highest authority. Christianity teaches that the conscience is part of the make-up of every human being; that God endowed it with certain basic moral knowledge; that it guides the individual in deciding what he should do when something bothers his conscience; that the conscience is informed by religious teaching and study; that it is influenced by information of all sorts that the individual encounters; and that it cannot be safely violated because purposeful violation of the conscience damages its future healthy function and constitutes disobedience to God. Christian teaching about the conscience importantly includes that each person must be fully convinced in his own mind before taking a course of action (Romans 14:5). The Bible warns against taking an action that violates the conscience. It also warns against violating the principle that "whatever is not of faith is sin." There is no such thing as a denominational or church-wide conscience. The operation of the conscience is necessarily an individual matter because the conscience is influenced by each person’s own experiences, culture, knowledge, etc. It cannot rightly nor practically be dictated in all details by any religious organization. In our own church, we have people of different views about many matters, including that of vaccination in general and the COVID-19 vaccination specifically. Neither the pastor nor the church doctrine dictates such matters. In sum, my convictions are my own and not necessarily represented by others identifying as Christians. I am personally responsible to God my judge for my own actions (Rom 14:4). In accordance with my sincerely held religious belief, my conscience is not clear about taking the COVID-19 vaccine. Therefore, I claim a religious exemption at this time from the requirement to be vaccinated. Sincerely, Your Name Wed, 29 Dec 2021 11:35:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/12/Sample-COVID-19-Vaccine-Religious-Exemption-Letter https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/11/Tribute-to-Dr.-Wilfred-Matham by Pastor Matthew Postiff, Ph.D., Th.M., November 17, 2021 I wrote this today in memory of a dear fellow servant who passed on Monday in South Africa. It is directed at his family and the churches there who mourn his passing. Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct. (Heb. 13:7 NKJV) Regrettably, I am unable to be with you all today as you remember the life and ministry of Dr. S. Wilfred Matham. My name is Matt Postiff. I have been pastoring Fellowship Bible Church since 2006 and involved in its ministry prior to that time when its founding pastor, Raymond Saxe, was leading the ministry. Therefore, about 22 years ago, we became acquainted with Dr. Matham through the connection with Pastor Saxe. Before I was married I was able to enjoy Dr. Matham’s company in my home. Afterward as well, my wife Naomi and I had the privilege of hosting Dr. Matham and his wife in our home from time to time when they came to the United States to visit their supporting churches. We supported the Mathams for many years along with a few EBC works that he told us about. The text in Hebrews 13:7 exhorts us to remember those who taught us God’s word. Although this applies to those who are presently our teachers and preachers, it also applies to those who came before and who spoke God’s word to us. Pastor Matham is one of those key men who upheld the text of Scripture as the authoritative voice of God in the church and for the world. He exalted the Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore Pastor Matham himself is worthy of our remembrance. The Bible adds that we are to consider the outcome of the conduct of such people. Ample testimony was given during the service at EBC Eersterust in Pretoria, South Africa this evening to the conduct of our brother. And the outcome of that deportment is indeed is worthy of our consideration. We think of churches impacted in the States, first, because that is how Dr. Matham impacted us. But we also recognize his evangelistic and church planting work; his missionary work; his expositional teaching and Christian academics in the Bible colleges where he ministered. His relational warmth and his seriousness about the things of God, his leadership role in the EBC, and his personal holiness all are worthy of our consideration. These things were wrought in him by the Spirit of our God (Galatians 5:22-25), after the God the Father was shown to him by God the Son (Matt. 11:27). The outcome of his work is something that he has left as a legacy—a family, churches, saints edified, unbelief challenged, and a heritage of exalting Christ Jesus. The third and final word of this Scripture—besides remembering such men and considering the outcome of their lives—reminds us that we have something to do. We must follow the faith of such men. Not that they are infallible guides, but such faithful servants have a lot to teach us even though they are gone. They have left foot tracks for us to observe. Men and women there in South Africa and here in the States must take up the mantle of our dear brother and follow his faith. The church will die if we do not follow the faith of our fathers, that precious truth deposited in the first century and handed down through a line of God’s servants into our care. We must follow and be the next generation’s Pastor Mathams where we are. May God bless you and keep you, my dear Christian brothers and sisters. May He make His face shine upon you and be gracious to you. May He show a smiling countenance upon you and give you peace. May the grace of our God, and the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, and fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be your portion. Love and Prayers, Pastor Matt Postiff on behalf of Fellowship Bible Church of Ann Arbor, Michigan Wed, 17 Nov 2021 09:16:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/11/Tribute-to-Dr.-Wilfred-Matham https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/06/Your-Future Here is the next installment of Bible literacy in minutes: Of serious personal importance is that at some point in the future, barring one very unique exception, each of us is going to die. As zerohedge.com says, “On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.” The Bible said it first: “It is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). But what is death? What happens after you die? Many people believe in ideas like reincarnation or soul sleep or annihilation. Those things are not found in the Bible. What does the Bible say about death? Of most personal importance is that at some point in the future, barring one very unique exception, each of us is going to die. As zerohedge.com says, “On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.” The Bible said it first: “It is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). But what is death? What happens after you die? Many people believe in ideas like reincarnation or soul sleep or annihilation. Those things are not found in the Bible. What does the Bible say about death? Death means “separation.” In physical death, the spirit leaves the body. In Genesis 35:18 it speaks of a mother who was dying in labor, and it says “as her soul was departing (for she died)…” After death, the body is buried or cremated, but the spirit departs and goes either to Heaven or Hades. For the Christian, when the spirit leaves the body, it is immediately with God in Heaven (2 Cor. 5:8). In the future, the Christian escapes the state of death when his or her body is raised again and rejoin their spirits. After that, they will enter the glorious kingdom of God and then Heaven, and live forever. The spirit of a non-Christian leaves the body and goes to Hades immediately. Jesus told about a man who died and was buried, and was in torment in Hades (Luke 16:22-23). Hades is like a local county jail. Non-Christians will be resurrected from this place and then will be judged according to their works (Revelation 20:13). But no one can be saved by doing good works—you cannot do enough good to outweigh the bad things you have done or thought or said (Romans 3:20, 28). Therefore, this works-based judgment will result in a negative outcome and non-Christians will be sent to the final place of the dead, which is called Hell. If Hades is like the county jail, Hell is like the state penitentiary. Such judgment is a highly unpleasant thought, but it is taught by Jesus, and after all, He does define what Christianity is. The upshot of all this is that every human being has an eternal future. The destination depends on whether you are a follower of Jesus by faith—or not. Where will you be? Tue, 01 Jun 2021 17:39:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/06/Your-Future https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/06/World-Future Here is the fifth installment of Bible literacy in minutes: At some future point, God has said in the Bible that there will be an event called the rapture. This word simply means “to be taken away” or snatched up. According to the Scripture, people who believe in Jesus will be taken immediately to heaven if they are alive. This is the one exception to the rule that everyone dies. Or, if they have died before the return of Jesus begins to unfold, their bodies will be raised up to life, and they will go back to heaven. Following this event will occur a time of great difficulty on the earth. This period is called the Tribulation. The Bible presents it as lasting for 7 years. It is the subject of much of the last book in the Bible called Revelation. At the end of the great time of trial, Jesus will return at what is called His “second coming.” It is “second” because He already came once, at which time He died for sinners and rose again from the dead. At the second coming, He will invade the earth and intervene in world affairs by setting up His kingdom. His kingdom will be worldwide and will be governed out of Jerusalem. This kingdom will be the true “golden age” of world history, and will last 1,000 years. Then there will be a resurrection of all the rest of those who have died, and each one will be judged. Those who do not trust in Jesus Christ will be cast into Hell. In the end, God will re-make the heaven and earth. The current earth will be burned up and everything on it will be gone. God’s people will forever dwell with Him on the new earth—which is what we normally think of as heaven. There, God’s people will enjoy His good gifts, and serve God amid a perfect society. This is the answer to the global pain and suffering that we see all around us in the world today. Tue, 01 Jun 2021 17:36:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/06/World-Future https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/04/Publications Here is a brief listing of the few papers I have published. I had to consolidate these into one place for another purpose, so I figured it would be good to keep a record here as well. Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth: A Review Article, DBSJ Vol. 14, 2009, 31-58. God and Counterfactuals, DBSJ Vol. 15, 2010, 23-73. From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective: A Review Article, DBSJ Vol. 19, 2014, 95-103. Cherry Picking Theology?, Inside Sources, July 31, 2015. Essential Elements of Young Earth Creationism and Their Importance to Christian Theology, DBSJ Vol. 21, 2016, 31-58. This was cross-posted at SharperIron. Tue, 06 Apr 2021 10:08:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/04/Publications https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/03/One-Race-Revisited Today's question from an email: Are elements of race/ethnicity etc. a result of sin? It is an important question today. I will give you a quick outline of what I see Scripture to teach on this matter. 1. There is a single human race, not multiple races (Acts 17:26). We all descend from Adam and Eve. 2. There are different nationalities, ethnicities, people groups, cultures, etc. The Scripture uses the phrase tribe, tongue, people, nation to refer to this concept (Revelation 5:9, 13:7, 14:6). Other words are used, such as clan and families (Gen. 12:3). 3. Two main points of Babel: a) it was the event that brought different languages into the world; b) God designed it to induce the people to spread out and fill the earth. They had stuck together generally and were not obedient to God's command. So God scattered them (Gen. 11:9). 4. Babel is not firstly about the creation of different ethnicities. However, as people with the same language congregated into small groups and then scattered over the face of the earth and became isolated from one another, they began to become specialized in not only language, but culture and appearance as they intrabred mainly with those in the same group. Thus we have different people groups, and within each group common characteristics like skin color, shape of face and eyes, etc. Cultural differences developed at the same time. 5. God designed this variation into the human DNA from the beginning so that there would be a glorious variety among the human race, even as there are among the various kinds of creatures--so many dogs and cats and fish and horses and so on. Among humans, this variety would have come out without Babel--and even without the fall of Adam and Eve--but it would not have then been found in such pronounced groupings as the language barriers have helped to create. Without sin, the world would be full of all people living together with no negative thought associated with their wide variation in appearance. Two parents have a child and the child looks similar to them but also different than each one. A child may have blue eyes but have two brown-eyed parents (like in my case, due to recessive genes from the grandparent generation). Even today, a single set of parents can have a white baby and a black baby. See here and here for examples. 6. As for the "Ham curse" as some call it, I wrote about that several years ago. Let me be clear that it is unsupportable from Scripture to suggest that dark skin color is a curse from God. See also this post from Answers in Genesis that touches on the same topic. 7. Bottom line: elements of race/ethnicity etc are NOT a result of sin. They ARE a result of God's creative design of the human race. How humans use those things, and twist them, and criticize them, and exalt them, and so on, THAT is a result of sin in the heart of mankind. Wed, 31 Mar 2021 11:00:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/03/One-Race-Revisited https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/03/World-History-and-the-Bible Here is a new installment of Bible literacy in minutes: According to secular belief, world history started over 4 billion years ago, and the plant and animal creation came about because of evolution—time, chance, and random mutations. The Bible’s record of earth history is very different, although with regard to the last 4,000 to 6,000 years of human history the secular account and the Biblical account overlap very neatly. The Biblical account of history starts somewhere around 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. In the span of just under a week’s time, God created the world and filled it with plant and animal life. The creation had an appearance of age after God’s work was done, but in reality, creation jump-started world history. God created two human beings to be managers over his creation. They were named Adam and Eve. They lived in an ideal, brand-new world. Very soon, however, sin entered the world, and with it came death. Over 1600 years passed and a catastrophic flood enveloped the entire earth’s surface as a judgment from God. Out of that devastation one family remained intact—Noah and his three sons, and their wives. From them the earth is now populated. The first 39 books of the Bible focus on a single people group—the Semite people, starting with Abraham. Later, God used Moses to organize a growing group of Abraham’s descendants into a nation. This nation resided in what we know as Palestine, or Israel. It has existed from around 1440 B.C. to the present. During the 700s B.C., a world power named Assyria harassed the northern tribes of Israel. After them arose the Babylonians, followed soon after by the Medo-Persians. In the fourth century B.C., Alexander the Great raised the Greek empire to prominence, and after that the Roman empire dominated the region. A rabbi named Jesus was born and lived during the opening years of the first century A.D. He was more than a rabbi, however, and died on a cross at the hands of the occupying Roman government. He was buried, but then many witnesses saw him alive again. He started the church, which has spread worldwide since the first century until the present day. These are some of the events that the Bible highlights for us as significant in world history. In another video we will consider what the Bible says about the future of our world. Fri, 19 Mar 2021 09:03:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/03/World-History-and-the-Bible https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/03/David-as-a-Prince-in-the-Kingdom Today's question came in the email and had to do with whether the mentions of David in Jeremiah and Ezekiel refer to resurrected King David, or to the Messiah. Jer. 30:9 "And David their king, Whom I will raise up for them." Ezek. 34:23-24 "I will establish one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them--My servant David. He shall feed them and be their shepherd. And I, the LORD, will be their God, and My servant David a prince among them; I, the LORD, have spoken." Ezek. 37:24-25 "David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statues, and do them. Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where you fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children's children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever." Hosea 3:5 "Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the LORD their God and David their king. They shall fear the LORD and His goodness in the latter days." MacArthur consistently takes David to refer to the greater David = Messiah Jesus in all the cases above. My problem with that interpretation is that there are other easy ways to refer to God's anointed, and I wonder why the prophets say "David" if they meant "Messiah." David, like all OT saints, will be resurrected and enjoy the millennial kingdom (Dan. 12:2-3). It is very plausible that he will hold a significant place of rule over the kingdom as a prince under the Messiah. Perhaps Solomon will as well. After that, there are only a few historical kings who were "good." Maybe they all will have some sort of role in the millennial kingdom. Obviously Jesus will outshine them all by a large margin! Fri, 19 Mar 2021 08:58:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/03/David-as-a-Prince-in-the-Kingdom https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/03/Bible-Outlines-Available-on-Kindle My Bible outlines are now available on Kindle. Thu, 04 Mar 2021 14:55:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/03/Bible-Outlines-Available-on-Kindle https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/02/Capital-Punishment Another installment of literacy in the Bible: We mentioned in the video about God’s role for government and the video about abortion that God did—and still does—permit society to exercise capital punishment. This is clear from Genesis 9:6. But does this run afoul of another well-known text of the Bible in the Ten Commandments? Look at Exodus 20:13, where the sixth commandment says “You shall not murder.” In saying this, does God contradict himself? Or does Moses contradict God when he wrote “You shall not murder”? The key to resolving this question is the difference between murder and killing. The old King James version says “You shall not kill.” But that is a bad translation. Murder and killing are two different things. Granted, they have a similar outcome for the person who is dead, but morally they are entirely different. In a just war, for example, people are killed, but the soldiers are not guilty of murder. A policeman who kills a gun-wielding perpetrator at a crime scene is not guilty of murder either. When a home invasion ends in the death of the homeowner, this is murder. When the same home invasion ends with the death of the invader, that is justifiable homicide, meaning that the homeowner is not guilty of murder because he was simply defending himself and his family. So, the answer to our question is NO—capital punishment is not murder. Instead, it is a justifiable penalty assigned for certain horrific crimes. Otherwise, God himself would be guilty of murder for allowing and even predetermining the death of certain individuals. Even Jesus himself was killed—was God at fault? No indeed. According to 1 Peter 3:18, Jesus died in the place of unjust people so that He might bring us to God. He voluntarily came to the earth to do that. Certain humans were guilty of putting Him on the cross, to be sure. But in effect it was our sins that killed him. So are we guilty of murder? Sat, 20 Feb 2021 15:52:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/02/Capital-Punishment https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/02/Abortion-and-Capital-Punishment Here is a short "Bible Literacy" video about abortion and capital punishment. Many people who are in favor of capital punishment are opposed to abortion, including a good number of Christian people. But, isn’t this inconsistent? It is about the same as someone being for abortion but against capital punishment! Those who are opposed to both abortion and capital punishment, or who are in favor of both, seem more consistent from the standpoint of preserving life. But our interest is not in who is more or less consistent on the basis of a single metric—that is too limited of a view. We are trying to increase our basic Bible literacy by understanding what the Bible teaches about these matters. We turn to Exodus 21:22-23, where a matter of case law is given in which a pregnant woman is struck by someone. If she gives birth prematurely but the baby lives, it is a civil infraction with a monetary penalty. But if the baby dies, the Law of God in the Jewish theocracy stated that it was to be punished by the lex talionis, “life for life.” The law stated that if the baby died, the perpetrator was to be punished with death. That is how seriously God takes human life. It is precious in His sight, even in the mother’s womb. Abortion is just a “decorated” word for what amounts to exactly the same thing—murder of an innocent human. The reason that some people take the “inconsistent” position for capital punishment and against abortion is that the Scripture teaches so. Consistency comes to view when you look at the issue through the lens of justice—it is unjust for an innocent baby to be killed, but it is perfectly just for a murderer to forfeit his life. The opposite view—that capital punishment is wrong and abortion is OK is actually inconsistent from this justice perspective—why does an innocent baby deserve to die, but a criminal guilty of a horrific crime deserve to live? Abortion basically is capital punishment…done to an innocent child. Thu, 18 Feb 2021 08:18:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/02/Abortion-and-Capital-Punishment https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/02/Engaged-to-Christ Read 2 Corinthians 11:2: For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. (NKJV) Christian, at your conversion, you became engaged (betrothed or promised) to Jesus Christ. You belong exclusively to Him. The wedding of the Lamb is coming. Are you staying pure? Are you getting ready? The symbolism of this is rich. While we await the consummation of salvation, the application of "engagement" touches every area of our lives, just like your upcoming wedding did (or will, if you are yet to be married). Thu, 18 Feb 2021 08:14:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/02/Engaged-to-Christ https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/02/Gods-Assigned-Role-for-Government The Bible has three important sections that explain what God wants government to do. First is Romans 13:1-7. It says that there is no governmental authority except those appointed by God. The government’s rulers are to oppose evil. The governmental authority (police officer, president, governor) does not bear the sword in vain, because he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Because of this, God has permitted governments to exercise the authority of capital punishment. Now this has been in place for thousands of years. In the first book of the Bible, for example, Genesis 9:6 says “whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed.” There is only one punishment that fits the crime of murder, and that is to forfeit the murderer’s life. Our society exercises a great amount of mercy toward such offenders by assigning them life in prison, but this can leave the victim’s family feeling as if justice has not fully been done for their loved one. By the way, the idea is that the corporate body of society as a whole exercises that authority—not individual vigilantes. The third passage is 1 Peter 2:13-14. It explains that the king and governors are sent by God to punish evildoers and to praise those who do good. There are whole departments of government—like the FBI, department of justice, state attorneys general, and the like which are focused on punishing evildoers. And we are thankful for that because it helps keep law and order in our society so that we can live peacefully. There are no governmental departments I am aware of which are dedicated to praising those who do good! But I am thankful for the recognition that is afforded to good and heroic citizens. Summarize: the basic role of government is to punish evil and praise those who do good. Wed, 17 Feb 2021 10:00:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/02/Gods-Assigned-Role-for-Government https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/02/Two-Results-of-Giving Benevolent giving supplies two things: (1) the material needs of others; (2) a basis for thanksgiving to God, for when the recipients receive the gift, they offer thanksgiving to God not only for the gift but for the people who gave the gift. BOTH are important results of your benevolence. This principle is found in 2 Corinthians 9:12. Wed, 17 Feb 2021 08:31:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/02/Two-Results-of-Giving https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/02/The-SOAP-Bible-Study-Method In the medical community, "SOAP" is an acronym that is a helpful guide for a doctor-patient interaction. The letters stand for Subjective, Objective, Assessment, and Plan. The patient comes in with some complaint, the subjective. The doctor looks him or her over very well and makes observations for the objective part. Then the doctor makes an assessment and sets out a plan of treatment. All of this is documented in summary fashion in the SOAP note retained in the patient's chart. The SOAP Bible study method uses the same acronym, which in this case means Scripture, Observation, Application, and Prayer. An example can be seen here. Basically, you determine the Scripture passage that you will study. It would be good to even write it out. Then you can write down everything you observe about the passage, including questions and relevant leads to other portions of Scripture. Then you can think about how to apply the passage to your own life situation, and pray to ask God for help in following His word. I think the SOAP method can be very helpful. However, it often leads to superficial Bibles study, as pointed out in this article. To remedy this deficiency, we should think about the SOAP method as the sOap method, with an emphasis on the letter O. The observation part needs to be much more careful and deep than the example linked above. Without proper observation--in other words, exegesis--you cannot arrive at correct interpretation. And you need a correct interpretation before you can determine the appropriate application. We have previously discussed the Swedish Method and the COMA Method of Bible study. Tue, 16 Feb 2021 15:04:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/02/The-SOAP-Bible-Study-Method https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/02/Hebrew-Root-Movement I taught some recently about the Hebrew Roots Movement--what it is, and why we do not believe it. The following messages were delivered in December of 2020: December 2 December 6 December 13 I received a couple of negative comments on the message. Here is the first: Moses didn't ever make up his own law. Who's finger do you think wrote the 10 commandments? I replied: Hello Mike, the statement and question you write in your comment are not a point of difference between us. That is, we never said or even implied that Moses made up his own law. It was obviously the Law of God; it is called the Mosaic Law for short because God gave it through Moses. And, of course God wrote the tablets (twice--Deut. 9:10/10:2 and Exodus 31:18/34:1). But Moses wrote them again in the manuscripts of Exodus and Deuteronomy which have passed down to us through preservation and translation. Now, perhaps your question is meant to suggest that GOD wrote the Law, therefore it is eternally binding. That is, it is not man's law, but God's law, and therefore must be followed by all men of all ethnicities at all times. We differ with you very firmly if that is your point. Illustrations: Have you had a son and had him circumcised? Did you do it on the eighth day? If not, you broke the Law of God (Lev. 12:3)--if you believe that God has made it still binding, even upon Gentiles. And if you broke the law in one point, you have broken all of it. The Apostle Paul commanded the Gentiles in Colosse that they were not to accept a man's judgment against them if they did not observe days such as Sabbath, and months, and other sorts of external religious rites. Those rites do nothing to restrain the appetites of the sinful nature of man (Col. 2:16-23). The book of Galatians is clear, as is Acts 15, that circumcision is not necessary for Gentiles to practice. Only if you believe that God's law is like the Law of the Medes and Persians (which cannot be revoked, book of Daniel), could you believe that once God sets an instruction in place that He can never change it again. He is the boss, and can change the terms and conditions whenever He pleases. A great example is found in Ezekiel 40-48 where the temple and its operation have quite a number of differences compared to that given under Moses. Hope that is helpful. If not, please try to formulate your follow-up question in a way that is a bit more clear, and less adversarial sounding. Thanks, and may God bless you with a clear understanding of His Word! The writer responded: OK, brother, at about 10:50, you begin to say that 1 John is not speaking about the law of Moses, but about the "law of Christ" and your own words, "the law of God." It is manipulative. (I don't say you were intentionally trying to mislead). Over time, a little twisting of words and phrases will tend to establish one's viewpoint, but it can be misleading. We can discuss more over email if you prefer. And I reply again: Hello again Mike, Thank you for recognizing there is no intent to mislead here. In using the phrase "Law of Christ," I am following the apostle Paul in Galatians 6:2 and 1 Cor. 9:21. I understand this law to be precisely the same as the law of liberty in James 1:25 and 2:12. It is the code given by Christ through His teaching and the writings of His apostles (the New Testament). It is summarized by the law of love for God and neighbor. Indeed, it looks very similar to the Law given through Moses because it comes from the same God. But it is different--circumcision is not required; Sabbath observance is not required; kosher diet is not required; observance of the three major Jewish holidays is not required; animal sacrifice is not required. All these things are abundantly clear in New Testament teaching. I would offer this rebuttal to the HRM viewpoint: The words I used were not twisting or manipulating the text of Scripture. Rather, something has become twisted in the teaching of the Hebrew Roots Movement. It appears to be going back to something substantially similar to the Galatian error that Paul wrote so strongly against. There is a certain romantic idea of going back to the early church, but the church had a lot of problems as evidenced in Paul's letters and in the book of Acts. It was not the pristine thing that we might like it to be. Furthermore, we have the benefit of completed written revelation which in the first decades of the church, the believers did not. Finally, in those early years, there was a lot of going back and forth on the Jew/Gentile issue. Acts 15 made clear that the church is not primarily Jewish in flavor. Of course it arises from the Jewish faith in the Old Testament; but it includes the Gentiles as Gentiles. Sun, 14 Feb 2021 16:47:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/02/Hebrew-Root-Movement https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/02/Baptism-and-Communion Here is today's question: I was listening to your "God forgives sinners" message and at the end before communion you mentioned that people shouldn’t take communion unless they were baptized or intended to be baptized. I was not at the service and only listening to audio so it’s hard to know how the church functions by one audio message but it kind of came off as baptism was a work. Is that what you meant or was that said for possible visitors so they don’t take communion lightly? Thanks for your inquiry. Your impression that we believe baptism to be a work is not right--if by "work" you mean "a deed necessary to acquire salvation." No works are required, or even able, to save anyone's soul, except for the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. On the other hand, baptism is a "work" in that it is something Jesus tells us to do, and it is a "good work," and it should be done by all true believers. But let me be clear: baptism saves no one. What I was illustrating with my statement about baptism is this point: if you are refusing to obey the commands of Christ, such as baptism, then you are living in sin and need to deal with that first, before taking communion. I add the exception "or intend to be baptized" because we do not have baptism services every month, so maybe someone has newly realized they need to be baptized, or just become a Christian so they have not had the opportunity yet to be baptized because of the church schedule. I have no problem with offering communion in that case. Other churches believe differently on that, but that is where I'm at on it. Sat, 13 Feb 2021 21:01:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/02/Baptism-and-Communion https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/01/Busybodies-in-2021 I was reading this morning: 2 Thessalonians 3:11-12 For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread. In the last few years, it has become a "thing" that people are busybodies (meddlers) through social media. Some—maybe you?—spend tremendous amounts of time browsing and commenting and liking and hash-tagging and sharing and so on. They want to know all the news. Meanwhile, their life work goes undone. The house is unkempt, the outdoor work is undone, the job is not done faithfully, sleep patterns become irregular, church is not attended much less served, and so on. It is very easy to fall into this kind of laziness. Fight against the tendency and pick up your other tasks. I may be writing with a little bit of hyperbole, but you get the point. Be challenged by this word if you need to be, and get your body busy about what God has called you to do. Spend a whole lot less time on Facebook, Twitter, Nextdoor, and whatever other similar platforms are out there. Mon, 11 Jan 2021 06:58:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2021/01/Busybodies-in-2021 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/12/Bible-Reading-2021-Edition Here is the annual set of Bible reading schedules that you have become accustomed to seeing here. The dates are adjusted on these to match the beginning of the weeks for 2021. This year, the schedules start on 1/3 (or 1/4 for Monday-Friday plans) at the beginning of the first full week of the year. This way, you have a few days to catch up on last year's reading, or get ahead on this year's reading. Spiritual growth is correlated to Bible input. So, put more Bible into your mind! Read the New Testament once Read the New Testament twice Read the Old Testament once Some other reading plans might catch your interest from prior years, easily adaptable to the coming year: Ligonier Bible Reading Plans ESV Bible Reading Plans Professor Horner's Reading System Read the Gospels Every Day Mon, 28 Dec 2020 22:39:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/12/Bible-Reading-2021-Edition https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/11/What-is-God-doing Strange things are going on these days with COVID and the recent election. On a broader scale, the troubles in the world, the evil and lawlessness that abounds, and the like, may get you down. But do not forget, dear friends, God is still working: To teach us more about Himself, that He is sovereign and administers His Universe as He sees fit, not as we see fit! Just like He taught Job, he instructs us. To guide us to trust more in God, like He taught Paul. 2 Cor. 1:9. To equip us to comfort others, as He did for the Corinthians. 2 Cor. 1:3-4. To help us to strengthen our fellow believers, like Peter. Luke 22:32. To bring honor to Himself, as He has appointed the wicked for the day of judgment and to rescue the godly from wickedness. Rom 9:21-23. 2 Peter 2:9. To point us to a heavenly country, that is, a world with a heavenly origin, like Abraham and Sarah and their forefathers. Heb. 11:16. To prove our faith and love for God is genuine—to us and to others. 1 Peter 1:7. Like Jesus in His temptation (Mat. 4, Luke 4). Or like Abraham in his test with Isaac (Heb. 11:17). To increase our endurance, patience, perseverance, like the believers from the 12 tribes scattered through the world. James 1:3. To redirect our hope, as the Romans learned. Romans 5:3-5. To remind us of the end of things, like Asaph. Psalm 73:17. To keep us humble, like He did for Paul. 2 Cor. 12:2, 4, 7-10. To make us more holy, like the Hebrew Christians. Hebrews 12:10-11. To bring a good outcome for His children. God is working all things together for good. Rom. 8:28. Thu, 19 Nov 2020 11:13:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/11/What-is-God-doing https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/11/Free-Grace-Theology A person I do not know asked through this website for help to find a free grace church in the area. This gave me an opportunity to write a little warning that free grace theology undercuts the gospel of Jesus Christ. For example, free grace theology eliminates the call to repentance over sin. It wrongly teaches that salvation by faith alone means that repentance is not part of the saving response to the gospel. Yet the Scriptures are clear that true saving faith is repentant faith. Jesus began to preach and to say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matthew 4:17 Repent, and believe in the gospel Mark 1:15 Repent therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out Acts 3:19 Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life Acts 11:18 God...now commands all men everywhere to repent Acts 17:30 Paul "declared...that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance" Acts 26:20 Not knowing the goodness of God leads you to repentance? Romans 2:4 n humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance so that they may know the truth. 2 Timothy 2:25 The foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God Hebrews 6:1 The Lord...not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance 2 Peter 3:9 Free grace downplays the transformation that happens after faith, which always results in some fruit such as sound doctrine and good works. The idea of faith in Free Grace theology emphasizes facts and information (the intellect) and de-emphasizes the decision and trust aspects of faith (assent, will and trust). This can give believers in the free grace churches a false assurance of salvation, which is very dangerous. How does it do this? It comforts people who are living in habitual sin, that if they have made a profession of faith in Christ, "believing" the facts that He died and rose again, they are saved. Yet the evidence in their life points in the direction that they have not truly experienced the saving grace of God. Even the demons believe...(James 2:19). Finally, free grace theology gives very strained interpretations of some passages of the Bible. I wrote about one such interpretation, in which the author proposes that some Christians will enter the kingdom of heaven but not actually "inherit" the kingdom of heaven. This is wrong. I write about it here. I hope this is helpful to you. May the Lord richly bless you. Mon, 16 Nov 2020 09:19:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/11/Free-Grace-Theology https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/11/Problem-Acts-1320 In Acts 13:20, an interpretive question comes up about the 450 year time span. Does it refer to the period of the time in Egypt, the wandering, and the conquest of the land, as the NASB seems to indicate? Or does the period of time refer to the time of the judges, as the KJV indicates? The problem with the latter is that the period of the judges is only about 327 years, according to John Whitcomb's analysis. There is a difference in the Greek of Acts 13:20, where the three-word phrase "and after this" is earlier in the Greek majority text (MT) than it is in the Nestle-Aland text (NA28). Perhaps you could say it is "transposed" with the phrase "about 450 years" NA28 literal rendering = About 450 years. And after this He gave judges until Samuel the prophet. MT and TR literal rendering = And after this, about 450 years, He gave judges until Samuel the prophet. Importantly, note that the KJV does not quite follow the literal rendering I give above. It says, KJV = And after that he gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet. Notice that KJV moves the "450 years" phrase even later in the verse than the MT word order. It puts it AFTER the word "judges," but in all Greek texts, 450 years occurs BEFORE the word judges. Perhaps I could resuscitate the NKJV/KJV by translating a bit more in word-for-word order this way: And after that--about 450 years--he gave them judges... The KJV has obfuscated things even more than the Greek text transposition necessitates. My "fix" to the KJV is admittedly somewhat strained, as it is basically saying this: And after that stuff--about 450 years of it--he gave them judges... My suggestion is that the KJV translation is the problem—not so much the Greek text underlying it. This means that we need not charge that there is a terrible error in the Greek text underlying the KJV. There is a different word order, yes. But an irreconcilable error? Not quite. A different solution to the problem is to recognize the KJV has translated the words in an unhappy order which makes the chronology confused, and then to offer a paraphrase that addresses the chronology problem in a somewhat plausible fashion. I am not saying this to support a KJVO viewpoint, because I most definitely do not hold that view. In fact, I think the KJV can be charged with an error in its translation here. However, I believe my suggestion is more fair to the Greek text. However you take it, the 450 years must apply to the time in Egypt through the conquest, not the time of the judges. My explanation is also more plausible than this one, which says that the 450 years does cover the period of the judges, and Moses was the first judge! Fri, 13 Nov 2020 23:16:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/11/Problem-Acts-1320 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/10/God-and-His-People I have enjoyed auditing a class on the doctrine of Israel at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary with Dr. Mark Snoeberger and Dr. Sam Dawson. Just now I am reading Forsaking Israel: How it Happened and Why It Matters by Larry Pettegrew and company at Shepherds Seminary. The thought occurred to me that God has had a people from ancient times in order to glorify His name. Said another way, God must have a people to bring honor to himself. Should the people He chose (Deut. 7:6-8) disappear from the earth, it would appear to the peoples of the world that that people's God was no more significant than all the other deities of extinct people groups. But the Triune God is no temporal phenom. He is eternal and thus must have a people for all eternity to show forth His glory. That people, Israel, will be re-constituted as a glorious nation in order to bring glory to God (Ezekiel 36:22-23). God will be vindicated through the means of the existence of a human people group. Contained in the paragraph above is an argument as to why Israel cannot disappear or be "replaced." So what is the place then of the church? God's keeping of the people of Israel is, in the words of Isaiah 49:6, too small a thing to proclaim the glories of our God and His Messiah. Therefore, God will choose out from the entire world another people—the church— to further glorify the Messiah. The benefit of this to people will be not only "salvation to the ends of the earth" but also an expanded understanding of the infinite glory of God. The benefit to God will be an expanded base from which His excellencies may be known by the angelic and human realms. It is not enough that God should have one people. He deserves more glory. He will have two peoples, one from the past age and one from the present. And then, there will be an expansion of both groups in the millennial kingdom, to the praise of the glory of God's grace. How are these two peoples related to God? The only way possible: through Jesus Christ! Are they forever distinct? YES, in the sense that a Gentile is never a Jew and a Jew is never a Gentile. Physical lineage is what it is. But this distinctness does not undercut the completely harmonious, happy existence of saved Israel and the saved Church throughout the upcoming millennial kingdom. Different, yet united. Distinct, yet without discrimination. Wed, 28 Oct 2020 15:32:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/10/God-and-His-People https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/10/Glossary-of-New-Terms Following are some definitions of terms that I have been hearing a lot lately. I thought I should do some research to learn more about them so as to be able to describe them better in conversation and preaching. These definitions are somewhat objective, but my values do peek through. For that, I am not apologetic! Anti-racism on the surface seems to be as one definition suggests, "the policy or practice of opposing racism and promoting racial tolerance" [Oxford Languages via Google]. However, policy or belief is not enough. If you are not actively involved in dismantling racist systems, then you are not anti-racist, according to the modern adaptation of the definition. "Anti-racism is the active process of identifying and eliminating racism by changing systems, organizational structures, policies and practices and attitudes, so that power is redistributed and shared equitably." This definition makes a sudden shift from race to power. Notice that they say that systems and policies and attitudes are changed—not to remove racism but with the goal to redistribute power. In this view, racism and power are integrally tied together. Practically, this means reducing the power of the white majority race and increasing the power of minority races. Cancel culture is defined as "the practice of withdrawing support for (or canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive". It is normally associated with a company or individual being swamped by critical social media posts on Twitter and Facebook. A targeted person of this technique may end up losing their job as a punishment or offering of atonement for whatever objectionable sin was done. It is a technique used to enforce political correctness and to ridicule unpopular opinions. Communism is a political philosophy which promotes class war as a means to remove private ownership and capitalist economics. In addition, communism is directly opposed to religious freedom, Christianity, and freedom of thought in general. See socialism. Critical Race Theory According to a paper by Nicholas Hartlep, Critical Race Theory: An Examination of its Past, Present, and Future Implications, "There are five major components or tenets of CRT: (1) the notion that racism is ordinary and not aberrational; (2) the idea of an interest convergence; (3) the social construction of race; (4) the idea of storytelling and counter-storytelling; and (5) the notion that whites have actually been recipients of civil rights legislation." Interest convergence is the idea that where the interests of whites are improved by working on racial progress, they will participate. Beyond that, they will not, since their interests and the interests of the minorities diverge after that point. The above definition misses a key component of CRT, however, because CRT emphasizes the concepts of race, law, and power. Whites, it is supposed, have constructed law in such a way as to maintain their power. Structures of society are responsible for causing race problems (not individuals); therefore structures must be changed. The Cultural revolution was, historically, the movement under Mao Zedong to expand Communism by removing capitalist and traditional elements from society. In this philosophy, rebellion was justified. Many Chinese people died. There is a modern movement afoot in the west to accomplish a very similar outcome. It advertises as "progressive" and is socialist and communist in ideology. Identity Politics was the idea that groups that share certain characteristics like race, religion, social class, etc. gather into alliances to protect their interests. However, the phrase is presently used to denote an approach to politics, particularly by the Democratic Party, that emphasizes constituent groups based on certain characteristics, usually race or social status (black, poor, Hispanic, oppressed, LGBTQ, transgender, illegal aliens, etc.). The grievances of each group are the central focus of political activity. This is contrasted to an approach that wishes to see the constituency as one large group (citizens, American, the melting pot idea, etc.) Intersectionality An explanation of how various social categorizations overlap or combine to create advantage or disadvantage. For example, it is supposed that generally, a white person has privilege over other categories. A white male has an even higher privilege level because of the intersection of the two traits. A black LGBTQ female is very disadvantaged because of the intersection of three social categories that are each disadvantaged. The idea of proponents is to eliminate advantage and elevate the disadvantaged. It seems that no distinction is made between immutable characteristics (white, black, male, female) and mutable characteristics (LGBTQ, illegal alien). Micro-aggression is "a statement, action, or incident regarded as an instance of indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalized group such as a racial or ethnic minority" [Oxford Languages via Google]. The word "aggression" is important to note, as such behavior is seen by some proponents as being a form of violence. It sometimes is meant in an aggressive way, and other situations it is not at all aggressive. In the case of an unintentional or even completely innocent statement, there seems to be an oversensitivity and refusal to overlook what might otherwise be a harmless statement. Perhaps the statement is not entirely harmless, but it arises from baked-in cultural factors that are hard to eliminate. That is looking at the "receiving" side. On the "giver's" side, micro-aggression is a term to explain insensitive and unloving statements/actions/etc. Christians on both the receiving and giving sides are taught by God to lovingly address such matters ("let love cover a multitude of sins," or "if you brother offends you, go to him,"), come to a better understanding, offer apology, grant forgiveness, and move ahead. Neo-marxism An extension of "regular old Marxism" with new philosophies such as critical theory. A philosophy of governance and culture that uses social justice, racism, and other issues defined in this glossary as levers to gain power. Oppressor vs. oppressed The philosophies described in this glossary are obsessed with the notion that society is made up of oppressors and the oppressed. For justice to prevail, the oppressed must throw off the oppressor (or, the oppressor must voluntarily step down). This is often advocated by any means that are available, including actual physical violence and thievery. This is connected to the cultural revolution as a way to right the oppressed categories, but will inevitably put another group into the oppressed category. Socialism is a political and economic structure where the means of production and distribution are owned and regulated by the community, not privately. Socialism is typically one step away from full-fledged communism. Social Justice A type of justice that is concerned not with crime or moral right and wrong, but rather with the distribution of wealth, privilege, opportunities, power, and the like. SJW = Social Justice Warrior A person who actively promotes social justice (progressive) views. Woke Adjective describing someone who is alert to injustice in society, especially racism [Oxford Languages via Google]. Someone who is naive to such issues would not be "woke." Someone who knows about such issues but does not actively campaign for the progressive agenda is also considered to be un-woke. 1619 Project "The 1619 Project is an ongoing initiative from The New York Times Magazine that began in August 2019, the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative." One comment: the rapid change of language by addition of new phrases indicates that rapid cultural change is happening. The language is adapting to express new ways of thinking. Media and academic institutions, especial high schools and colleges, are at the forefront of this effort to change the culture. Update: Answers in Genesis just wrote a helpful article on Critical Race Theory, which also comes some of the other terms defined above. Wed, 07 Oct 2020 10:31:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/10/Glossary-of-New-Terms https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/09/The-Poor Christians believe that we can alleviate but not eliminate poverty. Why? The Bible tells us that there will always be poor people. For you have the poor with you always, and whenever you wish you may do them good. —Jesus in Mark 14:7, also recorded in Matthew 26:11 and John 12:8. For the poor will never cease from the land; therefore I command you, saying, 'You shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor and your needy, in your land.' —Moses in Deut. 15:11. You might wonder why this is. The pandemic reality of sin, the sin nature in every human, total depravity, and the fallenness of the world make some level of poverty inevitable. Natural disaster can bring poverty. Your own sin can cause you to become poor. Or, the oppressive sins of others can cause you to become or remain poor. These effects can carry on across generations. This is harsh, but it is reality. To assert that humanity can solve the problem entirely—whether through change in government structure, improvement in government policy, or benevolence—is to set yourself against the words of God. On the other hand, to make efforts to help the poor in substantial ways, not enabling ways, is pleasing to God. Fri, 04 Sep 2020 08:01:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/09/The-Poor https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/08/Defining-Expository-Preaching There are probably many definitions of expository preaching out there, but let me give you mine: Expository preaching is that method of preaching where a portion of the Bible text is explained and applied. Its goal for the audience is understanding and obedience. To expand just a bit: The pastor carefully studies the text of Scripture in order to clearly explain the text and show how its truths can be applied to the audience. The pastor aims for the audience to actually understand what he has explained, and obey how the text should be applied. Explaining should lead to understanding, and application should lead to obedience. In normal usage, the phrases "expository preaching" and "expositional preaching" refer to the same thing. Attempts to distinguish these two phrases seem unnecessarily picky. Wed, 26 Aug 2020 15:44:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/08/Defining-Expository-Preaching https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/08/Obedience-to-Gods-Word Many have wondered what is the key to Christian sanctification. One answer that is often given is "obedience to the Bible." While alone it is not enough--for obedience must be by faith through the power of the Holy Spirit--it is crucial to the Christian life. I say that while setting aside the currently popular "anti-legalism" philosophy that decries any call for obedience as a legalistic approach to earn merit with God. Christians understand intuitively that obeying God's word is a good thing, and that you cannot earn merit by doing so: it is the work of Christ that washes our sin away and provides ALL the merit God requires to be saved from eternal punishment. Supporting the emphasis on obeying God are the following texts that I collected in a recent reading of the New Testament text: Matthew 7:24-27 "Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall." Matthew 28:20 "Teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen. Luke 6:46-49 "But why do you call Me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do the things which I say? 47 Whoever comes to Me, and hears My sayings and does them, I will show you whom he is like: 48 He is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently against that house, and could not shake it, for it was founded on the rock. 49 But he who heard and did nothing is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, against which the stream beat vehemently; and immediately it fell. And the ruin of that house was great." Luke 8:21 "My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it." John 13:17 "If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them." James 1:22-25 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; 24 for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. 25 But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does. 1 John 3:10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. 1 John 3:18 My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth. Revelation 1:3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near. Remember, before you can embark on a life of obedience regarding the works God has ordained for you to do, you need to "do" the work of belief: John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent." For a very similar topic see this blog post from a few years ago. Fri, 21 Aug 2020 11:19:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/08/Obedience-to-Gods-Word https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/08/The-End-of-the-Age Just an observation: Matt. 13:39 "The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels. Matt. 13:40 "Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. Matt. 13:49 "So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come forth, separate the wicked from among the just... Matt. 24:3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?" Matt. 28:20 "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen. The Bible's teaching in these contexts is clear: we are in an age or time period, and the end of that age will bring some significant events--a separation followed by a judgment, and Christ's second coming. The Lord promises to be with His people throughout the age until its end--at which point He will come back. We are not in the kingdom yet, but we do await the beginning of that kingdom, when Christ will consolidate His rule by removing all rebels at the end of the age, and blessing His people with entrance into His glorious society with its perfect government. Thu, 20 Aug 2020 13:38:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/08/The-End-of-the-Age https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/08/Receiving-Good-from-God "Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?" Job 2:10 Job had received good from God, and now was facing adversity. His point is that if we accept the good, we should also accept the trials, since both are the design and purpose of God for our lives. But a "reverse thought" came to my attention because of a couple of circumstances that I observe people are facing. This reverse thought is not the normal way to look at the verse in its context. Normally the challenge is to accept adversity because it is hard. Accepting good is usually easy. But that is not always the case. On occasion, we may hesitate to accept a good thing from God, as if we do not deserve it, or it is too good, or it is better than someone else has, or we have a false humility about ourselves, or whatever. Have you ever had that feeling? "This situation is too good for me; it is too good to be true; I don't deserve it; God is too kind; etc." Certainly we must guard against covetousness and a focus on worldly prosperity and materialism. But at the same time, God delights also to give good gifts to His children. The best of these gifts awaits us in the heavenly dwelling. Meanwhile...God gives some nice things along the way in this life. Job thankfully accepted the good things from God. "Shall we indeed accept good from God?" YES, we should. Be thankful for whatever good that God designs for your life right now. Remember, "every good gift and every perfect gift is from above" (James 1:17). Learn in whatever state -- whether you abound or are in need -- to be gratefully content (Phil. 4:12). So, application: if God seems to be providing some good thing for you, thank Him, take it, and make the best use of it you can. Use it to serve the Lord and serve your brothers and sisters around you. But at the same time, work on discerning whether the "good" is truly from the hand of God, or from somewhere else, in which case you should not take it! Wed, 19 Aug 2020 08:56:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/08/Receiving-Good-from-God https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/08/Outlines-for-Every-Book-of-the-Bible After many years of work, I have completed the first draft of outlines for every book of the Bible. I offer it for your Bible reading, study, teaching, and preaching. Bible Book Outlines PDF. I welcome your input and questions. Many outlines I would like to tweak, and others need additional work--particularly longer books like Genesis and Revelation that could benefit from more detail. Mon, 03 Aug 2020 14:00:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/08/Outlines-for-Every-Book-of-the-Bible https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/07/Mindfulness-Part-2 I asked our deacon if he could do me a favor and expand upon this paragraph in the prior post: By claiming that thoughts and feelings are autonomous, mindfulness excuses guilt, and convolutes the idea of identity and personhood (similar to the way atheism does by denying free will). The reason I say that mindfulness meditations teaches that thoughts are autonomous (not intentional) is because of their analogy of watching your thoughts go by like you would watch cars go by. They do not acknowledge that when you observe those "cars", your actually driving each and every one of them. They imply that the thoughts are driving themselves. Atheists have a similar view. Atheists deny free will. (By "free will" they mean being free of nature's dictate, not what we mean by "free will." God's sovereignty is not even a factor in their thinking.) Atheists teach that everything we are and do is a product of our natural environment. Everything is just time, chance, and material reactions. This materialistic world view can lead to confusion about what a person even is. Your molecules weren't you before you existed, so what is you after the molecules come together to form you? Furthermore, your matter and energy are in a different state at any point in time, and so there is a question as to whether you are really the same person at any point in time. That may sound ridiculous, but these are the kinds of things I have seen the atheist philosophers pontificate about. By the way, the book I read on meditation is "The Headspace Guide to Meditation and Mindfulness: How Mindfulness Can Change Your Life in Ten Minutes a Day." This book made it into Bill Gates' recommended reading list and seems to be an authoritative book on the subject. For the Christian who wants to learn more about the falsehood of mindfulness, this is a good resource, as long as he watches out for the leaven in the book. The lies are presented in such an attractive way I fear it could beguile baby Christians. Sun, 19 Jul 2020 07:46:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/07/Mindfulness-Part-2 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/07/Mindfulness In our area in the past few years, it has become a thing for schools to promote "mindfulness." Immediately upon hearing what the students do during their "mindfulness" times in class, it sounded suspect. I was disturbed by the thinly veiled attempt to get a religious position into the secular classroom while the school system rejects Christianity and makes every attempt to get God out of the schools. One of our deacons helped me by writing the following after he read a book by a Buddhist monk on the topic. Mindfulness is a new word for meditation that was invented to help get meditation accepted in more places. It is a less religious, hippy sounding word. Even though mindfulness is claimed to be non-religious, it smells a lot of Buddhism, and not surprisingly, Buddhists tend to be the topic experts on it. The main idea of mindfulness is to become aware of your own thoughts. On the surface this idea of self awareness looks similar to the truth of introspection. This similarity to a good mental exercise sweetens the underlying poison of mindfulness. The Bible talks about introspection: 2 Corinthians 13:5—"examine yourselves to see if you are in the faith," Psalm 19:12—believers want to be aware of secret faults, Ephesians 5:15 speaks about walking circumspectly, which includes turning our eyes on ourselves, Prov 4:23—"keep your heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life," and 1 Peter 1:13—"be sober minded." However, mindfulness differs fundamentally from biblical introspection in that it is non-judgmental, detached, and OK with all thoughts, whether good or bad. The mindfulness book likens meditation to sitting beside a road and watching cars drive by, where the cars are your thoughts. You let the cars go by (the good and the bad ones) and don't try to chase the good ones or stop the bad ones. You just sit and watch your thoughts and study them to become more aware of them. Over time, the busy traffic gets less busy and you enjoy more peace and quiet. Eventually there are times when no cars drive by. Mindfulness claims there exists an underlying peace and joy that is always present for us to enjoy. We just have to clear our thoughts to find it. Mindfulness thereby replaces the idea of ultimate peace and joy that comes from our relationship with God. By claiming that thoughts and feelings are autonomous, mindfulness excuses guilt, and convolutes the idea of identity and personhood (similar to the way atheism does by denying free will). Mindfulness strives to create a perception that things are OK, whether they are good or bad or nothing at all. This sounds a lot like the Buddhist effort to numb the fear of death and to numb the craving for meaning in life. Ecclesiastes 3:11 says that God has put eternity in our heart, yet no one can find out the work of God from beginning to end. In other words, God has put in our hearts a yearning for eternity and meaningfulness. Buddhism deceives by numbing that yearning in the heart. Fri, 10 Jul 2020 08:13:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/07/Mindfulness https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/07/On-Splitting-Covenants It occurs to me that there is a likeness between these two ideas: 1. Splitting the Mosaic Law into components and pulling forward (from the past) the moral component into the church age. Left behind are the ceremonial and civil parts of the law, as well as the curses for disobedience. 2. Splitting the New Covenant into components and pulling back (from the future) the spiritual component into the church age. Left "ahead" are the physical, agricultural, economic, and political parts of the New Covenant. Also left "ahead" are spiritual components that find no fulfillment in the present era (all will know the Lord, universal forgiveness for Israel). It seems inconsistent to criticize #1 at the same time to accept #2. It seems more consistent to accept both #1 and #2 or reject them both. The problem with accepting both it puts Christians today under parts of two covenants--the Mosaic and the New. This has a somewhat suspect basis. I say this about the Law covenant because Paul writes: But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law (Galatians 5:18). Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? (Galatians 4:21) But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith." (Galatians 3:11) For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace. (Romans 6:14) So, Christians are not under "the law," nor are they under "part of the law." This is no major loss, for we have the Law of Christ as our directive, a law operational on the basis of grace and the indwelling ministry of the Spirit. As far as splitting the New Covenant, the New Covenant is specifically directed to Israel, not the church. This is clear from a review of the primary passage: But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. (Jeremiah 31:33) Note the phrase "I will make with the house of Israel." Finally, it does not appear to me that the New Covenant has actually been made yet. Certainly, its sacrificial basis is complete in the work of Christ. Certainly massive spiritual benefits come out of that work into Christians today. But those are not necessarily direct fulfillments of the New Covenant. They do not constitute the "making" of a covenant, where the people group to be covenanted has offered no agreement to the terms of the covenant. In fact, most of the terms of the covenant (and some could argue all of its terms) remain unfulfilled. The prophet above says that the time of the making of the covenant is "after those days." Jeremiah is clear that those days were "coming" future to his writing. "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- (Jeremiah 31:31) According to Ezekiel 20:35-37, this will happen during the eschaton: "And I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there I will plead My case with you face to face...I will make you pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant (Ezekiel 20:35, 37) This has not happened yet. The most accurate viewpoint, as I understand it, is to keep both the Law and New Covenants whole, not splitting them such that some terms of one or the other, or both, fall upon the church. Wed, 01 Jul 2020 14:16:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/07/On-Splitting-Covenants https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/06/Covenant-Signs Several of the Biblical covenants have "signs" associated with them. The Covenant with Noah was given the sign of the rainbow (Gen. 9:16-17). The Covenant with Abraham has as a sign male circumcision (Gen. 17:11, Rom. 4:11). The Covenant with Moses is signified by the Sabbath (Exodus 31:13, Ezek 20:12, 20). What about the Covenant with David? And the New Covenant? Can you think of a sign for each of them? Sun, 28 Jun 2020 07:53:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/06/Covenant-Signs https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/05/Brief-Review-of-a-Paper-on-Presuppositionalism I recently read a paper by David Haines entitled "A Potential Problem with Presuppositionalism." It can be found on academia.edu. I think the title would be better without the word potential because the author is not claiming that there is a potential problem, but rather he is asserting there is a fatal problem. Haines wrote on page 5 two claims that underlie his argument: All rational beings use an interpretive scheme from which they cannot escape, and There is no common ground These two claims do not match what I understand of Van Til's apologetic. (I was schooled in this approach and adopted it for myself some years ago, so I am somewhat of an "insider.") Quick comments on the two claims: 1) All rational beings use an interpretive scheme: true. The believer interprets life through the truth revealed by God in Scripture. The unbeliever uses some other means to interpret life, but never comes to the table "presupposition-less." This is because their minds are darkened by sin. Depravity affects not only the moral system in man, but also the rational/intellectual system. Therefore, the unbeliever's interpretive scheme, of whatever variety it may be, is rooted in unbelief and proud rebellion against the creator, and self-deception about the deity and power of God. From which they cannot escape: false. Regeneration causes an unbeliever to quickly reach 'escape velocity' from their presuppositions and plants them onto another presuppositional foundation. So in fact, the person can escape from one foundation to another; what he cannot escape is the fact that he is standing on some kind of foundation, never in free space, utterly neutral. 2) There is no common ground: false. As I understand the presuppositional apologetic, it claims that there IS in fact common ground between people, and that is rooted in God, His creation, and specifically the image of God in man (conscience, etc.). There is NOT common ground where the unbeliever wants it--in purely empirical or rationalist terms, nor even where the rational apologist wants it--in rationalism. This is because the mind of the unbeliever is darkened. For me, it boils down to this: we live in the world. The world and all that is in it was created by God. Neither this world nor the truth about its creation can be escaped. That is the ultimate common ground. You cannot postulate a world which was not created by God, because in order to do so, you are using your mind and world in which you exist, which was created by God. It is utter deception to use a God-given mind to suggest that God doesn't exist! Thu, 28 May 2020 10:52:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/05/Brief-Review-of-a-Paper-on-Presuppositionalism https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/05/Prohibiting-Worship I'm writing for pastors especially, but the general Christian audience is welcome to read as well. My title perhaps evoked in your mind various government edicts that presently prohibit churches from worshiping due to the COVID-19 scare. But that is not my point. In the State of Michigan, each of the several governor's orders have carefully side-stepped a prohibition against corporate worship, while making clear the government's desire that churches not gather for safety reasons. This built-in vagueness is due to the recognition that the first amendment of the United States Constitution as well as the Michigan constitution protect the rights of individuals to worship as they see fit. I appreciate this recognition in Michigan. Governor Whitmer even took flak from the far left for making an "unconstitutional exemption for churches." But governors of other states are a little less sharp on this issue and felt that they could infringe churches' rights. Almost all churches gladly complied with the government's wishes for the first 6 weeks or so of the pandemic, including ours. But these wishes were never a command and, properly understood, should not have bound the consciences of church members nor of their pastors. The most recent order (ending May 28) is less vague. A lawsuit brought by a number of churches forced the governor to add language to make it clear that not only are church "owners" and "places of worship" exempt from penalty, but also individuals who choose to travel and worship at those places. The executive order (2020-77) is still clear that the desire of the government is that there be no group gatherings, but desire is not a legally enforceable command. Some Christians feel that this is more than clear enough to go back to worship. After all, a law with no penalty attached is no different than advice. For these Christians, the advice given ("don't gather") has now become unnecessarily restrictive of their right and desire to worship God together. Further, the legal wrangling at the state level causes these ones to have legitimate questions about whether the governor has extended orders beyond her authority. Others are waiting for explicit permission to gather once again. The "spirit" of the executive order is to avoid all gatherings, and these folks want to obey the spirit of the order. I am in the first group; I have never asked nor awaited permission from secular governing authorities to worship God, and I am not about to set that precedent now. We exist in a distinct "authority regime" -- distinct but not totally separate -- than the secular government. And, I believe we will be waiting a long time for explicit permission from the governor to worship. The difference between these two camps has the ring of a matter of indifference in Romans 14. I shared with our church family that there will be a wide variety of opinions as to the "right" time to open the church. There will be strongly-held opinions about wearing masks and taking temperatures and how to do children's ministries and a dozen other issues. Speaking generally, worship is clearly not a matter of indifference. It is commanded. But the particular question about whether to open on May 17 or May 31 or June 7 or August 16 is more like a Romans 14 kind of thing. You have to be fully convinced that what you are doing is right. And I have to be fully convinced that what I am doing is right. Each of us will stand before God for our decisions. It is not my place to criticize another pastor for doing what he thinks is right; and it is not your place to criticize other pastors for doing what they think is right. At some point, you are going to have to open your church. And when you do, this matter of differences of opinion will filter down to your church members. They will have to make a discerning judgment as to whether it is right for them to attend worship. You will be in fact pushing that decision downward to them--a decision which you took from them earlier in the pandemic when you decided to close the church for the preservation of life. Your approach made it easy for the church because they had nothing to decide. They were stuck with your decision. But when you reopen, they will have the burden to decide: Do they have an underlying health condition? Do they have a family member in the home or for whom they care who has such an issue? Are they fearful? Are they listening too much to the fear-mongering left-wing media and consuming doomsday statistics about the virus? Are they coming to worship for the right reason, not just to "stick it to the authorities"? I do not have all the data to make those decisions for all the church members simultaneously. Only they are in possession of that information, and since they are servants of Another, I am not going to get into the business of judging them on this matter. One week or another is not going to make a difference in the eternal scheme of things. Granted, if someone makes excuse that they cannot attend worship until January of 2021 or until there is a vaccine (which may never come to be), I will speak to them and question their motives and wisdom, and try to help inform their consciences. But I do not believe today is the point in time to fight that battle with anyone. Similarly, I am not in possession of the information to pontificate about what church X or Y should do. Maybe it is a small church; maybe they will have multiple services; maybe they will hold outdoor services; maybe they have lots of people with tender consciences. What do I know? Nothing. I am not in their shoes. I trust God to work with those pastors and Christian leaders to make wise decisions. A few will not, and many will. That's how it goes. So, while trying myself to avoid such pontification, may I exhort you to consider another side of the equation? My concern: pastors and church boards, because of division or fear, may keep the church closed while many of their members long to worship God. They desire, like David, to come to the house of God and express His beauty in worship. They want to see other believers for fellowship. They want to be instructed corporately--directly--in the Word. They want to participate in the Lord's Table, and they have missed it for two months already. Pastors should not be in the place of prohibiting the worship of God's people. Individual hang-ups sometimes have to be set aside in order to avoid unnecessarily hurting a subset of the church by not permitting them to worship corporately as God commands. Their consciences are important too--not just the pastors or leaders or members with a tender-conscience. Early on in the crisis, the "fog of war" was upon us. Lack of information, panic, and a dreadfully high curve faced us. It was appropriate to take steps to preserve life in the face of many unknowns. That time is past. The curve has been flattened. In general, hospitals are well under capacity. We know more about the virus, we know how to mitigate. Are we past all risk? Never. But things are different now than two months ago. It is time for churches to plan reopening whether the government likes it or not. God's people need corporate gatherings and worship. God deserves our corporate worship once again. The earth has been strangely quiet toward God for the last two months. Not silent, to be sure, but quiet. Let us not prohibit God's people from making the trek to their houses of worship and lifting their praises to the true and living God, the King of the Universe. May He be praised in all true houses of worship very soon. Update 7/24/2020: Pastor John MacArthur and the elders of Grace Community Church in California have written an excellent open letter defending the opening of churches despite government orders to stay closed. Update 7/25/2020: Jonathan Leeman at 9Marks has written a critical response to MacArthur and the elders of grace Community Church. Tue, 12 May 2020 09:55:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/05/Prohibiting-Worship https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/04/Terminology-Cost-of-Discipleship-or-Difficulty-of-Discipleship Reading in Luke 9:57-62 this morning, I came upon a title in the New King James Study Bible for that section: "True Cost of Discipleship." A similar title involving the word "cost" is found at Luke 14:25 in one of the outlines supplied in Bibleworks 10. Let us pause and ask ourselves this question: "is the term 'cost' the best word to use in this context?" My short answer: No. In theology, precision of terminology is important. Sloppy use of terms is both a source of sloppy thinking, and a cause of it. I think the term 'cost' is used in popular parlance in a very imprecise way. Granted, Jesus uses the term in an illustration about building a tower, in which it is obviously necessary to make a cost estimate before beginning construction. Because of the KJV translation, this came over to discussion of discipleship as "counting the cost." This, in turn creates a challenge for those who emphasize that salvation is free. They reason that since discipleship "costs" and salvation is "free," therefore the two concepts must be different. This leads to the "not all Christians are disciples" theology. They suggest that salvation and discipleship are two different things. Some Christians are believers, they say, and some are believers and disciples. I wrote a while ago as to why the 'salvation not equal to discipleship' doctrine is false. The thought progression from "cost" to "salvation is not the same as discipleship" explained above comes about because of a sloppy conflation of two ideas. The first is the idea of monetary cost terminology from an illustration of a building project. The second is the idea that salvation is free in terms of doing any works to earn it. When you equate the first idea with the second, you are doing a meaning transfer that is wrong. Instead, we need to recognize that the illustration of building is like but not the same as the Christian reality it illustrates. So, you decide to build a tower. You need to think about the implications of that. Do you have the wherewithal to complete it? Similarly, you are pondering the decision to believe in Jesus. You have to consider whether you up for the difficulties that come after you believe in Him. You take the illustration way too far if you think like this: Well, since I have to gather all the money and materials and plans and laborers in order to build a tower before I begin, that must mean that I have to do all kinds of work and make all kinds of commitments in order to become a Christian (i.e.., "be saved"). The tendency of the human brain to make this connection because of the semantic nearness of "cost" and "free" leads me to believe that the 'cost' terminology should not appear in the headings of our study Bibles. Instead, the heading should be "The Difficulty of Discipleship." This avoids the illegitimate transfer of ideas from the monetary realm to the spiritual realm. It fits perfectly with the notion that salvation is not earned by works or anything else. It also works because being a saved person is not going to be a cakewalk in this life. As you ponder the decision to believe in Christ, you need to think: Christ offers forgiveness and eternal life through simple repentant faith. That's true. But the transformation that comes over you will be so radical that you won't be like what you were before. Your relationships with everything and everyone will be totally different. You will run into difficulties along the way that you do not experience presently. Is that the path you are willing to endure? That is the Christian life. The difficulty of discipleship offers no contradiction with the free offer of salvation. Jesus will save you. He will wash you clean of sin. He will give you spiritual life. But your life afterward will be entirely different. It is not that salvation is obtained at a "cost." Rather, the Christian life after you begin to follow Christ will be difficult. But it will also be blessed. Mon, 06 Apr 2020 09:25:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/04/Terminology-Cost-of-Discipleship-or-Difficulty-of-Discipleship https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/02/Millennial-Temple In our series called "Ezekiel for Dummies" we have reached chapter 40. In this chapter, there is a detailed description of a temple structure and function that is not found in the history of Israel up to the present. The following PDF file has several diagrams of what the temple might look like. Wed, 26 Feb 2020 16:41:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/02/Millennial-Temple https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/02/Socialism-and-Communism Some Christians have become enamored with the ideas of socialism and even communism. I think this is attributable to four reasons: First, when the terms are left undefined, they seem to describe "kind" and "benevolent" economic systems that will help the poor and raise people out of poverty. They seem equivalent to the good "social programs" in our republic. Second, there is a seeming connection with the early church as described in Acts 2:44-45 which legitimizes these systems in the minds of some Christians. Third, ignorance of the actual, practical results of these economic systems fosters uncritical acceptance. Fourth, these systems are based on a non-Christian view of the nature of humanity which simply will not work in the harsh realities of the real world which is filled with sinners. When these factors are exposed and honestly examined, most true Christians would forcefully reject both economic theories. Let us begin with some definitions. socialism, via Merriam-Webster 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. 2: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property Going to Google and searching "define socialism" returns this from the "Google" dictionary: socialism 1: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. 2: policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism. 3: (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism. Google's definition of communism is as follows: communism a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. In contrast: capitalism an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. Common ownership is not just theoretical. It is actual. This would look like the government owning and running all utilities like electrical generation, natural gas, etc. It would entail government ownership of all hospitals, schools, factories, etc. But this is not like what is described in the Bible. Under the theocracy and then monarchy in Israel, for hundreds of years there was private property ownership. This is proven by the fact that there is a command "do not steal." This presupposes private property ownership. The limited taxation through tithing is another proof. There was definitely not common ownership of property or means of production. Even the distribution of land indicates private ownership; the Israelite tribes had perpetual ownership of the sections of land that were their inheritance. Deeds were held; property was bought and sold, etc. In the New Testament era, the same kind of situation is evident. The apostle Paul tells the Corinthians to give voluntarily to support the poor, and he tells the Roman Christians to pay their taxes. These imply a private property ownership scenario. Support for the poor is praiseworthy because it is optional and carried out by loving Christians. It is not obligatory, for if it were, there would be no reward in it. Of this fact we can be certain: by the above definitions, socialism and communism are not economic systems that were practiced in the Bible. As for the other three reasons I outlined above, they will have to wait for future articles. Wed, 26 Feb 2020 08:20:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/02/Socialism-and-Communism https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/02/Should-I-as-an-individual-support-a-missionary From time to time the question arises as to whether a believer in the church should support a missionary as an individual, instead of through the church. While I cannot Biblically prohibit the practice of individual supporters, I have encouraged anyone who asks to channel their financial support for missions through the church instead of apart from it. I am aware that many missionaries receive a large percentage of their support from individuals instead of churches, and that some mission agencies direct their missionaries to seek such support. I am not under any delusion that this post will persuade everyone to stop the practice. Our approach of emphasizing that missionary financial support should come through the local church has several advantages: It allows the entire church the blessing of partnering with and praying for the missionary instead of only a single individual or family partaking of that blessing. It protects the missionary in that when the individual donor is no longer able to give, the church can provide a buffer and continue supporting the missionary. We try to be very conservative with how many missionaries we take on for support so that we do not have to eliminate any from support. You can imagine what happens to a missionary if they get word that such-and-such supporter has died and is no longer sending money monthly. That has a real impact on ministry. It protects the church members when a missionary comes and “tugs at the heart strings” of those who are vulnerable to an emotional type of appeal. More objective factors and a careful evaluation are in order before we support a missionary (see 2 John 8-11). It helps put the emphasis in missions at the local church level, where it should be, instead of at the level of the parachurch group or agency. It protects the donor with the additional “insider knowledge” and expertise of the church’s pastor and deacons to watch over the missionary and his or her sending organization, doctrinal fidelity, philosophy of ministry, and the like. Thu, 20 Feb 2020 10:01:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/02/Should-I-as-an-individual-support-a-missionary https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/02/How-to-Save-the-World I think you would agree that the world is in a bad state. Death, disease, disaster, war, animosity, poverty, and the like ravage our planet with no end in sight. Theft and cheating and greed and the like are ever-present. What is the rescue from such a situation? With all the world’s wisdom and knowledge, it cannot come up with its own way of salvation. Human wisdom cannot fix man’s sin or provide ultimate rescue from the horrid condition of death and devastation on the face of our planet. Education cannot solve the world’s problems. Money doesn’t fix it. Authoritarianism doesn’t solve it. Reform doesn’t improve it. Psychology cannot repair it. Medicine cannot heal it. Welfare only disguises the problem. All the world’s works-based religions don’t provide victory over rebellion against God. Multiplying legislation provides no hope either, for it only serves to add more sin to the sin we already have. In fact, not only does the world’s wisdom not fix the human condition, it often makes it worse. Consider the wisdom of the world in its approach to over-population and unwanted people: murdering unborn babies. Billions of them. Or, how about the wisdom of the world in constructing a utopian society: communism. The death toll from that in the last century or so is 100 million. How about the misery under such a governmental system? It takes a resource-rich nation like Venezuela and impoverishes it within a few years. How did fascism work out? This ideology directly led to the deaths of millions in concentration camps and the Second World War. How about secular education? Pushing God out means that worldly educators have to cast about for some fiction to tell their students—like evolution. When you turn away from the true answers and throw God out of the system, all that is left is made up stuff, which is not much different than worshipping a golden calf. It cannot move or speak or do anything. Where the problem of human wisdom is most acute is in the realm of spiritual/religious matters. The seemingly diverse results of human wisdom have created the world’s hundreds of religious systems. Yet in their supposed diversity, they produce a broadly similar approach to God in which man is sovereign and makes the ultimate decisions about his soul, usually by good works to achieve merit. Through worldly wisdom, you cannot be saved, you cannot be forgiven, you cannot know God, the world’s problems cannot be fixed—all these are impossible on the strength of human intellect. Human smarts and “righteous” works are but filthy rags before God when it comes to relating to Him. They have their place—but not in boasting. Their proper place is in service to God. Salvation in all its aspects is available in Christ, despite how the world sees Him and His work. This is to the glory of God in Christ. Sat, 08 Feb 2020 20:23:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/02/How-to-Save-the-World https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/01/Jump-Starting-the-New-Year-from-A-Z Guest post by Jansen Lorch; adapted from Pastor Van Marsceau (FBCWV) Approach your sin boldly (Ps. 51:1-13) Break down relationship barriers – if grudges exist against another person, your spiritual vitality is being sapped (Eph. 4:2) Check your motives – ministry is not about a name or status, it is not about being noticed, nor just being fed (Eph. 4:16) Don’t be lazy (Prov. 6:6-11) Eliminate Unnecessary conflict – don’t let the sun go down on your wrath (Eph. 4:26). Focus on your attitude – you have influence over the attitude of others, so check your own (Prov. 27:9). God for gains – invest in the lives of the next generation (2 Tim. 2:1-2) Have eyes to see and ears to hear – the only way to serve people is to know their needs Inspect your vessel – clean out the dross (2 Tim. 2:21) Joyful. Be joyful. Joy is experienced when we rely on the Lord and trust in His Word (Neh. 8:10; Ps. 28:10) K.I.S.S. – 15 minutes of the Word; 10 minutes in prayer; 5 minutes in silence Love Unconditionally (Rom. 12:9-10) Measure twice, cut once – think before you speak and then think again (Prov. 12:18) Never ask someone to do something that you are not willing to do yourself ( 1 Thess. 1:6) Organize. – if you don’t write things down you will never remember them. Pace yourself – don’t measure your abilities and knowledge to others. Just be faithfully obedient in the little things. Quality time with your significant other or family (1 cor. 13:4-8) Read a variety of books – Christian disciplines, biblical counseling, theology, etc. Sufficiency of Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16-17) Teach the truth – don’t back down when attacked (Heb. 10:23 Unplug. – spend a few hours away of social media and praise the Lord for His creation Visionary – have written goals that you want to make happen this year. Wise Counsel (Prov. 4:13) Look Away – (1 Thess. 4:3-7) Year for intimacy with God (Gal. 2:20) Zip Code – get to know those around you; the body of Christ The idea of creating a list from A-Z of leadership qualities for pastoral ministry originated from Pastor Van Marsceau (Fellowship Bible Church,WV), and was given to the students in the Pastoral Ministry class at Appalachian Bible College. This list was recreated by Jansen Lorch, using the original format, to reflect spiritual disciplines and habits that are applicable for all Christians, both for the new year as well as at any point during the year. Wed, 01 Jan 2020 11:57:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/01/Jump-Starting-the-New-Year-from-A-Z https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/01/Bible-Reading-in-2020 Here is the annual set of Bible reading schedules that you have become accustomed to seeing here. The dates are adjusted on these to match the beginning of the weeks for 2020. This year, the schedules start on 1/5 at the beginning of the first full week of the year. This way, you have a few days to catch up on last year's reading, or get ahead on this year's reading. Spiritual growth is correlated to Bible input. So, put more Bible into your mind! New for 2019! Read the Bible with Dr. Bob McCabe's Reading Plan Read the New Testament once Read the New Testament twice Read the New Testament four times Read the Old Testament once Key chapters for young readers Read the book of Acts and New Testament letters in just four and a half months, in chronological order Read the Greek New Testament in order from easier to harder Greek. Some other reading plans might catch your interest from prior years, easily adaptable to the coming year: Ligonier Bible Reading Plans ESV Bible Reading Plans Professor Horner's Reading System Read the Gospels Every Day If you would like another schedule that takes you through the entire Bible in the year, and with some chronological ordering in it, check out this schedule from bibleclassmaterial.com. This is from 2017, but it will work for this coming year just about as well. Wed, 01 Jan 2020 08:42:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2020/01/Bible-Reading-in-2020 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/10/Faith-is-Not-a-Work-Part-2 Part 1 can be found here. Romans 10:3-6 For they [Israel] being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, "The man who does those things shall live by them." But the righteousness that is by faith says… Once again in this text, we see that faith is set over against works as an opposing principle. The law-zealous Jew did not submit to the righteousness of God by belief. Instead, he pursued the righteousness which supposedly is achieved through the works of the law. There is a righteousness that comes from the works of the law, and there is a righteousness that comes by faith. It should be obvious then that works and faith are opposites. Faith is not a work. What is concerning about the doctrine that "faith is a work" is this: if taken to its logical conclusion in the context of the gospel, the person who believes that doctrine would never be able to say, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." That would be, on their view, the same as saying, "Do this one particular good work [faith], and you will be saved." But that is anathema because no good work done by a sinner is the meritorious cause of salvation. The only work that procures salvation is the one that Jesus Christ did. The faith-is-a-work ‘gospel’ is so careful to avoid works that it removes the only God-ordained condition of salvation, namely, faith. This form of the gospel is certainly not guilty of addition; but it is guilty of subtraction. In it, faith cannot even be an instrumental cause or channel of salvation, as it is presented so often in Scripture to be. That subtraction changes the gospel from the faith-emphasis given in Scripture: Mark 1:15; John 9:35, 9:38, 11:26, Acts 5:14, 9:42, 11:17, 11:21, 13:12, 13:48, 16:31, 22:19, 26:18; Romans 4:24, 10:9, 10:17; 1 Corinthians 15:1-2; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; Jude 5 (and many others). The historical, orthodox understanding of the gospel is that faith is an integral part of the initiation of salvation. However one describes it (logically preceding regeneration, logically following regeneration, or even chronologically following regeneration and inevitable), it is an essential part of the human response to gospel. The Reformation cry of "salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone" is gutted and becomes instead "salvation by grace alone in Christ alone without faith-which-is-a-work." Faith, it seems, may come at some point in the regenerate person’s life, or theoretically it may never be expressed at all. Whatever the case, this is not the gospel of Reformation theology, or covenant theology, or dispensational theology. It is an aberration. Mon, 21 Oct 2019 18:21:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/10/Faith-is-Not-a-Work-Part-2 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/10/Faith-is-Not-a-Work Twice recently I have heard about those who teach that faith is a work. One variation is simply that: faith is a work, and so we cannot encourage or exhort people to believe. The second variation is: faith is the first work a person does after regeneration. But is faith really a work? Most Christians rightly balk at that statement because the Bible clearly contrasts faith with works. Note these Bible passages that demonstrate the contrast: Romans 3:27, 4:5, 9:32; Galatians 2:16, 3:2, 3:5; Hebrews 6:1, 11:33; James 2:14-26. There are several passages that connect faith with works in the sense that faith produces work. This is how we should understand 1 Thessalonians 1:3 which speaks of the “work of faith.” This phrase does not mean “the work which is faith” as if faith is a genitive of apposition. Rather, it means “the work which is produced by faith,” where the genitive “faith” is a genitive of production or producer. The same is true concerning the “work of faith” in 2 Thess. 1:11. James 2:14-26 speaks of living faith that produces good works. This shows that faith and works are integrally related to one another. But it is obvious that they are in different categories. Paul offers an extended passage in his explanation of the gospel in Romans 4:1-6 which teaches very carefully the distinction between faith and works. In it, he argues that Abraham was not justified by works, but that he was justified by faith. Obviously faith and works are of different sorts. Works are associated with debt; faith is associated with grace. Righteousness is accounted to someone apart from works (4:6). Therefore, since righteousness is accounted to those who believe (4:3, 5), belief cannot possibly be a work. Jesus once responded to the question, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" (John 6:28). It is evident to me that his answer set faith against works when he replied, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent" (John 6:29). You don't work the works of God to be saved—instead, you believe in Christ. Furthermore, I believe that faith is a gift of God. Ephesians 2:8-9 can be understood this way. God grants repentance unto life (Acts 11:18), and he also gives His people to believe in Christ (Philippians 1:29). If faith indeed is a gift, it cannot be a work. Faith is “exercised” by the person who is being saved. There can be no doubt or argument about that. Without faith, it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6). Without faith in Christ, it is impossible to be saved. We are commanded to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.” You might wonder how a dead-in-transgressions sinner can believe. That is a difficult question, mostly resolved by the fact that salvation is a miracle. But what you cannot do is think that the person’s faith is a work that merits God’s grace. I conclude that whatever faith is and however you might describe it, it is not a work. References Article at The Gospel Coalition "Why is Faith Not a Work?" GotQuestions.org Part 2 can be found here. Mon, 21 Oct 2019 06:45:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/10/Faith-is-Not-a-Work https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/10/In-Memory-of-Mal-Borden We learned a couple of days ago that our dear friend Mal Borden went to heaven. He is highly esteemed in our assembly although he only ministered among us for about a year. His obit can be found at Christiansen Funeral Home and some of it is reproduced here: Rev. Malcolm J. Borden, age 87, of Carson City, passed away Thursday, August 8, 2019 at The Laurels of Carson City. The son of Arthur Clifford & Anna Ruth (Courdre) Borden, he was born on December 24, 1931 in Pemberton, New Jersey. After briefly serving in the U.S. Army as a Chaplain, he earned his Master's degree in Theology from the Dallas Theological Seminary and was a life long pastor and missionary, retiring from the American Missionary Fellowship. He most recently was a member of the First Baptist Church of St. Johns where he taught Sunday School. On April 2, 1955, in Valley Stream, New York, he married Beverly Ann Williams and together they raised one son and enjoyed 58 years of marriage until Beverly passed away on September 5, 2013. A loving husband, father and grandfather, Mal loved his Heavenly Father and enjoyed studying God's Word more than anything. He also enjoyed sharing his knowledge of God's Word through teaching and preaching for over 60 years and taught Sunday School until the age of 87. He shared God's love and God's Word with others right up until the point where he physically could not teach any further. The family wishes to thank all the friends and relatives that have been a part of Mal's ministry these many years. Through your love and support Pastor Mal was able to have an impact on the lives of so many. He was preceded in death by his wife, Beverly Borden; his parents; a brother, David; and a sister, Miriam. Surviving are his son and daughter-in-law, Mark J. & Susan K. Borden of Carson City; two grandsons, Matthew Jay Borden and Timothy James Borden; two brothers, Arthur Borden and Paul Borden; and several nieces and nephews. Fri, 04 Oct 2019 13:50:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/10/In-Memory-of-Mal-Borden https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/10/Tongues-are-NOT-a-Sign-of-Salvation Over and over through recent years I have heard of the Pentecostal doctrine that tongues are a necessary sign of salvation. This is a false teaching and Christians everywhere should repudiate it. Tongues are definitely not a work that is required to obtain salvation, because no work can ever earn salvation (Ephesians 2:8-10). Furthermore, the gift of tongues was never the universal sign of salvation even in churches that had the gift available to them (in the first century AD). Therefore tongues cannot be required of all believers today. Follow that logic: if tongues were not required of all believers in the first century, they certainly are not required of all believers today. How can we know this? From 1 Corinthians 12:30: Do all have gifts of healings? [Understood "no" answer.] Do all speak with tongues? [Again, understood "no".] Do all interpret? [Once again, "no."] In each case, the answer to the rhetorical question is clearly "no"; the questions are actually affirmations of truth. What truth? Not everyone was given the gift of healing or tongues or interpretation! Even in the Corinthian church not all people had the gift of tongues. This is because the Spirit sovereignly gives different gifts to each person according to His own will (1 Cor. 2:11) for the profit of the entire body (1 Cor. 12:7). The whole physical body is not an eye! Otherwise there would be no hearing (1 Cor. 12:17). Likewise, the whole church body does not speak in tongues, for if they did, where would the teaching or administration or exhortation be? The doctrine that "tongues is a necessary evidence of salvation or baptism in the Spirit" is a false doctrine. And it is not a minor error. This is critical to the doctrine of salvation. What more can be required to obtain salvation than the perfect merit of Jesus Christ? And how could we demand an evidence of salvation that not even the apostle Paul demanded of those in a church who i>did have the gift of tongues among them? Unfortunately, the false teaching surrounding this has confused a lot of people, and redirected their attention from true evidences of salvation, namely sanctification and obedience. Fri, 04 Oct 2019 10:29:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/10/Tongues-are-NOT-a-Sign-of-Salvation https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/10/John-35-Salvation-Water-and-the-Holy-Spirit Today's question has to do with John 3:5. Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." The question has to do with how Nicodemus understood the references to water and the Spirit. Does water have to do with the physical birthing process? Is the water referring to baptism? Is the Spirit referring to tongues? If you read the verse, you will see no mention of baptism and tongues. The verse talks about water and Spirit, not baptism and tongues. Yet, I can imagine where the errant ideas come from: 1. water => supposedly equals baptism 2. Spirit => supposedly equals tongues, to some charismatics, a necessary sign of salvation I can see how water could be equated with baptism, based on the (then) recent history of John the Baptist doing his baptizing ministry. But neither Jesus nor the New Testament suggests that we must be water-baptized in order to be saved. Consider all Old Testament saints, and the "good" thief on the cross next to Jesus. We are water baptized because we are saved, but not the reverse. That is, the statement "we are saved because of water baptism" is false. The Pentecostal believer will make a lengthy case against us from the text in Acts 2:38, but such has been adequately answered in such places as this Fri, 04 Oct 2019 10:05:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/10/John-35-Salvation-Water-and-the-Holy-Spirit https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/10/How-to-Destroy-Your-Church A pastor friend sent me this some time back in a picture file. I thought I would put it here in text form, hoping it might exhort others as needed. Don't attend. If you do attend, arrive late and leave early. Visit other churches often. At every church service, ask yourself, "What do I get out of this?" Never volunteer for anything. Let the pastor do it. Gossip. Be critical of the pastor and the musicians. Don't give, or wait until the end of the tax year to see if you have any extra money. Don't talk with others or encourage them. Don't forgive when someone offends you. Avoid praying for your church. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. (Galatians 5:22-23) Wed, 02 Oct 2019 11:59:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/10/How-to-Destroy-Your-Church https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/09/Do-you-love-me-more-than-these After Christ rose from the dead, He met with the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias. They had breakfast together, and then Jesus asked Peter: Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?" (John 21:15) What exactly does this mean? As I see it, there are four possibilities: 1. "Do you love me more than you love these fish/nets/fishing?" That seems a bit insulting—of course Peter loves the Lord more than he loves fish and fishing. After all, he did leave fishing behind years earlier to follow the Lord. 2. Some have suggested the question is "Do you love me more than you love these other disciples?" This doesn’t seem much better than the first option. The issue is not whether Peter loves the other disciples. Nothing in the context indicates a difficulty in that area. The question has to do with whether Peter loves the Lord, not the disciples. 3. Instead, the question could refer comparatively to the love of the other disciples: "Do you love me more than these other disciples love me?" I shy away from this interpretation because I hesitate to think the Lord would be looking for comparative statements between disciples as to their love for him. 4. But there is a twist on this "comparative" interpretation that I think fits better. Peter himself had professed to be more reliable in following Christ than all the others (Matt. 26:33, Mark 14:29). Even if the others fell away, Peter asserted, he would never do so. The Lord is not asking Peter if Peter loves Jesus more than the other disciples, as if Peter is better than them. He is asking if Peter’s earlier profession to be more loyal is in fact true. Read the question with this emphasis: "Do you love me more than these others, as you professed previously?" Peter has to answer truthfully that he does love the Lord, while recognizing in humility that he was no better than the other disciples because he too had failed. The point is that Peter should humbly acknowledge that he does not in fact love the Lord more than the other disciples. Peter's initial "yes" conveys the point that he "gets it." In the end, what matters is that we love Jesus more than anything else in our own lives. We are called to the love the Lord with all of our hearts, souls, minds, and strength. We are not to elevate ourselves above our neighbors in our own estimation. Wed, 18 Sep 2019 06:36:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/09/Do-you-love-me-more-than-these https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/08/Evangelism-Verses-Quick-Guide Some time ago we prepared a quick guide on some topics for witnessing to people who hold different belief systems. This can be greatly improved, I'm sure, but it is offered "as is" and will hopefully be a help to you. The image below is a preview; if you click it, the PDF will download. Please contact us if you want to suggest additions or corrections. Thank you! Fri, 30 Aug 2019 10:14:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/08/Evangelism-Verses-Quick-Guide https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/08/Despise-Others Today's tweet: In Luke 18:9, Jesus spoke about people who think that they are righteous, and despise others. Obviously, part of the point is that if you despise others, you are NOT righteous. Do you despise anyone? Since I have more space here, let me expand on that: Do you despise a family member? A spouse? (As incredible as that might sound, it happens all too often.) A politician? A fellow church member? Fri, 30 Aug 2019 07:57:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/08/Despise-Others https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/08/Davids-Sin Today's question: David was a man after God's own heart, right? So can I sin—even in ways like David—and count on God's forgiveness? Aren't I forgiven all my sins: past, present, and future? This question has recurred over the years of my pastoral ministry. Let me address it in this forum, with the hope that it will be a help to someone out there with this misguided thinking. First of all, the kind of thinking expressed by the question is not the kind of thinking that a true believer expresses. The true believer understands his sinfulness and hates sin. He wants to depart from evil and do good. He wants to please the Lord. He doesn't want to "count on" the forgiveness of God as a cover for the flesh. He wants to make no provision for the flesh to fulfill its lusts. If he does fall into sin, he repents and feels terrible about it. Whether the person who asked the question truly thought that as a "way of life" kind of thinking, I do not know. But I do know that it is an unbelieving pattern of thinking and indicates a big problem. Second, the person asking the question doesn't understand that God judged David severely for his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah. Consider how God evaluated and how God judged David: 2 Samuel 11:27: "But the thing that David had done displeased the LORD." 2 Samuel 12:14: "By this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme." 2 Samuel 12:14: "The child also who is born to you shall surely die." That in fact occurred and is recorded in 2 Samuel 12:19. 2 Samuel 12:10: "The sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me." 2 Samuel 12:11: "I will raise up adversity against you from your own house." And now, observe what history records: 2 Samuel 13: Amnon raped Tamar. Both are children of David. Subsequently, Absalom, another son, murders Amnon. 2 Samuel 15: Absalom rebels against his father and stages a coup. David has to leave Jerusalem and live in the wilderness. As David left the city, Shimei cursed him (16:5-14). 2 Samuel 16:22: "So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the top of the house, and Absalom went in to his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel." 2 Samuel 18: Absalom is killed. David's grief now extends to three of his children who have been either killed or raped. 2 Samuel 20: Sheba rebels against David's kingdom. 2 Samuel 24: David fell into pride and took a census of the nation of Israel. God punished him and thousands of his people died. He had that on his conscience all his days. 2 Kings 1: Adonijah presumed to take the kingdom from David and David's appointed successor, Solomon. The priest Abiathar joined him in the rebellion. In chapter 3, Joab was executed and Abiathar exiled. Hopefully it is obvious that David's sin had far-reaching consequences. If that is the kind of thing you want to go through, be my guest. I trust you will choose the wise route and desire to live righteously before God. Thu, 08 Aug 2019 16:54:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/08/Davids-Sin https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/07/Isaiah-53-in-the-New-Testament During an examination of Acts 17:2-3, I thought to connect it back to Isaiah 53 (a significant section of "the scriptures"). Paul was using the Scriptures to demonstrate that the Messiah had to suffer and rise again. Then he connected those prophecies to the actual historical happenings in the life of Jesus of Nazareth to show his audience the need to believe in Christ. When I took a look at Isaiah, here is what I found (verses quoted from NKJV unless otherwise noted): Isaiah 52:14 As many were astonished at you; His visage was marred more than any man, and His form more htan the sons of men. → Mark 15:19 Then they struck Him on the head with a reed and spat on Him...Matthew 27:26 and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified. Isaiah 52:15 So shall He sprinkle many nations → 1 Peter 1:1-2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. (See also Hebrews 10:22.) Isaiah 52:15 For that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider. → Romans 15:20-21 And so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man's foundation, but as it is written: "To whom He was not announced, they shall see; and those who have not heard shall understand." (Rom. 15:21 NKJ) Isaiah 53:1 Who has believed our report? → Romans 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" Isaiah 53:1 And to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? → John 12:37-38 But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke: "Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?" Isaiah 53:4 Surely He has born our griefs, and carried our sorrows. → Matthew 8:16-17 When evening had come, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed. And He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick, 17 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying: "He Himself took our infirmities And bore our sicknesses." Isaiah 53:5 He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed. → 1 Peter 2:24 Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed. Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way. → 1 Peter 2:25 For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls. Isaiah 53:7 He was oppressed, and He was afflicted, yet He opened not his mouth → Matthew 26:62-63 And the high priest arose and said to Him, "Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?" But Jesus kept silent. Isaiah 53:9 And He made his grave...with the rich in His death. → Matthew 27:57, 60 Now when evening had come, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph...and laid [the body of Jesus] in his new tomb which he had hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a large stone against the door of the tomb... Isaiah 53:9 because He had done no violence, neither was any deceit in His mouth. → 1 Peter 2:22 Who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth. Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him. → Genesis 3:15 He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel. Isaiah 53:11 By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities. → Acts 13:38-39 Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; 39 "and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses. Isaiah 53:12 ...and He was numbered with the transgressors... → Luke 22:37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfillment." (ESV) The apostle was showing that Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead. Isaiah 53 does this. It focuses on the suffering. But it also teaches the resurrection because it says that God will prolong the days of His servant (Isaiah 53:10), and He will give Him a portion with the great and spoil with the strong (Isaiah 53:12). These things clearly imply that He must come to life again in order to receive these blessings. Tue, 16 Jul 2019 21:53:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/07/Isaiah-53-in-the-New-Testament https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/05/The-Book-of-Life Today's question is an interesting one: I have a question about names written in the Lamb's Book of Life. It was my understanding that our names are added to the Book of Life when we accept Jesus' atonement for our sin natures (i.e., saved by grace through faith). But some verses seem to indicate that all people are in the Book of Life until they reject that God-designed provision. These texts include Exodus 32:33, Deuteronomy 29:20, Psalm 69:28, Isaiah 48:19, and Revelation 3:5. The first book is the "book of the living" which is mentioned in Psalm 69:28. It is poetic way of referring to the census or list of all people who are alive at a given time. So, to wipe someone out of that book is a very poetic or euphemistic way of saying that the person would be killed. In other words, they would be "cut off out of the land of the living." Other phrases express the same thing. For example, Deut. 29:20 says that someone will be blotted out from under heaven. This means that they will be killed. Isaiah 48:19 is a bit different because it is used in a corporate way to refer to the offspring of Israel (48:1, 12). The "cutting off" is the same as above, that is, ceasing to exist on the earth. With this background, we can better understand Exodus 32:32-33 in which Moses wishes to die physically. If the Lord will not forgive Israel, Moses prefers death to life. This idea is found mostly in the Old Testament. The alert reader may remember a similar case in Romans 9:2-3. There, Paul says that he wishes he could be accursed from Christ for his Israelite brothers, that they might come to faith in Messiah. This does not necessarily include the idea of physical death (at least, immediately). The real focus is on spiritual separation from Christ. That is, if it were possible, Paul would trade his salvation for theirs. Paul would have his name erased from the book of the saved so they could get theirs put into that book. And that is the second book, to which we now turn. The second book is the Lamb's book of life. This is revealed mainly in the New Testament (but see Daniel 12:1) and is not the same as the first book. The book of life is the registry of all the redeemed of all ages, whether in the church age, Tribulation, Kingdom, or Old Testament period. I'm not big on emphasizing that there is an actual codex/book in heaven, made with paper and cardboard and glued at the spine, that has a huge list of names in it. But in effect we can think of it that way. God knows that list of names intuitively and instantaneously, and the reason for that is that He has graciously chosen to bestow eternal life on each person listed in the book. Passages that refer to this book are Philippians 4:3, Revelation 3:5, 13:8, 17:8, 20:12, 20:15, 21:27, and 22:19. Of these, several passages offer difficulties to the Bible reader. Revelation 3:5 says, "I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life." I take this not to say that names will be or can be erased, but that they will NOT be erased! Most people read this and believe that there is a possibility of erasure, particularly if you fail to "overcome." I don't read it that way, and I believe that it is an Arminian tendency to emphasize the erasure view. Overcomers (by faith, 1 John 5:4) will never lose their salvation. They will never be erased from the book. Revelation 13:8 attaches the phrase "from the foundation of the world" to "the lamb that was slain." This is a good interpretation based on the word order, but it can be understood to refer to the names of the people not in the book of life. Revelation 17:8 makes it clear that "from the foundation of the world" is associated with the names not written in the book of life. The point is this: there are names that are NEVER written in the Lamb's book of life. In other words, there are people whose names have never appeared in there. By implication, (1) those names cannot be erased, since they have never been present; and (2) there must be names in the book which have been present since the foundation of the world. Revelation 22:19 is another passage that indicates the possibility of a name being taken away from the book of life. But there are major textual transmission problems at this point in the Textus Receptus (and thus the English KJV and NKJV translations). The correct text is not "book of life" but "tree of life." (Why? The critical text AND the vast majority of Greek manuscripts say "tree of life.") Reading it as "tree of life" eliminates the only other verse in the Bible that could suggest a person's name can be removed from the book of life. The "removal" is simply a statement of judgment—if you mess with God's book, God will see to it that you have no share in the tree of life = basically heaven. To summarize: the "erasure" view is that the names of all humans who ever exist are written in the book of life from the start, and names are erased as people die without exercising faith in Christ. One problem with this view is that there is no text that clearly says names WILL be erased. Furthermore, Revelation 17:8 tells us plainly that there are some names which are not written in the book ever. Therefore, we could also call this the "start full" view, but it fails at Revelation 17:8. Then there is the "start empty" view. It would seem to make more sense to have zero names in the Lamb's book of life at the beginning—because we are all sinners deserving of eternal punishment from birth, our names don't deserve to be there. One's name could be added when one comes to faith in Christ. I think that is a very common understanding. But even that doesn't work, because it seems there are some names that are present in the book from the foundation of the world, and some that are not (see above explanation). Neither the "start empty" nor the "start full" views of the book of life work. Think about this very important related issue. Who has the power to put a name in or out of the book of life? If your answer is "people" then you will likely have a start-full or start-empty view. You are reflecting the idea that salvation not only involves a person's participation, but it is ultimately based on that person's choice. If your answer is "God," then you have an entirely different perspective. Then you are saying that salvation is ultimately based on God's choice. The latter better fits the Biblical revelation--God is the author of the book of life. But since God knows everything and in fact has decreed everything to come to pass as it does, He never has to make edits to His book. Consequently, I understand that names are not ever added or subtracted from the book of life. The names were set down there from before the foundation of the world and that list is fixed and inviolable for all eternity. It is the list of those known as the elect. Some of them have already come to faith, and some shall come in the future, but all will eventually come to faith while they are alive. (I believe that even infants who die in infancy are listed in this book, and God graciously regenerates them so they can partake in the eternal kingdom. But I digress into an area of some debate among theologians.) The impossibility of erasure reflects the doctrine of eternal security. The impossibility of addition means that people who are not elect won't be saved. This may sound harsh, but follow the next paragraphs. Now, who are the elect? I don't know, and no one but God knows. Well, we can know if someone comes to genuine faith, and we can know about ourselves if we are believers. We do know there those whom God has graciously chosen to bless with salvation because of certain clear texts of the Bible (2 Thess. 2:13, 1 Thess. 1:4, 2 Timothy 2:10, Titus 1:1, and others). But as for the billions of people on the planet, we cannot know who the elect ones are in advance. Consequently, we preach the gospel widely, praying to reach people who will respond. Ultimately we won't know who is elect until after the fact. God knows the elect before the fact. If there is someone who genuinely wants to get saved, and is afraid they are not elect, I would quickly disabuse them of that thinking by telling them that God commands us to repent and believe the gospel. If you do that, you are saved, and thus prove that you were listed in the book. From the human perspective, since we don't and can't know who is "in" and who is "out," we should not worry about who is in the book, and instead focus on obeying God, and everything will be fine. This goes for evangelism too. Our job is not to figure out if someone is elect. Our job is to proclaim the gospel. Thu, 30 May 2019 08:54:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/05/The-Book-of-Life https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/05/Filtering-Your-Tongue For those of us familiar with kitchen equipment, think of a kitchen strainer or colander. Picture pouring some boiled vegetables or noodles in it. What you don't want is filtered out, and what you want to keep stays in the strainer. For those of us who are mechanically inclined, think of an oil filter in an internal combustion engine. Picture it as the engine is operating, with the oil pump pushing oil into the filter through the center hole, through the filter media, and out. What is left in the filter is the larger dirt particles. What flows out is cleaner engine oil, so that it can more effectively protect the rest of the engine against wear and damage. In both cases, the filter removes what is unwanted (water, dirt) and keeps what is wanted, "purifying" the filtered substance from whatever is undesirable. The Bible uses a similar word-picture, but instead of filter it is a bridle. "If anyone among you thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue...this one's religion is useless." (James 1:26) The bridle serves a similar purpose as the filter. It constrains what is unwanted from coming out of the mouth, and allows to come out of the mouth that which is desirable. The desirable qualities are love, kindness, encouragement, truthfulness, admonishment, graciousness, edification, warning, and teaching. What is removed is useless, mean, destructive, deceitful, coarse, profane, discouraging, untruthful, etc. The bridle is a figure of speech that refers to control. It is especially appropriate because in a horse, the bridle is put in the mouth to control the horse's movements. In our case, the bridle represents that the mind is to control the speech so that what comes out is filtered. The bad is removed and what remains is the good. So how is your bridle...er, filter...working these days? Does it need to be changed so that what comes out of your mouth in every conversation is pure and honorable in the sight of God? Thu, 23 May 2019 09:53:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/05/Filtering-Your-Tongue https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/04/Cremation-and-Burial In my seminar on death and dying, section 8 is about cremation. Because the question about cremation comes up frequently, I reproduce the section below. Introduction: He buried him in a valley in the land of Moab. Deut. 34:6 records the burial of Moses. It tells us that Moses was buried by God in the valley in the land of Moab. His grave was concealed so that no one knew where it was. We can speculate this was done purposely to avoid future generations turning Moses’ grave into an idolatrous stumbling block. But for this lesson, the point is that God buried Moses. So is burial the biblical way to dispose of a dead body, or are there other ways, particularly cremation? This lesson will argue in favor of burial as the best way to dispose of a corpse. I will not say that cremation is an outright sin, for there are a few instances in the Bible where it is used, but it should not be the general practice. Furthermore, you may have had a relative cremated while not understanding all the principles that may be raised in this lesson. Do not think you are being condemned in these notes for doing that. In preparation for this lesson, I found very helpful a paper delivered in 2006 at the Rice Lectures at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. The paper is entitled “Is it Better to Bury or to Burn? A Biblical Perspective on Cremation and Christianity in Western Culture” by Dr. Rodney J. Decker, who was at the time Professor of Greek and New Testament at Baptist Bible Seminary in Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania. This esteemed servant of God is now with the Lord. The Question In the whole issue of death and dying, a very common question is this one: “Is it OK to cremate?” But not much is written on the subject from a conservative Christian perspective. Decker reports that very few books on ethics even address the topic. Davis’s book Evangelical Ethics which I happen to have on my shelf does not have the subject listed in the index. One importance of Deuteronomy 34:6 is that it shows how God preferred to dispose of a dead body. This would immediately seem to give priority to burial, but the question is somewhat more complicated than that. Let’s look at a few issues to clarify how we as Christians should think about burial and cremation. The Culture and Cremation Generally cremation is practiced when there is less knowledge of and belief in the Bible. Consider cremation in other religions: Hinduism and Indian belief as well as Buddhism all practice cremation. In these eastern religions, the burning is supposed to release the spirit of the person and prepare it for reincarnation. Buddha was cremated and his example is followed down to today. Confucianism initially did not allow cremation but later forms did allow it. Cremation is associated generally with non-Christian spirituality. Burial was a cultural practice for Jews and early Christians, whether Jew or Gentile. That does not make it right or wrong per se. Furthermore, the Christian sub-culture with burial developed in various places around the world in the face of the pagan systems that it lived within, including the use of cremation. Christians lived—and died—differently than the pagans around them. The first phase of the history of cremation in America is connected to liberal Christian belief, Masons, Unitarians, and atheists. A second phase was a pragmatic phase, including the building of many crematories and perfecting methods. The cremation rate was about 5% by the late 1960s. Funeral directors had the upper hand in the market of disposing dead bodies, because bodies were cosmetically altered to make them look more natural. The third phase of cremation in America is from the 1960s until now, and it has been affected by the counter-culture movement (which often did the opposite of what was traditional), Vatican II (which allowed cremation in 1963 for Catholics), and the exposure of funeral industry practices. Cremation became an economic and commodity issue instead of just a religious one. Environmentalism also plays a role in the recent history of cremation (it is claimed to be better for the environment). The cremation rate today in the United States (2010) is about 30%. By 2025, it is projected to be about 43%. Cremation and burial are contrasted and promoted by the popular books and movies Star Wars (cremation of the Jedi heroes) and Lord of the Rings (burial for the good guys and cremation for the bad guys). The Bible and Cremation Does the Bible encourage cremation? No. There are no passages that encourage cremation. Does the Bible allow for cremation? Yes, but only in extreme circumstances. Thus cremation cannot be called a sin in every case, but in some cases it is. 1 Samuel 31:8-13 tells of the burning of Saul and his sons after their bodies were recovered from the Philistines. They were probably terribly decomposed and mutilated. This is a war-situation and not a normal civilian situation with regard to handling of dead bodies. Furthermore, 2 Samuel 2:5 shows that this was considered a kindness to treat the bodies the way they did—perhaps to avoid further desecration by the enemy. Finally, note that after the burning, the bones were buried, so burial was still done. 2 Samuel 21:14 shows that the bones were re-buried much later. Amos 2:1-3 and 6:8-10 also mention cremation—the first one as an atrocity and the second as a necessary way to dispose of a massive quantity of bodies. These are the only references to disposal of a body by cremation in the Bible. There are some other references to murder or attempted murder by burning. See, for instance, Judges 15:6 and Daniel 3. There are three passages where people are burned in judgment, so the primary emphasis is not on disposal of a body but rather on judgment. Leviticus 10:1-2 is the first, where Nadab and Abihu were killed by fire for offering “strange” or unauthorized or profane fire. Evidently they were drunk when performing tabernacle service and did not follow the proper procedures (Lev. 10:9). Numbers 16, particularly verse 35, recounts how fire came out from the LORD and consumed Korah and his co-conspirators. Joshua 7:25 is the third passage, which tells of the stoning and subsequent burning of Achan for his sin of covetousness and not obeying the “ban” put on the spoils of Jericho. In Joshua 6:24 the city was burned after killing of its inhabitants. This burning was used to implement the ban of 6:17. Achan was burned, in a sense, to complete this destruction of the city and all its inhabitants and spoils. In a sense, all these objects of judgment were cremated. The other times that bodies were burned was in human sacrifice (2 Kings 17:17; Jer. 7:30-31; 2 Chron. 28:3; forbidden in Deut. 12:31; Lev. 18:21). There is obviously no connection to cremation with these examples. So, the practice of cremation is not endorsed by the Scriptures. The Bible and Burial Many clear examples show that the normal Biblical practice is burial. Jesus was buried, and it was prophesied to be so (Psalm 16:10, Isa 53:9). Lazarus was buried (John 11:39). Sarah was buried (Gen. 23:19). Abraham likewise was interred (Gen. 25:10). Jacob was buried (Gen. 49:29). Many of the kings were buried too (e.g., 2 Kings 23:30 regarding Josiah). Do the Bible and Biblical example encourage burial? Yes. This is a pattern in the narration of what happened, but does not explicitly teach that burial is the only method allowed to dispose of a body. To solidify our understanding, we have to examine the Bible’s teaching on subjects related to the body and human nature and future. Biblical Theology and Cremation This category is called out separately from the previous category because these are ideas put together from systematic theology and not directly from texts in the Bible. The Connection with the Image of God We believe it is important to treat the human body with dignity and respect because it is part of God’s creation of man in the image of God. We do not honor the body by itself, but we show respect for the whole person and the person’s memory, of which the body is a part. Note that the burning of bodies, such as in the trash dump in the Valley of Hinnom (Isaiah 30:33, 66:24, Mark 9:48), is a sign of reproach and shame. Bodies left out for the dogs and vultures (2 Kings 9:36-37, Jer. 34:20), or even hung on a tree, indicated a curse on such people (Deut. 21:23, Joshua 8:29; cf. Acts 5:30, 10:39, Gal. 3:13). Such were not dignified or proper treatment of the body. Additionally, the symbolism of fire is not usually good. It is sometimes connected with purification, but more often it is connected with contempt, with judgment, and with Hades or Hell. If you are a materialist or believe in nihilism, then cremation is natural. That is because a materialist believes all of life is just matter and there is no “image of God.” The mind and spirit are just molecules and chemicals and electricity and so forth. When we die, we just cease to exist. The natural thing for such a person would be to elect to be cremated. If you view the spirit as the “real person,” then you will be more likely to accept cremation because the body is not relevant after death. If you believe that the body is a part of the image of God, then burial will be the acceptable way to dispose of the corpse. What method of disposal is most dignified? Does active burning and destruction best honor the image of God in man? Or does allowing the natural process to decompose the body seem a better method? The Unity of the Human Body and Spirit A person is not just his spiritual part, nor is he just his material part. Both together make a human being according to Genesis 2:7. Furthermore, the natural state of human existence in this life and in Heaven or Hell is an embodied existence. All will be resurrected at one time or another (1 Cor. 15:22, Rev. 20:12). The state of the spirit being “naked” at death (2 Cor. 5:3-4) is not normal, and it is only temporary. Because both are part of the human, the body should not be treated as irrelevant. At a funeral, I almost always say that the old tent (2 Peter 1:14) is not being put away forever, but will be resurrected according to 1 Cor. 15 and 1 Thess. 4:13-18 and many other passages. It is common to hear the phrase that “Grandma so-and-so is not here at the funeral, she is in heaven.” But the reality is, a part of her is down here, and her spirit is in heaven. Obviously, her conscious existence is not down here; it is in heaven. But that body is her body. It belongs to her. If instead you believe that a person possesses a body instead of the body being an integral part of the person, then cremation will not be a problem for you. The Connection with Resurrection Does the Christian’s future hope have anything to do with how to dispose of the body? Yes. Just like baptism by immersion in water symbolizes death and resurrection with Christ, so burial follows the teaching of Paul in 1 Cor. 15 about being planted and raised. Burning and grinding up a body does not seem coordinate with planting and the hope of a future imminent resurrection. The question arises as to how God will resurrect a cremated or otherwise destroyed body. This is no problem for the omnipotent God, who will resurrect our bodies so they have a substantial identity with our bodies before we died. As to the question of the precise molecules he uses, we do not need to concern ourselves with that. Our bodies are always changing with old cells dying and new ones being formed. And, our resurrected bodies are like plants compared to the seeds that were planted in death. Seeds and plants obviously have differences, but they are inextricably linked. We cannot object to cremation on the basis that it will somehow prevent us from being resurrected because that is just not the case. Our objection has to come from other reasons, which we have discussed already. Summary of Theological Issues When the many burial narratives are connected to theological issues of the image of God, the unity of the human personality, and resurrection, the narrative is strengthened so that it gives direction about what we should do—burial. Other Issues Organ donation is not a sin and is up to the discretion of the person before they die, or family of the person who has just died. It does not prevent the rapture or resurrection in any way. Someone may be inclined to donate their body to science. This is a noble goal, since the person probably wishes to help their fellow humans have less pain and suffering. I could not say that it would be a sinful decision. From what I have heard, bodies that are donated are treated with a certain dignity, though whatever is done to the body in terms of anatomy or other studies may be less than dignified. For instance, at the University of Michigan Medical School, there is a memorial service for families after the bodies are "used." Conclusion What is the best way to display our Christian convictions about honoring the image of God, about following the Biblical example, and about picturing a future resurrection hope? Cremation seems to fall short in all these areas. A more wise approach is to follow the example of burial. Decisions should not be reduced only to economics. Otherwise, cremation would win every time since it is cheaper. We should decide things based on the Bible and on the glory of God. Tue, 30 Apr 2019 12:03:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/04/Cremation-and-Burial https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/03/Tolerance-in-Society For sake of clarity, let me state up front that I am very strongly opposed to abortion at any stage of pregnancy. Consequently, I am not personally tolerant to the practice of abortion, and I don't look favorably upon those who practice it or promote it. I'm concerned for their eternal souls, for they too will be raised from the dead and face the judgment of God. Therefore, although I can't find abortion tolerable, I have a compassion for those who think it is OK, and those who promote it as a positive good, because their thoughts are darkened. They are not thinking right, and I hope they won't find that out at the judgment seat of God—when it is too late. But putting that all aside for the moment, let us think about our society. It is, on the whole, tolerant of abortion. It allows babies to be killed, and increasingly so, even up to the moment of birth, or even after birth, as recent news has shown. I would argue that since the society is tolerant of abortion, which has the irreversible effect of stopping the beating heart of a creature of the homo sapiens species, that logically our society should be willing to tolerate a number of other things. The most liberal among our society, since they tolerate the ending of the life of a baby, should be able to easily tolerate lesser things like: Christians preaching the gospel; Christians refusing to support gay marriage; Christians refusing to support transgender practice; Christians refusing to use state-mandated language such as certain pronouns, lest they face jailtime; So-called victimless crimes like drug possession and use; Churches and other religious organizations refusing to hire those who don't agree with them; Constitutional carry of guns; Harvesting of sea turtle eggs; Killing of deer to reduce herd population; Having a Bible in the public school library; Inviting a Christian pastor to talk about his job and beliefs in a public school; Public schools sending children to the Ark Encounter in and Creation Museum in Kentucky; Unlicensed hairdressers; Home schooling; Circumcision; Families who want to live in a patriarchal arrangement; Skepticism about vaccinations or refusal to do some vaccinations (what's the worst that can happen?); Racist speech; Preaching against other religions and sexual sins (such as homosexuality, heterosexual or homosexual lust, fornication, pornography, pedophilia, and bestiality). I could go through this list and tell you some things I'm for and other things I'm very much against, and yet others that I'm a little on the fence about. My views on these issues flow from a different presuppositional foundation than that of the liberal--a high degree of respect for life, among other things. But that's not my point here. The point is that someone who supports abortion should be fine with all the the above things which have far lesser consequences than the ending of a human life. Otherwise, he (or she!) is morally and logically inconsistent. Tue, 09 Apr 2019 15:09:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/03/Tolerance-in-Society https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/04/Ahabs-Disobedience-Regarding-Ben-Hadad Here is today's question: I’m reading through first Kings, and am clear in the first half of the chapter but am starting to get lost in chapter 20. Why did King Ahab make a pact with the evil king Ben-Hadad. And why did a prophet ask to be stricken? The implication of 1 Kings 20:13, 22, and 28 is that God promised the king of Israel (Ahab) to defeat the entire Syrian army, including their leader Ben-Hadad. God had appointed this troubler of Israel, Ben-Hadad, to destruction, much like Jericho was devoted to total destruction in Joshua 6-7. The Hebrew term for such a "ban" or destruction is herem. Why did Ahab make a treaty with Ben-Hadad instead of destroying him? Sin. More specifically, the sin of pride. He wanted to continue to be known as merciful (v. 31). What Ahab did was not worth what Israel got in return--they got cities taken by Ben-Hadad's father returned, and a marketplace in Damascus. To get that stuff, Ahab disobeyed God's instructions to him. He was told God would give the army into his hand; he was told to make plans to fight against the army in the coming spring season; and he was to be God's agent to defeat the arrogant Syrians who thought God was a God of the hills only, not the valleys. But he refused to finish the job. Without punishing the Syrian king, he was basically letting the nation go (even though many foot soldiers died). Ahab's sin is like that of Jehoshaphat of Judah (1 Kings 22). The latter got himself mixed up with wicked Ahab when he should not have. All too often, the people of Israel "went down to Egypt" for help instead of just following the Lord their God (see Isaiah 30:1-5). The prophet asked to be stricken to make his "costume" as a soldier more realistic. He was disguised because otherwise the king would have recognized him as a well-known prophet, and would immediately have suspected something before the prophet could make his point. His point was made by way of a fictional story, to show the king that someone who is entrusted to do something as important as he was (with Ben-Hadad) was not going to avoid consequences for his failure to carry out his duty. The only punishment fit for such a sin was a punishment that was commensurate with the crime--the life of the king and the people of Israel in place of the life of Ben-Hadad. Somewhat parenthetically, 1 Kings 20:35-36 show that obedience to a man of God was required even if it meant doing something fairly strange, such as inflicting a wound upon him. Because the neighbor would not obey, there was a penalty for that too. The severity of the penalty was probably due to the fact that the neighbor knew the man was a prophet and that he should obey him as one who was giving the word of God. It is unlikely he walked up to a random stranger and interacted with him this way. Tue, 09 Apr 2019 14:51:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/04/Ahabs-Disobedience-Regarding-Ben-Hadad https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/02/Why-Im-Not-a-Seventh-Day-Adventist-Part-5 Part 4. The fifth reason that I do not subscribe to Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) teachings, is that the writings of Ellen G. White are not equal to Scripture. Ellen G. White (1827–1915) was a key figure in the formation of the Seventh-day Adventist church. Her writings hold enormous influence in the church, approaching the influence of Scripture, if not equal to it. The attention given to a single human author is typical of a cult or cult-like religious institution and should cause immediate skepticism among those who are evaluating the movement. Furthermore, her writings were based on many hundreds of dreams and visions that she claimed were from God. For instance: “I am instructed that I am the Lord's messenger; that He called me in my youth to be His messenger, to receive His word, and to give a clear and decided message in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Although she says she never laid claim to be a prophet, this is the meaning of what she believed about herself and what she told others. White wrote that "old Jerusalem never would be built up." This was understood, among other things, to mean that there would be no rebuilt Jerusalem in the millennial period of history. This is clearly a false teaching, as we know from Ezekiel and other prophecies that Jerusalem will be a focal point of the future kingdom of Christ on earth. It is impossible for those who hold to the cessation of prophetic and other revelatory gifts to agree with her on the matter of her revelations. According to 1 Corinthians 13:8 revelatory gifts were soon to cease around the time of the Apostle Paul. The gifts have not reappeared, and will not do so until around the time of the return of Christ. In other words, whatever Mrs. White received was not from God above. It was from her own imagination, or from below. It certainly is not a valid addition to Scripture, for anything more added to Scripture brings the curse of Revelation 22:18. And if the material of her writing is in complete agreement with Scripture, then it is superfluous and not in fact new revelation at all. Part 6 Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:00:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/02/Why-Im-Not-a-Seventh-Day-Adventist-Part-5 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/02/Why-Im-Not-a-Seventh-Day-Adventist-Part-4 Part 3. A fourth reason that I am not an SDA is that historic Christian practice has been to worship on the first day of the week. Traditionally, the church has always worshipped on Sunday, following the New Testament example. This was always a clear point of distinction between the Christians and the Jews. Sunday worship can be demonstrated as the practice of the first, second, and third centuries A.D. Clearly, as we have shown in the earlier posts, there was Sunday worship in the middle of the first century. This easily predates the claim that Sunday worship started in Rome in the third century. Early on, some Christian groups began to interpret Sunday as the “Christian Sabbath” that replaced the Jewish Saturday Sabbath. We do not agree with this approach, as it invalidly mixes two categories—Law and Church—that should be kept separate. Some churches observed the Saturday Sabbath, though this practice has waned. But in practice, this Saturday and Sunday sabbath carries over in the "weekend" of western cultures. We treat both Saturday and Sunday as special days...the normal work-week is from Monday through Friday, and Saturday and Sunday are off days so that Jews and Christians can worship unfettered by the normal weekly schedule. Secularists simply take them as days off to do what they want, which is a form of rest from their normal work pattern. On March 3, 321 AD, Roman Emperor Constantine I decreed that Sunday would be the day of rest. For Bible Christians, however, this is irrelevant. We take our direction from Scripture, not from secular sources. Some Christians in history worshipped on Saturday night, following the Jewish pattern that the day opens with the evening prior. Part 5. Tue, 26 Feb 2019 12:56:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/02/Why-Im-Not-a-Seventh-Day-Adventist-Part-4 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/02/Why-Im-Not-a-Seventh-Day-Adventist-Part-3 Part 2. The third reason that I am not an SDA is that the Bible's teaching is that the Mosaic Law has been fulfilled. The Law was given through Moses to the people of Israel. It was not given to Gentiles. Still, the Law is an expression of the holiness of God. But when Christ came, He came to fulfill the Law (Matthew 5:17). And that He did, so that those who are in Christ also fulfill the Law by virtue of being in Him (Gal. 6:2). As a result, the Christian is not under the Law of Moses. All Christians know this intuitively because we do not keep kosher, or offer sacrifices at the (non-existent) Jerusalem temple. Christ set aside the food laws (Mark 7:19) and became the one final sacrifice for sins for all time (Hebrews 10:10). We do not travel to Jerusalem three times annually to worship God (John 4:21). The “perpetual statutes” of the offerings, priesthood, and showbread are not operational today, showing that they were not meant forever, but only for as long as God is working with the nation of Israel (Exodus 29:9; Lev. 3:17, 24:9; Numbers 19:21). Presently, the nation is under divine chastisement and will be until the millennial kingdom, when some of these rituals will be reinstituted, although in modified form. This includes the Sabbath law. It is no longer in force. A Bible text on this is Galatians 5:18, which explicitly says that we are not under the law, but instead are guided by the Holy Spirit. The present age, which some call the church age or the age of the Spirit, is characterized by a new regime of the Holy Spirit, instead of a regime of a written and burdensome code that no one successfully kept or could keep, except for Jesus. Romans 6:14-15 is another: Christians "are not under law but under grace." As circumcision was a sign of the Abrahamic Covenant, and the rainbow a sign of the Noahic covenant, so the Sabbath was a sign of the Mosaic covenant (Exodus 31:13, Ezekiel 20:12, 20:20). We are not under that covenant now (1 Cor. 9:20; Romans 6:14-15) and therefore keeping the sign is not necessary for us. Finally, to put yourself or others under the Law is to transgress the principle of Galatians 3:10. If you wish to keep the law in one point, you must keep the entire law, lest you bring upon yourself the curse mentioned in that verse. Relying upon the works of the law is a losing proposition, for by the deeds of the law no flesh can be justified (Rom. 3:20). Part 4. Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:49:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/02/Why-Im-Not-a-Seventh-Day-Adventist-Part-3 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/02/Why-Im-Not-a-Seventh-Day-Adventist-Part-2 Part 1. The second reason that I do not adhere to the SDA interpretation of the faith is the centrality of the resurrection of Jesus to the Christian faith. The apostles led the early church to worship on the first day of the week because the resurrection of Jesus Christ occurred on that day. As shown above, that one-time event happened on the first day of the week after the Passover holy days. This great event is the lynch-pin of the Christian faith. Without it, there is no Christianity (1 Corinthians 15:12-19). It is entirely fitting, therefore, to worship Christ on that day each week, and thus to give Christ the first part of our week. The original creation took six days and God rested on the seventh. The new creation began on the eighth day, so to speak, that is, the first day of the following week. Christians faithfully commemorate “Easter” each and every week they worship on the first day. Part 3. Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:31:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/02/Why-Im-Not-a-Seventh-Day-Adventist-Part-2 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/02/Why-Im-Not-a-Seventh-Day-Adventist-Part-1 I read a tract some time ago as to why a Seventh Day Adventist worships on Saturday. My first response to this is the Apostolic example of worshipping on the first day of the week. 1. The resurrection of Christ occurred on the first day of the week. All of the gospels are careful to note this timing: Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, John 20:1, 19. 2. The disciples’ practice was to come together to break bread on the first day of the week. This was in the city of Troas in approximately 56 A.D. This was nearly a quarter century (25 years) after Jesus died and rose. Church practice had some time to settle by this point, and they were worshipping on the first day. Note that breaking bread together likely refers to the Lord’s Table service, which is worship. In any case, they met in the evening to hear preaching of the Word. 3. Around the same year, the church in Corinth evidently met on the first day of the week. This was when the apostle Paul instructed them to set aside money so that there would be money saved up for Paul’s arrival (1 Corinthians 16:2). 4. This first day of the week was also known as the Lord’s Day (Revelation 1:10). This was as late as 95 A.D., or more than 60 years (two generations) after the resurrection of Christ. The apostle John noted this day by the name of the Lord. Part 2. Mon, 25 Feb 2019 11:43:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/02/Why-Im-Not-a-Seventh-Day-Adventist-Part-1 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/02/Why-Could-Paul-Not-Minister-in-Asia There is a fascinating little passage in Acts 16:6-10 that mentions the Spirit of God prohibiting Paul and his team from ministering the gospel in certain areas. Prior to this, Paul and Silas had been visiting churches planted during their first missionary tour though southern Asia Minor. They were joined by Timothy as they ministered in Derbe, Lystra, and surrounding cities. The team then wished to head west toward what was known as Asia (the region where Ephesus is), but the text says the Holy Spirit forbade them from going there. Then they turned their sights northeast toward Bithynia, but the Spirit also prevented them from going there. So the question posted to me was this: why not minister in those locations? The people there needed Christ just as much as the others, right? The prohibition/lack of permission doesn't seem in accord with the Great Commission, which directs believers to preach the gospel to every nation. The fact is that the text does does not tell us. So, was it: not the right time? too dangerous? like the Lord's command to the 12 not to minister in Samaria or in Gentile places, but only to Israelites (Matthew 10:5)? less urgent than something else? Since the text doesn't tell us explicitly, we need not speculate further. But the text does tell us that there was an urgent need in another place. That was made known via special revelation (a dream/vision). The team concluded that the Lord was using the vision to guide them to cross over into Europe and preach the gospel there. We know from later in the chapter that a business-woman and a corrections official needed to hear the gospel and be saved. A church had to be started in that place, the city of Philippi. A slave girl who was being trafficked because of her demon possession had to be rescued from her oppressors. The Lord was readying the people there and was about to open their hearts to the message of Christ. As I read the passage again this morning, I pondered the notion that in ministry, timing is important. This doesn't mean we are in a rush, but sometimes the "iron is hot" and work needs to be done about it. Sometimes there are people who are in a needy state "right now" and need our attention. For those needs, the time is now. It also illustrates a point that life and ministry is not something that is always going to present open doors. This should not discourage us. We must keep on going, and pressing into new areas and new directions, and we must stay keen about the circumstances and facts of what is going on around us. Since we don't have special revelation today, we must rely on godly wisdom gained from Scripture, and godly counsel from others who have gained such wisdom, so that we can ascertain which direction to move. There is another entire question, and that is how did the Spirit communicate this prohibition to Paul and the missionary team? It seems to be special revelation, but did it have a providential component as well? We will leave that for another post sometime. Listen to the sermon where I covered this passage. Tue, 12 Feb 2019 10:27:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/02/Why-Could-Paul-Not-Minister-in-Asia https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/02/Triune-Hymns A couple of weeks back, I asked the congregation if anyone would like to search our hymnal to find as many "Triune" hymns as they could find. That is, hymns that refer to all three members of the Trinity. This was timely because we have been going through a series on Sunday evenings on the Christian teaching of the Trinity. One of our members came up with this list (page number in Rejoice Hymns): I will Praise Him (5) Father, I Adore You (repetitive, 6) Come Thou, Almighty King (9) Doxology (14) Glorify Thy Name (repetitive, 16) Holy God, we Praise Thy Name (37) Be Thou Exalted (57) Praise Ye the Triune God (66) God is Holy (83) Holy, Holy, Holy (85) Holy is the Lord (89) Saved by the Blood (375) Eternal Father, Strong to Save (518) Glory Be to the Father (572, 573) The Church's One Foundation (575) Enjoy these hymns as you praise our great God! Thu, 07 Feb 2019 11:12:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/02/Triune-Hymns https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/01/We-Condemn-Infanticide You may have read in history how various cultures have handled "unwanted" babies. One common technique was to use exposure in the elements to kill a baby. Cold, dehydration, or hunger were used to kill the baby, probably out of sight and the sound of the cries of the little one. How cruel and barbaric such murder was. Human society has not progressed at all over the centuries. I woke up this morning to learn that the New York State Senate passed the so-called reproductive health act that provides for abortion up to the last minute of a pregnancy, abortion by lethal injection, abortion by non-physicians, adding abortion to the NY constitution, and repeal of protection for babies who survive abortions. Murderers cannot be punished by lethal injection in New York, but babies can be?! The representatives in the senate were clapping after passage of the bill in celebration. Governor Cuomo had the World Trade Center spire lit in pink color to celebrate this abomination. Wasn't that building built after the previous version was destroyed and thousands died on 9/11/2001? So now it is used as a monument to celebrate more death? My fellow Christians, the heart of man is desperately wicked. We knew that, of course, but it is not encouraging to see how brazen they are in their evil. Once the left started glorifying abortion as a sacred right there was only one place this could end up. Now everyone can see how dark hearted and twisted their thinking is. People who hold back in condemning this to avoid conflict or discomfort are copping out. There’s no excuse. —David Limbaugh, January 23, 2019 Tweet Yes, Christians condemn infanticide. We condemn abortion. If that condemnation brings conflict, so be it. In better news, new Ohio governor Mike DeWine said that he would sign the heartbeat bill, which will prohibit abortions from about 6 weeks after conception. That's still not perfect, but much better. Thu, 24 Jan 2019 08:34:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/01/We-Condemn-Infanticide https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/01/Dispensation-ChartTable Occasionally I see folks searching for a chart of the dispensations and Google refers them to an old document that was on our site. Here is that document: Dispensation Chart PDF Dispensation Chart Word document A more helpful document that is the fruit of more of my study on the topic is also available: Dispensation Chart PDF Dispensation Chart Libre Office format This one does not focus on the seven dispensations or the relationship to the covenants, but rather gives attention to the essential elements or sine qua non of the dispensational approach to Scripture. Sun, 06 Jan 2019 19:59:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2019/01/Dispensation-ChartTable https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/12/Friesen-and-Petty-on-Gods-Will I am reading James C. Petty's book Step by Step, a book about divine guidance. Years ago, I read a similar book by Garry Friesen and J. Robin Maxson entitled Decision Making and the Will of God. How do the teachings espoused by these two authors compare? The big picture that both authors describe involves three views of God's will, which I will boil down to two. The first is the traditional and charismatic view, which says that there is the sovereign will of God, which is not revealed. Then there is the moral will of God, which is revealed in Scripture in God's commands, wisdom, prohibitions, etc. And thirdly, there is the specific or individual will of God, which relates to God's plan for each individual. It is not revealed in the Bible, but can be accessed by some other means, whether circumstances, impressions, direct communication from heaven, etc. The second is the wisdom view of God's will. This view agrees with the first two types of God's will above, but does not agree with the third "individual will of God." In the third view, there is no such thing as an 'individual will' of God that is distinct from the moral and sovereign wills of God. It is my understanding that Petty and Friesen are in basic agreement with one another, because both teach the wisdom view of God's will. Both books are very valuable in guiding someone through what can be a deeply concerning issue for those who are in the midst of making major life decisions. Let's see if my understanding agrees with direct quotations from the two books I mentioned above. Petty writes: Garry Friesen has done an excellent study on whether there is such a thing as a personal will of God. He has also provided a definition of this popular notion (Friesen, 1980, 35): 'God's Individual will is that ideal, detailed life-plan which God has uniquely designed for each believer.' This plan is not contained in Scripture either explicitly or implicitly. Friesen rightly points out that this view underlies the 'Bull's eye' theory of the will of God. He uses the picture of a target to show how the moral will relates to the individual will of God. God's moral will is seen as a circular target. Our decisions are like arrows we shot at the target, seeking to hit God's will. Inside hte circle are all the lawful choices. Outside the target are all options that are always sinful. If you miss the target, your decision is sin against God and contradicts the moral law. The individual will of God is seen as the bull's eye on the target. That is the 'will' we seek to discover (hit) for guidance. If we miss the bull's eye but hit within the target area, we are not in sin--but we are missing God's best for us....We are then said to be outside the individual will of God, but still within his moral will (Petty, p. 97). Friesen has made an enormous contribution in exposing the unbiblical concept of the 'individual will of God' (Petty, p. 105). From this, we can see that Petty agrees with Friesen's critique of the individual will of God view. Petty definitely takes the wisdom view: The concept of an individual will separate from God's moral will is thus not scriptural. Despite its popularity, this concept should be rejected. What is often called the 'individual will of God' should be seen simply as the application of God's commands and character to the specifics of our lives. It is not a separate and distinct (nonmoral) sense of God's will. To sum up, God has a secret, sovereign plan for each of us that orders each detail of our lives. God also has a revealed, moral will for us that is summarized in the Great Commandment and has implications, preferences, and directions for extensive areas in each life. The wisdom we seek in divine guidance is God's moral will applied to the believer's life. Guidance is discerning God's moral and spiritual preferences as they apply to our life situations. It is not a detailed plan to be discovered or communicated by God in extra-scriptural communications (Petty, p. 101). And now to Friesen: The expression will of God is used in the Bible in two ways. God's sovereign will is His secret plan that determines everything that happens in the universe. God's moral will consists of the revealed commands in the Bible that teach how people out to believe and live. To these biblical usages (moral and sovereign wills), the traditional view has added a third. It is commonly taught that for each person, God has an individual will—an ideal, detailed life-plan for each person. In this traditional view, the key to decision making is to discover God's individual will, and then do it... By contrast, the emphasis of Scripture is on God's moral will. In fact, the Bible reveals nothing of an 'individual will' governing each decision.(Friesen, p. 115). Both Friesen and Petty believe that Scripture describes the will of God under two headings—the sovereign will and the moral will. Both criticize the traditional/charismatic view of the individual "bull's eye" view of God's will. Both say that Scripture does not teach this individual will. Mon, 31 Dec 2018 08:34:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/12/Friesen-and-Petty-on-Gods-Will https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/12/Lead-Us-Not-Into-Temptation The well-known statement in the model prayer reads like this: And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one (Matthew 6:13, Luke 11:4). It has lately been the subject of some controversy. One person asked me this: "How can the Catholic church rewrite the Lord's prayer?" First of all, let us reaffirm that we can pray that portion of the prayer verbatim if we so desire, from the text of our English version. God knows what He meant when He inspired the text, and the genuine believer intuitively knows what the text means. After all, God is able to deliver His godly ones from temptation (2 Peter 2:9). Even more importantly, the Bible makes it clear that God never God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. (James 1:13). What does this mean? It means that God does not solicit anyone to an evil thought or deed. Such is impossible because of God's nature. That truth must be held together with a complementary truth, that God does allow situations to arise in which our faithfulness to Him is tested. But it is our own flesh, the world, and the devil that allure us to do evil when a test arises. When we do face temptation, God promises to make a way for us to "escape" the temptation (1 Corinthians 10:13). That could be through changing or removing the circumstances or helping us remain faithful in the circumstances. As for the Catholic Pope "changing the Lord's prayer," the following quote from the Salt Lake Tribune is instructive: The words in the Lord’s Prayer that ask, "Lead us not into temptation," can cause confusion, Francis said. To make it clear that God would not lead anybody toward sin, the pope suggested a better translation of the Greek prayer from the New Testament would be something along the lines of, "Do not let us fall into temptation." (www.sltrib.com) I appreciate that the Pope is trying to help people not make the mistake of assuming God could tempt us to sin. So let us give credit where it is due. His solution, however, is not great. The Greek verb does not at all mean to "fall" into temptation. It means to cause someone to enter a certain condition. And even if the verb did mean to fall, that doesn't really solve the problem because then we might surmise that God does cause us to fall into sin, or culpably permit us to do the same. While God does permit all that occurs in the world, He does not actively cause sin. The mystery of that may be beyond our ability to comprehend, but it is an accurate statement of Biblical teaching on the subject. Any way you try to say this can be misinterpreted. So just remember: in this prayer, you are asking the Lord to help you not to sin, in whatever way He knows how. The bottom line is this: a true believer does not want to sin. He doesn't want to get close to the edge or be in places where he may be overwhelmed and fall into sin. Following the model prayer, he can and should pray that the Lord will deliver him from tempting situations, and deliver him from himself. The prayer in no way suggests that it is God who tries to get us to sin. The prayer is asking God to keep us AWAY from such situations! Indeed, God can providentially orchestrate our days to restrain sin in our lives, and to help us to avoid tempting situations. May He do that, and may we do our diligent part as well. Fri, 28 Dec 2018 18:31:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/12/Lead-Us-Not-Into-Temptation https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/12/Read-Your-Bible-in-2019 Here is the annual set of Bible reading schedules that you have become accustomed to seeing here. The dates are adjusted on these to match the beginning of the weeks for 2019. Some of the schedules encourage you to start on 12/30 or 12/31 depending on if the schedule starts on a Sunday or a Monday. Spiritual growth is correlated to Bible input. So, put more Bible into your mind! New for 2019! Read the Bible with Dr. Bob McCabe's Reading Plan Read the New Testament once Read the New Testament twice Read the New Testament four times Read the Old Testament once Key chapters for young readers Read the book of Acts and New Testament letters in just four and a half months, in chronological order Read the Greek New Testament in order from easier to harder Greek. Some other reading plans might catch your interest from prior years, easily adaptable to the coming year: Ligonier Bible Reading Plans ESV Bible Reading Plans Professor Horner's Reading System Read the Gospels Every Day If you would like another schedule that takes you through the entire Bible in the year, and with some chronological ordering in it, check out this schedule from bibleclassmaterial.com. This is from 2017, but it will work for this coming year just about as well. Mon, 10 Dec 2018 18:02:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/12/Read-Your-Bible-in-2019 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/12/The-Parent-Intercessor In Job 1:5, we learn that Job expressed his godliness by offering burnt sacrifices for each of his children. He was concerned that his children had sinned against God, and he wanted to do something about it. Before the time of Christ, and before the time of the Levitical priests in Israel, the role of priest fell to the patriarch of the family. Job was carrying out this role as family priest. Parents today can demonstrate godliness by doing something like this for their children. Obviously the application of animal sacrifice has run its course and is now obsolete. But we can certainly be sensitive to the possibility that our children may have sinned and not dealt properly with it. In fact, our children may not know practically how to deal with sin. We must instruct them in this. We should pray for them regularly. We should do what we can to sanctify our children, that is, set them apart for God and godliness by example and by directive in their behavior. The extra blessings that we possess today (Bible, churches, pastors, etc.) do not exempt us as parents from teaching our children. The Law of Moses explicitly taught the Jewish people to instruct their children constantly about the things of God. It seems to go without saying that the same principle applies to Christians today, even though we are not under the specific regulations of the Mosaic Law. As I studied this, I wondered how I could implement the principle here with respect to my own children. I have sometimes prayed for my kids, having in my mind a thought like Job had in 1:5, but with the uncomfortable knowledge that no forgiveness would be extended by God without the child's own repentance. So what is the point of us doing “priestly” activities today for others such as our children? There is no other mediator between God and men but the man Christ Jesus, so how can I as a parent be a kind of mediator, praying prayers that my children should pray, or offering confession that they should offer? In the first place, I don't believe that God despises this parental prayer: "Lord, please forgive my children their sins." God can answer this heart cry, though not in a direct fashion. God won’t forgive the child merely for your prayer's sake, as if your prayer is of sufficient merit. But God hears the faithful and fervent prayer of the righteous parent, and answer by bringing the attitude of repentance to the child and thus forgiving the child through the normal means of confession and repentance on the basis of the blood of Christ. Secondly, you can make that prayer more direct by asking God to grant repentance and forgiveness of sins to your offspring. God can do that—in fact, that is the business that God is in today as He calls sinners to Himself. Salvation is not an accident. It depends completely on the grace of God. God uses means, such as parental instruction, and church ministry, to accomplish it. But it comes through repentant faith, which is a gracious gift of God. Let us ask God for it for our children. Third, you can express confession for your own sins in raising your children, which may be reflected in some measure in their own misdeeds. Perhaps you have erred in teaching them, or erred in your example, in such a way that has misled them and been a factor causing their sin. That doesn’t exempt them from responsibility or liability toward God, but it can be a factor. Regarding the matter of interceding for adults in a sacrificial context as Job did in 42:8-9, that is similar to above. We cannot do this directly today. But we can pray for those who have sinned and ask the Lord to help them see their sin. We can direct them as to how to deal appropriately with their sin by appealing to God through Christ about it. Fri, 07 Dec 2018 12:58:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/12/The-Parent-Intercessor https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/11/The-Gospel-and-the-Church This post may be most helpful to our friends who hold reformed theology. It has to do with the Old Testament revelation concerning the gospel and the church. I believe that some people may not be observing an important difference indicated in the words of the apostle Paul in two sections of Scripture. Here they are: ...the gospel of God which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord...Romans 1:1-3 ...the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery...which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the Gospel...Ephesians 3:2-6 In short, Paul is saying that the gospel of Christ was revealed in the Old Testament Scriptures, but that another truth—of Gentiles as fellow heirs, as part of the same body, and as partakers of God's promises—was not revealed there. I think there may be a tendency to conflate the two. We see promises about Christ and we see promises about Gentiles in some connection with Christ. We automatically connect those to "church" even though Paul does not. He sees the two ideas as distinct enough that he can say one was revealed and one was not. The distinction between gospel and church is fairly clear today. If for no other reason, we can see it in some of our friends who want to enjoy Christ's gospel, but not Christ's church. They are wrong to do this, of course, but the distinction is real nonetheless. It is true that the church partakes of Christ through the gospel, that is, the church builds on top of the gospel. The gospel was quite clearly portrayed in the Old Testament (see Isaiah 53 for instance). The church, however, was not clearly portrayed. Don't mix the two, as if the revelation of one entails and makes clear the other. It does not, certainly not in Paul's mind. Thu, 01 Nov 2018 07:47:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/11/The-Gospel-and-the-Church https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/10/Two-Quick-Thoughts-on-Self-Control-and-Perseverance A dear friend in ministry, Mal Borden, gave me these two thoughts a while ago, and I just found them written down in some notes I kept. #1: I cannot really control myself, but God will enable me to be controlled, and I can trust God to give me that ability. #2: Perseverance is progress not derailed by trials or by time. It is not giving up or in for the sake of usefulness to Christ. Sun, 28 Oct 2018 08:01:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/10/Two-Quick-Thoughts-on-Self-Control-and-Perseverance https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/10/The-Danger-of-Opposing-the-Faith I was reading in Acts 13 this morning, and came across this: But Elymas the sorcerer...withstood them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith (Acts 13:8). Bad idea. The apostle Paul had to remove that barrier to the gospel, and he had supernatural abilities to do so. Elymas ended up being blind for an undetermined length of time. This brought to my attention how seriously God takes it when someone attempts to keep others from the Christian faith. God hates that. And He will punish it. Some other examples: Matthew 11:12, 19:13-14, 23:13; Acts 13:45; 1 Thessalonians 2:16. So, all of you out there in society who are inclined to meddle in the faith-business of others--whether you are atheist or communist or whatever--please mind your own business. This advice is for your own good. If you are trying to keep children from learning the Christian faith so that they can make up their own mind, you are doing an awful disservice to them. Be aware that God takes note. Maybe you are a parent and you don't want your kids to get "too involved" in Christianity. Maybe you want them to have a nice career instead of going into ministry or missions. Take care what you are doing! Fri, 26 Oct 2018 08:37:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/10/The-Danger-of-Opposing-the-Faith https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/09/A-Few-Good-Men We are often reminded that "there is none good, no not one." And that is true because of God's perfect standard of good. Nevertheless, God wants us to be good, and He is busy about transforming His people into good people. Years ago, the former pastor of our church, known to some of you reading this, would routinely ask people how they were doing. You would think nothing of it, because it seemed to be the start of a routine conversation. “I’m good,” you would answer. “Wait a minute!” Pastor would reply with a loud voice. “The Bible says there is none good, no not one!” It was a real “gotcha” which worked because of the turn on the word ‘good’ in which it is being used in two different senses—one sense in your response and a different sense in Romans 3:12. But in fact there are people whom God has deemed to call good because His salvation has made them good. His Word records a number of examples: There is Barnabas, who "was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith" (Acts 11:24). "There was a man named Joseph (of Arimathea), a council member, a good and just man" (Lk. 23:50). There was another Joseph, betrothed to Mary, who was a just man (Matthew 1:19). There is a class of good men of whom Jesus spoke: "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things" (Matt. 12:35). This is like the passage that says, "a good man obtains favor from the LORD" (Prov. 12:2) and "a good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children" (Prov. 13:22; see also 14:14). There is Job, who "was blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil." (Job 1:1 and repeated several other times). Another was Cornelius. Others reported of him that "he is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people" (Acts 10:22). His Old Testament faith was completed as he believed in the Jewish Messiah. Another was "Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good testimony with all the Jews who dwelt there" (Acts 22:12). Abraham was called "God's friend" (James 2:23). We cannot imagine God having a "friend" who is bad! David was a man after God's own heart (Acts 13:22). Zacharias and Elizabeth "were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless" (Luke 1:6). Phoebe was a servant of the church in Cenchrea who was a helper of many (Romans 16:1-2). There are Priscilla and Aquila, and many others mentioned in Romans 16. It is God’s business to turn people who are not good into people are who are. Justification declares us to be righteous based on the righteousness of another, so we are “good” in the estimation of God as He sees us in Christ. More than that, the initial gift of regeneration makes us into new people. This gives us the basic equipment we need to be genuinely good in practice. Through the ongoing process of sanctification, God gradually transforms us so that we become something different than we were. God is working to transform our behavior, our minds, our character, our attitudes, and everything about us so that we become good, like His Son. Yes, God is working to change our personalities—not to eliminate the beautiful diversity that distinguishes us from one another, but to progressively eradicate those sinful parts of our personalities until we reach glory. Goodness is a gift from God. It is a communication of His infinite goodness to finite creatures. It is not something we work up to, pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps. I am so thankful for that. But what to do when we fail to be good? We often fall short. Some temptation grabs hold of us. Some emotions or words come out which are contrary to the Spirit’s influence. We behave inappropriately. In our failures, the ancient sage Job is a great example. God tells us that He was a good man. But even Job got off track when he spoke out of turn against God. In Job 40:3-5 and 42:1-6, Job admitted that he was wrong. He repented in dust and ashes. Then God declared that Job spoke what was right, and accepted him (42:7-9). Thanks to God that He is merciful to those with a contrite heart and a broken spirit. The somewhat paradoxical truth of the situation is this: for a person to be godly, he must repent when he sins. Said another way, a good person responds to sin in her life by changing her mind about that sin, confessing it to the Lord and asking for help to avoid it in the future. The righteous repent. The unrighteous do not repent. Repentance is a mark of the righteous. Of course, a person who never sinned would never need repentance. But that is not our lot—not until after the rapture. And so, for us to be like Christ, we have to do something that Christ never had to do, and that is repent! Take courage, dear friends! When you stumble, express to God that contrition that you know He loves. Be broken over sin, and God will receive your penitent prayer with openness, mercy, and grace. The disciples asked the Lord if there were few who would be saved. The answer was, in short, yes. The door is narrow, and the way is difficult. The Lord wants a few good men. You probably know this phrase from the advertising slogan of the U.S. Marines. The phrase is known from 1799 (1779 by some accounts), when Captain William Jones advertised for “a few good men” to serve on the ship called Providence. That message has stuck for over 200 years. There is something special about being one of the “few,” especially when those few are good. There are no good people in one sense. But, there are a few good people in another sense. May God multiply that tribe. May you all be “good ministers of Jesus Christ” (1 Timothy 4:6) and “good stewards of the manifold grace of God” (1 Peter 4:10). This article is cross-posted at dbts.edu/blog and at the Southern Sentinel.. Mon, 17 Sep 2018 10:59:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/09/A-Few-Good-Men https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/09/Ghosts-Spirits-Communicating-with-the-Dead-And-Other-Things The question from a church member today was somewhat involved, but it had to do with the reality of ghosts, whether deceased human spirits can roam outside of their proper abode (Heaven or Hell), and the difference between Hades and Hell. Here is what I wrote in reply: 1. Sheol is a Hebrew word for "grave." That was seen by the Old Testament believer as the entry-way into the world of the dead. Both believers and unbelievers went to Sheol (Psalm 16:10, Jonah 2:2, Isaiah 14:11). 2. When a believer died in Old Testament times, his body was placed in the grave, and his soul went to Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:22). He cannot return to the land of the living, even as a ghost or spirit. 3. When an unbeliever died Old Testament times, his body was placed in the grave, and his soul went to Hades (Luke 16:23). Hades has a climate like Hell. He could not return to the land of the living. Therefore, "ghosts" as they are commonly known do not exist. He cannot cross the great gap between Hades and Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:26). 4. Today, when a believer dies, his body is placed in the grave, and his soul goes immediately up to heaven = paradise, not (in this present age) to Abraham's bosom. They cannot come back to "haunt" the living. They will be resurrected at the rapture or just before the millennial kingdom (1 Thess. 4:13-18, Daniel 12:2-3), and always be with Christ, in the new heaven and new earth. 5. Today, when an unbeliever dies, his body is placed in the grave, and his soul goes immediately to Hades, same as #3 above. He is stuck there until... 6. At the great white throne judgment, his soul and body are rejoined (resurrected) and he is judged (Revelation 20:11-15). Then he is cast into the lake of fire (= Hell) because he did not trust Christ. 7. Notice in Revelation 20:14 that Hades and Hell are two different things (one is thrown into the other!). That is almost always misunderstood by people today. Hades will be emptied out, and Hell will be filled with those people. As mentioned above, the climate of both places is basically the same (hot). It is my understanding that there is technically no one in Hell today. All unbelievers are in Hades. The first residents of Hell will be the beast and false prophet (Revelation 19:20). Not even Satan is in Hell. We know this, because the Bible says that he roams about like a roaring lion (1 Peter 5:8). But he will go there (Revelation 20:10) after the millennial kingdom of Christ. Only then will all unbelievers go there (Revelation 20:15). 8. Are there "spirits" today? Yes. They are not "ghosts" as commonly thought, that is, the spirits of departed people. Rather, there are good angels and bad angels (= demons). And like Satan, the demons do roam about and do stuff in the world, and try to frustrate God's purposes and people. We can't see them; they are very stealthy; we can't even diagnose for sure when someone is afflicted with a demon. But that is OK, because He who is in us is greater than he who is in the world (1 John 4:4). We can pray for people who are acting weird and ask God to save them. Typically demonic influence is far worse in cultures given over to paganism, witchcraft, voodoo, and the like. Christian-ized cultures are not as affected. Our culture was more Christian-ized in years past; it is becoming more paganized today. So, we will be seeing an increase in demonic activity. 9. Reiterate: those in Hades cannot come and go from earth. They are confined in punishment. And since no one is in Hell yet, they can't come and go from earth either. Those in heaven don't come and go from earth either. Here's why: What kind of heaven would it be if the people there could come back and see all the sin and evil and disasters that are happening here? It wouldn't be very joyful, would it? To make it even more clear, remember that the Bible says that absent from the body is present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8). If you are present with the Lord (in heaven) that means you don't roam around in other places (the earth). Thu, 06 Sep 2018 16:10:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/09/Ghosts-Spirits-Communicating-with-the-Dead-And-Other-Things https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/08/Knowing-God Another short article that collects a few thoughts. Maybe they will be helpful to you. 1. God knows you. 2. You can know God (and in fact already do). 3. How? Through creation (Romans 1:19-20); through Jesus (John 14:8-9); and through the Bible as a whole. 4. Why is it important to know God? Because God says that we are to be holy as He is holy--so we must have some knowledge of Him. But this is impossible in and of ourselves because of our sin, so we must also know Jesus, who can take away our sin (1 John 3:5). 5. Trust in the name of the Lord, and rely upon God (Isaiah 50:10). Return to the Lord, and He will have mercy (Isaiah 55:7). Mon, 13 Aug 2018 22:28:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/08/Knowing-God https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/08/Thoughts-on-Church-Membership Just some random thoughts for you: What do you value in your church? Do you treasure the people? Coming to listen to the sermon is NOT membership. Is your partnership (= membership) in your church a meaningful one? 1 Timothy and Titus, among other NT books, advocate a church ordered in a certain fashion, with pastor(s) and deacons. Is your corporate spiritual life carried out in such a body? (Hint: a parachurch organization such as on campus, or a Bible study fellowship, is not a church.) Mon, 13 Aug 2018 16:57:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/08/Thoughts-on-Church-Membership https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/08/Incentive-to-Evangelize-Jewish-People Today's question: If all Jews will be resurrected and enter the kingdom as Ezekiel 37:1-14 seems to indicate, then why should we evangelize Jews? Before we dismiss the question on grounds that no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born again (which is true), we should pause and read Ezekiel 37:11-12. There, the Lord explains the vision in 37:1-10 about the dry bones. The bones represent the whole house of Israel, which will be resurrected from their graves, and they will be brought into the land of Israel. God will put His Spirit in them, and they will live (verse 14). Does this mean that every Israelite who has ever lived will be blessed to enter the kingdom of Messiah and share in eternal life? If we couple this with Romans 11:25-27 and Zechariah 12:10-14, we might think we can make a case for the universal salvation of all Jews, regardless of their faith toward Messiah (or God, as they knew Him in the Old Testament). This all then sounds like there may be some kind of dual covenant salvation, with one way of salvation for Gentiles, and a different way for Jews. Let me be clear that I do NOT believe like that. I refer you to Ezekiel 20:33-38. When the Bible says that "and so all Israel will be saved," (Romans 11:25-27), the Ezekiel passage cautions us that this is not an "automatic pass" for all Jews. Verse 38 says, "I will purge the rebels from among you, and those who transgress against Me; I will bring them out of the country where they dwell, but they shall not enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the LORD." We can be certain of this: Paul is not saying that all Jews will be saved because of their Jewishness, regardless of their response to the Messiah. It is true that there will be a mass conversion of living Jews at the time of Christ's return, but evidently there will be some holdouts (rebels), who will be purged out of the nation as judgment for their unfaithfulness to God. As for those Jewish people who die prior to the second coming, there is no second chance, post-mortem evangel, or "automatic pass" by which they will be resurrected to eternal life even though they rejected Jesus Christ. This is because they are not all Israel who are from Israel (Romans 9:6). That is to say, just because someone descends from Israel doesn't mean that they share the faith of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And since they don't have the faith, they don't share in eternal life. They don't share in real "Israel-ness" as God defines it, that is, as a combination of Jewishness and faithfulness. So, there remains a great incentive to evangelize Jews, just as we need to evangelize Gentiles. All are under sin; all are guilty before God: both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 3:9). Mon, 06 Aug 2018 08:57:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/08/Incentive-to-Evangelize-Jewish-People https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/07/Paul-the-12th-Apostle Today's question comes from one of our young people: Was Paul an apostle, and considered one of the twelve? How could he be if he did not see the Lord like the others? I tried to keep the answer brief, so I didn't cite all the verses. But here it is: First, there were 12 apostles. But Judas was a bad apple, and wasn't genuine. So, after he betrayed the Lord, there were 11. Then after Jesus ascended to heaven, the 11 picked Matthias to become the new 12th apostle. He had been with them throughout Jesus' ministry and saw all the things they did. Now, as for Paul, he definitely was an apostle (1 Timothy 2:7). But he is number 13. His selection was different than the others, because he saw the Lord on the road to Damascus after Jesus had already gone back to heaven (Acts 9:3-7, 17). He saw Jesus at other times too (Acts 22:18, probably also 2 Corinthians 12:4). He received the good news directly from the Lord (Galatians 1:12). His ministry was also somewhat unique, for God sent him to the Gentiles to preach Christ (Romans 11:13). Thu, 05 Jul 2018 08:50:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/07/Paul-the-12th-Apostle https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/06/Christs-Suffering Last evening, Pastor John O'Dell taught our church family about the suffering of Christ on the cross from Matthew 27:45-46. The message was not recorded, but we captured the following points from his lesson. Christ's suffering on the cross... demonstrates the depth of God's love. demonstrates the vileness of sin. demonstrates the severity of God's judgment on sin. demonstrates the deceitfulness of the human heart, with regard to the people who witnessed His torture and suffering, yet were unmoved (Jeremiah 17:9). shows that believers will not be forsaken, because Jesus was forsaken for them. Thu, 28 Jun 2018 12:10:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/06/Christs-Suffering https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/06/James-41-10 How shall we interpret James 4:1-10? The entire book of James seems to be directed toward believers, at least generally so. But there is some very strong language in chapter 4 that seems to indicate readers who were heavy into sin, so much so that they might seem like unbelievers: Wars Fights Desire for pleasure Lust Murder Covet Not asking God Asking amiss Spending on personal pleasures Adulterers Friendship with the world Enmity with God Spirit that yearns jealously Proud Sinners Double-minded This sounds suspiciously like the worldly wisdom mentioned in James 3:14-16. Where does this stuff come from? James identifies the source in verse 1: an internal heart problem where desires for pleasure are in control of the person's behavior. Whether this is a description of a believer or not, none of this is good or acceptable. If a member of the church behaved consistently like this and without repentance, what would the church do? It would have to conclude that the person is not acting like a believer should act. It should then call the person to repent. The call would look something like this: Submit to God Resist the Devil Draw near to God Cleanse your hands Purify your heart Lament Mourn Weep Turn laughter into mourning Turn joy into gloom Humble yourself before God If the person responds properly with humble repentance, all will be well. If the person does not, then they are giving off strong evidence that they are not genuine in their profession of faith. Fri, 22 Jun 2018 14:53:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/06/James-41-10 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/06/When-Did-the-New-Testament-Begin A quick thought. I was just reading someone who said regarding the structure of the Bible, "There are two testaments; no one questions that." And I won't question it. But I will ask a related question: When does the New Testament actually begin? The easy answer is "the book of Matthew." But of course, Matthew was written somewhat after the events it records were over. So maybe we should be more precise and say something like "at the incarnation." But is even that answer correct? I don't think it is so simple. In Matthew 10:5-6, the Lord commissioned the disciples to take the kingdom-at-hand message to the house of Israel. He specifically told them not to go to Gentiles or Samaritans. This certainly doesn't sound New Testament-ish. Matthew 11:13 says, "all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John [the Baptist]." I take it that Jesus is classifying John as an Old Testament prophet. He is the last of those prophets. He is certainly a transitional figure as he called the nation to be prepared for the coming one. But his close ties to the Old Testament and his prophetic calling for repentance supports the notion that the "New Testament" doesn't really start with the ministry of John. In Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus said, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do." It is clear that Jesus is telling the people, even at this late date in His ministry, that they are responsible to keep the law of Moses and submit to the authority of even its errant administrators. This is not a New Testament mindset. I can't imagine Paul saying those same words in light of Romans 6 and the New Testament situation in which he existed. So when did the New Testament begin? We might place it at the great "It is finished" recorded in John 19:30, or at the subsequent resurrection of Christ, or at the giving of the Great Commission in Matthew 28:18-20. Or, better yet, how about at Pentecost with the full coming of the Spirit's new ministry after the Lord's assigned "wait in Jerusalem" period was over (Acts 1:4-5; 2:1)? This birth of the church seems to mark the real starting point of the new era. We call that the New Testament era. We will leave for another time a discussion of precisely how the church relates to the New Covenant that gives our New Testament its name. Thu, 07 Jun 2018 11:52:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/06/When-Did-the-New-Testament-Begin https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/06/Kingdom-of-Heaven-Suffers-Violence Today's question: What does it mean in Matthew 11:12 that the kingdom of heaven suffered violence, and the violent take it by force? Here is the text from three modern English translations: And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force. (Matt. 11:12 NKJV) From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it. (Matt. 11:12 NIV-2011) From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. (Matt. 11:12 NIV-1984) Initially, I find it interesting to note that the 2011 NIV changed the 1984 NIV translation, albeit with a footnote mentioning the earlier translation. A careful study of three key words in the verse seem to me to be determinative that the NKJV and NIV-2011 are in fact correct. The verb "suffers violence" is a passive verb that seems to follow BDAG's first definition, namely to inflict violence on, dominate; or, in the passive, to be afflicted with violence or to be dominated. The second semantic domain, "to gain an objective by force" seems only to fit in a triumphalist interpretation of the verse and the kingdom of God. The problem with this interpretation is that the kingdom of God is not, at Matthew 11, in triumphant mode. It is being rejected by many in the nation of Israel, and its leaders. By chapter 12, it is clear that the leaders want nothing to do with Jesus and His kingdom announcement; and in chapter 13, the Lord adopts the parable method of teaching in order to conceal truth from the unbelieving in his audiences. The noun "violent" (really, "violent ones" or "violent men") is a fine translation, and most modern English versions render it this way. Unfortunately, this is a hapax, but given the negative things happening to the kingdom proclamation in Matthew at this point, the connotation is not good. Violent people are doing something bad to the kingdom. The next verb, "take it" or "have been raiding it" fits this negative connotation. The verb is harpadzo, the same verb used for the rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. It means to seize, steal, kidnap, snatch, to (attempt) to take control of something. Of course at the rapture, the snatching up of believers is a good thing. But it doesn't seem so here with the kingdom. The national leaders of Israel have been and will continue to attempt to shut up the kingdom of heaven to potential entrants (Matthew 23:13). They are, by their actions, effectively taking the kingdom away from the generation present during Jesus' public ministry. They would soon kill John the Baptist, and not long after, they would kill Jesus as well. The murder of John the Baptist puts him squarely in the line of prophets in the Old Testament, which often suffered similar fates at the hands of the rebellious houses of Israel and Judah throughout Old Testament history. In addition to the above, it is important to consider that believers are not well described with words such as "violent" and "seize." The parallel passage in Luke 16:16 presents somewhat of a difficulty for this view, but perhaps Jesus said something in addition to what Matthew 11:12 records. And I think it could be argued that instead of "everyone is pressing into it," a valid translation would be "everyone is (trying to) dominate it." It it obvious that not everyone is trying to enter the kingdom, for there are a large number of people who are rejecting Jesus' teachings. But neither is everyone trying to destroy the kingdom either. Perhaps pessimistically, I assume that there were more who were against Jesus and His kingdom than for it; in that case, everyone would be a bit of a hyperbole, meaning "basically everyone is against it." For full disclosure, let us hear the opposing viewpoint from John MacArthur in his study Bible: But the kingdom can never be subdued or opposed by human violence. Notice that where Matthew says, "the violent take it by force," Luke has "everyone is pressing into it" (Luke 16:16). So the sense of this verse may be rendered this way: "The kingdom presses ahead relentlessly, and only the relentless press their way into it." Thus again Christ is magnifying the difficulty of entering the kingdom..." In response, I would say that the kingdom was in fact opposed by human violence. Humans killed its first messenger—John the Baptist. They also killed its second messenger—Jesus Christ. They did much the same to the apostles. This happened because God permitted it to be so for His own good purposes, not because it was out of His control. In the end the kingdom cannot be opposed, but along the way, it in fact has been opposed. In addition, MacArthur lets Luke 16:16 control the interpretation of Matthew 11:12, whereas I advocate for the reverse. In the big picture there is little difference in our theology of the kingdom, at least in its future manifestation, for I agree that the kingdom will eventually take over the whole earth--not in a postmillennial way, but suddenly when Christ returns. And the way of entry is narrow into this kingdom. We can learn this much from a synthesis of other Bible texts. I'm convinced that we don't learn it from Matthew 11:12. Mon, 04 Jun 2018 16:52:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/06/Kingdom-of-Heaven-Suffers-Violence https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/05/Who-Created-the-Universe The simple, "Sunday school" answer to the question is, "God created all things." But this question is a little more particular than that: We have heard that all three members of the Trinity were responsible for creating the universe. That seems to be the case in the Genesis account. But based on Colossians 1:16, it seems specifically only the Son of God, Jesus, created the world. So who created the universe? In Genesis, the text says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (1:1). The next verse adds, "And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters" (1:2). Verse 26 says, "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...'" The plural pronouns do tip our thinking in favor of the Trinity, even though the Son is not mentioned specifically here. Colossians 1:16 focuses specifically upon the Son when it says, "For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth..." Hebrews 1:10 quotes the Father speaking to the Son and saying, "You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands." John 1:3 is also speaking of the Word-made-flesh, Jesus, and it says, "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." To add even some more complexity to the question, Psalm 104:30 attributes a creative role to the Holy Spirit: "You send forth Your Spirit, they are created..." So who created? The theological resolution is that in all their activity, the Trinity perfectly and harmoniously accomplishes the work that the Triune God does. They together as One plan, decree, create, guide, and sustain all things. Now, this does not mean that all three of their fingers pressed the "create button" at the same moment. Each member of the Triune God does a particular part or function of the overall task. The preposition through in John 1:3 helps us understand this. It was through the Lord Jesus Christ that God created all things. Said another way, God (the Father) created all things but did so through the agency of the Son. Similar wording is found in Col. 1:16: by Him all things were created. So there is no contradiction or confusion here. All the members of the Trinity were involved in the creation of the universe, each in their own role. We could think of it in terms of a delegated role. The President did such-and-such thing in international affairs, but it may have been actually accomplished through one of his ambassadors, rather than an act that he himself did. This is like how God creates new spiritual life in a person who becomes a believer. The Father draws (John 6:44); the Spirit gives life (John 6:63); the Son also gives life (John 5:21). The Father foreknows and chooses (1 Peter 1:1); the Spirit washes and regenerates (Titus 3:5-6); and the Son bears our sin in His body (1 Peter 2:24). Mon, 21 May 2018 07:47:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/05/Who-Created-the-Universe https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/05/A-Chronological-Bible Today's question: I have heard that there is a chronological Bible in a number of versions. I know little about it. What do you think about a chronological Bible vs the "regular" one? I am concerned about the change. Should I be? And my response: I don't own a chronological Bible, but I don't have a problem with the idea of a chronological Bible. What is a chronological Bible? It presents the contents of the Bible in the order in which the events occurred. So, after you read a certain portion of Acts 20, then you would read Romans, because that's when Paul wrote Romans. Or, since Isaiah ministered to such and such Israelite kings, you would place his prophecies during the narrative of those kings in Kings and Chronicles. Such a Bible can be helpful to put together the Bible's history, which is important for us to understand things properly. After all, we believe in a *historical*, grammatical, literal principle of interpretation. So, we need to get the history right. The order of books in the Bible is not inspired. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible's order of books is different than the English Bible's order. I don't lose any sleep over that issue, but it is interesting to know that fact and why. I have a slight concern if a particular chronological Bible splits a book in pieces and rearranges those pieces into various locations. The reason for the concern is that the Holy Spirit superintended the authors to write the books in a certain order. Splitting sections may have an important contextual impact on the study of certain sections. As long as the chronological Bible is a supplemental tool in your "study tool box," we need not worry about the above concern. You don't need a special chronological Bible. You can find a chronological reading schedule and just read your regular Bible in a different order than you normally do. Mon, 07 May 2018 23:26:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/05/A-Chronological-Bible https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/04/Judgment-Day-and-Forgiveness Editor's note: I hesitate to attribute words to God, but I mean for this fictional genre to communicate biblical truth in a dire situation. My hope is that someone who is deceived about their own state of grace may read it and be caught up short, and by this means be able to escape their self-deception. Imagine you are standing before the Lord just after you have breathed your last on earth. You've left behind your family and friends and are standing alone with the Lord. "Hello. So...why are you here?", He asks. "I just died, I guess. I think its time for my judgment. I want to come into heaven. There are people there that I want to see." The Lord replies, "OK. I've been watching you and pondering your case for a long while." "You have? I thought..." "Yes, I know what you have been thinking. About believing in Jesus and all that." "I do!" The Lord continued, "Indeed, you did believe in Him, after a fashion. But what bothers me is the fruit of your life. It seems to deny that you really knew Jesus." Anxiety rising, you ask, "What do you mean, Lord? I did a lot of stuff at church, wrote stuff about you, listened to Christian music a lot, and other things." "I know that too," God replied in a very kind voice. "But there are other things you aren't mentioning. Let me take one area, as an example. Forgiveness has been a tough thing for you, hasn't it? I watched how you treated your spouse and kids. When you did something wrong, you were grateful for their forgiveness because it meant things could go on normally and without much interruption. But when they did something wrong, you were highly critical of them. Not always to their face, mind you. Sometimes it was just in your heart, or in your journal. And sometimes you were right about how wrong they had been." "But sometimes," He went on, "when they came to you with an apology, asking forgiveness, you didn't listen. Your spouse might have apologized for days afterward. They did that because they were stricken in conscience that they had done wrong. But it didn't matter to you. You said that they shouldn't have wronged you in the first place. It was too late to apologize. And, you complained that they were picking and choosing what to apologize for. You refused to forgive them." "I admit that. Because they were inconsistent! Their inconsistency just made me mad! It was like they were using me." "I understand that completely. I see a lot of inconsistency in your life, and it is not pleasing to me either. I sometimes wonder if people who say they believe in Jesus are just using Me." "But I did believe in Jesus." "I know you did, but remember, I said that you believed after a fashion. I meant that you believed in a certain kind of way. You knew the fact of who Jesus is and what He did, but there was a key thing missing." Your anxiety level spiked. "I do believe, Lord. And I'm sorry for not being forgiving like I should have been." The Lord spoke very directly, "I know that you are trying now to make this right, but it's too late. The damage has been done. I sense that you are just saying you are sorry, but if you really meant it, you would have been sorry back then for your lack of forgiveness toward your family, and you would have changed your behavior in your life long before now. I can tell you are not truly repentant because of what your sin did to Me; nor are you repentant for what the sin did to them. Since I know your heart, it is evident that you are regretful for what the sin is now doing to you. That's not true repentance, which is part of what real faith in Jesus is all about." Continuing, He said, "Do you remember the parable of the unforgiving servant? What Jesus was trying to teach you was that if you had truly experienced My vast forgiveness toward you, you would be able to forgive others. The fact that you did not extend forgiveness to your penitent family members shows that you didn't understand the whole concept of forgiveness. Unfortunately, you have been very deceived." Sat, 28 Apr 2018 20:18:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/04/Judgment-Day-and-Forgiveness https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/04/Coming-Out-as-Conversion-Language I was speaking with an elderly Christian lady on Sunday afternoon. She is more than 90 years old. When we spoke about a certain person's Christian salvation story, she expressed the idea using "coming out" language. This person "really came out for the Lord." This struck me as a bit curious given the baggage of that phrase today, but I said nothing about it to her in our conversation. Afterward, I pondered some more. Obviously, she comes from a generation where "coming out" had nothing to do with the sexual revolution that is going on in the most recent generation. Today, the phrase "come out" refers to an act or time in a person's life where they express that they do not conform to the "assumed" (hetero-) sexual behavior or (birth) gender. My elderly friend used "coming out" language to refer to someone turning from sin and living for Christ, with even the implication of "coming out" to the church instead of keeping a distance from the church. The connotation was that someone really took a stand for Christ, and became an outspoken Christian. The LGBTQ movement has borrowed this terminology to express the conversion or change that they feel as they express their behavior and preferences to the world outside of themselves. It is a religious experience for them. I wondered further if this has implications for "conversion therapy" that has become a hot-button issue these days. If someone "comes out" gay, then should they not also be able to "come out" from their prior "coming out"? In other words, I would think that they should be able to come out as a Christian, and thus leave behind their conformity to the gay or trans lifestyle. Maybe we should call it "deconversion" therapy. No doubt, some will argue that "coming out" as gay or transgender is simply making a statement as to what the person always has been, so it is not as much a conversion as it is a realization or open expression. I understand the difference. Christian "coming out" is not "expressing what I always have been," for no one starts out life as a true Christian. Christian conversion is miraculous; it is deeply transformative. It is very different than "coming out" as it is used today. Tue, 17 Apr 2018 10:05:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/04/Coming-Out-as-Conversion-Language https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/04/Teaching-on-Divorce I taught on the subject of divorce from Mark 10 and related passages this past weekend. I was struck how some of the strongest encouragement to me after the message came from several individuals in our assembly who have experienced divorce, and some of those have been remarried. I take a very conservative stance on divorce and remarriage. These people were not in the least put off by my teaching, but were 100% in agreement. (I'm sure there were others who weren't--but I did not hear from them!) One point I take from this is that you can have people in your church who have experienced the horrors of divorce, but that doesn't mean you have to tiptoe around the subject. You know how it is--when you get to Mark 10 or Matthew 19 or 1 Corinthians 7 in your expositional series, you are tempted to skip those sections, or talk in a very milquetoast way. Look—divorce is wrong. Preach against it. Tue, 17 Apr 2018 09:51:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/04/Teaching-on-Divorce https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/04/About-Submission The Christian teaching of submission is very difficult for most people to swallow—even Christians. This is especially so when it has to do with the relationship of wives to their husbands. I recently thought of a way to explain submission that may help you see if you want to follow the Lord in this matter, or if you are not a believer and want to understand better the idea of Christian submission. It is not the Neanderthal, patriarchal thing that you think it is! In Scripture, the idea is not that an outside person causes you to submit. Instead, the idea is that you subordinate yourself—and gladly so—in obedience to God’s instruction. Submission to an authority figure is an act of obedience to God, which shows love for God and, in turn, appreciation for the authority figure and his/her office. Insubordination is a sin against God, and shows no appreciation for the authority. It is this way for citizens and their government, or children and their parents and teachers. Those cases are in a sense “easy” because they have to do with relationships where the power distribution is lopsided. The government can put you in jail, and your parents and teachers are, at least early on, much bigger than you are! But what about situations where the submitting party and the authority party are, roughly speaking, peers—like two adults in the workplace or in marriage? Let’s think about the example of a workplace. Let us suppose that a conscientious woman employee has a boss who is a nice man. Notice how her submission operates. He asks her to do X, Y, and Z, and she happily jumps into working on those tasks. She doesn’t complain all day about it. She completes the tasks, and then asks for more! Now, you may object that she doesn’t have much choice because he holds the power of the paycheck over her head. True…except that she can quit and, in many cases in a good economy, get another job without much trouble. But let’s assume further that she is not working just for the money. She is more principled than that, and her work situation is a happy one. She cheerfully submits herself to her boss. She wants to be helpful, and indeed likes the feeling of being helpful. It makes her feel useful and fulfilled when she submits to her boss. She does so for the good of the company, so that the company can succeed and grow and be even better than it was before she came. She may work to exhaustion many hours per week to carry out this submission fully. But let us also assume that this same woman has some marital problems at home, though her husband is generally a nice guy. What’s different at 5pm when she goes home? What happened on the commute home that changed her cheerful and fulfilled-by-submission disposition to one that is hard and implacable? Does her happy submission stop because “it’s just her husband” that is asking her to do X, Y, or Z? Does she happily submit to his requests or directives? If not, what’s the difference between work and home? Why can she submit at work, but cannot seem to bring herself to do so at home? Why is it that wives don’t want to submit to their husbands, but they will submit to their female or male boss every day of the week? They sometimes even do so when the boss has requests that are unreasonable or a waste of time or doesn’t provide the best tools for the job, or whatever other non-ideal circumstances you can think of (kind of like an imperfect husband would be). I have a partial answer. The flesh and its allies, the world and Satan, have some clever tricks up their sleeves. They can deceive us into being happily submissive to earn the paycheck at work, in a job that we could quit anytime. But they turn around and try to destroy our marriage by making us insubordinate at home in a relationship that we promised (with “vows”) to uphold with all of our might at the wedding ceremony. The important relationship—marriage—is subject to destruction, and the optional relationship—work—is upheld as sacrosanct. Dear friends, beware of the rebellious spirit in your heart that causes this strange situation. Mon, 09 Apr 2018 18:16:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/04/About-Submission https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/03/Fruchtenbaums-Error-on-Inheriting-and-Entering-the-Kingdom In his book Faith Alone, Arnold Fruchtenbaum is explaining the fifth chapter of Galatians regarding the works of the flesh. He writes: [Paul] points out that people who practise such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God. While these works are common among the unsaved, saved people, of course, can also fall into these sins. While all will enter the Messianic Kingdom not all will inherit the Messianic Kingdom, meaning not all will be rewarded and receive a position of honor and glory in the Kingdom. So how we live now does matter and will matter for a thousand years. These works [of the flesh] in believers do not mean that they will not enter the Kingdom, but it does mean that they are not walking on the basis of the newborn human spirit. (Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Faith Alone: The Condition of Our Salvation, Ariel Ministries, 2014, p. 53.) The distinction between entering and inheriting the kingdom is unheard of among conservative Christians, and is rejected by most dispensationalists. More than that, it is unbiblical. Paul is calling out people who practice the sins of the flesh. People who are idolaters, sorcerers, heretics, murderers, drunks, and so forth will neither enter nor inherit the kingdom of God. In the same way, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 describes these people. They are unsaved. They will not enjoy the kingdom for 1000 years, nor will they enjoy heaven or anything else after they die. A believer may fall into temporary sin such as some listed in Paul's sin lists. But that is not the same as those who practice such sins, relish in them, never repent of them, and continue to live in them. In the bigger picture of theology, we need to beware of the three-tiered system of theology that teaches there are (1) unbelieving fleshly people (who don't enter or inherit the kingdom), (2) believing carnal people (who enter but do not inherit?), and (3) believing spiritual people (who enter and inherit?). We must recognize that unbelieving people are fleshly and that is the same as saying they are carnal. Anyone in the so-called carnal state needs to leave that state, as Paul commands. That state is not acceptable because it is exactly the same as the unbelieving=fleshly state. Granted, one may behave carnally for a temporary period of time, but one who lives carnally all the time, with no repentance, shows absolutely no fruit of salvation, despite any of their verbal protestations to the contrary. There are TWO kinds of people according to Romans 8:5-9. Only one will inherit/enter the kingdom, and heaven. The other will NOT. Tue, 13 Mar 2018 19:49:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/03/Fruchtenbaums-Error-on-Inheriting-and-Entering-the-Kingdom https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/03/GraecaII-to-SBLGreek-Conversion-Macro If you have older documents that use the GraecaII non-unicode Greek font, you may be interested in a macro that I wrote. It runs in Word 2010 and newer. It takes all GraecaII characters, including accent marks, and converts them to SBLGreek font. SBLGreek is a free Unicode font. The advantage of this is that the old encoding goes away. Another advantage is that multi-character codes, e.g. letters that have a couple of diacritics on them, are transformed into a single unicode character. This will "future proof" your document so that it will not become unusable in the future due to older fonts becoming unavailable. Any Unicode font with Greek support will be able to show the document properly. Update 5/10/2018: More labor resulted in a second macro that does the same for the SymbolGreekII ASCII (1-byte) font. It converts to SBLGreek as well. This was tested on the entire book of 1 Timothy and works. There are probably some combinations of letters and accents that don't work, so buyer beware! Let me know if you have any troubles with it and I can give an assist. The macros are available here: GraecaAndSymbolGreekConversionMacro.txt Download the macro text file first. You may have to right click the link above and instruct your browser to "Save link as..." Go into your Word document, navigate the menu to Developer | Macros, and create a new macro. You will be in the Visual Basic program at this point. Copy the contents of the macro file in the space where you can type code. Make sure you overwrite any code that is already in place. Save the file. Now you can go back to Developer | Macros, select that macro, and run it. Hopefully it will work. On large documents, it may take a few of minutes. Before running the macro, be aware of where your cursor is, and what text is selected. If some text is selected, the macro will run only on that text. If the cursor is halfway through the document, it will only convert the text after the cursor. You usually will want to de-select all text, and put the cursor at the beginning (Ctrl-Home). Macros last revised 9/4/2018. Thu, 01 Mar 2018 09:08:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/03/GraecaII-to-SBLGreek-Conversion-Macro https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/02/Peters-Two-Witnesses-Apologetic-in-2-Peter I am just completing an expositional series in 2 Peter in our church, and yesterday I delivered a message at the chapel service of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary from Peter's letter. In preparation for the message, I noted that Peter appeals to two witnesses as the basis of his apologetic, that is, his defense of the gospel. The first of these witnesses is found in 2 Peter 1:16-18. There, Peter flatly denies the charge that he is propagating a clever myth. Rather, he personally eyewitnessed the majesty of the Lord Jesus Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration. But far more than a mere "experience," Peter has recorded for us a heavenly revelation with apostolic authority. Jesus, God the Father, James, John, Peter, Moses, and Elijah were present at this unveiling of the regal glory of King Jesus. Peter's letter, and all the NT writings, are classed the same way--as apostolic revelation. So Peter's first witness boils down to this: the New Testament of the Bible. The second of Peter's witnesses is found in 2 Peter 1:19-21. There he writes of the prophetic word that is altogether reliable. It did not originate in man, but rather with the activity of the Holy Spirit superintending the authors of the Old Testament. And that is why it is entirely trustworthy, because it originates with God. Peter reiterates these two witnesses once again in 2 Peter 3:2: That you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior... We have the Old Testament in the mention of the holy prophets, and the New Testament in the phrase "commandment of...the apostles." By two or three witnesses, let every word be established (Deut. 19:15, Matt. 18:16, 2 Cor. 13:1). You cannot get more reliable witnesses than the Old and New Testaments. The Christian faith is founded upon solid, historical, revealed truth from heaven. There is no reason to abandon it for the speculations and scoffing of men. Fri, 16 Feb 2018 08:43:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/02/Peters-Two-Witnesses-Apologetic-in-2-Peter https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/02/Baptism-and-Church-Membership Today's question from a person in our church: When a person claims to be a believer in Christ and yet refuses to be baptized, how can we as a body of believers take their faith seriously? I know that baptism in itself does not bring salvation, but the refusal to be baptized seems to promote one's own will and desire over that of our Lord. I am sympathetic to your understanding that the church cannot take that person's profession of faith seriously. While we want to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who professes faith in Christ, we cannot give Christian recognition to such a person through membership, because they are being disobedient to the very first command that the Lord gives them after they are saved. That is why we don't admit such people to membership. In our constitution, we specify the requirements of membership as follows: regeneration, baptism by immersion after profession of faith, conduct befitting of a Christian, and agreement with constitution and doctrine of the church. Someone may object this way: "You cannot refuse church membership to one of God's children." I feel like responding this way: "If you can refuse the Lord's command to be baptized, we can refuse your application for membership!" The reality is that the Lord does authorize the church to put people out of membership through the process called church discipline. Since this is the case, we understand that the church must also be able to refuse to grant membership to those who would need to be immediately disciplined. Mon, 05 Feb 2018 21:48:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/02/Baptism-and-Church-Membership https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/02/Recommended-Books Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary has just released its latest recommended book list. I recommend it! Fri, 02 Feb 2018 09:27:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/02/Recommended-Books https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/01/The-Error-of-Amillennialism I read Tim Challies' article about why he is not dispensational and was interested to find that his defense of amillennialism was basically that it was the position he was taught from youth, and he had not been convinced otherwise since that time. I believe pretribulational premillennialism most accurately represents the Biblical teaching on God's plan for the future. This view is sometimes called dispensational premillennialism, to distinguish it from historic premillennialism. I have written on it in prior blog posts (here, here, and here). This view relies on the principle of literal interpretation, in which words are understood according to the plain meaning. This is not the principle used by amillennialism or postmillennialism. And that is not a straw-man charge: consider this quote referenced by Challies regarding the definition of amillennialism: Allison: "With respect to eschatology, the position that there is no (a-) millennium, or no future thousand-year period of Christ's reign on earth...Key to this position is its nonliteral interpretation of Revelation 20:1-6: Satan’s binding is God’s current restraint of him, enabling the gospel to advance everywhere. Saints who rule are Christians who have died and are now with Christ in heaven. At the end of this present age, Christ will defeat a loosed Satan, ushering in the last judgment, the resurrection, and the new heaven and earth." (The Baker Compact Dictionary of Theological Terms). Note well that the nonliteral interpretation of Revelation 20 is key to this view. I could never believe such a notion, and so amillennialism is basically dead on arrival when it comes to my doorstep. I argue opposite, that the literal interpretation is key to understanding this portion, and indeed any portion, of the Bible. And in fact, the literal interpretation is feasible. It presents no impossible difficulties. A critical review of Allison's definition raises several deficiencies in it. First, Satan is not presently bound in any meaningful sense of the term "bound." 1 Peter 5:8 tells us that Satan prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking people to devour. He freely deceives individuals and nations throughout the world. Second, the gospel has not advanced everywhere: certainly not in closed countries; and even in open countries it is now on the decline. This agrees with the pessimistic view that the Bible presents about mankind and its sin (2 Timothy 3:1, 13; 4:3). Third, the ruling saints, if they are ruling from heaven, are not doing a very visible or effective job of their rule. There is no territorial realm which they rule over; there are no people they rule over; and their ruling function does not appear to be exercised here on earth. World conditions hardly indicate the uniformity and righteousness that would be present if in fact glorified saints were in charge of things. Furthermore, there seems to be little or nothing that requires ruling in a perfect heaven. Fourth, Allison says that the saints who rule with Christ had died and are now ruling in heaven. But the text of Revelation is explicit that they "came to life" (CSB, ESV, NAS, NET, NIV). That is, they were resurrected and then reigned with Christ! Fifth, the kingdom is always portrayed in the Bible as future and earthly. To redefine the rule as present and heavenly is another example of how a nonliteral interpretation does damage to the plain meaning of Scripture. I am aware that this assertion demands proof. That will have to be taken up another time. Sixth and finally, at least for this brief critique, it needs to be noted that the Bible is explicit that there are (at least) two resurrections. They are separated by a period of 1000 years. There is not one general resurrection. Wed, 17 Jan 2018 10:54:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2018/01/The-Error-of-Amillennialism https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/12/Bible-Reading-in-2018 With this post, I am publishing the annual set of Bible reading schedules that I have prepared for the past nine years. Read the New Testament once Read the New Testament twice Read the New Testament four times Read the Old Testament once Key chapters for young readers Read the book of Acts and New Testament letters in just four and a half months, in chronological order Read the Greek New Testament in order from easier to harder Greek. Some other reading plans might catch your interest: Ligonier Bible Reading Plans ESV Bible Reading Plans Professor Horner's Reading System Read the Gospels Every Day If you would like another schedule that takes you through the entire Bible in the year, and with some chronological ordering in it, check out this schedule from bibleclassmaterial.com. This is from 2017, but it will work for 2018 just about as well. Fri, 29 Dec 2017 21:01:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/12/Bible-Reading-in-2018 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/11/What-is-Predestination Today's question: What does the Bible mean when it uses the word 'predestination'? Definition of a Key Greek Word The main Greek word that we have to understand is proorizw (proh-or-ídzō). It occurs six times in the New Testament. The Greek dictionary relevant for the common Greek of the New Testament era defines this word as, to "decide upon beforehand, predetermine." The person who does the predestining is always God, for no one else has the power, knowledge, or wisdom to do so. We look now at Scripture to see how the Holy Spirit uses this word to convey truth. Uses of This Word I have selected to provide Scriptural quotations from the New American Standard because it is an older literal translation and it consistently translates the Greek word as "predestine." It is helpful to read the verses before and after these to get the full picture of what is being said. Acts 4:28 "to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur." Although Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, and the people of Israel were to blame for the death of Christ, God in His all-wise purpose had decided beforehand that Jesus would die. Rom. 8:29 "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren." There is a group of people who, verse 28 says, love God and are called by Him according to His purpose. These are all Christians. These are the ones that God "knew beforehand," in the sense of setting his love upon them from the foundation of the world. He also decided beforehand that they would be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ. Rom. 8:30 "and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified." Those same ones that he decided beforehand to make like Christ, He called, justified, and glorified. In whatever way God decides beforehand, we should be clear that all Christians are described by these ideas. 1 Cor. 2:7 "but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God predestined before the ages to our glory." Here the object of predestination is not a person or event, but it is "the wisdom of God" which refers to the plan of God revealed to us through His Spirit, that body of truth which centers upon Jesus Christ. God decided beforehand that it was by this way that He would save His people. Eph. 1:5 "He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will..." Here again the object of predestination is people. God decided beforehand to adopt believers into His family through Jesus Christ. This was in accordance with what He was pleased to will to be done. Eph. 1:11 "also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will..." God decided beforehand to make us heirs. This too was in accordance with His purpose and will. I am convinced that God predestinates certain people to salvation The above texts are the only ones that use this particular Greek word. However, there are quite a few others that deal with related subjects like election and foreknowledge, as well as depravity, which causes the need for this work of God in our lives. The above texts, however, are sufficient to convince me that God did decide before I was born to do something with me that would bring me into salvation. He decided beforehand to: conform me to the image of Christ adopt me into His family make me an heir with Jesus I thank Him for those truths. I am fully confident that whatever God decided in advance will indeed come to pass. Nothing can frustrate the will and plan of God. What God decides, He ensures will come to pass without fail. What About Others, Those Not Saved? If anyone is not foreknown, predestined, called, justified, or glorified, then that person simply is not a Christian. Why God chose this way is something that I cannot explain, and I don't believe I have to be able to explain it because the Bible doesn't go into any great detail on it. What Scripture does say is sufficient: God will be glorified both in the salvation of His people, and in the judgment of those who reject Him. For this idea, I appeal to texts like Romans 9:21-23 (vessels of wrath/vessels of mercy and the outcome to show God's wrath, power, patience, and glory). Other relevant texts are Proverbs 16:4; Romans 11:22; and Romans 9:13-18. In the latter text, God says He chooses whom He wills, and the Bible tells us there is no injustice in God because of this. He has mercy on whoever He wants to, and He hardens whomever he wishes. That is His business, and I'm glad to leave it to Him because He knows what He is doing. I am too finite to be able to understand everything. Tue, 28 Nov 2017 18:11:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/11/What-is-Predestination https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/11/Purer-Eyes Today's question: What does the Bible mean when it says in Habakkuk 1:13, "You are of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on wickedness"? This does not mean that God does not see evil events and people, for he most certain does. For example, Genesis 6:5-7 states that God observed the continual wickedness of mankind, and decided to wipe out the human race. The same occurred around the judgment of Babel Genesis 11:5) and of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:21). What Habakkuk means is that God's holiness does not permit Him to look on evil or wickedness with approval. He cannot approve of the wicked acts of people; nor can He approve the people who do those wicked acts. He cannot tolerate evil or put up with evil people. This is a true truth. Habakkuk's understanding of this truth is the basis or reason for his perplexity at why the wicked Chaldeans are being permitted by God to judge the people of Israel. How can God do that? Habakkuk soon realizes that God will also judge the Chaldeans, and in part that judgement will be for the evil done against the people of Israel (most of chapter 2). Fri, 24 Nov 2017 17:56:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/11/Purer-Eyes https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/11/Politics-in-the-Pulpit Today I received a couple of questions about pastors talking about politics in the pulpit. The questioners' native tongue is Spanish, so I reproduce some of their questions here in the original language: Que opina que los pastores expresen públicamente su preferencia política? Mi pregunta es si es lícito que un pastor manifiesta públicamente su intención de voto. Te enfocarias en los temas valoricos solamente? Es decir, fijarse sólo en los temas de valores como aborto, matrimonio, etc. Cómo enseñas eso? Diciendo en qué fijarse para votar? Translation: What is your opinion of pastors who publicly express their political preference? My question is whether it is permissible for a pastor to publicly state his intention to vote. Would you focus on the value issues only? That is, to look only at issues of values ??such as abortion, marriage, etc. How do you teach that? By saying which way to vote? My short answer is this: A pastor should not speak about his political preferences from the pulpit. Obviously the question demands a longer answer. First, note that I answered the question about political preferences. Those have no place in the pulpit if all they are is personal preferences, that is, matters of indifference to God. The pastor's preferences are no more valid than the next church member's preferences. The pastor should be occupied with preaching God's word, not man's word. Second, we must recognize that the Christian faith touches on every area of life, and that includes those areas also touched by politics. Let me say that again, in more modern terms: the Gospel of Jesus Christ affects how we vote. It affects how we think about all kinds of issues. It is not just the good news that Jesus died for our sins. It also expresses the bad news that there are sins--things that are wrong to do or be involved in--and we must repent of doing them! There are many issues that are not preferences. That is, God cares about these issues because they touch some moral principle. Upon these matters, we can and must preach the whole counsel of God in order to give guidance to God's people in the church. The people need leadership, lest they be like sheep without a shepherd. And yes, they will go off in every direction if they are not taught. Third, in the United States at least, we are not permitted to preach or campaign for a particular candidate. To do so would be a violation of our non-profit tax exempt status. This situation was created by the so-called "Johnson amendment" which has the effect of limiting the influence of religious non-profits in the political process. But while candidate advocacy is limited, issue advocacy is strongly supported and upheld in our political system. So, fourth, we should have an influential voice in the political process, by being strong advocates for righteousness in the public square. For example, pastors should preach against abortion, and against supporting those who support it. We should preach against gay marriage and transgenderism because those are rebellion against God. And we should call those who support it to repent and believe in Christ. We should preach against lawlessness, and in favor of the rule of law so that God's purposes for government will be carried out instead of frustrated (Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:12-14). We should preach against the endless accumulation of debt because it ignores important principles in God's word, namely that we must live humbly within our means, and know that the borrower is servant to the lender (Proverbs 22:7). If we are in a society that has property slavery, as we had in the United States in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, we should preach against such slavery, based as it is on man-stealing (Exodus 21:16, Deut. 24:7) and vile treatment of fellow humans created in God's image (Acts 17:26). We should preach against political and financial corruption in society and government. Here is another example: we should preach against divorce and sexual immorality. John the Baptist did just that, and it cost him his life (Matthew 14:3-12). Fifth, we can encourage our people to get out to vote. That is part of their responsibility as good citizens of the secular state. Christians and others in society can be influenced by the preaching and teaching of pastors. We should make use of every opportunity to preach the righteousness of God, and the need for salvation in light of the evils of the society. We must also preach the glorious kingdom of Christ, which will clean out all the evil of our present societies and set up a perfect culture in which righteousness reigns. Tue, 14 Nov 2017 14:56:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/11/Politics-in-the-Pulpit https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/10/The-Spurious-Gift-of-Tongues Early in his Christian life, Pastor Ed Stelling (later, minister of Charleston Harbor Bible Church) was caught up in the tongues movement. He offered his testimony as to why he left the movement. Here are some arguments he repeated from a Brethren writer named Louis S. Bauman, who wrote a book entitled The Modern Tongues Movement, as to why the Pentecostal movement is false. 1. The gift of tongues was the least of the gifts (1 Cor. 12:28), not the greatest. 2. Tongues were a sign to the unbeliever (1 Cor. 14:22), not to the believer whereby the believer knows that he is filled with the Spirit. 3. Tongues was only to be spoken when there was an interpreter present (1 Cor. 14:27-28), but many times in public services that Stelling experienced there was no interpreter. No one ever asked if an interpreter was present. 4. The true gift was under the speaker's control (1 Cor. 14:32). In contrast to this, the Pentecostal believers had often told Stelling to "let go and let God." When he experienced the strange power and spoke in tongues, he was in a trance and could not stop speaking in tongues. 5. No woman was to speak in tongues in the public service (1 Cor. 14:34). But women were the chief speakers in the services Stelling had attended. Stelling testified of several issues that caused him doubts about the Pentecostal experience that he had. One was that it was suggested he divorce his wife because of her unbelief in the baptism of the Spirit and tongues. He reiterated that the tongues experience he had was supernatural. It was beyond what he could have generated in the flesh. "Since the Word of God proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was not the Holy Spirit, it could only be a deception of Satan, a counterfeit of the true baptism, the true fullness of the Holy Spirit." He was told by his old Pentecostal friends that he had committed the unpardonable sin by turning away from their doctrine. He says very clearly that, "the experience taught by tongues people, 'that the baptism of the Holy Ghost is an experience apart from salvation, and evidenced only by the individual speaking on tongues,' is of the devil." Also, "the teaching that 'only those who have spoken in tongues have been filled with the Spirit' is of the devil." Their experience is "instigated by Satan himself." He makes it very clear that he is not saying all Pentecostal believers are of the devil, but their doctrine and experience is. He is convinced that he himself was saved, though under this strange supernatural power for a time early in his Christian life. Listen to his entire testimony here. Tue, 24 Oct 2017 14:16:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/10/The-Spurious-Gift-of-Tongues https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/10/Blessed-Are-You-If-You-Do-Them For all the talk these days about how God wants us to be happy, I find it interesting that the word happy is not to be found in the NT translation of the ESV. It occurs twice in the NT of the NKJ, both translated from the word more commonly rendered blessed. The old KJV is a bit more liberal in its use of happy, but it only uses it 6 times in the NT, all from the Greek for blessed. Rather than desiring us to be happy, God desires us to be holy. But when we are holy, then we are truly happy. And the way of holiness is the way of obedience: first obedience to the faith in Jesus Christ, and then obedience in what He instructs us. According to Matthew 28:20, learning to obey what Jesus teaches is a key element in the Great Commission. We read of the connection between doing and blessing in John 13:15-17: For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you. Most assuredly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. (NKJV) Knowing is one thing; doing is another. You might know a lot of Scripture, but you will not have the kind of blessing Jesus is talking about here unless you do what you know. It is not just this portion of God's word that says so. Check out these additional passages: If anyone wants to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority. (John 7:17 NKJV) It may be instructive to look at a very literal rendering: "If anyone wills the will of Him to do..." That is to say, the precondition of understanding the source of Jesus' authority is that the person has to make a decision that he wishes to carry out the will of God. You have to make a real decision to "want" the will of God, and then to go about doing it. But He said, "More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!" (Luke 11:28 NKJV) Don't just hear. Hear and keep! But He answered and said to them, "My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it." (Luke 8:21 NKJV) The things which you learned and received and heard and saw in me, these do, and the God of peace will be with you. (Philippians 4:9 NKJV) Here is an explicit connection between God's peace and obeying what we read in the text of Scripture, particularly from Paul's letter. Verse 8 contains some specific instructions regarding how we use our minds. If we dwell on things that are right and true and lovely, we will be far more happy than if we don't. But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does. (James 1:25 NKJV) Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: (Matt. 7:24 NKJV) Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and [who] keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near. (Rev. 1:3 NKJV) Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the path of sinners, nor sits in the seat of the scornful; but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and in His law he meditates day and night. He shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that brings forth its fruit in its season, whose leaf also shall not wither; and whatever he does shall prosper. (Psalm 1:1 NKJV) As I studied this topic more, I realized there are quite a few verses that touch on the idea. This is a faithful saying, and these things I want you to affirm constantly, that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable to men. (Titus 3:8 NKJV) Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. (Matthew 7:21 NKJV) Behold, I am coming quickly! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book." (Revelation 22:7 NKJV) You are My friends if you do whatever I command you. (John 15:14 NKJV) He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him. (John 14:21 NKJV) Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:06:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/10/Blessed-Are-You-If-You-Do-Them https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/09/What-to-do-About-Repeated-Sin-in-a-Family-Member Today's question: why does my Christian spouse keep doing the same sins even after repenting of them? He continues to become angry, or avoid speaking with me, or make fun of me, or be mean to me, or use bad language, or not notice when I need help, or nag at me, or ... Here are some thoughts for you. First, you need to correct a latent assumption in the question, namely the assumption that a spouse can be perfected in a certain area and not sin again in that way. That is an assumption that is not warranted by Scripture. Certainly your Christian spouse should be improving in those areas where he or she is weak. But if your assumption were correct, and your spouse repented of sin #1, and then sin #2, soon he or she would be just about perfected. Your dear spouse is still a sinner, and will always be a sinner until he or she dies. Second, make sure that you are not being hyper-sensitive. Maybe you are incorrect in your analysis that your spouse is sinning against you. Maybe you have a feeling that he is mean, or she ignores you, or he is always angry, when in fact those things are not the case. Try to look at the situation from a couple of other perspectives to see if you may be over-reacting. Perhaps what you are after your spouse about is not a sin or even a big deal, but just a shortcoming that is part of this sin-cursed world. Third, realize that your spouse's struggle against sin is just as real as your own struggle against sin. He or she will continue to struggle with some sins just like you do. We believe Romans 7 is a reflection of the apostle Paul's own struggle with sin as a believer in Christ. He knew the right thing to do, but didn't do it right all the time. He had a battle against his own flesh (not to mention the world and the devil). What believer is there who has not engaged the battle with sin? There is no such thing as a Christian believer who is not engaged in that battle! If your spouse is beset with some sin, you have to be patient with him or her, just like God is patient with you. You must forgive 70 times 7, just like God does for you. You must love your spouse, even if he or she does sometimes act like your enemy (you love your enemies too, don't you?) Fourth, as much as you can, try not to make situations where your spouse can more easily fall into sin. For example, don't press an issue (or even bring it up) when your spouse is hungry or tired. If your nagging makes him angry, and then you get upset by his anger, how about trying to slow down the nagging? If your perfectionist tendencies or preaching frustrate her, how about cutting back on the perfect expectations or the sermonic material? If poking a little fun or bringing up past mistakes upsets your spouse, how about zipping your lip about those things? It is not your God-given job to test your spouse beyond what he or she is able, in order to see how they fare in your testing of their sanctification! Your behavior can help your spouse be more sanctified or increase his or her struggle in sanctification. Fifth, don't just focus on the negative! Exercise Christian love toward your spouse by highlighting the positive things in your spouse. Encouragement, support, positive feedback, appreciation, thankfulness, etc. are all demonstrations of love that will help your spouse and will set a positive tone in the home. This positive tone is self-reinforcing and will spiral up into a better atmosphere in the home. Focusing on the negative is also self-reinforcing and will spiral down into a worse atmosphere in the home, causing more problems. Putting these five points into practice is what love looks like in a home where two or more sinners reside. May God bless your marriage in these things! Thu, 07 Sep 2017 08:25:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/09/What-to-do-About-Repeated-Sin-in-a-Family-Member https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/08/Sins-Invisibility-Machine Some years ago I read an article by Greg Bahnsen entitled "The Crucial Concept of Self-Deception in Presuppositional Apologetics". Since then, I found that it is available as a much longer PDF file and on Kindle. A helpful summary article on this subject appeared at The Gospel Coalition. For some reason the idea and Bahnsen's attempt to explain it was fascinating to me. I have by no means wrapped my head around the concept yet, but I wanted to say something about it that struck me quite forcibly within the last couple of weeks. It was just this: sin is so deceptive that it masks its own existence from the one who is committing the sin. Sin has a self-cloaking or invisibility device that allows a practitioner to somehow not recognize that sin is actually present. Bahnsen explains that this happens because of various motivations and evidence rationalization. This deception can extend to others, as in Bahsen's example of a mother who can't believe her son is a thief. This is a critical topic to understand in Biblical counseling, for sin needs to be uncovered and repented of before real progress will be made in counseling situations. The Scriptures mention the concept of sin's deceptiveness several times: Romans 7:11 - For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. Hebrews 3:13 - but exhort one another daily, while it is called "Today," lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 1 John 1:8 - If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. What to do about this? Like I said, I'm not fully grasping this notion yet, but I do know this: we must be diligent in our own lives to do battle against the self-deceptive characteristic of sin. And, when we counsel others in their addictions, marriage problems, etc., we must recognize that self-deception is likely present at some level. This is why one person in a conflict can give a one-sided view of the situation so convincingly (Prov. 18:17). He or she really has gotten themselves to believe what they are saying. They may well be blinded by sin(John 9:40-41). Jeremiah 17:9 - "The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; who can know it? Mon, 28 Aug 2017 14:56:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/08/Sins-Invisibility-Machine https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/08/Millennial-Kingdom-Not-Exclusive-to-Israel In Perspectives on Israel and the Church: 4 Views, Chad O. Brand and Tom Pratt, Jr. criticize Robert L. Thomas's view of the kingdom on page 150: He then identifies that as the millennial kingdom, which in his view includes only Israel with Christ in the Holy Land. I read Thomas's chapter, and I did not get that exclusive of a definition of the kingdom from what I read--only Israel? It strikes me that Brand and Pratt are imposing their view of dispensationalism upon Thomas. Granted, I could have missed something in my reading of Thomas with my own predisposed view of dispensationalism. That matters far less than this fact: the text of Scripture is clearly against such an exclusive view of the kingdom, even on a dispensational reading of it. For example, Isaiah 19:25 speaks of Egypt and Assyria along with Israel, and a highway connecting them. We understand this to be in the millennial kingdom. Zechariah 14:18 speaks of judgment on any nation that does not come up to share in the Feast of Booths with Israel during the kingdom. Psalm 2 refers to the nations who will be subjugated under the world-wide rule of the Messiah. This too is during the millennial kingdom. Revelation 2:27 promises power over the nations emanating from the iron-rod rule of Christ. The Son has always been destined to rule all nations, not just Israel, according to Revelation 12:5 and 19:15. This reign will be shared with resurrected saints of unspecified ethnicity, according to Revelation 20:4, 6. We know that the faithful in Christ will be privileged to participate in this reign, according to 2 Timothy 2:12, which is a reference to the church. Thus the nation of Israel will be the head and not the tail: they will sit atop the nations of the world as closest to the Messiah in His reign (Deut. 28:13) instead of in the despised position they occupy in this age. Let theologians of every persuasion be clear, whether progressive dispensational, covenantal, progressive covenantal, or new covenant, that the millennnial kingdom includes Israel in its holy land, and Christ, and the church, and the nations of the world as well. Mon, 21 Aug 2017 19:20:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/08/Millennial-Kingdom-Not-Exclusive-to-Israel https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/08/Kingdom-Texts-in-the-Epistles Here is today's question, responding to the belief that the kingdom of God is future to the church age: How we do explain Colossians 1:13, Romans 14:17, 1 Corinthians 4:20, 1 Thessalonians 2:12, etc? Colossians 1:13 indicates that our citizenship has been transferred from the domain/kingdom of darkness to the domain/kingdom of Christ. We are therefore citizens of heaven (Philippians 3:20). So, our citizenship has changed, but our location has not changed. We still live in this earth, and Jesus is absent from this earth. His kingdom will come with Him when he returns. Remember--we are strangers/foreigners/pilgrims in this life. Romans 14:17 teaches that because our citizenship has changed, our conduct should match the conduct of a good kingdom citizen, even as we live here in this place while we wait for the kingdom. In other words, our future living arrangements and our present change of citizenship must affect our present conduct. 1 Corinthians 4:20. Earlier in the chapter, v. 8, Paul criticized the Corinthians for their attitude. They acted as if they were "kings already." They were not, because they were not in the kingdom. If the Corinthians were in fact reigning in the kingdom at that time, Paul would not be suffering the hunger and persecution that he was suffering! Their boastful attitude consisted of words. But Paul, who was an apostolic representative of the King, had "kingdom power" that was more than mere words. 1 Thessalonians 2:12 has the same idea as Col. 1:13 and Romans 14:17. God calls (present tense) us into His kingdom. Therefore we should walk as good citizens. A good source to read on this question is Alva McClain, Greatness of the Kingdom, chapter 25, p. 431-441. He points out that many times in the epistles, the kingdom is spoken of as coming in the future. For example, "If we endure, we shall also reign (future) with him" (2 Timothy 2:12). In summary, the future kingdom has important effects on present church life, but church life is not equal to kingdom life. God is using the church in the present age to call and prepare citizens of His future kingdom. Tue, 01 Aug 2017 08:39:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/08/Kingdom-Texts-in-the-Epistles https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/07/Inability I believe that people are totally depraved, meaning that sin has thoroughly affected every aspect of every person's being--mind, soul, spirit, heart, will, inclinations, etc. This doesn't mean that every person does every bad thing they can--but they could. As a corollary to this, man is unable to save himself. This is why salvation must be of the Lord. In this way, Jonah's helplessness is a perfect picture of our own predicament (Jonah 2:9). Salvation cannot originate in man. Total depravity implies total inability. Man is helpless and therefore salvation requires God to step in and do some drastic things in order to illuminate, regenerate, forgive, cleanse, justify, and therefore save a person. Note that total depravity is not precisely the same thing as total inability, but they are tightly inter-related. But why do I--and why should you--believe this? Simply stated, the plain meaning of several Scriptures demand this understanding. Study the following verses: Ephesians 2:1 says that apart from salvation, every person is dead in sin. The same is taught in Ephesians 2:5. Theologically, spiritual death implies inability to do spiritual good. Colossians 2:13 teaches that we were dead in our transgressions and the uncircumcision of our flesh. Again, death implies inability to do good spiritual things--like repenting or believing. Romans 8:7 is clear that the mind controlled by the flesh is at enmity with God and does not submit to God's law. The same verse goes on to say that the fleshly mind cannot submit--it is unable to submit--to God's law. This is one of the clearest statements of inability. John 6:44 says that no one is able to come to Jesus unless the Father pulls/drags/draws him. John 8:47 says that those who are "of God" hear what God says. The reason that someone does not hear is that they do not belong to God (see also John 10:26 and 1 John 4:6). John 6:65 teaches that no one is able to come to Jesus unless the Father has allowed him to come. In John 8:43, Jesus rhetorically asks why the unbeliever does not understand what He is saying. He immediately gives the answer: "because you are unable to listen to my word." 1 Corinthians 2:14 is very clear that the natural (unsaved) man does not receive or welcome the things of the Spirit of God because they are foolishness to him. Even worse, he is unable to know them, because those things are discerned by means of the Holy Spirit. Luke 12:25 says that we cannot add a single hour to our life by worry. If we cannot do a small thing like add to our lifespan, Jesus asks, why should we worry about anything else? By extension, if we are unable to do that small thing, how can we think we are able to save ourselves, or even start the process of salvation, which is far harder than extending the span of our physical lives? Luke 13:24 says that many will try to enter the narrow gate, but will not be strong enough to do so--they will not be able. It bears emphasizing that the word unable that is used in several verses above (Luke 12:26, John 6:44, 6:65, 8:43; Romans 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14) refers to the fact that the person does not possess the capability to do something. So, because the unsaved sinner is unable to save himself, where does the ability to be saved come from? It does not come from man, or nature, or anywhere in creation. It can only come from one source--God. So, if you are unsaved, simply cry out to God to save you. That's all you can do. In fact, without God opening your eyes to your need, you won't even get that far. Mon, 24 Jul 2017 20:10:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/07/Inability https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/07/Friendship-Evangelism Should we practice so-called "friendship evangelism"? As I understand it, the common ways that it is practiced can easily lead to unbiblical practices. I can summarize the problems this way: sometimes there is too much friendship; sometimes there is too little evangelism; and sometimes there is the wrong amount of both! Sometimes friendship evangelism has too much friendship, and other times it has too little evangelism. We have to be careful. Friendliness does not a gospel presentation make. It does not convince anyone of the truth about Christ. It does not even communicate the truth about Christ, which can only be done by proclaiming the propositional truth of the gospel from Scripture. And, this approach ignores the many examples in Scripture of what I will call "cold turkey evangelism" where Jesus and/or the apostles happened upon someone and told them of the need and provision of God's salvation before befriending them. Even worse is that many times, the friendship centers around entertainment or social interests and doesn't get around to talking about the gospel very much. This is the approach of "live well and that's enough" or "live well and they will ask you about your faith." They might ask, or they might not. And living well by itself doesn't cut it. In addition, friendship with worldly people can lead us into friendship with the world, which is the opposite of what we are called to be (James 4:4). But I don't think we should throw out the entire idea that the phrase "friendship evangelism" evokes when we hear it. Our gospel witness should be friendly, loving, and winsome. And, after all, Jesus was a "friend" of tax collectors and sinners (Matthew 11:19, Luke 7:34). I want to be like that every day of the week! If you have time, here is another helpful article you can read. Thu, 20 Jul 2017 13:37:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/07/Friendship-Evangelism https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/07/Searching-for-Dirt On a lighter note...I need some nice soil for my garden, so I did a quick Google search for where I could buy dirt in my neighborhood. Here is what came up: Meijer is a good possibility for bagged topsoil, but I need a larger quantity. Check out the second and third options. Avon is not dirt, but it's not even close to what I'm looking for. As for the third option, need I say more? Thu, 20 Jul 2017 10:28:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/07/Searching-for-Dirt https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/07/Grace-in-the-Tribulation For just about a year, our church has had the privilege of getting to know Pastor Malcolm Borden. A 1959 graduate of Dallas Seminary, he has been blessed with many ministry opportunities over the years. Circumstances recently brought him to Ann Arbor where he joined our church for the past year. Now, he has to move to a retirement facility nearer to his family, so he will be leaving Ann Arbor. This occasion prompted us to republish his master's thesis that was finished in May 1959. Because it was typewritten, it was not accessible to a larger audience. We are hopeful that with this digital edition, more people will be able to access this short book and the key idea it contains: that God's grace will be operative during the future Tribulation period. The Tribulation will not be a period solely consisting of judgment; it will also evidence God's grace toward individual Jews, individual Gentiles, and the nation of Israel corporately. You can access the thesis in two formats: .docx and .pdf Grace in the Tribulation, by Malcolm Borden (Master's Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1959, 57 pp.) (docx, pdf) Thanks Pastor Mal, and we will miss you! Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:31:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/07/Grace-in-the-Tribulation https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/07/Thoughts-on-Tithing Should I give a tithe? NO. The tithe, or 10%, was a law in the Old Testament. Christians are not subject to that law today. This becomes even more clear when you realize that the tithe in the Old Testament era was not a single tithe, but multiple different ones. Further, in the Old Testament there were legally required tithes, and then there were offerings. The New Testament never legislates 10%. It directs a grace-based approach in giving, more like the free-will offerings in the Old Testament and not at all like the legally required tithes. To make a longer story shorter, your offerings should be offered willingly, sacrificially, generously, proportionally, and joyously (2 Corinthians 8-9). And you might decide that in your budget, 10% works well. But that is a fairly arbitrary number...maybe 9% or 15% or 17% fits and helps you to accomplish the goals for your giving that Paul sets forth in 2 Corinthians. Should the church give a tithe of its offerings to missions? NO. Well, it could do so if it determines that works well for it in the particular situation it finds itself. But it does not need to do that to follow any Biblical command. Should I promise to give before I have the money? NO. Some have called this "tithing in faith." It is more commonly called "faith-promise" giving. 2 Corinthians 8:12 is explicit here: "it is accepted according to what one has, and not according to what he does not have." In other words, do not make a promise like this: "I promise to give $X00 dollars every month toward missions." You simply do not know if you will have that money to give. You could be injured or lose your job or an emergency could arise. Instead, when you receive income, take a look at what you have, and give out of that amount. If you receive a regular salary, then it is fully acceptable to plan this giving in advance using a budget, but you should not vow to do so since you do not know the future. Must the church wait until it has a certain amount before it gives any money to missions? NO. Since I was just speaking about budgets, a church needs to have a budget. The leadership should know to a certain extent how much they normally take in offerings per month and per year, and then they can make conservative plans based on that. Then, a plan to use that money should be formulated. That plan should focus on the Great Commission responsibility of the church. Suppose the church would like to take on the responsibility of supporting a missionary at $300 per month. That's a nice goal, but maybe that is a bit aggressive at the present size and financial health of the church's offerings. So maybe back down to $200 per month. Still, the church does NOT need to have $2400 in the bank already to support the missionary. Why? Because: the church, when it takes on a missionary, is not making an irreversible vow to support the missionary forever. It is understood that the money can only be sent as the church is able. It may need to quit due to unforseen circumstances. The church must give proper attention to the grace of giving and careful budgeting, and this will reduce the future possibility of having to drop support to a missionary. Should the church support a missionary while our pastor is financially struggling? NO. The pastor is the first "missionary" supported by the church. You might object by saying, "He's a pastor, not a missionary!" That neglects the fact that both missionaries and pastors are agents charged by God with fulfilling the Great Commission. One does so overseas, say, and the other does so locally. There is no appreciable difference because of location. Of course, the definition of "struggling financially" has to be answered by the church leadership and the church itself. But if the pastor is making significantly below what an average middle-class family is making in your locale, then there is a problem. It is not a virtue to "keep the pastor poor," which is just a way in which the congregation tries to lead, control, and lord it over the pastor. What about multiple priorities? No problem! Big line items in your church budget may include your building expenses, your pastor, and a missionary. If after a while you find that you have some more income than you budgeted for, then adjust the budget so that you split the extra between your priorities. You might not be able to fully fund the building project or the pastor or the missionary, but make a reasonable attempt to allocate the resources God gives you to accomplish His purposes. The church leadership and the church body are to be good stewards over their collected resources. You cannot just sit on money without a purpose. Does this type of giving include faith at all? YES. I get the feeling sometimes that some people believe if you are not "edgy" enough in your budgeting, or if you have a budget, then you are not spiritual and not exercising enough faith. My take on that kind of approach is simply this: faith does not require foolishness. If you have 10 people in your church and you think you can support 10 missionaries and your pastor, you have a serious lack of wisdom—not a superb amount of faith! Similarly, if your budget is $4000 per month and you want to support a missionary for $1000, you very likely need to re-evaluate the wisdom of that idea. Faith does not put God to the test. If God has given you a certain amount of income, be happy and thankful. Work hard to use the finances effectively and see more people saved who can provide further finances. So what exactly is the difference between giving in faith versus presuming upon God? Faith consists of belief in God and, as a corollary, obedience to His Word. It is not defined by how outlandish your hopes may be for your budget. I believe faith-promise giving is presuming that God will give you a certain amount in the future when you are not promised that He will do that. I believe that a typical middle-class person giving 90% of their salary every payday is presumptuous, because they have responsibilities to feed their family and carry their own load which they will be unable to fulfill with that kind of giving. In other words, faith is always realistic even at the same time that it trusts in God. An individual designs and executes his giving plan in faith when he trusts that God will provide his every need, and gives in January expecting that God will provide the needs in February even though he doesn't have the money in hand just yet. He may even have—if he can—a three-month emergency savings account in case the Lord has other plans. Similarly, a church designs and executes its budget in faith when the leadership and the body trusts that God will provide through their own giving enough to meet the needs of the church in upcoming months. They don't have December's money in hand yet, but they plan to keep on going for the Lord, and continue supporting missionaries and their pastor and other needs each month prior to December. A couple of audio resources. In 2015 I delivered a couple of short Bible studies on tithing. They are available here: The Tithe, part 1 The Tithe, part 2 Tue, 18 Jul 2017 13:38:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/07/Thoughts-on-Tithing https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/07/Sermon-Notes-by-Pastor-Raymond-Saxe For some years, but especially since his passing away, we have been working on a project to scan (but not OCR!) the sermon notes of Dr. Raymond H. Saxe, our church's founding pastor. The result is available here. The sermons are indexed by the Bible passage that they cover. There are almost 1200 sermons, covering much of the Old and New Testaments. We believe there are more "extant manuscripts" but we are working on finding them. This is a difficult task because he ministered in Ann Arbor from 1963 until 2006. If you have any that we do not have, we would welcome you to send us a copy or help us scan it into the computer to add it to this collection. These notes may be a helpful resource for you for personal study, ideas in your own sermon preparation, or as a basis of research into either the theology of Dallas Theological Seminary graduates, or Chaferian dispensationalism. Dr. Saxe was a student of Lewis Sperry Chafer in the 1940s at Dallas Seminary, and used the KJV Scofield Bible for his entire ministry. Dr. Saxe had two earned doctorates (Dallas Theological Seminary and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School), as well as other advanced degrees. His beliefs and ministry could be characterized this way: Biblical, conservative, evangelical, dispensational, moderately Calvinistic, pro-Israel, expositional, with a strong emphasis on Bible teaching, favorable to the majority text and textus receptus, and somewhat baptistic. Wed, 12 Jul 2017 21:27:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/07/Sermon-Notes-by-Pastor-Raymond-Saxe https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/07/To-Schedule-or-Not-to-Schedule-Part-3 Part 3: Raising Children: The Schedule and Church Both extremes of scheduling (none or rigid) can lead to families not attending to a more important schedule—that of the church. God commands that we faithfully participate in the ministry of our local church. A parent who raises a child without a schedule may find that the child's normal self-set rhythm does not coincide with the church schedule. I may be overly pessimistic, but the spiritual element of a child's sinfulness, laziness, and Satan's use of any distractions that can be used to keep a family from attending church will contribute to this situation. Some Christian parents have found that Sundays are the worst day of the week in terms of what can go wrong to prevent us from getting to church. Don't allow your child's schedule to override God's schedule. On the other hand, a rigid schedule that is set without regard for the church meetings can conflict with God's command for church attendance. If the child's bedtime is 7:30pm, and church doesn't get out until then or later on Wednesday night or Sunday night, well then church has to be disposed of. Thus, the child's schedule, which is not found in Scripture, has overridden God's schedule, which is found in Scripture. Bedtime has become more important than church. Obviously the church shouldn't be purposefully difficult by scheduling meetings at the worst possible times, but reasonable waking-hour times for services are in the purview of the church leadership as it works with the assembly, and should be followed as much as possible by the members of the church who have promised to support the ministry with, among other things, their attendance. So, to schedule or not to schedule? Yes: schedule, because a child needs structure in order to grow into a normal life that meshes well with the culture in which he or she is being raised. And yes, because a child needs time boundaries to develop his or her moral character. But do not set a rigid schedule. Do not be worried that a child will be ruined if she misses a half-hour of sleep or has to sleep in one day. Teach the child in age-appropriate ways that sometimes sacrificing personal comfort is a necessary part of life. Part 1 and Part 2. Tue, 04 Jul 2017 10:24:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/07/To-Schedule-or-Not-to-Schedule-Part-3 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/06/To-Schedule-or-Not-to-Schedule-Part-2 Part 2: Raising Children: A Schedule is Needed So, to schedule or not to schedule? When it comes to your young child's life, the answer is yes to both questions. But I should give some more explanation, since that answer is ambiguous. First, some kind of basic schedule is necessary for a child. Some structure in the life of a child is needed. Why? Life in general, and life in our culture in particular, runs according to a schedule. Generally, people sleep at night, so babies need to be taught to sleep then as well. School runs according to a schedule. Church meetings happen at certain times. Doctor visits and formal entertainment, television and radio all run according to a schedule. Life is not "free form," and since childhood is preparing a young person for adult life, parents must begin to train the child to live in an adult world. The parents are the only ones who can set that structure or "impose" it. A child is unwise (Prov. 22:15) and, on top of that, is sinful (Psalm 51:5). The little one does not know what is truly good for him—whether it comes to diet, how long to watch TV or play video games, when to train on the toilet, when to do homework, etc. Time boundaries are a form of moral boundary. Time boundaries are a form of moral boundary. We teach children manners, right from wrong, and good attitudes. We must also teach them boundaries with regard to time. The time boundary relates to the very important issues of the child's self-control, discipline, and control of selfishness. Certain things in life have to be done. They are not always (or even often) the most exciting, fun, or desirable things, but they need to be tended to nonetheless. And sometimes, it has to be at a certain time. Part 1 and Part 3. Thu, 22 Jun 2017 07:34:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/06/To-Schedule-or-Not-to-Schedule-Part-2 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/06/To-Schedule-or-Not-to-Schedule-Part-1 Part 1: Raising Children: Extremes in Scheduling The Scriptures do not teach what kind of schedule a parent should set for his or her child. But as with any idea, raising children according to a schedule can be taken to extremes that are clearly unbiblical. Let's take a couple examples that happen in real life: There are two extremes that parents can fall into with respect to using a schedule to raise their children. Extreme #1: No Schedule. The child is allowed to set his or her own sleep and eating schedule. Naps are not at a set schedule and may go late into the afternoon, causing the child to not want to go to bed at a decent hour in the evening. The child may sleep in late. If the child is cranky during the later part of the day, the parent may fear what happens if the child is awakened early on a particular day, thus prohibiting getting "up and at" the day. Late nights affect the family by reducing the amount of time that the husband and wife can spend together in the evening. The child effectively runs the home, or at least the life of the mom in the home. Extreme #2: A Rigid Schedule. The child is given a strict schedule and the parents are afraid to allow any variation. Bedtime is at 7:30pm; rising is at a certain time; nap or quiet time has to be at such and such time. There are problems with this approach. Although life has schedule to it, no one could argue that the schedule is fixed. Staying up late on Friday night, sleeping in Saturday and Sunday morning (before church), getting up earlier Monday through Friday, handling special events, doing something special during the week: all these create wrinkles in a "perfectly smooth" schedule. Part 2 and Part 3. Wed, 21 Jun 2017 08:05:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/06/To-Schedule-or-Not-to-Schedule-Part-1 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/06/Translation-of-Proverbs-1226 Today's question: With Prov 12:26 I am surprised how much the translations differ. What do you think would be the best translation and what do you think is the most likely meaning of this verse? You have entered into a bit of the difficulty of translating concise Hebrew, especially without much context like we have in the Proverbs. In my judgment, NKJV, NIV, and NET have it right. The HCSB is OK. ESV and NASB don't seem right. I understand where they get "guide" and the overall idea of their translation, but the the second word is not correctly translated as "to his neighbor." The prefix on that word is more like "from," so it is more like "from his neighbor" or "out of his neighbor." There seems to be a careful "spying out" of who the good friends are, chose from among the whole lot of neighbors you could choose from. The KJV seems to be the worst of the bunch. "More excellent" leans heavily upon that same prefix on the second word. There is a Hebrew idiom that uses that kind of construction to indicate a comparative idea (better than, more excellent than). But if a man has another righteous neighbor, this comparison would not work. The verse seems to be saying "The way of the wicked misleads, but the righteous search out their neighbor for the wicked way so that the righteous are not mislead." This is generally right. The way of the wicked is an errant path, and the righteous person wants to avoid that path, so they remain attentive to their associations. Sun, 18 Jun 2017 07:55:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/06/Translation-of-Proverbs-1226 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/06/May-1948-and-the-Prophetic-7X-Factor I recently was asked a question raised by an article that claimed to be able to figure out the date of 1948 for Israel's restoration using a mathematical prophecy in Ezekiel 4. It uses a multiplier that it calls the prophetic '7X' factor. I get jumpy when I see stuff like this. (I think I picked up that phrase from Dr. Rolland McCune at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, but I may have a faulty memory on that.) Here are some problems: 1. Hermeneutics. How does the normal reader figure this out from the text of Scripture? It is not at all clear! 2. Mathematics. There is a judgment period of 430 years. The authors multiply 360 of those years by seven, but they do not multiply the rest (70) by seven. Why not? 3. Eschatology. Israel is not entirely gathered into the land today, nor since 1948 has that been true. Even worse, those who are gathered there remain almost entirely in unbelief. 4. Interpretation. The article assumes "awon" = punishment, but it can also signify the acts for which punishment is due, that is, the iniquity that brought about the punishment. In the NKJV, Ezekiel is lying on his side for 390 years, representing the years of Israel's sin (northern kingdom), probably computed backwards in time to the start of their ill behavior in the kingdom. The forty years would be the same kind of thing, but for the southern kingdom of Judah. In this interpretation, the years would not be looking forward to restoration, but looking backward to the reason for their punishment by Babylon. I believe Israel is in the land again now because they have to be there in order to be scattered again during the Tribulation. Fri, 09 Jun 2017 13:54:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/06/May-1948-and-the-Prophetic-7X-Factor https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/06/Origin-of-Koine-Greek I came across this document in some old papers of a former member of Grass Lake Baptist Church. The note at the top indicates that this document was written by a former pastor of that church, R. M. Bowden. I do not have the background knowledge to comment on the accuracy of this account, but it is interesting nonetheless. Fri, 02 Jun 2017 22:51:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/06/Origin-of-Koine-Greek https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/12/Why-I-Dont-Recommend-the-KJV The KJV-only doctrine and practice has come to my attention several times lately. Frankly, I wish I could put the entire question to bed once and for all and finally help Christians, pastors, and churches who are caught up in this false teaching to be delivered from it. Be sure to know that if you like the KJV or have grown up with it and want to continue using it, that is your privilege. But you cannot force that preference on others who can rather benefit from a modern English version that is more readable, more accurate, and more understandable. Following are some briefly-stated reasons why I cannot recommend the KJV. If you cannot justify a belief from the Bible, then you need to remove it from the doctrinal statement. Doctrinal statements that include the KJV as the only acceptable translation do not and cannot back up their claims from Scripture. Every statement in our doctrinal statement should be able to have a parenthesis after it with one or more verses from Scripture. If you cannot justify a belief from the Bible, then you need to remove it from the doctrinal statement. Never have I seen a statement like "The KJV is the only acceptable translation in the English language (citation of a Bible verse). There is no verse that can be put inside the parentheses to justify that belief. We should know that KJV-onlyism cannot be justified from Scripture because the apostle Paul did not have a KJV; nor did the apostle John. The KJV did not come into existence until one thousand and five hundred years AFTER the New Testament was completed. KJV-onlyism cannot be a doctrine that all Christians have always held. If Paul didn't believe it or have to believe it to be faithful to God, neither do I. Archaic vocabulary is a big reason I do not recommend the KJV. The verb "wot" is used in 10 verses in the KJV. It means nothing to an English reader today. It should be translated "know." Nine verses use "wont" which is not the same as "want." It means something that "used to be" or something that was usual or customary. No one today uses the word "wont." "Agone" is used once and, as it is not a word in the English language today, it should be translated as "ago." Who knows what "anon" means? What about besome, betimes, bethink, bewray, bolled, bowels, or choler? Why is the word "college" used in 2 Kings 22:14 and 2 Chronicles 34:22 and what does it mean? One online glossary I found has over 70 such words; one had over 300! The KJV is old. This is not a sufficient reason in and of itself to discontinue use of the KJV. But it is important to realize that the KJV in common use today comes from 1769. The English language has changed since then; manuscript evidence has been found since then; and translation and language tools have improved since then. We can do better today. The translation was made by men and as such is fallible. All translations can be improved. The KJV translators themselves would most certainly tell us to continue working on and improving the translation that we use. Read their preface and you will understand what I'm talking about (if you can understand it) The KJV we have today is not the KJV. The 1611 KJV would be almost unreadable for most who claim the KJV as their only translation. It was updated by Benjamin Blayney in 1769 to the form we have today. I have a replica 1611 KJV in my office, and it would be a chore to translate from that every morning in my reading time. The KJV-only doctrine in its most dangerous form elevates this single English translation to the level of inspired Scripture. Not only is this a departure from the orthodox doctrine of Bibliology in which only the original manuscripts partake of direct inspiration, it also generates other serious problems. For instance: does every language have such an "inspired" text like the KJV? Which text is it? How do you know? The KJV in the New Testament is based on one edition of Erasmus' Textus Receptus. Which edition of his text is the right one is an important question that must be asked. But it is almost irrelevant, because there are errors in the TR, just like there are in any single manuscript. Those who hold KJV-onlyism are typically, though not always, very divisive. I do not want that cancer doing damage in the church that I pastor, nor in other churches in our circles. Scripture tells us to note those who cause divisions and avoid them (Romans 16:17). The KJV-only doctrine often promotes fear or anger among its followers that all other translations are perversions that are purposefully attempting to remove parts of God's word, or deny the deity of Christ, for example. And while some so-called translations may do so (like the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation), there is no need to be fearful or angry at all non-KJV translations. There are several excellent translations that should not elicit reactions of fear or anger. Such emotions are not becoming of Christians. So, I recommend to put your KJV away, and get a NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, or HCSB. And read it often! Read a little more on this issue at a prior post. Fri, 02 Jun 2017 07:17:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/12/Why-I-Dont-Recommend-the-KJV https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/05/James-119-21 So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God. Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.(James 1:19-21, NKJV) Often, verse 19 is isolated from the context as a good piece of advice about how we should listen more than we speak. Although that is a good thought, it is not what the text is trying to convey. Here, James is writing about receiving God's word. In verse 18 he told us that we were brought forth by the word of truth. In verse 21, he says we are to put away sin and receive with meekness the implanted word. I take it then that what we need to swift to hear is God's word. We should be slow to speak out when we hear it (in other words, we think about it first and don't just shoot off at the mouth). And we should certainly not be upset by it--say when it confronts our sin or tells us how we need to improve our lives. Imagine the context of receiving the Word in a local church service. Someone that blurts out their displeasure at what they hear, or gets upset about it and walks away from the church, is not following this injunction by James. These responses do not produce God's desired righteousness in our lives. Rather, we need to put aside bad responses to the Word and receive it meekly. It is what has saved our souls! Of course, we can add in Scripture's other teaching about being discerning and not believing everything that every preacher says (1 John 4:1). We must be like Bereans (Acts 17:11). But we must give due respect to that Word. The following verses instruct us HOW to do this. We must receive the Word with action--doing what it says to do, not just looking at it and going away unchanged. We must not receive it in such a way that we "think" ourselves to be religious while not actually following its commands. Tue, 30 May 2017 11:41:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/05/James-119-21 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/05/Worry Here's a quick hit piece on worry. Worry is associated with other negative things like pride, wrong thinking, lack of peace, misplaced trust, fear, anxiety, stress, and prayerlessness. The opposite of worry is trust, humility, belief in God, right thinking, and peace. Some texts of Scripture that remind us about these truths are found in Psalm 20:7, Psalm 55:22, 1 Peter 5:6-7, and Philippians 4:6-10. Wed, 10 May 2017 08:12:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/05/Worry https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/05/A-Little-Family-History I have published a new life testimony by Eduard Suderman. Translated from German in 1981, it was originally written in 1913, when Mr. Suderman was 80 years old. It comes to about 17 typewritten pages, about 7500 words. Eduard Suderman is my great-great grandfather. The translator was Anna Suderman, my grandmother's sister, who was a missionary to India. I believe she served under the Mennonite Brethren there. I found several notable portions from the autobiography: His sensitivity to sin, particularly around and after the time of his salvation at age 40. His views of alcohol. The fact that church meetings happened on Sundays and Wednesdays. His Mennonite heritage . His view of the Catholic religion as empty forms and rituals. His desire for prayer and real fellowship with like-minded believers. The importance of prayer. I am thankful for a godly heritage that was passed down to my grandmother, and to my father. A home with two Christian parents was a great advantage to me. Thu, 04 May 2017 20:11:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/05/A-Little-Family-History https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/05/Will-the-Real-144000-Please-Step-Forward Kevin DeYoung has written on the identity of the 144,000 servants of God in Revelation 7:3-8. He starts this way: The 144,000 are not an ethnic Jewish remnant, and certainly not an Anointed Class of saints who became Jehovah’s Witnesses before 1935. The 144,000 “sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel” (Rev. 7:4) represent the entire community of the redeemed. Let me give you several reasons for making this claim. I have no argument with Pastor DeYoung's second denial--that the 144,000 are "certainly not...Jehovah's Witnesses." But I have to take issue with his assertion that these are not an ethnic Jewish remnant. Let us suppose for a moment that God will in fact seal a certain number of ethnic Jews for a particular purpose or mission during the Tribulation period. Just how could God express this fact in writing through John if He could not convince the modern reader with the words that He used in Revelation 7:4? Perhaps something like this would have been sufficient: Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel. I. Mean. Jews! And. I. Mean. One. Hundred. Forty. Four. Thousand! (hypothetical Rev. 7:4) The hermeneutical contortions that DeYoung forces upon the text are just too much. The text is clear as it is written. If God means what DeYoung says, why did He not simply say it plainly that way? Now for a brief critique each of DeYoung's supporting arguments. First, whether or not it "makes sense" that God would seal all of His followers, the text only mentions these 144,000 Jewish ones being sealed. Satan's action in chapter 13 is irrelevant. Second, using a text from Ezekiel 9 to support a seemingly "similar distinction based on who worships God" and denying any Jewish connection is tenuous. This is particularly so since those who were sealed in Ezekiel were Jews. Third, DeYoung says, "the 144,000 are called the servants of our God…There is no reason to make the 144,000 any more restricted than that." What he means is that the only descriptive phrase that is allowed to be taken literally is "servants of God." The number and the ethnicity are not allowed to be taken literally. When John heard the number, what he heard was not significant, DeYoung implies. So why didn't John just say, "Then I heard that those servants were sealed," and dispense with the remainder of verses 4-8? In fact, the phrase servants of God, the number, and the ethnicity all contribute to the meaning of the text. Fourth, DeYoung argues from the descriptions "redeemed from the earth" and "purchased from among men" that this language is generic, applying to everyone. Again the question must be asked—why didn't God just leave out the extra descriptions, and make explicit that this was all the redeemed that were on the earth at that time in the prophecy? He asserts that the number is symbolic of the redeemed "drawn from all peoples, not simply the Jews." He adds that it must be symbolic, because "not defiled with women" (14:4) cannot mean celibate Jewish men…in spite of the fact that the text affirms that they are virgins. Fifth, DeYoung states that the tribe list and their numbers are highly stylized, so they are not to be taken literally. This reminds me of the framework hypothesis of the creation account, which argues in part that the account is highly stylized, so it cannot be understood as a literal narrative of the events of the creation week. To the contrary, though both passages display wonderful literary quality, this does not mean that it cannot be understood literally. In sum, the bottom line of DeYoung's argument is that he cannot make sense of the text literally within his theological framework, so it makes more sense to take it to mean something other than what it says. Granted, there is much symbolic language in Revelation. But, for example, an angel whose "face is like the sun, and his feet like pillars of fire" is quite a bit different than a number and a list of tribes of Israel. There is a distinction between symbolic language and plain language, and Revelation 7:3-8 is definitely on the plain side of that divide. I would add one more argument in favor of taking the text literally to refer to Jews. Read on to verse 9: After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. (Rev. 7:9 NIV) John refers to tribes of Jews in 7:3-8, and then immediately mentions "every nation, tribe, people, and language." This strengthens our understanding that the 144,000 are in fact ethnic Jews whom God sets apart for special protection and service during the Tribulation. Why would God refer to "all the redeemed" as 144,000 of the Jewish tribes, and then immediately repeat Himself but using the broader language of "every nation"? It makes more sense that Scripture means Jews when it says Jews, and it means "every nation" when it says every nation. Ultimately what is at stake in this debate is how we read the Bible. Someone like DeYoung reads the exact same passages I do; but he reads at least this one a whole lot differently than I do and, I would argue, he reads it incorrectly. Clint Archer also defends a literal reading of the 144,000. He follows up with a good article on why the 1000 years of Revelation 20 is to be taken literally. Tue, 02 May 2017 22:47:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/05/Will-the-Real-144000-Please-Step-Forward https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/03/Christ-in-the-Center-of-Society While cleaning today we found this: I simply argue that the cross be raised again at the center of the market place as well as on the steeple of the church. I am recovering the claim that Jesus was not crucified in a cathedral between two candles: But on a cross between two thieves; on a town garbage heap; At a crossroad of politics so cosmopolitan that they had to write his title in Hebrew and in Latin and in Greek... And at the kind of place where cynics talk smut, and thieves curse and soldiers gamble. But that is where he died, and that is what He died about. And that is where Christ's men out to be, and what church people ought to be about. —George MacLeod I did not dig into who this fellow is or what his theology is. But the way I understand his text, it expresses a good thought: the cross of Christ must be pressed in the center of society; in the market place of ideas; in the academy; to scientists and engineers and stay-at-home moms and lawyers and politicians and CEOs and janitors. The need is vast. Those willing to set up a cross again in the center of the market place are few. Pray that God will raise some more bold witnesses in our day. Sat, 04 Mar 2017 14:13:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/03/Christ-in-the-Center-of-Society https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/02/Christ-Forsaken I received a question today about what the Bible means in Matthew 27:46 when it quotes Jesus speaking about being forsaken by God. Why did Jesus cry, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me," when he was on the cross in Matthew 27:46? It appears to be a quote of Psalm 22:1 and could be read to be part of his feeling on the cross. I am also thinking that Jesus bore the sin of all mankind and that as a result of bearing that sin, he felt separation from God the Father. Am I on the right track? You are on the right track. Righteous Jesus is calling out to God in the way an Old Testament saint would call out to God for deliverance from his enemies. The believer trusts in God for that rescue. But in this case, there would be no deliverance, at least not before death had taken its toll. In judicial wrath, God had turned against His own Son. This Son, although He never sinned at all, had at that time "become sin for us" so that we might "become the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor. 5:21). So not only did Jesus feel a separation from God; there in fact was a separation between them. This happened until Jesus paid the wages of sin, which is death (Romans 6:23). Sin separates from God (Isaiah 59:2). This is why we need a mediator to bring the sinner to the holy God. Only Jesus is able to do that. Wed, 22 Feb 2017 14:19:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/02/Christ-Forsaken https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/01/Systematic-Eschatology-Part-3 A couple of details mentioned in Revelation 19-20 about the beast, false prophet, and the devil give us a clue that we are correct in our basic chronology of a 1,000-year kingdom between the Tribulation and eternal state. In 19:20, the beast and false prophet who were so active during the Tribulation are thrown alive into the lake of fire. They are the first residents of that place (all prior souls have gone to a similar but different place called Hades). After this, chapter 20 portrays the Devil as being bound and locked into another different place--the bottomless pit. After being incarcerated there for 1,000 years, he is released a little while (20:3, 7) and deceives the nations (20:8). This results in the final battle between God and Satan, who is thrown into the lake of fire (20:9-10). In the middle of verse 10, note is made of the fact that the Devil is cast into the place where the beast and false prophet also already were. They had been there for 1,000 years. The fact that Satan is placed where they already were helps us to see that we have the order of events right. The beast and false prophet are sent to Hell, then there are 1,000 years, and then Satan is sent to Hell. None of these things has occurred yet. We are boxed in by the text, so to speak, such that we must see a millennium intervening between two resurrections, all of which is yet future. The amillennial interpretation simply cannot be correct because it demands the present age immediately be followed by eternity with no intervening Tribulation and 1,000 year kingdom before the final judgment of Revelation 20:11-15. Fri, 06 Jan 2017 08:14:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/01/Systematic-Eschatology-Part-3 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/01/Repentance-in-Revelation I'm finishing Revelation and noticed something of an emphasis on repentance. For all the symbolism and other difficulties associated with the apocalyptic genre of Revelation, this element is crystal clear. God is very interested in people repenting. Consider the following, which is the collection of all 10 verses in Revelation that use the word repent (all verses from NKJV). Rev. 2:5 "Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place-- unless you repent. Rev. 2:16 `Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth. Rev. 2:21 "And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. Rev. 2:22 "Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. Rev. 3:3 "Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you. Rev. 3:19 "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent. Rev. 9:20 But the rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands, that they should not worship demons, and idols of gold, silver, brass, stone, and wood, which can neither see nor hear nor walk. Rev. 9:21 And they did not repent of their murders or their sorceries or their sexual immorality or their thefts. Rev. 16:9 And men were scorched with great heat, and they blasphemed the name of God who has power over these plagues; and they did not repent and give Him glory. Rev. 16:11 They blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and did not repent of their deeds. There is an awful lot of repenting that should be happening during the Tribulation. The remainder of Scripture is clear too that this is not something required of humanity only in the last days; it is the kind of response God desires in every age. It has been fashionable in some circles to downplay or eliminate repentance from the gospel. Such a fashion is not at all Biblical. Fri, 06 Jan 2017 07:46:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2017/01/Repentance-in-Revelation https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/12/Bible-Reading-in-2017 With this post, I am publishing the annual set of Bible reading schedules that I have prepared for the past eight years. Read the New Testament once Read the New Testament twice Read the New Testament four times Read the Old Testament once Key chapters for young readers Read the book of Acts and New Testament letters in just four and a half months, in chronological order Read the Greek New Testament in order from easier to harder Greek. If you would like another schedule that takes you through the entire Bible in the year, and with some chronological ordering in it, check out this schedule from bibleclassmaterial.com. Some other reading plans might catch your interest: Ligonier Bible Reading Plans ESV Bible Reading Plans Professor Horner's Reading System Read the Gospels Every Day Wed, 28 Dec 2016 22:16:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/12/Bible-Reading-in-2017 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/12/Christmas-in-Heaven A reminder for those whose loved ones have gone to heaven. Those believers who have died worship the Christ of Christmas in person. There is no Christmas tree, for Christ Himself is there. Their gifts are not material things, but rather heaven itself and all its glory. Their songs are not weakened by human frailty but are strengthened by God. Their hearts are not sad, but are glad because of the sight of God. Their memories are purified so that they focus not on the darkness of past earthly life. Their lives are marked by rest and not anxiety. Their fellowship is sweet, with all those believers who have died before them and since. Their dwelling place is perfect, with no lack. Their hearts are free from the cares of earthly life. They experience the tender mercy of God every moment. Do not be sad for them! They remind us that Christmas is one key reason that they are there in heaven now, and why we can hope to go there too. They await with perfect patience our coming to join them. They call to us with silent voice to worship as best we can until the Lord deems that it is our time to join them there in Christmas celebration, for all eternity. Sun, 25 Dec 2016 13:00:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/12/Christmas-in-Heaven https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/12/Systematic-Eschatology-Part-2 We continue in our quest to carefully develop a sequence of future events as taught in Scripture. As we saw last time, such an eschatology must take the text in Revelation 20:1-6 literally. When we do that, we immediately find deficiencies in other approaches. For instance, we find that we cannot take seriously any interpretive system that teaches a single general resurrection. The text of Scripture could not be more clear that there are two resurrections separated by 1000 years. There must therefore be at least two resurrections. The Bible may reveal more detail or even more resurrections, but there cannot be fewer than two. I think other interpretations are caught in the older revelatory information that says things like Daniel 12:2. The It is also clear from a plain reading of the text that the Lord Jesus returns to the earth before the millennial kingdom and after the Tribulation. That is, His coming is premillennnial. That is how the sequence of events is portrayed by John in Revelation 19-20. I did not spell it out in the last post, but I do hold to a futurist interpretation of most of the book of Revelation. The events described in the book after chapter 3 match nothing that the world has experienced in history up to this point. Moving "backwards" in the sequence of events and to begin to answer the question about whether there is a pre-tribulational rapture of the church, let us shift our attention to Revelation 3:10. This text records a promise of Jesus that He will keep the church in Philadelphia from the hour of trial which is going to come upon the whole world. Contextually, it seems clear that this hour of trial refers to what is written in Revelation 6 through 19. I take this as paradigmatic of the church as a whole. Certainly the very believers in that church were kept from the hour of trial, since the Tribulation was yet future to them as it is to us this day in 2016. But their deliverance is a kind of pattern of the deliverance of the entire church from the Tribulation. Other texts of Scripture agree with this notion (1 Thess. 1:10 and 5:9). The entirety of Revelation 6 through 19 support the absence of the church by its silence about the church. Granted, there are some believers present during the Tribulation. These people are converted during the Tribulation through the witness of God's messengers (Revelation 7 and 14). Their life is evidently difficult because of the persecution done by Satan. The marked silence of Revelation on the church makes it a fool's errand to prove that the church is present during the Tribulation. There are a number of other supporting arguments for the pre-tribulation rapture. Among them are the nature of Daniel's 70th week focusing as it does on God's program with Israel, the consistent distinction of the church and Israel throughout the New Testament, the imminence of the coming of Christ (at the rapture) as contrasted with the signs that indicate that Israel's redemption is drawing near, the restrainer in 2 Thess. 2, the differences between a translation of believers and the coming of Christ to the earth, the 24 elders in Revelation, the proclamation of peace and safety in 1 Thess. 5:3, the lack of instruction about the Tribulation in the epistolary literature, Israel as the focus of Satan's attacks during the Tribulation (Rev. 12), and the complete apostasy during the Tribulation. These and more are detailed in chapter 13 of J. Dwight Pentecost's book Things to Come, pp. 193-218. Fri, 23 Dec 2016 11:19:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/12/Systematic-Eschatology-Part-2 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/12/Developing-a-Systematic-Eschatology Since I have been asked recently about eschatology, I thought I would write on how to develop a simple, Biblical, systematic approach to eschatology, the study of last things. The system of thought that comes out of this approach is called pretribulational premillennialism. It is sometimes called dispensational premillennialism, to distinguish it from historic premillennialism. I start with the principle of literal interpretation, in which words are understood according to the plain meaning. I argue that the literal interpretation is key to understanding any portion of the Bible. Literal interpretation is feasible and much easier than a spiritualized or allegorical interpretation. It presents no impossible difficulties. So, how do you develop a system of eschatology? Besides using literal interpretation, we also rely on clear texts to develop our framework, and then we fit less clear or harder-to-understand texts into that framework. All will admit that there are easier and there are harder texts to interpret and assimilate into our system of understanding the Scripture. I believe it is valid to read through Scripture, and build an understanding bit by bit from portions that are easier to understand, and to add in other portions as I go. As a finite creature, I'm not sure how else it could be done. Of course, later data may and certainly should shape and re-shape my earlier conclusions, but clear texts cannot be overridden by less clear, more difficult ones. We will use as our starting point the same text that Challies mentioned above, Revelation 20:1-6. Somewhat surprisingly, the apostle John departs from the highly symbolic and figurative approach of the prior chapters in the Apocalypse and drops into some very normal prose. For my amillennial friends, let me ask you to, just for a few minutes, suspend disbelief and suppose that God's program could be what the literal reading of this text suggests, namely: 19:11, Christ returns to the earth after a terrible time of tribulation upon the earth and executes His enemies and those who oppose His people. This time of Tribulation is one that has not been previously experienced in world history and thus is yet future. 20:1-3, An angel is comes down from heaven to incarcerate Satan. This imprisonment lasts 1000 years and its purpose is to prevent Satan from deceiving the nations during that 1000 year time period. 20:4, Believers who had been martyred during the terrible time of tribulation re-appear, seated with Jesus upon thrones from which they rule the world. Their re-appearance occurred because they were resurrected. The text says that they had been beheaded, but now lived. They did this for 1000 years. 20:5, The rest of the dead, which I believe refers to those who do not believe in God, were not resurrected until the end of the 1000 years. The resurrection which occurs prior to the 1000 years is the first resurrection. The second resurrection happens after the 1000 years. This proves that there are at least two resurrections. 20:6, A special blessing is pronounced upon those who take part in the first resurrection. The blessing has to do, among other things, with participating in the kingdom of Christ in the prior verse. The blessing also has to do with the fact that the second death has no power over them, but rather they will be priests of God and Christ, and will reign with Christ for 1000 years. 20:14 defines the second death for us, namely that which occurs when someone is thrown into the lake of fire. There shouldn't be any question that God could do all of the above. I don't think there is any question that He is intending us to understand Scripture to say exactly that. I wonder how He could or should have been more clear if the above is not what He meant. The sequence of John's presentation makes it clear that he saw these things in his vision in the order they are recorded. The time words as to the 1000 years, and events before and after, make it clear that it is not only the order of the vision, but also the order of events are portrayed by the vision. To be continued... Thu, 08 Dec 2016 19:25:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/12/Developing-a-Systematic-Eschatology https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Problems-with-Preterist-View-of-Revelation The preterist view of Revelation basically teaches that most, if not all, of the book of Revelation was fulfilled in 70 A.D. with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. There are several sources that the reader may visit to become more familiar with this view... Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:41:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Problems-with-Preterist-View-of-Revelation https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/09/Time-in-Heaven When we get to heaven, will there be time there? This question has come to me many times over the years. Or, the idea is expressed more confidently as a settled assertion: "There will not be time in heaven." In reply, I always cite this verse that is in the context of the eternal state: Revelation 22:2—"On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations" (NIV). The part that surprises people is that the tree bears fruit every month. How can that be, if there is no time in heaven? Well, perhaps there is time in heaven! Maybe we can count off the years and know that we have been there 10,000 years. Even so, we will have no less days to sing God's praise than when we'd first begun! The answer to the question runs like this: Yes, time will exist in heaven. However, the "pressure" of time will be gone, so its passage will not matter or be bothersome. There will always be enough time. I am no philosopher, but it seems to me that finite beings such as humans are somehow always going to be subject to some kind of time because they cannot be everywhere at once or see everything at once. To direct their gaze from one place to another, or to move from one place to another, will necessarily take time. They will not be limited by time like we are in the present age (James 4:14; Psalm 90:10), but they will notice its passage. Admittedly, I've gone a little beyond what is written in Scripture. And I cannot say anything about how the passage of time will feel to those who do not trust in Christ, who reside in Hell forever. That place is one of interminable torment. It is too awful to think much about. So, speaking of time, today is the day to be saved from sin. Trust in Christ! Tue, 20 Sep 2016 16:11:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/09/Time-in-Heaven https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/09/Appreciation-for-the-Church Our church has worshipped and ministered in Ann Arbor, Michigan for 35 years. I wanted to write a few things that I really appreciate about our church--and though I speak of the church as "it," I mean the people gathered in the ministry who are the church. I am thankful for: 1. It's faithful history. The church established and maintained a testimony for the truth starting in 1981. Faithful teaching, expositionof Scripture, godly counsel, support of missions, and local outreach work have been ongoing ministries since then. Although not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, I can say that the church wanted to honor God and was used by God to help people grow in grace and the knowledge of Christ. 2. It's present kindness to me and my family. The church has continued to support us (not just financially, but also on a personal level) for the past 15+ years, the last 10 of which I have been privileged to (under)shepherd the assembly. 3. It's continued faithfulness. The church family wants to maintain a Biblical and faithful testimony. It does not want to cave into the demands or wishes of the world. 4. It's love for one another. When big needs arise, big support has shown up. When little needs arise, people work behind the scenes to take care of things. Again, this is an area where we continually need to work, but I see far more than just negatives in this "department" of our church. 5. It's support of missionaries and local missions work. Being willing to invest a good amount of finances by giving to missionaries, and by being committed to planting a new church in a town nearby to us, the church family has shown it is serious about the Great Commission. 6. It's willingness to try new ministries, and then to stick with them. In recent years, we have tried new outreach ministries and kept at them year by year. 7. It's love for God. Although this is not necessarily seen by individuals in the church as they look at other individuals that they do not know well, I see this from the pastor's vantage point. 8. It's patience. The church has endured my ministry since I preached my first message 16 years ago. I would say the content was OK, but the delivery was quite lacking. Putting up with me and my dry preaching is no mean feat. I appreciate the church for doing it. I'll probably think of more later, but I'll stop there. I thank God for FBCAA! May God continue to bless you richly. Fri, 09 Sep 2016 12:14:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/09/Appreciation-for-the-Church https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/08/Detroit-Baptist-Seminary-Journal-2016-Published I am happy to see the current DBSJ has arrived (vol. 21:2016). The opening pages explain that this issue is a festschrift for Professors William Combs, Robert McCabe, and Bruce Compton. These men have been very helpful in my own theological training and I am glad to see a volume dedicated to them. The journal also contains a 28-page article that I authored, entitled "Essential Elements of Young Earth Creationism and Their Importance to Christian Theology." There are a lot of very informative articles in this volume by authors who have also been impacted by the three professors. I hope you enjoy the read! Mon, 29 Aug 2016 11:32:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/08/Detroit-Baptist-Seminary-Journal-2016-Published https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/08/God-is-NOT-Transgender In a recent New York Times editorial piece, Mark Sameth claims that gender in the Hebrew Bible is a fluid concept, and that God is the He/She. The first two paragraphs about the Bible are these: I'm a rabbi, and so I'm particularly saddened whenever religious arguments are brought in to defend social prejudices — as they often are in the discussion about transgender rights. In fact, the Hebrew Bible, when read in its original language, offers a highly elastic view of gender. And I do mean highly elastic: In Genesis 3:12, Eve is referred to as "he." In Genesis 9:21, after the flood, Noah repairs to "her" tent. Genesis 24:16 refers to Rebecca as a "young man." And Genesis 1:27 refers to Adam as them. Surprising, I know. And there are many other, even more vivid examples: In Esther 2:7, Mordecai is pictured as nursing his niece Esther. In a similar way, in Isaiah 49:23, the future kings of Israel are prophesied to be nursing kings. These claims are totally false. Mr. Sameth is one rabbi who does not know Hebrew very well; or perhaps better stated, he has allowed his presuppositions about gender to color his vision of the text so that he cannot read it plainly. Gen 3:12 refers to Eve by the Hebrew pronoun "she." Gen 9:21 does not say Noah "repaired to her tent;" it says "he became uncovered (third person masculine singular verb) in his tent." There may be a slight manuscript variance in the pronominal suffix on the word tent, but the meaning is clearly Noah's (his) tent. Gen 24:16 refers to Rebecca as a young woman (maiden, a virgin, not known by a man), and there is no question that she was a woman given her remarkable beauty. Finally, Genesis 1:27 is where Sameth is closest to the truth, but even that is misconstrued. He doesn't say that "Adam" is the generic use of the word, which refers not to the first man created by God, but rather refers to humankind generally (see NIV). NKJV has a very literal translation: So God created man (Adam=generic use, humankind) in His own image; in the image of God He created him (him is masculine singular); male and female He created them (yes, it is "them" but obviously referring collectively to humankind). (Gen 1:27 NKJ) Esther 2:7 does not picture Mordecai is breast-feeding his niece. The vocabulary there refers to Mordecai virtually adopting her (end of the verse) and bringing her up and being her attendant, "nourishing" her in the sense of providing for her. Similarly with the kings of Isaiah 49:23: the second phrase of that verse talks about the queens being nursing mothers; the kings will provide for the nation. The idea of provision and care is all that is implied. There is no gender confusion, mixing, or "well-expressed gender fluidity." Finally, his argument about the name of God is simply an example of the logical fallacy of special pleading. He should go back and study Exodus 3:14 and see the derivation of the tetragrammaton name of God. God is not the He/She; God is the self-existent eternal ruler of the universe. God is identified as Father to creation and to believers. To be sure, God is sometimes gentle as a mother, but that doesn't warrant us to call Him a Father/Mother. He is also going to judge like a lion, but we shouldn't perceive God as a Human/Lion combination. These are obviously figures of speech describing characteristics of the infinite, non-corporeal God. God's Son, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, is the perfect representation of God (Hebrews 1:2-3). He was and is still to this day incarnate as a human male. There is no lack of clarity on that point. Fri, 19 Aug 2016 08:54:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/08/God-is-NOT-Transgender https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/08/Two-De-Fide-Doctrines-of-the-Catholic-Church Editor's Note: This is a guest post by FBC member Vincent Brattin. Two dogmas of the Catholic church are Mary's immaculate conception and her perpetual virginity. The first teaches that Mary herself (not Jesus) was miraculously conceived so as to be kept pure from original sin. The second is that Mary remained always a virgin and never had any other children. These doctrines are both accepted by the Catholic church as de fide teachings, which carry the very highest level of theological certainty, and so any suspicion of doubt as to their veracity would subject the believing Roman Catholic to excommunication and anathema. Traditionally, anyway. Today, Rome is inclusivistic almost to the point of being universal, so they might not toss anyone out for anything. One of the strange effects of all the Marian teachings of Roman Catholicism is that they force Jesus to share His singular glory with Mary. Jesus was immaculately conceived, and on their view, Mary was immaculately conceived as well. Jesus was a virgin, Mary was perpetually virgin. Jesus suffered and died on the cross, Mary shared in Jesus' suffering and nearly died at the foot of the cross. Jesus was bodily assumed to heaven, Mary is bodily assumed to heaven. Jesus is the dispenser of all graces, Mary is the one through whom those graces are dispensed. Jesus conquered death, Mary crushed the serpent, etc. Those who believe in Sola Scriptura can appreciate Mary for exactly who she was (not immaculately conceived and not a perpetual virgin), and not swipe any of Jesus' glory, character or attributes to do so. Thu, 18 Aug 2016 20:28:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/08/Two-De-Fide-Doctrines-of-the-Catholic-Church https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/07/Question-About-Gods-Self-Disclosure We were discussing God's miracles and how he revealed himself to the Israelites in physical form. Is there a reason why God chooses to not reveal himself so publicly? Although Scripture does not offer a direct answer to this question as far as I am aware, we can piece together a decent answer. First, God doesn't reveal himself publicly today in human form precisely because He already did so in history once during the earthly lifetime of Jesus. No more is necessary. This revelation of God through the Son, according to Hebrews 1:2, is the pinnacle of divine revelation. No more is needed to reveal God. Second, given the completed Word of God, it is unnecessary for God to show Himself publicly. Remember the words of Abraham to the dead rich man in Luke 16:29 concerning the living: "They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them." The rich man objected and said if one goes to them from the dead (a form of a public revelation), then his brothers would really believe. But Moses responded, "If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead." Jesus teaches us here that a public revelation will be insufficient to get stiff-necked people to believe. They will always find an excuse to avoid the obvious, to skirt the facts, to turn away from God, because that is what they WANT to do in their hearts. And in fact they have done so with Jesus--who DID rise from the dead, and yet people STILL aren't persuaded about avoiding Hell. We have the Word of God, which is a sufficient and perfect revelation of God to us today, and we need nothing else. Third, God doesn't need to reveal Himself publicly for people to know Him because He has another mechanism to accomplish that outcome. He convinces sinners through the proclamation of the gospel and the work of the Holy Spirit to believe in Him. Thus we who believe in Christ know God, and don't require some public spectacle to cause us to believe in Him. "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." John 20:29. Fourth, God does reveal Himself in a general way to all mankind in nature (Psalm 19:1-6). Because of this, all people have no excuse for their disbelief (Romans 1:19-20 and surrounding). They reject this knowledge, and God is not obligated to give them more such knowledge about Himself. Finally, the Lord Jesus Christ will return bodily, visibly, and gloriously to the earth once again. Every eye will see him, whether at the rapture or at the second coming. So, God has chosen to reveal himself in bodily form and publicly—just at limited times such as the first and second comings. Then for all eternity, His servants will see Him. Mon, 25 Jul 2016 17:24:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/07/Question-About-Gods-Self-Disclosure https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/07/Essential-Doctrine-About-Jesus Reading in 1 and 2 John the last couple of days reminded me that several truths about Jesus must be believed by all Christians. First, Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah (1 John 2:22-23). Anyone who denies this is, as John says, a liar and antichrist who not only denies the Messianic credentials of Christ, but also denies God the Father. Note that this does not mean that the person explicitly denies God the Father and the Son. He may claim to acknowledge God the Father while rejecting the Son; however John pushes back that anyone who denies the Son also denies the Father. This is reinforced by another text authored by John: John 5:23. Second, Jesus has come in the flesh (1 John 4:2-3; 2 John 7). This means that He existed prior to His coming and then took up his fleshly dwelling subsequent to that prior existence. Anyone who denies this truth is not from God. Third, Jesus is the Son of God (1 John 5:5). Whoever does not hold this faith has not overcome the world, is not born of God, and does not love God. So far so good. But prominent cults can claim to believe all of the above in some sense. A couple more truths will set some obvious distance between the Biblical view and that of the cults. Fourth, Jesus is the creator of all things (John 1:3). It is clear from that text that any "made thing" was made by Christ. This explicitly puts Christ into a different category than "made things." Fifth and finally, Jesus is God (John 1:1). The Word, the one which became flesh (John 1:14), existed in the beginning, existed with God, and "was God." Wed, 06 Jul 2016 11:03:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/07/Essential-Doctrine-About-Jesus https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/06/Answering-Attacks-on-Jesus-Deity Editor's Note: This is a guest post by FBC member Vincent Brattin. Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man. Objection: How can an all-wise God increase in wisdom? Response: It may be that when Jesus took on human flesh, he took on some human limitations, and this may have included his knowledge. Or, it may be that "wisdom" is being identified as "knowledge + experience," and so as Jesus grew in years and gained in experience, he naturally grew in wisdom as a result. John 5:19, 30 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me." Objection: How can an all-powerful God express himself powerless to act on his own accord? Response: Jesus is saying that His own motives and intentions are so perfectly intertwined with those of the Father that there is no separation. Neither one would do anything apart from the other. Even in a moment of weakness, when it looks like Jesus might "go his own way," he confirms that that unique bond will continue (Mark 14:36, Matt 26:39). John 14:28 You heard me say to you, 'I am going away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. Objection: How can an all-powerful God say that someone is greater than himself? Response: We can only surmise the intricacies of the relationship between the members of the Godhead. His ways are above our ways, after all. Evidently God the Son volunteered to be in a subservient role to God the Father (and God the Holy Spirit likewise subservient to both). The Father is greater, in authority, but not in power. Luke 18:19 (see also Mark 10:18) And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." Objection: Jesus is specifically separating himself from God here, and saying only God is good. Response: Jesus didn’t say "Don’t call me good." He clearly was and is "good." Jesus is not denying his divinity so much as He is proclaiming it. Here He is giving the rich young ruler a chance to confess who Jesus is. Luke 19:29-34 When he drew near to Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount that is called Olivet, he sent two of the disciples, saying, "Go into the village in front of you, where on entering you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever yet sat. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you, 'Why are you untying it?' you shall say this: 'The Lord has need of it.'" So those who were sent went away and found it just as he had told them. And as they were untying the colt, its owners said to them, 'Why are you untying the colt?' And they said, "The Lord has need of it." Objection: How can God urge his followers into criminal behavior (in this case, a brazen theft of someone's livestock)? Response: It's not recorded, but it's entirely possible that Jesus had alerted the owner of the colt beforehand what was going to take place. This would certainly explain why the owner expressed no outrage upon being reassured "The Lord has need of it." Given our Lord's character, we can also assume that the disciples returned the colt when he was done using it. Mark 11:13-14 And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. And he said to it, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard it. Objection: How could God not know when the season for figs would be? Response: This episode was an object lesson for his disciples about the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem. They were showing the outward signs of spirituality, but not displaying the works or the attitude that result from genuine faith, just as the tree had the leaves, but no fruit. Jesus certainly knew beforehand what He would find on the tree. Matthew 24:36 (also Mark 13:32) But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. [Some manuscripts omit "nor the Son"] Objection: How can God not know the day and hour, especially of something so important? Response: This is a result of the voluntary limitations that Jesus imposed on Himself by taking on human flesh. I think that there can be no doubt that Jesus, in his present state, does know the day and hour. Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Objection: How can God forsake God? Response: First, Jesus as a man is bemoaning the fact that He is now without God’s protection. Second, He is reminding all who can hear him that He is fulfilling Psalm 22. John 20:17 Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" Objection: How can Jesus be God when He refers to the Father as "my God"? Response: Jesus could always refer to the Father as "my God" because of His voluntary subservient relationship to Him. But then Jesus made Himself lower still (in fact, a little lower than the angels), so referring to the Father as he did made perfect sense. Thu, 09 Jun 2016 17:08:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/06/Answering-Attacks-on-Jesus-Deity https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/06/Old-Testament-Feasts-and-the-Christian I was asked recently about the Feast of Pentecost and its significance for the Christian. Here are some thoughts on that subject. I am skeptical of doing a deep search for meaning in the feasts of Israel. I am convinced that the Biblical text will tell us plainly what we need to know. We need not hunt for hidden significance, or worry that we will miss something if we don't do such a search. Furthermore, I have seen a lot of 'stretching' of the feasts to find significance in them for us today. In general, all the feasts of Israel present us an opportunity to teach what God expected ancient Israel to do in terms of religious observances. They also provide an open door to show that there are dispensational distinctions between the Jews of old, Gentiles, and the church. In the church, we don't do some of the things Israel did. In particular, Pentecost reminds us of the following: 1. To be thankful for the agricultural harvest, because our food depends on God. This is indicated in the word "firstfruits" in Lev. 23:17. Firstfruits is a word that is tied to harvest and agriculture. 2. The giving of the Ten Commandments, in Jewish thought, is tied to the giving of the Law. That connection is not explicit in the Bible. The timing is a bit off if you compare the "three months" from Exodus 12:2 to Exodus 19:1 just before the Law was given, since that would be about 28*3 = 84 days after Passover and the departure from Egypt, instead of 50 days after Passover. 3. Acts 2 and the birth of the church along with the coming of the Holy Spirit. This is just a reminder, however, because that information was hidden from, not revealed to, Israel, until Acts 2. Pentecost does not teach church truth. It just happens to be the time at which God decided to send the Spirit and complete the steps required to start the church. Thu, 02 Jun 2016 15:48:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/06/Old-Testament-Feasts-and-the-Christian https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/05/An-Area-of-Research-for-the-Problem-of-Evil The thought occurred to me that someone could profitably spend some time looking into the problem of evil from the perspective of those close encounters that Jesus had with evil. A careful study may highlight some helpful truths as we think about how God and evil co-exist in the universe. Passages I was thinking about included the temptation (Matthew 4 and Luke 4), Jesus' encounters with people possessed by demons, and His interaction with Judas at the last supper (John 13:26-27 and verse 30-31). There are probably others. The latter passage came up in my reading this morning and I noted how the Lord told Judas, "What you do, do quickly." Without condoning Judas' actions, Jesus told him to get it done, even though it was evil. Ponder that... Let me know if you write a research paper or thesis on this. I'd be interested to see what you come up with! Thu, 12 May 2016 08:01:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/05/An-Area-of-Research-for-the-Problem-of-Evil https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/04/Philemon-17-21-in-Pictures Yesterday I had the privilege to preach from the climactic section of Paul's letter to Philemon. I pictured the situation between the three main characters this way: Then I changed the names to show how that situation illustrates the gospel: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 16:15:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/04/Philemon-17-21-in-Pictures https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/04/Holy-War-in-the-Bible Back on March 18, 2016, Dr. Kyle Dunham presented on the matter of holy war in the Rice Lecture series at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. This article is not a review but rather a summary of of things that I learned or noted while I listened to Dr. Dunham. Consider it a after-the-fact live blog of the event! These are listed in the order I wrote them down, not in any other order. Motivating factors for God were compassion and deliverance of His people. The deliverance through holy war was a blessing to them. Holy war starts in Exodus. God is active or passive/permissive in holy war, not always the former. God sometimes had holy war against Israel! Justice is another key motivation behind holy war. See Deut. 16. Holy war was used to establish Israel (against Egypt) and to preserve it from bondage or peril. Dr. Dunham takes a dispensational approach to holy war. We can see echoes of holy war in the book of Revelation, including trumpets in both. We have to maintain a connection between holy war and hte land and its consecration. Holy war is a fulfillment of Abrahamic curses on the enemies and blessings on the nation of Israel. Unless, of course, the people of Israel departed from God, and then he turned the instrument of holy war against them! Holiness is another motivating factor behind holy war, and teh resultant moral protection of God's people. The gift of the land to Israel is another motivation behind holy war. The idea of gradual displacement. Key resources include Von Rad 1951, Copan and Flannagan, Qureshi's Answering Jihad. Not about Haman the Agagite. Perhaps he was an Amalekite and maybe he hated Israel for the reason that the Israelites had victory over the Amalekites years earlier. Holy war consisted in judgment against groups that threatened Israel's existence or that were sinful, committing sins such as infanticide. These require a proportional response. Kev difficult texts include Deut 7 and 20:16-17. Genocide charges must be limited to the issue of herem, the so-called ban or devotion to total destruction. Dunham gave a careful definition of herem. He linked idolatry (which is demonic worship) into the idea, with Lev. 27:21. God has a claim on the land. Herem is a purging followed by a reconstruction or re-populating of the land. Herem is 1. capital punishment of many people; 2. conflagration; 3. repopulation; 4. connection to the temple. It is about the land and the nation, it is not racially motivated. We could say that it is religiously motivated in a sense./li> Herem prevented "exchange" from happening between cultures and was a way to implement separation from idolatry. Herem echoes the genesis flood in terms of purification and the mass killing of many sinful people. I noted this seems to echo more the holiness of God than Herem per se. The Canannite people are connected to the curse on Canaan due to sexual perversion (Genesis 9:20-27). Gave a definition of Jihad, and showed a progression of violence, and the distinction with Yahweh War in the Old Testament. Sacred geography in Yahweh wars are for one nation; focused on false gods, not on unbelievers. I believe this would be a slim distinction lost on the world. Yahweh War includes proportional violence, versus no limit in Jihad. God's war is an act of justice proportionate to the crime committed. Islam propagates through Jihad; Holy War protects the people of Israel. Christian Bible preserves life; Islam dose not, and extols the martyr. Just war principles (Grotius and others). Mentioned 7 facts about war. Mentioned O'donovan and Just war theory with parallels to God's War. Israel is preserved for Messiah, and (this is a key addition) God loves Israel so he preserves them until the eschaton too. Dunham diagrams Yahweh Wars with first the infinite transcendence of God, second His holiness, justice, and righteousness, third His truth, faithfulness and veracity, and fourth with His love and compassion. The entries under "second" are motivations, as well as compassion in "fourth." God says that the Canaanites were sinners. As sinners today look more like Canannites, they see those "victims of Yahweh war" as more and more innocent. Yahweh war is tied to Israel, so we don't have to find out how to fit it into the New Testament or the church. I had a question: So is "NT" Yahweh War against the believer's sin our "greater jihad" as in Galatians 5 whereas in the OT is the "lesser jihad"? We take a defensive posture in NT spiritual war (standing our ground against the wiles of the devil, etc.) Resource from David Cook on Jihad. Holy War comes back as Israel comes back into focus in Gods' program in the eschaton. As they receive focus, holy war themes come into more focus, as in during the Tribulation. Thu, 14 Apr 2016 14:43:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/04/Holy-War-in-the-Bible https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/04/How-to-Find-a-Good-Church First, be reading your Bible very regularly. Second, consider some resources that remind you what to look for. I have written a fairly detailed and, frankly, blunt, guide to finding what I would consider a good church. I call it the A Regular Person's Guide on How to Find a Good Church. Some guidelines from Pastor John MacArthur An outline by Christian Apologetics Research Ministry Nine marks to look for in a church Tue, 05 Apr 2016 15:22:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/04/How-to-Find-a-Good-Church https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/04/Love-and-Truth I read this morning: And now I ask you...that we love one another. And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments...For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. (2 John 5-7, ESV) The juxtaposition of three ideas caught my attention: loving one another, keeping His commandments, and "because" many deceivers are out there not acknowledging the coming of Christ. Not only is the presence of deceivers a motivation to emphasize love in the Christian community, but also such deception is far from the kind of obedient love that John says characterizes the true believer. Love and deception don't go together; love and deception on the doctrine of Christ really don't go together. Tue, 05 Apr 2016 09:00:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/04/Love-and-Truth https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/04/The-Bible-on-Gender-Reassignment A few days ago, I received the following question: Where does the Bible condemn someone surgically becoming another gender? The question arises because there is no Biblical text that clearly says "thou shalt not" to gender reassignment. But it would be a woefully inadequate argument to use that fact in favor of reassignment, for there are many particular behaviors that are not specifically called out by the Bible as sin which are in fact sin. It is obvious to genuine Christians that certain behaviors are outside of the realm of righteousness. The works of the sinful nature of man are obvious (Galatians 5:19-21). For instance, ingesting cocaine is not forbidden specifically by the Bible. But the fact that it is illegal in our country, coupled with the witness of Scripture to not be under the control of some substance, makes it unacceptable (Romans 13:1, 1 Cor. 6:12, Ephesians 5:18). So why no gender reassignment according to the Bible? 1. Gender reassignment rejects the created order. God created basically all species of animals with male and female counterparts, according to their kind, with ability to reproduce in pairs. Don't hold me to scientific specificity here; I know about inter-sex and morphs and asexual reproduction in microscopic living things and hermaphrodites and the like. My point is that God created humans as male and female (Genesis 1:27, 5:2). There are therefore only two sexes. 2. Gender reassignment violates the principle of not mutilating the human body. Leviticus 19:28 prohibits cuttings and tattoos (see also Leviticus 21:5, Deut. 14:1). Such activities were associated with pagan idolatrous religious practices, including mourning rituals (1 Kings 18:28). Admittedly, these are all Old Testament references. Elsewhere I have written on the issue of the applicability of the Mosaic Law to modern issues. The reason for this is that the body is a gift from God and is to be respected as such. The body is made in the image of God and that conveys dignity to it. 3. Gender reassignment rejects God's choice for the individual's sex and gender. To change gender is to effectively thumb your nose at God, rejecting His authority over your life. Jesus is Lord (Romans 10:9-10); that means He is the boss. It is not your will, but God's will that carries the day. Related to this is the Bible's teaching on how we should be content and not dissatisfied. Gender reassignment indicates a deep-seated discontentment with God's choice of one's sex/gender (Hebrews 13:5, 1 Timothy 6:8, Philippians 4:11, Luke 3:14). 4. Gender reassignment "did not come into God's mind" in the sense of Jeremiah 32:35. It is a thing so outside of the realm of right and proper that it is an abomination to God. It was not considered by human societies until the twentieth century when medical technology had advanced to a point where such things could be done. 5. Finally, an argument from lesser to greater. The Scriptures prohibit cross-dressing. See Deuteronomy 22:5: "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God. (NKJV) Since Scripture prohibits the lesser—putting on of the clothing of the opposite gender—it is very reasonable to assume that God prohibits permanently changing from a man to a woman or the reverse (if that were actually possible). 6. Gender follows sex. There are, as with everything in this world, things that can break from this simple and normative pattern. Christians are not surprised at the confusion about gender and sex that exists in our society. That confusion is just another evidence of how deeply the fall of mankind into sin has affected our minds and bodies (Ephesians 4:18, Romans 1:21-28). And now, why does gender reassignment go awry according to science and reason? 7. Gender reassignment is not the same as fixing a birth defect. If a person is born as a boy, that is a gift from God, not a birth defect or a deviation from the proper gender of the child. Any feelings of deviation in gender are that--feelings--and can be helped by acknowledging the Biblical truth of God's creation, sin, the fall, and redemption. A birth defect such as club feet or fused fingers or hypoplastic left heart syndrome are deviations from the normal and correct anatomy. To fix them is to alleviate pain and suffering. To reassign gender is to fix a problem that is not a problem. It takes the normal and makes it abnormal. 8. Gender reassignment is not the same as cosmetic surgery. A facelift or tummy tuck or fixing varicose veins is like fixing a birth defect: it is fixing something that has deviated from its normal or proper design. Changing a person's external and internal sexual organs from their normal anatomy to something abnormal is a totally different kind of thing. 9. You cannot change your X and Y chromosomes. They are replicated in every one of the 37.2 trillion cells in your body, if you are average size. Well, except for your red blood cells which have no nucleus, or your sperm or eggs which only have the 23 chromosomes instead of the full complement of 46. The point is that the same genetic material is replicated trillions of times throughout your body, although only parts of it are active in certain cells depending on their type. A few cosmetic changes and hormonal treatments will not change the fact that trillions of cells contain either XX or XY, and those remain the same throughout the person's lifetime. While the external appearance may be made to look like the opposite sex, every cell in the body cries out the birth sex of the person. Please don't bother with the worn out argument that I hate you if you have had a reassignment surgery, or are pondering one, or are of an opposite view than I am. I am telling you what the BIBLE says about gender reassignment. And I believe the Bible is right because it comes from God. But I am not a hater. For more on that, read here. References An Article on Hermaphrodites I spoke on this topic on April 3, 2016 Sat, 02 Apr 2016 16:00:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/04/The-Bible-on-Gender-Reassignment https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/03/Advice-for-Young-Men Guest post by Missionary Bryan MacPhail-Fausey, originally posted on Facebook. I've been reflecting on raising my sons and some practical wisdom a middle age man who came to faith in Christ later in life might be able to share with next generation of young Christian men. Some of these are from mistakes I've made and learned the hard way. Some are from watching others do the same. But all of them can be gleaned directly or indirectly from Scripture. I pray you find them helpful. Feel free to share. 1. Truly commit and surrender your life to God. Put every decision and direction in His hands. You won't go wrong. 2. Get knowledge. Get wisdom. Get direction. First and foremost in God and then in your relationship with God to seek your calling – a calling that you are passionate about and to which God is leading. It may be secular or it may be sacred or it may be both. It may take 5, 10, 20 years and it may change in 5, 10, 20 years. But make sure God is leading it. 3. Pride kills. You aren't all that. You don’t know what you don't know. Walk wisely. Ask questions. Think before you speak. If you are angry, think longer and pray. If you are still angry, keep thinking and pray harder. True humility will honor God and benefit you much more than any level of pride. 4. Be content. In Christ your hope and future is secure. Trust in and learn from what God is doing in and through you now. You may not have everything you want, but I'll bet you have everything you need. Is it enough? The truthful answer is yes. 5. Don't go into debt. Period. It’s hard to be flexible to where and when God calls you when you have debt looming over you. "The borrower is servant to the lender" is true. Don't do it. Don't. 6. Give First to God. Spend wisely. Don’t accumulate. There is very little you really need. I understand the pull of "stuff." But you will end up throwing away or Craigslisting the majority of the "stuff" and the money spent will not have aided anyone. And if you have it, you have to maintain it. And that costs as well. It's hard to be flexible to God's call when you have all this "stuff" to deal with and maintain. 7. Travel light. This goes with don't accumulate. This is especially true as you remain single. What you truly need can probably fit in a good backpack. God may call you in an instant to be out the door and moving for His purposes. Be ready. 8. Don't waste your time. You lose valuable time and opportunity when you spend hours playing video games, watching movies, TV, etc. A little diversion from time to time is good. Obsessing is bad. PS – once you invest in the big TV and/or the gaming system, you're sunk. Don't do it. Don't. 9. Let God lead your love life. Honor God. Honor your prospective wife. Honor her parents. Honor your parents. Don't enter into a relationship without the view to marriage. Don’t enter into a relationship without the prospective spouse sharing your faith, values and direction in life. 10. Live close to your church. Live close to where you work. It's hard to be involved in your church and your community and to invite those from work and the community to church when you are a long distance from either. An ideal distance? You can ride a bicycle to church and to work if you needed (or wanted) too. 11. Stay fit physically. Stay fit mentally. Eat good things in moderation. Exercise. Take down time. Yes you can get in shape pretty quickly now, but in 20 years, it's a battle. And...you may need to ride a bike to church. Watch what you put into your mind or let society put into your mind. In addition to your Bible, read good books. Choose your entertainment wisely; once it gets in your mind, it's impossible to get out. 12. Build relationships. Not on Facebook, not on Twitter. Sit down with people. Get to know, care for and love them. Invest in people – especially those in your church – you are part of that body. Get to know those in your community. Get to know those in your place of work. Jesus had compassion on the masses when He saw them; get out from behind the screens and go see them. Tue, 15 Mar 2016 14:10:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/03/Advice-for-Young-Men https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/03/Women-Teaching-Men-Permissible-in-the-Church I read 1 Timothy 2:12 yesterday and today and a slightly different thought struck me in relation to a church problem that I encountered in an overseas missions context. Some women have taken it upon themselves to become pastors and teachers in churches. This verse forbids that because the basic idea of it and the following is that God has not designed for women to have such authority. Some men have said that if they permit a woman to teach or lead a service "under the men's authority" then it is OK. But if Paul were in their shoes, he would say, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man." Men who do that would do well to consider that they are violating the apostolic example. Paul is showing how we ought to behave in the church (1 Tim. 3:15). If Paul would not permit a woman to teach or have authority over men, how can we? Tue, 15 Mar 2016 07:34:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/03/Women-Teaching-Men-Permissible-in-the-Church https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/03/Brought-Near-The-Relationship-between-the-Gentile-and-the-Jewish-Covenants Dispensationalists among themselves, along with covenant theologians, have debated the correct way to express the Christian Gentile's relationship to the New Covenant, and to the related Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. The answers range from two new covenants to full involvement of the Gentile in the new covenant at the expense of Israel, to participation in the spiritual blessings in the covenant. See Dispensational Understanding of the New Covenant: 3 Views: Regular Baptist Books, 2012 (available here). Another way of explaining it is to use the language of Paul in Ephesians 2:13. He says that those who were formerly without God, without hope, and strangers to the covenants of promise were "brought near" by the blood of Christ. This seems to be close to the spiritual participation view which I have held. It is as if being 'near' lets some of the blessings of the covenants "rub off onto the Gentile Christian" or "diffuse over to the Christian" because of a new-found proximity to those promises. It does not say "brought into" or "merged," thus maintaining a distinction between Israel and the Church. Nor does it indicate a duplication of the covenants as if there are two new covenants or two sets of covenant promises. So our relationship to the covenants is that we are brought near. It is sort of simple, but the advantage of this explanation is that it uses straightforward Biblical terminology. Sat, 05 Mar 2016 16:24:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/03/Brought-Near-The-Relationship-between-the-Gentile-and-the-Jewish-Covenants https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/03/Microsoft-Update-is-Deceitful-and-Tiresome Under the heading of how Christian values interact with technology, I thought I would illustrate how Microsoft is pushing its Windows 10 operating system with some underhanded techniques. I have come to the conclusion that I do not want Windows 10. I like Windows 7 just fine, and I don't have time to introduce more bugs into my desktop or laptop because I am too busy using them for other productive purposes. I don't need to mess up my work tools with more interface experimentation by Microsoft. So, I have edited the appropriate registry keys to turn off the Windows 10 upgrade; I have removed the KB3035583 update that hawks the update; and I hid that update when it reappeared. Yet Microsoft is still pushing the update. Here's how they do it. After I did everything above, in Windows update, it shows this update: Update for Windows 7 for x64-based Systems (KB3035583) Despite the fact that earlier I hid that update, it has put a check mark beside it and wants to automatically install it. It classes the update is an "Important" update. Strike one. Then, it describes the update this way: "Install this update to resolve issues in Windows. For a complete listing of the issues that are included in this update, see the associated Microsoft Knowledge Base article for more information." But if you visit the Knowledge Base article, it says, "This update installs the Get Windows 10 app that helps users understand their Windows 10 upgrade options and device readiness." That doesn't sound like something that "resolves issues in Windows." Maybe it would be correct if it advertised the update as "Install this update to create issues in Windows." This is deceitful "bait and switch" advertising. Strike two. Then, it adds in the optional update section another update that has to do with Windows 10: Update for Windows 7 for x64-based Systems (KB2952664) Strike three. Basically, I want Microsoft to keep its hands off my computer! It doesn't belong to them. More than that, don't deceive when you publish updates. Just tell what they are up front, and don't try to sneak your way into my system. Deceit is not a good way to operate. Microsoft's entire experiment starting with Windows 8 trying to integrate desktop with touch and make small and large devices operate just the same has been a failure. Take a cue from Apple and have two operating systems: one for small devices and one for large ones. Distinguish them. And don't ruin a good thing with Windows 7. Or perhaps if you are truly interested in upgrading the "under the hood" stuff, give me the option to have a user experience that I like, say with a Windows 7 desktop on top of a Windows 10 base OS. That should be easy enough to provide. I can hear some of my zealous friends out there saying, "Hey, just dump Microsoft and get a Mac!" That is a temptation... However, I'm more likely to go all Linux. Thu, 03 Mar 2016 08:01:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/03/Microsoft-Update-is-Deceitful-and-Tiresome https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/02/Acts-7-Highlights When you read Acts 7, you might feel a little lost in it because of the length of the chapter. Perhaps what I gleaned this morning in my reading will be a help to you. Stephen points out that the patriarchs were jealous of Joseph and sold him into Egypt (verse 9). He goes on to say that Moses was misunderstood by his Jewish brothers (verse 25). Stephen continues by saying that they rejected Moses (verses 27, 35, and 39). The Jews turned into idolaters (verse 40 and following). The climax of Stephen's defense and sermon comes in verse 51. He has said that the Jews were jealous, did not understand, rejected God's appointed leader, and turned into idolaters. Stephen now drops the main point of his message: "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you." Stephen's audience of the high priest and his council are just like their fathers! Their forefathers persecuted the prophets and killed God's messengers. Similarly, they persecuted and killed Jesus. The account ends with their continued hard-heartedness as they kill Stephen before he can even tell them of God's grace in extending an offer of salvation. Tue, 09 Feb 2016 08:05:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/02/Acts-7-Highlights https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/01/Elementary-Hebrew-Grammar-Winter-2016 If you are interested in learning some Hebrew vocabulary, listen in to these audio recordings. The first lesson contains words that occur 1000 or more times in the Hebrew Bible; each successive lesson covers words by groups in decreasing order of frequency of occurrence. Lesson 1: 1000+ Lesson 2: 500-999 Lesson 3: 400-500 Lesson 4: 310-399 Lesson 5: 270-309 Lesson 6: 220-269 Lesson 7: 200-219 Lesson 8: 175-199 Lesson 9: 160-174 Lesson 10: 144-159 Lesson 11: 134-143 Lesson 12: 121-133 Lesson 13: 112-120 Lesson 14: 112-120 Credit for this list is due to Dr. R. Bruce Compton of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, but its origin before his time I do not know. Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:29:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2016/01/Elementary-Hebrew-Grammar-Winter-2016 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/12/Bible-Reading-in-2016 With this post, I am publishing the annual set of Bible reading schedules that I have prepared for the past six (now seven) years. Read the New Testament once Read the New Testament twice Read the New Testament four times Read the Old Testament once Key chapters for young readers Read the book of Acts and New Testament letters in just four and a half months, in chronological order If you would like another schedule that takes you through the entire Bible in the year, and with some chronological ordering in it, check out this schedule from bibleclassmaterial.com. Tue, 29 Dec 2015 14:03:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/12/Bible-Reading-in-2016 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/12/Article-on-Evolution From the archive again, this is a 10-page type-written set of notes from the early 1980s on evolution. It is available as a scanned PDF and a re-typed Word document. Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:41:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/12/Article-on-Evolution https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/12/Notes-on-Theology-Proper From the archive: 8 legal-size pages of typewritten notes on the doctrine of theology proper given at the Grace Bible Institute prior to 1981. The topic was Theology proper, the doctrine of God. It is also available as a Word document that is searchable. Sat, 05 Dec 2015 17:27:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/12/Notes-on-Theology-Proper https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/12/Notes-on-Premillennialism This time from the archive: 10 pages of typewritten notes for a pastors seminar in Bucksport Maine, May 10-12, 1976. The topic was premillennialism, post-tribulationism, and pre-tribulationism. This is also available as a Word document that is searchable. Thu, 03 Dec 2015 22:14:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/12/Notes-on-Premillennialism https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/12/Your-Pastor-Your-Prayer A pastor friend gave me a copy of the following article that he had in his files from October 1, 1981. I do not know what publication it was in, but it looks like it was on page (597) 21. The author is Robert B. Mignard, who I believe is the late former pastor of Calvary Bible Church in Mount Joy, PA. Here is the article: A young preacher had taken his first pastorate in Philadelphia. One evening one of his members said rather bluntly, "You are not a strong preacher. In the usual order of things, you will fail here, but a little group of us has agreed to gather every Sunday morning to pray for you." The group soon grew to over a thousand people, praying weekly for their pastor. That young man was J. Wilbur Chapman, who became one of America's mighty preachers. Charles Spurgeon was approached by a delegation of American pastors who inquired of him his reasons for success. In response to their questions, Spurgeon led the pastors to the basement of his church and quietly opened the door. The visits saw more than three hundred people praying for God's blessing to rest upon their pastor, who would be preaching the Word of God that night. "There, gentlemen," said Spurgeon, "is the reason for my success." In Romans 15:30-32 and Ephesians 6:18-20, Paul asks for the prayers of the church. Who would have thought that Paul needed the prayers of the Roman and Ephesians Christians? After all, he was a man of prayer himself, filled with the Holy Spirit and widely used of God. Yet here is his ardent request: "I beseech you, brethren, ... that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me" (Rom. 15:30). Stand behind your pastor in prayers and supplications as he proclaims the Word. Pray for him during the week as he studies, prays, counsels, visits, and administers the affairs of the church. A prayerless church inevitably leads to a powerless preacher. You may entertain your pastor lavishly, raise and praise him, but only through earnest prayer can you ever help him to be an effective instrument in the hands of almighty God. You can do nothing greater for your pastor. Thu, 03 Dec 2015 10:25:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/12/Your-Pastor-Your-Prayer https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/11/Debt-Blotted-Out-Colossians-2-14-15 When I preached through Colossians 2:14-15, I asked if someone might draw a sketch depicting a handbill of charges against the believer hanging nailed to a cross, with the world, Satan and the grim reaper at the foot of the cross in utter defeat. Here is what one of our teenaged young ladies drew: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 23:38:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/11/Debt-Blotted-Out-Colossians-2-14-15 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/11/Historical-Interest-1986-FBC-Church-Bulletins I found at the church nearly complete sets of 1981-86 typewritten bulletins. They will be of interest particularly to our church family because that was from the first six year of the church. It shows attendance, some information on finances, and gives insight into the church life at that time. 1981 Bulletins, missing early weeks in July from the start of FBC. 1982 Bulletins, missing several weeks 1983 Bulletins, missing several weeks 1984 Bulletins, missing April 15 1985 Bulletins, missing August 1986 Bulletins Along with the bulletins came 81 typewritten sermon notes that Pastor Raymond Saxe gave as bulletin inserts and from which he preached. Here they are: Genesis 17:16 Leviticus 1:1-17 Psalm 32:8-11 1 Samuel 21:1-15 Isaiah 53:8 Isaiah 53:10 Hosea 6:4-11 Hosea 10:1-15 Hosea 12:1-14 Hosea 14:1-9 Micah 7:1-13 Matthew 5:1-9 Matthew 19:13-15 Matthew 21:1-17 Mark 10:35-45 Mark 10:35-45 Part 2 Mark 14:3-9 Luke 2:24-35 Luke 4:38-44 John 1:6 John 1:29 John 11:38-46 John 17:1 John 17:2-3 John 17:18-19 John 17:20-21 John 20:19-23 Acts 6:1-14 Acts 9:31 Romans 1:21-24 Romans 2:4-5 Romans 2:13and16 Romans 2:17-29 Romans 3:9-10 Romans 3:10-11 Romans 3:10-11 Part2 Romans 3:12 Romans 3:15-18 Romans 3:19-20 Romans 3:22 Romans 3:23 Romans 3:24 Romans 3:24 Part2 Romans 3:25 Romans 3:25 Part2 Romans 4:13-17 Romans 4:1-3 Romans 4:1y-19 Romans 4:22-25 Romans 4:4-5 Romans 4:6-8 Romans 4:9-12 Romans 5:1 Romans 5:2 Romans 5:2 Part2 Romans 5:12-21 Romans 5:12-21 Part2 Romans 6:11-14 Romans 6:1-6 Romans 7:14-25 Romans 7:7-13 Romans 8:12-17a Romans 8:1-4 Romans 8:26-28 Romans 8:31 Romans 8:32 Romans 8:33-34 Romans 8:35-37 Romans 8:38-39 Romans 8:5-11 Romans 9:14-18 Romans 9:19-29 Romans 9:30-33 Ephesians 4:1-3 Ephesians 4:4-6 Ephesians 4:21-24 Ephesians 5:1 Ephesians 5:15-21 Ephesians 5:22 2 Thessalonians 1:5-8 2 Peter 3:18 Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:00:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/11/Historical-Interest-1986-FBC-Church-Bulletins https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/10/Hebrew-Syntax-and-Reading-Vocabulary At Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary I have just started helping to teach second year Hebrew. That's a task! One of the things we are doing is learning somewhere north of 800 vocabulary words. I have recorded the words as an aid to my study so that as I travel in the car I can review. This is a draft quality, but such as it is... Lesson 1 Lesson 2 Lesson 3 Lesson 4 Lesson 5 Lesson 6 Lesson 7 Lesson 8 Lesson 9 Lesson 10 Lesson 11 Lesson 12 Lesson 13 Mon, 16 Nov 2015 21:25:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/10/Hebrew-Syntax-and-Reading-Vocabulary https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/11/Hebrew-Audio-Bible A great resource for learning a how to pronounce Biblical Hebrew is available at The Academy of Ancient Languages. As that site says, the reader of most of the Hebrew Bible was the late Abraham Shmuelof, a priest born in Jerusalem. Another voice is heard on the recordings as well, but I don't have information on that person. Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:15:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/11/Hebrew-Audio-Bible https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/11/Wondering-about-Pastoral-Search I often hear about churches calling an ordination council to examine a man as to his call and doctrinal fitness for gospel ministry. This is wise: a church can and must evaluate the man as to his salvation testimony, call to ministry, giftedness, ability to preach and teach, and his character. By calling a council of outside pastors they recognize they need additional objective advice as to whether the man holds to sound doctrine in the entire counsel of God. What I do not hear about is churches calling a similar council to examine a man who is to be their own next (senior) pastor. I believe it would be wise to have an outside council of like-minded pastors to make sure that the man who is being considered actually holds to the doctrine and practice of the church, is of a temperate spirit so as not to get the church into problems, and is not being recycled from a problematic situation. The church is wise to seek outside objective advice, in order to avoid the "this pastoral search thing is going on too long, let's just get it over with" mentality. Such weariness in finding a good pastor can lead the church to pick "a good available candidate" instead of "the best candidate" for the ministry. Just wondering, because an ordination often leads to the new pastor going out to minister in another church; a pulpit search brings a new pastor in. If not done carefully, there may be a tough road ahead. Sat, 07 Nov 2015 11:41:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/11/Wondering-about-Pastoral-Search https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/10/I-Don-t-Drink-Alcohol-Because I don't drink alcohol because: We are commanded not to be drunk. Drunkenness sets in quite soon after drinking begins. If it doesn’t because you have built up resistance, you already have a serious problem. Drinking is not necessary to live, or to enjoy life. Drinking only a few beers puts most people into the impaired or intoxicated category. Drinking can form a habit and addiction which can be deadly. Drinking is potentially destructive of families, in auto accidents, etc. Drinking is offensive to many Christians. Drinking blurs your testimony to the world. Drinking moderately can lead your kids into drinking immoderately. Drinking is a waste of money and supports a bad industry. Drinking clouds judgment and deadens senses and conscience. Drinking is not compatible with Christian ministry, just like it was not compatible with Tabernacle ministry. Drinking is not necessary medicinally or to purify drinking water. Drinking is not the best or most excellent choice. Drinking is often associated with sexual immorality and other sinful lifestyles. Sat, 24 Oct 2015 22:10:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/10/I-Don-t-Drink-Alcohol-Because https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/09/Repetition-in-Christian-Songs Last night, part of my message dealt with repetition in Christian hymns and songs. This was not a message that just bashes "7-11 songs" for having too much repetition. It is instead the result of a brief "scientific" study I did over the last few weeks that carefully measures the repetition in songs and uses a computer program to assist in that song analysis. I am concerned about excessive repetition in Christian songs. Some repetition can be helpful, and some is found in Scripture. See Psalm 136 for an example of fairly heavy repetition. The Proverbs and Psalms use poetic synonymous parallelism. Because this is not exact verbal repetition, I do not count it as pure "repetition." But there is a point at which verbal repetition becomes bad (sinful). See Acts 19:34 for a pagan example of repeated chanting. Our Lord warns us against using repeated words to get God to hear our prayers (Matthew 6:7). I took some examples in our traditional hymnal as well as among some contemporary songs and ranked them according to their repetitiveness. One example I found was the hymn "Worthy is the Lamb" in the Living Hymns hymnal. Once all the repeated lines are eliminated, only 29% of the song remains. I call this percentage the "meaning density" of the song. Meaning density is a measure of how many words in the song express unique meaning. If when you sing a song you utter 100 words, but these words consist of 10 repeated phrases of 10 words each, then you are singing with about 10% meaning. Of course some repetition can be well done and sung to a different melody and manner, but after awhile, all the variations boil down to the same meaning. A song with such low density is what I would call "fluff." There are three general groupings of hymns and contemporary songs. The first has a meaning density around 35% or less. The second group consists of songs that have a percentage of around 50-75%. The third group is above 75%, and many of the ones I studied have 100% density. That means that they have no repeated phrases in them. Songs like "Amazing Grace" and "His Robes for Mine" rank the highest according to the repetition calculation. The analysis revealed that certain songs are extremely repetitious. The song I mentioned above, "Worthy is the Lamb" is under 30%. "Jesus Saves" devotes 30% of all the words sung to that two-word phrase. "My Sins are Blotted Out" dedicates 60% of the song to that phrase from the title. "Why Should He Love Me So?" has 50% of the song in those words. The phrase "I Can Only Imagine" takes up 26% of the song by that name; this particular song has an overall meaning density of 35%. The Hallelujah Chorus has a meaning density even less--near 20%! I noted that almost all of the CCM genre songs that I studied fell under the 50% mark in terms of repetition. Heavy repetition within a song is not necessary or helpful, particularly when you consider that a good song that "gets into your head" will be repeated quite a bit by your thinking of and singing the words over and over. After this study, I am more resolved than before to select hymns that are not under about 50% of repetition. Are those songs always wrong to use? I don't think so. But as part of the regular worship diet of a church, they are not appropriate. A lot of objective work could be done in this area (research assistants, please?). Many more songs could be run through my program; the program could be improved; and more characteristics of songs could be distilled. Even more important would be to look at other important aspects of hymn analysis, such as music style, focus on God or man, theological truths or errors contained in the song, the originating theological system, and the quality of the words and music in terms of their majesty and worthiness of our great God. The script I mentioned is available here and the Powerpoint is available here. To run the program, you will need a Perl interpreter like Strawberry Perl or Perl in the Cygwin package. For a bit more detail, listen to my message here. Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:32:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/09/Repetition-in-Christian-Songs https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/09/A-Curious-Contrast After I spent some time talking to someone about the doctrine of sanctification, a strange thought struck me about Arminian soteriology and a certain form of sanctification as contrasted with Calvinistic soteriology and sanctification. Let me over-simplify and summarize it this way: Some Arminians say this: 1. I can be saved. 2. I cannot be sanctified unless a certain formula is met. But Calvinists say the opposite in both cases. 3. I cannot be saved. 4. I can indeed be sanctified after I am saved. To be fair, both sides recognize in soteriology that God must do something to save man. Christ is indispensable in the view of both; some work of God is wrought upon the heart of man, either by rendering him able with prevenient grace, or working a special grace in his heart at the moment of salvation. But the similarities stop just about there. The Arminian believes, or at least seems to believe, that every person has a fairly unfettered ability to make a choice to respond to the gospel of Christ. The Calvinist denies this and says that people are dead in sin and cannot respond unless a special work of God is wrought upon their hearts. The curious thing is that some Arminians who believe the unsaved person has such ability in salvation deny the believer's ability in the subsequent work of sanctification. Believers, on their view, are unable to simply obey the commands of God in the Bible. Some sequence of special things has to happen in their lives before they can have victory over sin. For instance, they have to "reckon" themselves to be dead to sin, or they have to consecrate themselves, or be filled with the Spirit, or be "broken," before they can achieve victory over sin. The Calvinist on the other hand, who denies ability at salvation, rejoices to point out the new found power of the believer after salvation. The Holy Spirit has taken up ministry within the believer; a new nature has been imparted; new desires have been implanted; regeneration has occurred. The believer is a new creature in Christ and can in fact obey the commands of God. True, the commands are not obeyed in mere human power. But they can be obeyed! I found the swapping of "ability" before and after salvation in these two systems to be a curious thing. Why should any Arminian who believes a person has the ability to initially come to salvation not believe that at least that much ability, and more, is to be found in the believer after salvation? Arminian: I can get saved, but once I do, I cannot persevere. God may or may not preserve me. Calvinist: I cannot get saved, but once I do, I have the ability to persevere. God will preserve me. Arminian: ability becomes inability. Calvinist: inability becomes ability. To be sure, some will take issue with how I am, perhaps, over-simplifying things. But I think the contrast is worthy of some thought before dismissing it. Sat, 26 Sep 2015 21:34:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/09/A-Curious-Contrast https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/09/The-Bible-Summarized-in-Three-Pages Introduction Maybe you are new to reading the Bible and aren’t quite sure what it is all about. The Bible is a library of 66 smaller books compiled into one larger book. It describes important events in world history. In it, God also tells us what he wants us to know about ourselves, Himself, and everything that has to do with life and death. This document summarizes what God has said using 11 words that begin with the letter 'C' (adapted from a shorter list at the Christian ministry Answers in Genesis). Creation Genesis 1-2 God created everything out of nothing in six days, and ceased from creation on the seventh day. That is why our week is seven days long. The very pinnacle of creation was man and woman, Adam and Eve. God made Adam out of the dust of the ground and made Eve out of Adam. They were real people whom God directed to keep the Garden of Eden, manage the entire world, and fill it with people. He gave them one prohibition, namely to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Corruption Genesis 3-5 Whether the fruit of this tree was really an apple or not we do not know. Adam and Eve chose to disobey God by eating the forbidden fruit. Their disobedience caused a major disturbance in the world. First, Adam and Eve started down the path of physical death: dust began to go back to dust. Second, they were separated from God because they had rebelled against Him. Third, they had to leave the utopian Garden of Eden and fight the elements to win an existence from the ground by farming and tending animals. Fourth, it changed their nature so that they were now ‘sinners’ and their offspring were also sinners. That’s us! We are feeling the effects of that disaster down to the present. Catastrophe Genesis 6-10 As the population of the world grew, people put their heads together to do evil things on a huge scale. This was distressing to God, so much so that he decided to destroy the world with a flood. Only the man Noah and his family survived by taking refuge in a large boat called the Ark. This flood was a catastrophe that changed the earth’s geography forever. We can see the effects of it today all around us. God promised that he would not judge the world again in this way, and signified that promise with the rainbow. Confusion Genesis 11 After the flood, Noah’s sons and their wives had families and began to multiply the earth’s population. Once again, the people turned their attention to their own pursuits instead of re-filling the earth as God had commanded. So, when they took on a huge building project at a place called Babel, God stirred things up by changing their single language into multiple languages. This divided the people into language groups and they began to move apart and settle into different regions of the world. As they became geographically isolated, they gradually developed identifiable physical and cultural characteristics, such as variations of skin color, shape of eyes, and various religions. Covenant Genesis 12-50 Out of these many people groups, God chose a man named Abraham from a place in the Fertile Crescent called Ur. He began to believe in the true God. God promised Abraham a nation and personal blessing. His descendants are the Jews/Hebrews as well as the Ishmaelites. God’s promise to Abraham extended through his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob. Jacob had 12 sons who became the fathers of the 12 tribes of Israel. Why did God choose Abraham? Simply because he wanted to do so. There was nothing special or worthy in Abraham or his future descendants that warranted God’s choice. God set his love on them as an illustration of how he chooses the things of the world that are despised, and the things that don’t amount to much, in order to bring honor to God. Commandment Exodus to Malachi In the next four books of the Bible (Exodus through Deuteronomy), the Bible tells us about Jacob’s family that went down to Egypt to avoid starvation in a famine. God turned that family into a nation of hundreds of thousands of people over a period of 400-odd years. The Hebrews left Egypt and God gave them a constitution that we call the Law of Moses. They were to follow this constitution, with God as their king and Moses as their prince. They immediately had trouble with this assignment, showing that man’s sinful nature, inherited from Adam and Eve, continued to be very troublesome. About 1000 years of their history is covered in the remainder of the books of the Old Testament. They often failed and God sent them prophets and priests and some good kings to exhort them to live under the Law of Moses. The story is a sad tale of repeated failure. The Law, including the 10 commandments, could not rescue the people from their sinful condition caused by the corruption of Genesis 3–5. Christ Matthew to John God then sent his Son to take a human body and nature in order to reveal God to humanity and to stand in our place as a substitute, taking the penalty for our sin. That happened on the cross (next section), but before that occurred, His Son Jesus spent several years doing public teaching and private training of his followers to prepare them to start a new phase in God’s program for the world: the church (see below). Jesus is God-in-the-flesh, truly God and truly man in one Jewish man. Christians call him Lord. Cross Matthew to John Remember that Adam and Eve began immediately to suffer separation from God and physical degradation that led to death. Apart from God rescuing them out of this terrible predicament, they and we would remain forever separated from him. God’s rescuer is Jesus, who died for our sins to provide forgiveness and life. He asks that we truly turn from our affinity to sin and trust in Him. By so doing, one “believes” in Jesus and is thus saved (from death) and born again to a new life. This rebirth is spiritual, not physical. Church Acts to Jude The church was planned to be a distributed, decentralized body that would proclaim the same truths that Jesus did, and encourage people to believe in him and live life with godly character. We can see what this life should look like by reading the teachings of Jesus. These teachings were carried forward by his followers, called apostles, and they wrote the teachings down in the books of the New Testament. Many of their teachings they conveyed in the written form of letters to churches like those of the Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, Romans, and the others. Christians follow these instructions. Coming Revelation Jesus Christ is coming back a second time. Just before that happens, God will take all Christians, dead and alive, to heaven. Then, there will be a time of difficult tribulation that will consume the entire earth, after which Jesus will return and inaugurate a time of world peace. But even this will be sullied by sin. At the end of this time, God will judge the unsaved dead and consign them to a place called the lake of fire. Sinners and sin will be confined to that place forever, unable to do damage to the rest of God’s creation. Completion Revelation Finally, God will do a total cleanup of the universe by burning it all up and creating a new heaven and new earth. In this new earth he will take up residence and his people will live there with him in perfect harmony. This is what Christians call “heaven.” It will be a never-ending perfect society with no sickness, pain, or death. The list is expanded from a similar list used by Answers in Genesis. Sat, 12 Sep 2015 16:52:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/09/The-Bible-Summarized-in-Three-Pages https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/09/Hayden-Smith-Celebration-of-Life-Service Thanks to the audio team at First United Methodist Church in Saline, we have the audio of the funeral service for Hayden Smith. There are 26 MP3 files that make up just over 2 hours of audio. Below you can find links to each portion of the service. We are providing these audio recordings in hope that they will remind you of the comfort the community shared around this tragic event. To listen in chronological order, please read the first row from left to right and the following rows in the same order. Introduction: Pastor Matt Postiff Nate Lampman: Memories Jen Denzin: Memories Nathan Bush: Memories Mike Hill: Memories Katie Card-Neidermire: Memories Steve Worrell: Memories Jacob Aulisa: Memories Pastor Postiff: Short Intro of Bill Smith Bill Smith: Eulogy Pastor Postiff: Psalm 139 Congregation: Amazing Grace Hope Smith, et al: God Reigns in the Storm Pastor Postiff: Intro of Dan Reeves Dan Reeves: Jesus Loves Me Betty Widgeon: Jesus, Savior, Pilot Me Pastor Postiff: Short Intro of Steve Worrell Steve Worrell: I Can Only Imagine Pastor Postiff: Short Intro of Ben Pummell Ben Pummell: This is My Father's World Pastor Postiff: Sermon and Appeal to Consider the Gospel Pastor Postiff: Sermon Part 2 (start at 12:23 to skip past repeated recording) Naomi Postiff, Anna Widgeon: For the Beauty of the Earth Pastor Postiff: Benediction Todd Borek: Final Instructions Escort of Casket, Postlude Be aware it will take some time to download all 117 MB of these files. Tue, 08 Sep 2015 17:45:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/09/Hayden-Smith-Celebration-of-Life-Service https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/09/The-Immoral-Thinking-of-Abortionists-Part-2 Interlocutor Bob responded to my previous post about abortion. Bob says the assertion that life begins at conception is an un-evidenced religious position not supported by science or modern philosophy. I am happy to stand against the consensus of both disciplines, because if they so say, then they are wrong in the eyes of God, who has revealed clearly His will on the matter of abortion. Further, I believe that any evidence I adduce for life beginning at conception will be rejected by the pro-abortionist anyway, because of their prior commitments. For example...what does begin at conception? Death? Nothing? It is evident that something is alive. Suppose we found a reproducing set of cells on Mars. Science would proclaim that they had found life on another planet. But they cannot recognize the same thing in the womb of a nearby mother! Bob says that most pregnancies end before the mother is aware of it. I don't know the statistics on that, but let's suppose he is right. If they end naturally, we ought not be happy about that, but we can accept it as from the hand of God and because of the cursed condition in which we exist. Bob says that the choice to stop pregnancy before viability is not a moral question for him. But I have to wonder, is getting pregnant a moral issue? Is the particular time of viability a moral issue? Is anything really a moral issue, or just an issue of convenience or cultural convention? Bob says that a 20-week fetus doesn't even have a heartbeat. Here's where I have to really chastise Bob for a basic lack of knowledge. A quick search online reveals that an institution as highly regarded as the Mayo Clinic says that the heartbeat of a fetus starts in the sixth week. As they point out, the first two weeks of official "pregnancy" happen before fertilization, so are not really part of the life of the new baby. This means the baby's heart is beating 4 weeks after conception. I have to wonder with such a basic lack of knowledge if I should take seriously other things that Bob says. Nevertheless, I will give Bob the benefit of the doubt and consider carefully what he says because this is such a crucial issue. Bob says that by week 25 a fetus doesn't have a sufficient nervous system control basic bodily functions, and by week 30 it still doesn't have fully developed bones. I respond that anyone who has had a child knows that the nervous system cannot control bathroom functions for quite some time after 40 weeks, and the same goes for bone development. These are not arguments for a position to terminate pregnancy, unless they are also arguments to terminate a baby after it is born. Bob says that I am close-minded and the one in our conversation who is blinded by immorality. Such is the impasse that the believer comes to in conversations with one who does not believe in Christ. Our lives are built on two totally different foundations. I suppose I am close-minded, since I have carefully investigated the claims of the other side and found them sorely lacking. I see nothing new forthcoming on the horizon that would convince me it is OK to kill babies in the womb. But I would encourage Bob to be open to all the evidence as well. If you discard the Bible and God and Christian truth, you short-change your evidence collection and are doomed to come to some very bad conclusions. Bob says that he is a nice guy and does good works, and that I should get to know him. I would love to get to know him better. But I am making a case that someone who supports killing babies in the womb is not nice in at least that one regard. It is a bloody business that Planned Parenthood does. Civilized human beings should not be involved in it. Doing good works and being a nice guy are not sufficient to qualify one as "right" in the sight of God. Only by a transforming work of God through faith in Christ can one be brought into spiritual life and into a mind open to moral truth so that it can truly understand the things I am talking about here. Bob, I'm thankful we can speak freely to one another, hopefully gain some understanding of each other, and not be jailed or killed for our views. Hopefully that liberal spirit of toleration will prevail in our country for a long time even in the face of strong disagreements such as these. Please consider that Christ died for your sins and rose again from the dead. If you come to acknowledge Him, then we can have this conversation again on a shared foundation, and the outcome will be a lot different. Tue, 08 Sep 2015 15:31:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/09/The-Immoral-Thinking-of-Abortionists-Part-2 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/08/Hayden-Milton-Smith I just got home from an emotional day of ministry, serving the family of a fine 17-year young man in our church who was killed in an auto accident last week. The last 10 days have been brutal for the family, but they have also brought many blessings and thoughts that might be helpful for you. Writing this will be helpful for me to process what I've just experienced. Our collective memories cannot remember a tragedy like this in our church's entire history, so this was a brand new experience. Pastors called and said they either had experienced such an event, and offered wise counsel; or they called and said they never had and that they were laboring in prayer for the family and for me to minister. A multitude of Christian people said they were praying for me this week, or all the way through the service. I believe God answered those prayers. The Smith family has been a fine example of how to handle a trial of the worst sort. I encouraged them that God has not permitted more than He will sustain them through. I exhorted them that they must not take the devil's bait to become bitter against God, or discouraged, depressed, divided, despairing. God can and will uphold them. The community's support was outstanding. About 600 people visited with the family yesterday, and there were almost 800 people in attendance at the celebration of life service today. It was standing room only. Families brought food for the luncheon, and there was way more than enough. This time brought ministry opportunities with countless individuals. Events like those of the past week brought out people's concerns--on their own account, or from one family member about another who needs to be saved or to walk with the Lord. It was reinforced to me that a strong doctrinal foundation is crucial for the real events of life. Sure, your pastor's Sunday's message might not feel precisely relevant for Monday morning. But it should be relevant for the morning when you get the call that your son has just been airlifted to the University Hospital and the local police will be taking you to him as soon as they can arrive at your home. Personal eschatology is relevant when the family faces a young man attached to machines who has no life left in his body and has to decide what to do next. The fact is that the Bible is always relevant, but the pastor may not always be preaching on a subject that suits your immediate fancy. However, the message may just fit a desperate need later. The issues of life comprise a serious business. I was driving home from the church where the funeral was held, and I was the second car at a red light. Someone two or three cars back honked when the driver in front of me didn't turn right-on-red fast enough. I just shook my head. Wish I could take that person who honked back in time and had them sit through this week with me. Maybe they would then learn that they don't have to hurry on to their death by driving too fast, or think that getting through a red light is such an important thing. How ridiculous are the trivial things we get upset about! Something else wonderful that happened was the great number of people who consoled me and inquired as to my well being. I lost a loved one too, they said, and I was carrying the burden of the church's grief and care as I ministered. That is all true, but I felt like God allowed us to share the burden together and as such it was lighter and more bearable. God has brought us safe thus far, Smiths and FBC family and Saline Community. So let us thank Him! More thoughts flood my mind: the precious people who came to the funeral; the tears; the unbelief; the mourners who have hope; those who don't have any hope; the outstanding hospitality of First United Methodist Church in Saline; the funeral procession; the graveside committal service; the music; the memories shared; a decade and a half of precious personal friendship with Hayden's parents. May all bring comfort. The service went well. The Gospel of Jesus Christ was proclaimed. The people were called to embrace the faith once for all delivered to the saints. I trust Hayden's memory was properly honored, and that God was glorified. Sat, 29 Aug 2015 17:31:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/08/Hayden-Milton-Smith https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/08/Truth-Trackers-Starting-September-2 The Truth Trackers program will be starting on September 2, and we thought we would give you a sampling of what the children do for the year by looking back to the 2014/15 school year. One of our 6-year-olds, Daniel, will recite the memory work that he learned in the Tiny Trackers program, which is the youngest age group of our Truth Trackers club. There is no sleight of hand here. What happened was that during the school year, the children would learn a key word and a verse to go with it. They would have a story lesson about that word and verse, and then they would be responsible to learn the verse. Parental involvement at home is a very important part of this, as the parents review the verse with the child several times in the following week, and review the previous weeks' verses as well. By repetition, Daniel remembers all thirty weeks of verses, and still retains them now, months later. Your child can do this too in our Truth Trackers program! Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:13:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/08/Truth-Trackers-Starting-September-2 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/08/Marriage-Retreat-at-Tri-Lakes-Baptist-Church Tri-Lakes Baptist Church in Brighton is offering a marriage retreat for couples. It is September 11-12, Friday and Saturday. Friday the retreat starts at 6:30pm and Saturday it starts again at 9:00am. The speaker will be Jim Newcomer. Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:55:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/08/Marriage-Retreat-at-Tri-Lakes-Baptist-Church https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/07/The-Immoral-Thinking-of-Abortionists Over at AEI Idea's public policy blog, I wrote in a comment: I think this would be a good Venn diagram: Circle 1: People who say unborn babies are not people but rather are tissue masses or somesuch. Circle 2: People who sell human body parts like kidneys, brains, spinal cords, livers, and the like from aborted fetuses. Overlap: People who don't have a great need for intellectual consistency. If the unborn children are not babies, it would seem that they shouldn’t have all the normal people body parts. If it looks like a person, shouldn’t you think its a person? A respondent named Bob replied: Nonesense. So if I grow a liver in the lab that liver is a person? If I choose to be an organ donor I’m not a person? If dead people donate their bones and tissue for treatments they weren’t people? You’re ignoring the reality that people can and do donate tissue and organs all the time, and in some cases their family decides for them. You’re also conflating partially developed with actually developed. Is a blastocyst of 300 cells a person? That’s ridiculous. By that standard scratching your nose is a virtual genocide. I’m not saying it’s trivial to draw the line between mass of unviable tissue and potential human that has consciousness, but science isn’t completely ignorant either. And whether the tissue resulting from abortion should be used is a question of squeamishness, not ethics. Is it somehow more moral to throw aborted tissue in the garbage than to use it for something productive? Hardly. There are a few obvious logical and moral flaws in what Bob has written. Hi Bob, not nonsense. You've missed the point. In reply to your questions/points: About livers grown in a lab: that is obviously not a person. I'm talking about a pie dish with all the baby's body parts dissected in it, not a liver in isolation from any other living tissue. You find all the body parts in that pie dish, and if they weren't chopped up like mince meat and hacked out of their mother’s womb, they would still be alive and in a few weeks or months would be born as a healthy baby. I'm all for growing a liver or heart or lung in a lab and transplanting it into a person to save a life, as long as doing so does not kill another life in the process. About organ donation: if you choose to be an organ donor, that is wonderful. But notice the huge difference in three ways. First of all, you voluntarily choose to donate a part of your body. You may implement the donation after you are dead, say from a traumatic brain injury. You cannot give your organs before you are dead in that situation. Or, some make donations of themselves while they are alive. For instance, sometimes people donate a partial liver, or a kidney. In abortion, the "donation" is not voluntary by the donor. Second, in the living donor case, the donation does not kill the person, if all goes well. The abortion does kill the subject. Third, neither your nor your family can legally be compensated for donations. In Planned Parenthood's abortion situation, they are compensated. So, the baby does not voluntarily choose to donate, it loses its life, and another organization (PP) is being compensated for it. To your question about a blastocyst of 300 cells: it is of the homo sapiens variety and it is alive. So, it is not so ridiculous to suggest it is a person. What else would you call it? You cannot convince anyone that it is another species, or that it is dead. It has all the qualities of a living human organism at that stage of its development, just like a 3 month old has all the qualities of a human at that stage of development, and you have all the qualities of a human at your stage of development. You admit that it is not trivial to draw the line. So I challenge you to go ahead and draw the line--just when does it become life? And are you willing to kill a living organism on the flimsy "it's not trivial" logic? Or on the "I'm flexible...I might be willing to draw the line as far out as sentience or viability"? I wish the infant had the luxury of such flexibility! Yes, I do believe that life begins at conception. You are willing to commit discrimination based on age and level of development. So what if a child is born without arms and legs? It is only partially developed. Do you think it is OK to kill it? Your pushback that I kill living organisms all the time when I was my hands with anti-bacterial soap is irrelevant. I don't kill a living human organism when I wash my hands. I am free as a human, and as a Christian, to end the life of a bacteria if it is harmful, or an animal if it is a pest, or an animal if I need food, and even a human if it is a case of justified homicide as in capital punishment or self defense because of a criminal act done against another human. I am justified in such acts, in the proper contexts, because God has permitted those acts. You have no justification for taking the life of an infant in the womb--God has not sanctioned that act. Fourth, if all ethical questions reduced down to ones of squeamishness, we would do a lot more things that are sick and perverted than we even do now. It is far too simple-minded ethically to suggest that once we make the decision to kill a baby, it is no problem to decide to donate its tissue. Your final question presents the logical fallacy called a false dilemma. I don't have a choice only between throwing aborted tissue away or donating it. I can choose LIFE and have a baby! Both donating the tissue AND throwing it away are morally wrong, and they are sourced in a prior moral wrong: murder. Bob's type of thinking is an example of how darkened the mind of the unbeliever is. I don't know Bob personally, but for my purpose this afternoon, he represents a whole class of people whose thinking is blinded by immorality and simply does not see things they way those things really are. Perhaps I should spell out my initial Venn diagram comment to make it more clear? On the one hand, abortionists say that the unborn baby is not a human, it has no right to life, and it is of no consequence to remove it from the mother. But on the other hand, apparently they market the human body parts of those babies for medical researchers who want to purchase human body parts. Oh, but wait, it wasn't a human that we removed from the womb. How can we market its body parts as human if it really isn't human? Hmmmm. Maybe we'll just live with the intellectual inconsistency so we can get what we WANT—federal funding and financial proceeds from body part sales and fees for abortions, and free sex without any responsibility! Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:22:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/07/The-Immoral-Thinking-of-Abortionists https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/07/Are-Conservative-Chrsitians-Guilty-of-Cherry-Picking Sometimes Christians are charged with "cherry picking" certain parts of the Bible to believe or practice, while ignoring others. For example, aren't Christians inconsistent when they rail against homosexuality but are pretty much OK with divorce? Isn't it foolish to accept the law against homosexuality from the Old Testament yet reject the food laws and slavery and laws against mixed textiles? My new article at Inside Sources answers this very question. The article was picked up by The Intelligencer as well. Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:24:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/07/Are-Conservative-Chrsitians-Guilty-of-Cherry-Picking https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/06/Real-Hate-Crimes I think that most Americans would agree that Dylan Roof's killing of nine black church-goers last week qualifies as a hate crime, particularly because of his white-supremacist background and racist rant while he slew his victims. His act demonstrates the worst sort of depravity. But what is a hate crime and why is it a special kind of crime? What most Americans do not understand is that all crimes are hate crimes, and that in God's sight, hate itself is a crime. Let me address the latter assertion first: hate itself is a crime under divine law. Leviticus 19:17 - You shall not hate your brother in your heart.1 John 2:9 - He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness until now.1 John 3:15 - Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.1 John 4:20 - If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?Matthew 5:44-45 - But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. The Christian God commands that all people love God and love their neighbors as themselves. Hatred is the same as breaking this "great commandment" and God's assigned punishment for this crime is eternal death (Romans 6:23). Now for the assertion that all crimes are "hate crimes." Google shows the definition of hate crime to be "a crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence." My definition of crime is broader than the secular definition because I count a true "crime" as an act against the law of God. Some things fall into this category which are legal but are not right in God's eyes. My definition of hate crime is also broader than the secular definition because the motivation of all crime, whether directly or indirectly, is hate. Looking at it from another angle, crime arises from the self-love of the perpetrator rather than love for the victim. Did Dylan Roofs love his victims? Regardless of the skin color of the perpetrator or victim, does a mass shooter love his victims? Does the abortion doctor love his victim—or his pregnant patient? Does the gay couple who sues a cake maker (for not making a cake for them) love their victim? Do followers of the homosexual movement love their opponents when they send them death threats? Obviously the answer to the above questions is a resounding NO in each case. Unfortunately, in an age where boy means girl and white means black, it is not certain that this obvious conclusion will be accepted. Undoubtedly someone who opposes what I've said above will ask about a minister refusing to perform a gay wedding or a pastor preaching against homosexuality—aren't those hate crimes? Absolutely not! Under God's law, they are acts of love, not hate. To share with someone that their conduct and beliefs are ultimately destructive is not to hate them; it is rather to show love and compassion. Under United States secular law as construed for the entire history of the nation, such actions (or lack of action) are protected as free exercise of religion and speech; they are not criminal acts; and they certainly don't involve violence. These acts are not motivated by sexual prejudice, for the Christian motivation is not a mere preconceived opinion. Rather, the motivation is love for God and love for neighbor. Judging the internal motivations is a very slippery task. I think we should forget about categorizing crimes into different types by motivation, and simply punish crimes uniformly. Murder is murder—whether it it arose out of personal malice or impersonal prejudice. It took a life, no matter what the color, gender, sexuality, etc. Murder is a hate crime, and all hate is a crime too. This post came out of a study of 1 John 3:10-24. Tue, 23 Jun 2015 13:37:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/06/Real-Hate-Crimes https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/06/One-Race I applaud Ken Ham for reminding us tonight that the human race is ONE race, not many, not black and white, not brown and yellow, but one race, from Adam and Eve. He wrote some helpful comments in his related twitter posts @aigkenham: There is only one race of people biologically—Adam's race. Everyone has the same skin color, brown. There are no black or white people—all are shades of brown. Next time you fill out a form that asks what race you are, write "Adam's" Unfortunately, his post was briefly sullied by a commentator named Gary (full name not included here) who says that God cursed Noah's son Ham (not to be confused with Ken Ham), sent him to a tropical climate, and darkened his skin in punishment for what he did to his dad. I wrote to Gary directly on his Facebook page, and also tried to write a reply to challenge his comment on Ken's post. My reply was disallowed, I believe because either he himself or Facebook quickly deleted his racist comment. That happened, by the way, less than 25 minutes after he made the remark at about 10:30 eastern time. So, I am copying what I wrote here in my blog so that others searching online will be able to find yet another refutation of this deplorable interpretation. Gary, yours is an old and very bad interpretation of Genesis 9:21-27. This interpretation is especially odious because it was used to justify the enslavement of black people. I challenge you to review the passage and show us from the text (1) that Ham uncovered Noah; (2) that God sent Ham to a tropical climate; (3) that God miraculously darkened Ham's skin; and (4) that God cursed Ham at all. I don't find those assertions anywhere in the text, yet you make all of them in your three lines of false teaching. Here are the facts: (1) Noah became uncovered by himself because he was drunk; (2) The text doesn't say God sent Ham to a tropical climate; (3) The text doesn't say that God darkened Ham's skin; and (4) God did not curse Ham—the text says that God cursed Canaan! The Christian pastor's job description includes silencing those who are empty talkers and deceivers (Titus 1:11). This is just such a case. Hopefully the truth will embarrass Gary into silence. It is impossible to make an apologetic for racism out of Genesis 9. Sat, 20 Jun 2015 22:53:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/06/One-Race https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/05/The-Blessings-of-Being-a-Follower-of-Christ Christians often reflect on what they have been saved FROM. We need to also carefully consider what we have been saved TO. The privileges that we obtain, by God's grace through salvation, are amazing. They surpass some of the blessings that saints of old experienced. Those who don't share what we have ought to be jealous because of what we have! Here are three: 1. Friendship with God Abraham was called the friend of God (James 2:23). "So the LORD spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend" (Exodus 33:11). Jesus said, "You are My friends, if you do whatever I command you" (John 15:14). 2. Favored Status before God To Mary, it was said, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!" (Luke 1:28). Of all believers, the Bible says that God has "predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us highly favored in the Beloved" (Ephesians 1:5-6, slightly adapted from NKJV to reflect that the same verb is used here as in Luke 1:28). 3. Access to the King and Privilege to Make Petitions "We have access by faith into this grace in which we stand" (Romans 5:2). "In Him we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him" (Ephesians 3:12). "And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments (1 John 3:22). "Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. And if we know that He hears us, whatever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we have asked of Him" (1 John 5:14-15). We don't have the same face-to-face access to God that say Moses had, but later on that will change: "And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him. They shall see His face, and His name shall be on their foreheads" (Revelation 22:3-4). There are more such blessings. I hope to add to this list soon. Fri, 29 May 2015 08:26:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/05/The-Blessings-of-Being-a-Follower-of-Christ https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/05/Outline-of-Acts I have written an outline of the book of Acts. Hopefully it will be a help to you. I like the six major sections, but the symmetry of the headings could be improved so that all six focus on the church instead of #4 focusing on Herod and #6 on Paul. It is a work in progress, but it is getting close! Acts Outline Sat, 02 May 2015 22:23:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/05/Outline-of-Acts https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/04/Pastor-Read-Scripture-Publicly The public reading of Scripture is an essential part of Biblical worship. Part of the Christian worship service must include the reading aloud of the Bible from the pulpit so that all can hear and understand. I am not talking about a few verses here or there. I am talking about a substantial portion of Scripture each and every week, if not more often. Why? 1. The Bible says to do so in 1 Timothy 4:13. I understand the verse to be expressing what should happen in a public worship service of the church. The entire book is about that subject (1 Tim. 3:15). The accompanying activities of exhortation and doctrine are public activities. Therefore, I take the 'reading' command to refer to a public activity. 2. Your people are not reading like they should. I speak on average or "in the main" or "generally." Many times I've heard people say, "The problems you describe in your church are the same as every church experiences." Fair enough, and probably true for the most part. So, I figure if my church has a problem reading Scripture, and if I personally have found in my life that it is difficult to maintain the discipline of private reading, then probably some other churches have experienced the same problem! I know, you've preached on how the members of the church should regularly read Scripture. You protest: "They are being disobedient by not reading!" Yes, I know. But I figured out that I cannot moan and groan about their lack of discipline. I have to do something about it. If the sheep aren't feeding themselves God's word, you have to do it. Read to them! 3. In Nehemiah 8, the Bible models the public reading of Scripture, and the great blessing that comes from it. The leaders in Israel spent a better part of the day reading the Law to the people. The people went home with joy "because they understood the words that were declared to them" (Neh. 8:12). 4. Your reading, if prepared and done properly, can aid your people to understand the Bible. Sometimes all it takes is a different emphasis on the words or a new inflection, or a key pause, to trigger a thought in the mind of the hearer. These artifacts of reading are not adding to Scripture; rather they are helping the listener to think carefully about what they are hearing. That is when the light bulb moment just may occur. 5. Many people are auditory learners. Some are not good readers. Some have taken your language as a second language and find it difficult to read and understand the Bible on their own. Some cannot read at all. In many places in the globe, the people are in the same situation as were those in most past ages who did not have a copy of Scripture at all. The NET Bible comment at 1 Timothy 4:3 is helpful: "The public reading of scripture refers to reading the scripture out loud in the church services. In a context where many were illiterate and few could afford private copies of scripture, such public reading was especially important." Since 2008 in our church on Sunday evenings we have read 37 entire books of the Bible. Most evenings we read two chapters of a book. The next week we read the next two chapters, until the book is completed. Sometimes we read three chapters if they are short; sometimes one if they are very long. We alternate between New and Old Testament books. We are presently reading Daniel. We started with Romans. I do not insist on the practice in every evening service, for when we set aside the one Sunday night per month for the Lord's Table, we do not generally read the chapters on that night. There are 1189 chapters in the Bible. If you read 2 chapters per week for say 40 weeks every year, then it will take over 14 years to read the entire Bible. That's a long time. But if you don't start now, one thing is guaranteed: you will never finish. And another thing is also guaranteed: some of your people will never get through the Bible either. What an impoverished Christian existence that would be! The Word of God is the power of God to salvation. You were born again through the imperishable living Word. You are made wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus by the Holy Scriptures. These things were written that you may have eternal life. So...read! Thu, 23 Apr 2015 16:54:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/04/Pastor-Read-Scripture-Publicly https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/04/The-Biblical-Evangelist During an interactive Sunday school class on the topic of evangelism last weekend, a question came up about the gift or office of evangelist. The question was about the nature of the spiritual gift and how can it be "measured." Does an evangelist do what all Christians do, just with a higher "batting average" or number of converts? One of the main points of the class was that there is a sense in which all Christians are evangelists. We are ambassadors for Christ (2 Cor. 5:19-20). We must be involved in the Great Commission. We are not excused from that duty because there exist "specialized" evangelists with extra abilities from God to proclaim the gospel. In short, the gift of "evangelism" is the ability imparted by the Holy Spirit in a person that enables him to be able to communicate the truth of the gospel clearly and persuasively. The gift is not measured by quantity of converts. An evangelist has this special ability and a corresponding burden to preach the gospel to lost people and see them gathered into churches, whether on a far-away mission field or in the community where there is already a local church. The evangelist (Acts 21:8, Eph 4:11, 2 Tim 4:5) is what we today call a missionary church planter. A man who is gifted as an evangelist preaches the gospel to unbelievers and gathers converts into churches. There will be a variety of levels of "success" among those gifted as evangelists because of differences in personal ability (gifting) and also the condition of the field to which he has been called. The term evangelist is used in fundamentalist circles as a shorthand for an itinerant revival preacher who equips the saints and preaches the gospel. But such a minister is really an exhorter, someone gifted in exhortation (Rom 12:8). His function in the church is valid and helpful, but I would not call him an evangelist. There is a question about whether evangelist is an office or a gift. In other words, someone may ask of the Eph 4:11 passage, "are these offices, or gifts?" as if there is a big difference between the two. I do not believe that we have to make a hard distinction between the gifts and the gifted men indicated there who may hold offices in the church. I take it that certain men fill the roles or functions listed, and that these functions required gifted ability. Both the functions themselves and the men that carry them out are gifts to the church. I do not see anywhere in the New Testament that requires an office of evangelist in every local church. Nor can it be sustained from Scripture that the evangelist has a priority over the pastor or teacher in the church. Our Lord taught us not to think like unbelievers regarding authority structures (Mark 10:42-45). A helpful article on this subject was written a number of years ago by Dr. William Combs of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. Tue, 21 Apr 2015 17:16:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/04/The-Biblical-Evangelist https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/03/Looking-for-a-Church-This-Easter-Season If you have been absent from church for a while and would like to go this coming weekend, I can recommend several. Here are some in our area: If you are in or near...Then check out...Service Times Hamburg, PinckneyHiawatha Bible ChurchSunday 8:30am breakfast, 9:30am, 10:45am, 6:30pm Brighton, HartlandTri-Lakes Baptist ChurchSunday 9:30am, 10:30am, 5pm YpsilantiFaithway Baptist ChurchFriday 7pm; Sunday 8:30am breakfast, 9:30am, 10:30am, 5:30pm Howell, FowlervilleFellowship Bible Church of HowellFriday 6pm dinner, 7pm; Sunday 5:30pm Ann Arbor, Dexter, Saline, MilanFellowship Bible Church of Ann ArborFriday 7pm; Sunday 8:30am breakfast, 9:40am, 10:45am Tue, 31 Mar 2015 18:48:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/03/Looking-for-a-Church-This-Easter-Season https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/03/How-to-Prepare-Your-Personal-Testimony Your personal salvation testimony can be presented more effectively by careful organization. The following guidelines will help you in preparing a testimony that will communicate effectively what Christ has done for you. Before you begin, ask the Lord to give you wisdom and guidance as you work on your testimony. Make brief notes on three separate sheets of paper labeled: BEFORE = a short sketch of what your life was like before you became a Christian HOW = the details of how, specifically, you took the step of receiving Christ AFTER = relating the changes in your life after you became a Christian Using your notes from the three sheets of paper, prepare a draft of your testimony, applying the guidelines below. Things to Avoid Avoid giving a travelogue dealing with externals and missing the spiritual matters. Avoid using lots of unnecessary details. Avoid mentioning specific churches, denominations, or groups (such as to criticize). Identify with those who will be hearing your testimony. Use word pictures to increase interest. Don't just say, "I grew up on a farm." You might briefly describe the farm so a person listening can visualize it. Remember that this is a testimony, not a "preachamony." Say "I" and "me" instead of "you." Keep your testimony warm and personal. Include some humor and human interest. Generalize so that more people can identify with your story. You could say, "For fifteen years I didn't miss a single service at church, but never heard how I could have eternal life." In the BEFORE, include both good and bad aspects of your life. Examples of good aspects might be a desire to excel, a concern for others, hard-working. Bad aspects might include an inferiority complex, temper, greed for finances. In the HOW... Communicate the gospel clearly from your first-person perspective. Start with God, that He wants us to honor, love, and serve Him. Tell about the fact and penalty of sin. Say how Christ died to pay sin's penalty and rose from the dead. Explain the need to turn from sin/rebellion and receive Christ. Convey how God promises eternal life and how you can be assured of salvation. Keep in mind that someone else should be able to trust the Lord through your testimony. Use Bible verses to back up what you say. You should quote at least one to show that you really believe it. The Bible is the authority. Don't say, "Bill shared with me that I had sinned and needed forgiveness." Say, "Bill shared with me that the Bible says...." In the AFTER, give some personal benefits of becoming a Christian. Emphasize the fact that the thing that has made the difference in your life was trusting in Christ as Lord and Savior. Try to outline your presentation on a 3x5 card so that you can give your testimony from this outline. Sat, 21 Mar 2015 15:12:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/03/How-to-Prepare-Your-Personal-Testimony https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/03/Detroit-Baptist-Seminary-Journal-Articles-Online I was glad to see that more DBSJ articles are now available online at the Seminary website. The articles include many from the journal from 1996 through 2013. Subscription information can be found there as well if you are interested in receiving the most recent articles and book reviews. The DBSJ articles are also available at the Galaxie Software site. I had tracked the journal electronically up through volume 15 using Galaxie Software's Theological Journal Library CD, but lost track of it after TJLCD volume 12. Then the TJL transitioned over to Logos and I have not managed to get up-to-date on the journals in Logos 6 because it is not clear to me how to go from where I am to the updated collection. Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:26:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/03/Detroit-Baptist-Seminary-Journal-Articles-Online https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/03/A-Good-Argument-Against-Continuationism-is-Resumptionism Summary A good argument against continuationism and in favor of cessationism is this: the Bible promises that there will be a resumption of revelatory activity and associated spiritual gifts during the end time. For a resumption to be possible, there has to be a cessation first. We are experiencing that cessation in the present day, because there is a complete absence of new revelatory activity, including revelatory gifts such as prophecies, tongues, and knowledge. There is also the complete absence of authenticating gifts such as miraculous healing and resurrections. The current cessation of such charismata makes a future resumption of them meaningful. If the cessation indicated in 1 Cor. 13:8 does not happen until the end time, or in other words if continuationism is true, it makes no sense for Paul state that something will cease, for in fact it will never cease if it "ceases" in the end time and immediately restarts again. At best, continuationism and cessation-at-the-end-time basically make the phrase "they will cease" a vacuous statement because the point at which they will cease is the same point they start again. At worst, the continuationism doctrine completely turns the meaning around so that "they will cease" means "they will never cease." I contend therefore that for there to be any meaningful sense of resumption of the spiritual gifts and revelatory activity, there must be a cessation first. Something cannot resume if it never ceased. Further Explanation 1. Basic Cessationism I am not a continuationist. I am a cessationist. I believe that in the church age, since the completion of the 66 books of the Bible, God has ceased giving miraculous gifts. This does not mean I deny miracles, for the miracle of regeneration occurs regularly. God can heal someone from a sickness if He so chooses. I deny that God gives gifts to individuals that permit them to do miraculous activities such as prophecy, tongues, knowledge, healing, interpretation of tongues, resurrections, and the like. I have long believed the cessation doctrine on grounds other than I describe in this article: the plain statement of 1 Corinthians 13:8, the argument of the apostolic foundation in Ephesians 2:20, and the complete lack of evidence of the existence of miraculous spiritual gifts today. Since I understand miraculous gifts and revelatory activity to be closely connected, and I understand that the canon is closed, there is no need for miraculous spiritual gifts in the present day. God has, in his sovereign distribution of gifts, decided not to give certain gifts in the present portion of the church age. The question is not whether God can give such gifts for obviously He can; it is whether He has said He will. Presently, the Scriptures indicate, He has decided against distributing such gifts. 2. Basic Resumptionism However, I am a resumptionist. I coined this term for my own thinking on the subject (not sure if it has been used before or not) to refer to the doctrine that God will once again, at the end time, sovereignly grant special miraculous abilities to certain individuals. This will occur during the Tribulation and forward, according to Joel 2:28-29. At that time, God will pour out His Spirit on all flesh; Jewish men and women will prophesy; older men will have special dreams and younger men will have visions. These manifestations of the Spirit are reminiscent of what happened on a limited scale in the prophets during the Old Testament era. It is evident that the Joel prophecy was not completely fulfilled at Pentecost, for the heavenly disturbances were not, and have not, happened (Joel 2:30-31, Acts 2:19-20). Because of this incomplete kind of fulfillment, I understand Peter to be preaching using an analogy, that the Pentecost outpouring of the Spirit is like that which will happen in the end time, but because of the obvious differences, Joel has not yet been fulfilled. The gifts listed in Joel do not include tongues, but they do include a special presence of the Holy Spirit and associated dreams, visions, and prophecies. These are all revelatory gifts. Were such gifts operational today as is supposed in the continuationist view, there would be nothing special about them being promised in the end time. Seminary professor and author Kevin Bauder recently wrote on the subject of the resumption of revelation and spiritual gifts at the end time: "In the future, however, special revelation will commence again. The Tribulation will involve divine communication at several different levels. This phenomenon is what Joel had in mind when he wrote that God would pour out His Spirit upon all flesh and 'your sons and daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions' (Joel 2:28-31)." (In the Nick of Time, February 20, 2015, Central Baptist Theological Seminary). When the Lord returns in the end time, the things He says and the world-wide decrees He makes will obviously be revelatory as well, authoritative and equal to Scripture. The end time will bring both the revelatory and the miraculous. 3. Problem with Continuationism Gordon Fee in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 teaches that the first century gifts will not cease, but will rather continue until the end time, at which point they will disappear because they are no longer needed. He illustrates by citing Barth's imagery that the nighttime visible light of the stars is extinguished by the brighter light of the Sun when it rises (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT, p. 646). So the continuationist's gifts continue until the end time when something greater arises and cause the earlier, dimmer gifts to "cease." Fee basically argues that the gifts that are needed to build the church today will fade as the "complete" comes onto the scene. He writes, "Good as spiritual gifts are, they are only for the present; Christian love, which the Corinthians currently lack, is the 'more excellent way' in part because it belongs to eternity as well as to the present" (p. 649). His point about love is helpful, and the solar illustration is clever, but it doesn't do justice to the real meaning of cease because the gifts effectively never cease on his view. Those gifts were present—at the time of Paul's writing and for a brief period of time beyond that—but are obviously not present now. That I view it this way is not due to my "totally cerebral" and "domesticated" "bland" western version of Christianity which is without the Spirit (a severe charge leveled on p. 645, fn. 23). Rather, it is due to my eyes being open to the lack of evidence of miracles (an experiential argument, to be sure), and to the teaching of Scripture that such things would stop at some point. That point was reached a long time ago. The inaugurated eschatology of Fee allows him to say that we are in the end time already but not in the end time yet. We are in the beginning, but not the completion, of the End (p. 645-46). Such inaugurated eschatology permits the interpreter to believe that Joel's prophecy is being fulfilled in the present "end times." But current conditions are so far from the promised conditions in the Old Testament surrounding the inauguration of the earthly kingdom of the Messiah that there is no meaningful way we can say we are in that kingdom. We are in the church, not the kingdom. Around the time of Jesus' return we will see a fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit, new revelatory activity, and a massive change in world conditions as the Messiah takes His throne and rules the nations with a rod of iron. We pray that the kingdom will come (Matthew 6:10), and that the Spirit's work of old will resume. For now, we await that resumption, praying to be faithful with the "normal" means granted by the Spirit to accomplish the work of Christ. Thu, 05 Mar 2015 21:18:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/03/A-Good-Argument-Against-Continuationism-is-Resumptionism https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/02/Outline-of-Leviticus A new Bible book outline is available on the Book of Leviticus. Moses penned words of this book at God's direct instruction. It covers the law of offerings, the induction of Aaron and his sons into priestly ministry, various regulations for the priests and the people, annual feasts, redemption of property and people sold in various circumstances, and a strong chapter covering the blessings for obedience to the Law and the curses for disobedience. Other Bible book outlines are available here. Wed, 18 Feb 2015 15:06:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/02/Outline-of-Leviticus https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/02/10-Ways-to-Pray-for-Our-Persecuted-Family From Voice of the Martyrs, I share this: How to Pray for Those Who are Persecuted Pray that persecuted believers will sense God's presence (Heb. 13:5). Pray that they will feel connected to the greater Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:20, 26). Pray that they will experience God's comfort when their family members are killed, injured or imprisoned for their witness (2 Cor. 1:3-5). Pray that they will have more opportunities to share the gospel (Col. 4:3). Pray for their boldness to make Christ known (Phil. 1:14). Pray that they will forgive and love their persecutors (Matt. 5:44). Pray that their ministry activities will remain undetected by authorities or others who wish to silence them (Acts 9:25). Pray that they will rejoice in suffering (Acts 5:41). Pray that they will be refreshed through God's Word and grow in their faith (Eph. 6:17). Pray that they will be strengthened through the prayers of fellow believers (Jude 20-25). Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:18:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/02/10-Ways-to-Pray-for-Our-Persecuted-Family https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/02/Why-I-Don-t-Recommend-the-KJV Why do I not recommend the KJV? Archaic and strange words are a key reason. Romans 9:25—As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. This is supposed to be Hosea. Ephesians 1:19—And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power. This should be toward us. Philippians 1:22—But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. This should be I do not know. Matthew 2:17—Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying... Matthew 3:3—For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias... These should be Jeremiah and Isaiah, respectively. I often look at the KJV in my studies, and I'm not trying to "bash" it. I'm just saying that it is not helpful for the modern English reader to have to slog through such archaisms to understand the Word of God. The 1769 revision stands in serious need of an update. Actually the NKJV has provided that update and could simply be called the KJV for this era. There are several other very good translations available which provide today's English reader with a more accurate and understandable translation of the Bible. For a list of many other archaic or little-known words in the KJV, visit this site or this one. Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:01:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/02/Why-I-Don-t-Recommend-the-KJV https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/01/Some-Thoughts-on-Faith On Wednesday evenings, we just finished studying a series on faith. We saw unbelief, little faith, imperfect faith, great faith, repentant faith, and self-confident faith. We learned some ways to remedy imperfect faith, such as thanking God that He has given us the gift of faith in the first place, even if it is not fully formed in us as it should be. We saw that we can seek God's help. We can cultivate a self-examining faith. We can also follow Biblical examples during our trials and obey Biblical commands that have to do with improving our faith. We also reminded ourselves that no matter how imperfect our faith may be, regardless of our performance or strength of faith, the object of our faith—God—is perfect and great beyond description. Thanks be to God! Finally, we looked at the case of Mary and Martha regarding the death of their brother Lazarus, recorded in John 11. They said, "If you had been with us, our brother would not have died." And, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Sometimes we have great faith in the abstract. "If" in the past or "sometime in the future." But what about right now in the present? Do you have faith in the Lord? If someone gets sick, we believe in the abstract the Lord can heal them or give them grace to persevere and die well. But what about when "I" am sick "right now"? Do we trust God then? Let us ask God to grant faith in Him that grows strong and does not falter. For more, view the full set of notes. Fri, 30 Jan 2015 18:26:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/01/Some-Thoughts-on-Faith https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/01/A-New-Bible-Reading-Plan One of those things that's been in the back of my mind for a while to do is to write a Bible reading schedule that takes you chronologically through the book of Acts and epistles of Paul. I added in James just for fun, and produced a 4-month, one-chapter-per-day reading schedule. Try it out sometime and let me know what you think. Read Acts and Paul's Epistles in Chronological Order Sat, 24 Jan 2015 13:49:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/01/A-New-Bible-Reading-Plan https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/01/Will-I-be-Eternally-Sad-About-Those-Who-Are-Lost Here's today's question: The Bible promises that there will be no more tears in heaven (Rev. 21:4). But will believers be sad in heaven if our loves ones are not there? It seems that we will know who is there and who is not there when we arrive, and if someone is not there (beloved grandmother, wayward child, etc.) then we might be sad about that. Here is a similar question: If we make it to the rapture, will we mourn for friends and family that didn't "make it"? I know we will be in awe of Christ, but will we think about those that were not saved? Will we feel guilty that we didn't do more to evangelize them? In answer to these questions, let us resolve to believe God that the Scripture's promise is true about there being no sorrow in heaven. Even so, I believe we will know the fact that someone is not with us. However: We will have an understanding of God's holiness and wisdom such that we will not be troubled by the fact that a particular person is not there. In other words, we will understand that God, the judge of all the earth, decided and did the right thing in each individual's case. We will understand truly that the wages of sin is eternal death for those who are not in Christ. In other words, those who rejected Christ are deserving of death, and we will "get" that fact so much that we will embrace it even in the case of ones we thought were close to us. Earthly bonds will seem as nothing in heaven. When we realize that our family is a spiritual family, and that even dear old Aunt Gertrude who was not saved is not as close to us as our spiritual brother from half-way across the globe who lived 500 years before us, then we will not worry about Aunt Gertrude. We will further understand that unbelievers willingly rejected the revelation of God that they had. Therefore they exhibited that they did not want to have a relationship with God at all, much less for eternity. This rejection of all good is certainly not in their ultimate and eternal self-interest, but once the decision is finalized, it is final. We will have a level of satisfaction and joy in the fact that God has banished all sin and vindicated Himself after all the millennia of unbelief and wickedness and opposition to God. Those who are outsiders will be outside (Rev. 22:14-15), unable to enter and spoil God's perfect re-creation in which we can dwell in righteousness. The fact of a person not being in Heaven will fade into total unimportance when we experience who is there—namely Jesus Christ, God the Father (Rev. 21:3), the Holy Spirit, the angels, and all other believers of all ages! So much will be new and different in heaven; much of it is unknown at this point. However, one key thing will be different, and that is that we will be different. We will have a new body and a new mind unclouded by sin. We will be like Jesus (1 John 3:2, Rom. 8:29). Whatever Jesus' attitude is toward the lost, that will be our attitude as well. I don't believe He will be crying over them. And neither will we. That doesn't mean He has no compassion for them as if He were a cold and calculating criminal. But it is ever true that the soul who sins shall die (Ezekiel 18:4). Sin has consequences and those are eternally irreversible for those outside of Jesus Christ. Wed, 14 Jan 2015 23:14:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/01/Will-I-be-Eternally-Sad-About-Those-Who-Are-Lost https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/01/He-Wept-Bitterly Matthew 26:74-75 records the end of Peter's triple denial of Jesus: Then he began to curse and swear, saying, "I do not know the Man!" Immediately a rooster crowed. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus who had said to him, "Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times." So he went out and wept bitterly." In my reading this morning, I took note of the last phrase. It is easy to look down on Peter because of his early impetuousness and his denial of Christ, as if I am better than him. But I wonder if I have the spiritual sensitivity that Peter had. When I sin, do I really recognize it as such and "weep bitterly"? Or do I just say a quick "confessional" and go about the rest of my day without thinking too much about it? I am not saying this to commend wallowing in guilt or inflicting spiritual depression on one's self for long periods of time. Rather, Peter's weeping is a reminder to me that I am a sinner just like Peter was. And the passage raises a question. Namely, do I really repent of sin because of how bad it is in the sight of the holy God? Or do I treat sin lightly? It would be good for many of us to do a little more bitter weeping over our sin. Wed, 14 Jan 2015 08:05:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/01/He-Wept-Bitterly https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/01/Another-Reason-Not-to-Divorce Divorce is sinful because it is against God's design for marriage (Mark 10:9). Furthermore, it (and all the events leading up to it) is harmful because it leads to all kinds of heartache for the spouses, devastation for the children, and often poverty. So: work hard to avoid it; make choices to avoid it; conduct yourself so as to avoid it. For Christians divorce is wrong for another reason. It is wrong because divorce is basically implemented by one spouse suing the other spouse, placing both of them under a secular judge to divide their marriage, their children, and their material possessions. Divorce amounts to "going to law before the unjust" (1 Cor. 6:1). Have you ever wondered why young couples go to a church for counseling and marriage, but then they run to the secular judge to be divorced? Why don't they run to the church where they were married and ask the pastor to divorce them? "That's crazy," you reply, "because the pastor doesn't have the power to divorce them." And why is that? Why did he have the authority to marry them, but then can have nothing to do with their divorce? Why do we accept the status quo as if it is the most righteous thing there is? Couldn't there be another way? Don't you know that the saints will judge the world? Don't you know that saints will judge angels? Isn't there anyone in the church wise enough to settle problems between believers, even spouses? Why do we ask to be judged by the unrighteous? Shameful! (See 1 Cor. 6:1-8). Of course the couple doesn't want to go to the church and have to face up to their sin and repent of it, or be told they cannot legitimately divorce. They want what they want because of the hardness of their hearts (Mark 10:5). I know, I know...there are some situations that are "difficult or exceptional." I just do not believe those adjectives allow us to ditch God's word. If you have a problem in your marriage, your attorney should not be your first stop. Run to your God, and to your church! Wed, 14 Jan 2015 07:57:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/01/Another-Reason-Not-to-Divorce https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/01/Psalm-8-5-Elohim-Angels Here's today's question: In Psalm 8:5, I heard that the word "angels" in Hebrew is Elohim. This changes the meaning of the verse, to something about being made a little lower than God Himself. What does that mean? It is true that the Psalmist uses elohim, the word often used for God. But there are four reasons in favor of taking this to refer to angels or, more generally, "heavenly beings." First, the Greek translation of the Old Testament (called the LXX or Septuagint) translates the word unambiguously as "angels." Second, in the New Testament quotation of this passage in Hebrews 2:7, the author of Hebrews uses "angels," and the text is inspired by God so we know it is correct. There are no significant variants among the many known Greek manuscripts at this point in Hebrews 2:7. Third, almost all good English translations use the word "angels" (ESV, KJV, NET, NIV, NKJ). The NAS and CSB are the only translations that use "God." In light of the clear parallel in Hebrews 2:7, such a translation is in error. It would be permissible, in my view, to translate the verse as "you have made him a little lower than the gods," but then a footnote would have to explain what "gods" means and that would cloud the meaning too much for the English reader. Fourth, sometimes the word elohim is used to refer to beings other than God. For instance, Exodus 18:11, Isaiah 41:23, and 1 Kings 11:5 use the term to refer to idols, that is, false gods. In two other instances, the word elohim refers to human beings. In Exodus 21:6, most translations understand "elohim" to refer to the judges in the city or region. In Psalm 82:6, quoted by Jesus in John 10:34, Jesus says that if it is appropriate to call others as "gods" then it is certainly appropriate to call Himself the "Son of God." Here is the note at John 10:34 in the NET Bible on this point: The psalm was understood in rabbinic circles as an attack on unjust judges who, though they have been given the title "gods" because of their quasi-divine function of exercising judgment, are just as mortal as other men. What is the argument here? ...This is evidently a case of arguing from the lesser to the greater, a common form of rabbinic argument. The reason the OT judges could be called gods is because they were vehicles of the word of God (cf. 10:35). But granting that premise, Jesus deserves much more than they to be called God. He is the Word incarnate, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world to save the world (10:36 ). In light of the prologue to the Gospel of John, it seems this interpretation would have been most natural for the author. If it is permissible to call men "gods" because they were the vehicles of the word of God, how much more permissible is it to use the word "God" of him who is the Word of God? For these four reasons, it is legitimate to translate "elohim" as angels. Certainly the term "Elohim" most often refers to the true God (in about two thousand occurrences), but consideration has to be given for these rather clear exceptions to that general rule. Finally, I would say that it is true enough that God made mankind lower than Himself. However, the text says more than that: it says, "you made him a little lower. Mankind is not just a little lower than God. He is much lower than God. So it makes more sense theologically to understand elohim as angels since mankind is closer to finite angels than to the infinite God. Sat, 03 Jan 2015 17:20:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/01/Psalm-8-5-Elohim-Angels https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/01/The-Scriptures-and-the-Power-of-God In Matthew 22:29, Jesus rebuked the Sadducees with these words: You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. He was replying to their story about a woman who had seven husbands in her lifetime, and their question as to which of the seven would be her husband after the resurrection occurred. Since Matthew commented in verse 23 that the Sadducees reject the doctrine of resurrection, the reader knows that their question was not an honest one, but was meant as a trap or counter-example to show that the resurrection was an untenable doctrine. Behind their "presenting question" was their bald assertion: resurrection is impossible. Jesus' reply rebuked them for not understanding two things: (1) the Scriptures and (2) the power of God. In the first place, they did not understand the Scriptures because the instruction about Levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25:25) said nothing about what happens to the marriage as far as the eternal, post-resurrection state is concerned. They were adding to the text, and basically were claiming that marriage lasts beyond death, something which this passage and later revelation clarifies is not the case (e.g. Romans 7:2-3, 1 Corinthians 7:39). Jesus flat out states that there is a resurrection, and that marriage is not part of it. In the second place, they did not understand the Scriptures because they missed an obvious passage of their Hebrew Bible that taught that God is (not was) the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Those three men are not simply dead and gone; rather they are in some sense living! There is a life after this life, and the present tense is proves it! Finally, in the third place, the Sadducees did not understand the power of God. God can indeed raise people from the dead. He has done so, and He will do so en masse in the future. He can raise dead people to life without any problem at all, just like He can create something out of nothing (Genesis 1:1) and He can create spiritual life in spiritually dead people (Ephesians 2:1). We know from other Scripture that resurrection entails rejoining the living and conscious spirit of a person from heaven to that person's resurrected material body. To doubt this is to doubt the very power of God, something no believer should ever do! May we be people who know both the Scriptures and the power of God. Sat, 03 Jan 2015 16:26:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/01/The-Scriptures-and-the-Power-of-God https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/01/Warnings-of-Judgment-are-Merciful A quick thought for you, which occurred to me while reading the Lord's parables in Matthew 21 and 22. After the priests and elders questioned the origin of Jesus' authority in Matthew 21:23, Jesus pushed back at them with a question of His own. Then he proceeded to tell three parables in rapid succession: about the two sons, about the evil vineyard renters, and about the wedding feast. All three parables were directed at them because of their unbelief and rejection of the Messiah. I found the parallel between the vineyard and the kingdom very interesting, along with the fact that a severe judgment was going to befall the unbelievers. But even with this warning of certain judgment, I find a note of mercy. For God is not obligated to tell us that judgment will soon befall us if we remain in unbelief. But He does tell us, and repeatedly so. The warnings and pronouncements of judgment, as "negative" as they seem to our soft modern ears, are actually full of mercy because if heeded, they push us away from future judgment toward God's salvation. I'm thankful for that. Thu, 01 Jan 2015 09:52:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2015/01/Warnings-of-Judgment-are-Merciful https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/12/A-Spiritual-Life-Questionnaire What do you think about using this set of questions as a "spiritual conversation starter"? If you could describe your life in one word, what word would you choose? What three things do you most desire out of life? Do you foresee any obstacles that might prevent you from obtaining those three things? Describe God in a sentence or two. How might God affect your efforts to achieve the things you desire in life? In your opinion, who is Jesus Christ? If you knew that through Jesus Christ God desires to give you the best life possible, would you be interested in finding out more about Him? I found these amongst the piles of papers I was cleaning out from the 2014 version of my office; evidently I had picked it up somewhere along the way, but I don't remember where. Theologically, this list of questions is not very good. I don't have a problem with using something of this sort, but these particular questions need a lot of improvement. In general, the questions place a heavy emphasis on the desires of the person being interviewed. The final question sounds Osteen-ish and is based on wrong theology. The way that a non-Christian hears "best life possible" is "best life right now." But those who live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution (2 Timothy 3:12), so there is no promise of a "best life now" for the new believer. True, in the long run the benefits of the Christian life are way better than the alternative, but that is not what the interviewee is thinking when asked this question. There are many better surveys than this. One better one would simply be to cut to question 6, but change it to something like this: "What do you know about Jesus?" When they answer, inquire if you could tell them what the Bible says about Him, and see where the conversation goes. Tue, 30 Dec 2014 18:54:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/12/A-Spiritual-Life-Questionnaire https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/12/2015-Bible-Reading-Schedules The 2015 Bible reading schedules are available as PDF files (below) and soon will also be available on the front page of our site, in left menu bar under the Bible Guide. Why should you regularly read the Bible? Because you are not supposed to live by bread alone, but by every word of God (Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4, Deuteronomy 8:3). Read the New Testament once Read the New Testament twice Read the New Testament four times Read the Old Testament once Key chapters for young readers Read the Greek New Testament once, starting with easier Greek books Sat, 27 Dec 2014 14:43:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/12/2015-Bible-Reading-Schedules https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/12/Outline-of-2-Peter A new Bible book outline is available on the Book of 2 Peter. Peter's second letter reminds the readers about their Christian growth, warns them about false teachers that will come into their midst, and reminds again about coming judgment. The second chapter contains a lot of the same material in Jude, and I lean toward the view that understands Jude to have come after 2 Peter in this regard. Besides providing an outline of the book, I expose in the aforementioned document some my process in arriving at the outline that I did. If you want to know how I arrived at the outline, this will be of some interest to you. Mon, 22 Dec 2014 22:37:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/12/Outline-of-2-Peter https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/12/If-I-Regard-Iniquity Recently I received this question: I've been thinking about the verse in Psalm 66:18: "If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me." I understand this to mean that if we are sinning that the Lord will not hear our prayers. It seems as though we (as humans) are sinning all of the time, whether we know it or not. Does this refer to sin we know about that we haven't confessed? If so, where does the forgiveness of our sins as born-again believers fit into this? I sent back this reply: Great question. That is a convicting verse, isn't it? I have understood the verse to mean that if we we are trying to hide sin in our hearts, the Lord will not hear our prayers. In other words, it does not mean only "if we are sinning" but "if we are sinning and like it," or "if we are sinning and trying to hide it from God," or "if we are sinning and not confessing it to God," or "if we are sinning and we know about it = regard it but don't do anything about it," that is when the Lord will not hear us. This is because we are being hypocrites if we sin in one 'part' of our life, and then pretend there is no sin in the prayer-part of our life, as if the parts can be separated one from another. We do sin frequently, but we can also have the blood of Jesus Christ constantly cleansing us as well, providing forgiveness as we confess sin to God. We should also note that it is not God's auditory processing faculty that is blocked by sin, as if He had ear plugs in His ears. "Hearing" refers to acknowledging, answering, or doing something about the prayers offered. God doesn't acknowledge the prayers of those who try to hide sin in their hearts. His ears are open to the prayers of the righteous, but His face is against those who do evil (1 Peter 3:12). The last part of the question is an even bigger matter. I think you are talking about sin being dealt with once for all versus how we have to deal with it daily. This has to do on the one hand with the legal forgiveness of sins that establishes our relationship with God, and on the other hand with the family forgiveness that maintains the close family fellowship with God. I think you will be helped if you read the article here. Mon, 22 Dec 2014 22:09:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/12/If-I-Regard-Iniquity https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/12/Outline-of-Jude A new Bible book outline is available on the Book of Jude. Jude's letter covers two major topics: the character and condemnation of the ungodly, and a call to contend for the Christian faith. Both are introduced in verses 3-4: I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ (Jude 3-4, NKJV). Sun, 07 Dec 2014 07:21:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/12/Outline-of-Jude https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/12/The-Long-Term-Pastor In September, Thom Rainer's blog had an encouraging post on what characterizes men who have health long-term pastorates. I am a big fan of that approach, so it captured my attention. They pray daily for their church members and staff. They view their family as their first line of ministry. They connect with and love people in their community. They choose their battles carefully. They welcome structures that make them accountable. They spend time developing staff. They expect conflict and criticism. They connect with other pastors and ministries in the community. They affirm both theology and practical ministry. They ask long-term questions. Fri, 05 Dec 2014 14:36:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/12/The-Long-Term-Pastor https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/11/Spiritual-Addition In Matthew 6, our Lord teaches us: Which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature? (Matthew 6:27 NKJV) But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. (Matthew 6:33 NKJV) I emphasized the verb add in both quotes because it is the focus of the point I want to highlight. The Greek verb in both cases is the same. Our Lord is teaching us that worry can add nothing to our lives. In fact, it only serves to subtract—from our joy, peace, and even our life span! If you want to add something to your life, seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness. Then a whole lot will be added to your life. And not just food and drink—but peace and joy and every blessing God gives the believer. Sun, 23 Nov 2014 07:54:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/11/Spiritual-Addition https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/11/Categorizing-the-Psalms All the Psalms share the genre of Hebrew poetry. Among the 150 Psalms, there are groups or categories that share the same form and subject matter. These could be called "sub-genres," but I have elected to call them "categories." In this article, I provide a categorization of all the Psalms using a simple lettering system. To see the entire document, please download this PDF. I provide it in the hopes that it will be helpful. I feel that it could still use a lot of work. If anyone wants to take on the project of doing some spot checking the document, or even exhaustively checking it, be my guest. Let me know what you find! Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:35:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/11/Categorizing-the-Psalms https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/11/Can-Bible-Doctrine-Be-Ranked-According-to-Level-of-Importance Recently there has been a lot of talk about theological triage [1], also described by phrases like weighing doctrines, gospel issues [2], doctrinal priority, or statements such as how directly a doctrine touches on the gospel. In almost all of the material I have seen on the subject, it is simply assumed that there are different levels of doctrine. The reader is whisked past that foundational question and introduced to other questions such as 'which doctrine goes into which level?' and 'does the Bible teach us how to know which doctrines go into which level?' A while ago, I began to ask myself about the logically prior question, and that is what I want to address here. That is, does the Bible itself teach that doctrines can be sorted into different bins based on their importance? Does it teach that we should privilege certain doctrines over others? What is the significance of it if we can do so (or cannot)? These questions troubled me because it seemed that Christians were teaching that doctrines can be—and indeed should be—so sorted, and this in turn seems to lead to an almost anything-goes mentality with certain lower-level doctrines. But where does the the assumption of doctrinal levels come from? We profess that the Scriptures are our only infallible authority for faith and practice, so it must be found in the Bible somewhere. I pondered on that question for a while. Over the course of some months, I have come to more clarity on the subject, although I am not done yet by any stretch. I will admit that I didn't think in a critical way about this for years. I simply accepted the premise, and went merrily on my way saying that I believe the five or seven or eight fundamentals, the essentials of the Christian faith. I believed a lot more than those, but I raised those to the highest level and just assumed that was right and good, because everybody was doing it! The idea of doctrinal prioritization has, at least for me, troubling "theoretical" implications for how we treat the Word of God. Some Bible teachings become third-level or doctrina non grata because they are unpopular in many churches, too difficult to understand, or are impossible to reconcile with modern science. Other doctrines are just simply not that important. What does that do to a preaching ministry that is devoted to explaining and applying the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27)? Is that wrong to do with respect to the third-level doctrines? And then there is the problem that there are some doctrines that many Christians immediately classify as third level—but which to me are obviously far more important to the system of Christian truth. Downplaying them has what I believe are disastrous consequences for one's belief in the Bible and a plain interpretation of it. The idea of weighing doctrines also has "practical" implications. For instance, a young missionary couple left a mission over its inclusion of a precise statement on the doctrine of eschatology. They had come to the conclusion that including too much detail on eschatology was skewed theological triage, elevating a tertiary issue to a level where it dictated partnership. The doctrinal statement had been formulated and used by the mission and by likeminded churches for decades before these missionaries were even born, yet it now was skewed and worthy of separation over. Another example: Mark Dever wrote in 2009 that Christian leaders are in sin if they lead their congregation to have a statement of faith that requires a particular Millennial view [3]. Obviously this topic has important real-life ramifications. One very important ramification has to do with how we think. We cannot slice and dice our Christianity into pieces like "the doctrinal piece" and "the behavioral piece." You know—"if we just behave Christianly, then it matters little what we believe about the second and third order doctrines." I challenge that notion because belief is behavior. That is, like proper behavior is the Biblical discipline of the body and actions, so proper belief is the Biblical discipline of the mind and thinking. It is wrong to believe something as true that is not true. God cares about how we think. How we think affects how we act, and how we act affects how we think. If we think some doctrines are not that important, it will show up over time in our lives and churches. Let us turn our attention to a passage that may shed some light on the subject. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus says: Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. (NKJV) First, consider the matter of the comparative word weightier. The Greek word refers to 'heavy' things, often metaphorically as in the content of letters (2 Cor. 10:10) or legal matters (Acts 25:7). Here it denotes the comparative idea of the relative importance or significance of a matter compared to another. The Lord Jesus thus demonstrates that there are laws in the Mosaic system that were more important than others, obedience to which was definitely required. Second, note that our Lord said, "These [the weightier matters] you ought to have done, without leaving the others [the lighter matters] undone." Because of the relative importance of justice, mercy, and faith, the Lord teaches that the scribes and Pharisees most certainly should have carried them out. But, and this is the point of this paragraph, they were still supposed to do the lighter matters. They were not to swap out the lighter for the heavier: they were to do both. We might read into this the idea that the Lord would more readily excuse a failure to tithe some of one's cummin, or at least condemn it less harshly; but He most certainly does not excuse a failure in the matters of justice, mercy, and faith. I would suggest that our Lord gives us here a framework by which to consider the various Bible doctrines. Indeed some are weightier than others. But the lighter ones are not disposable. They must be believed and obeyed as well. Using a triage model, we do treat gunshot wounds and heart attacks more urgently and at a level 1 trauma center; but that does not mean that we ignore small lacerations. Even relatively insignificant cuts need to be cared for properly because they can become infected and kill the patient just as surely as a gunshot wound can. To transition from the medical metaphor, intermediate or small wounds may be likened to doctrines that many Christians today have been (wrongly) convinced are tertiary. One's view on creation and the millennium, for example, may not seem significant until you connect a few dots and realize how they impact the whole body of doctrine. Ben Edwards gave a good example of the bodily resurrection of believers in his post [2]. He wrote there, "your first inclination would probably be to say 'I don't think it reaches first level importance.'" Edwards rightly concludes that the believer's bodily resurrection is a gospel issue. But I am approaching this entire question from a different perspective: my first inclination would be the opposite of what he suggests. I would default to the position it is important simply because God's word teaches it clearly. And I would be quickly affirmed in my belief when I asked this question: "Would a gospel that cannot raise me from the dead really be good news?" Not according to the apostle Paul! One's view of triage also reveals a general approach to reading God's Word which may lead in a very dangerous direction. Far too often, the modern church's reading of such texts amounts to a "hath God said?" which turns the Scripture upside down. May such an attitude toward God's word be far from us. More to come, D.V. ... For further reading. [1] Albert Mohler, A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity, AlbertMohler.com, May 20, 2004. [2] Ben Edwards, Gospel Issues and Weighing Doctrines, Theologically Driven, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, September 16, 2014. [3] Justin Taylor, Dever: You are in sin if you lead your congregation to have a statement of faith that requires a particular millennial view", The Gospel Coalition, July 13, 2009. Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:08:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/11/Can-Bible-Doctrine-Be-Ranked-According-to-Level-of-Importance https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/11/A-Word-Find My son David prepared this word-find for your youngsters. It has some big words in it, but it shouldn't be too hard to finish! Click the image below to download the full-sheet size PDF. The last line was cut off slightly - the letters are S, I, N, R, F, and H. Sat, 08 Nov 2014 17:06:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/11/A-Word-Find https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/10/Top-10-Characteristics-of-Lousy-Leaders A pastor friend sent me this list, written by Michael Hyatt. The following summarizes his points: They don't have enough confidence to lead at their level. They're arrogant, assuming they always know what's best. It takes confidence to lead. It also takes humility. They're disorganized. Their words and actions erode trust, even with their supporters. They over-promise and under-deliver. This one affects more than just politicians. They don't articulate a clear vision. They don't enroll others in their initiatives. They're not transparent. Openness encourages honesty. They're blind to what's happening in their own organizations. They don't hold people accountable—especially themselves. Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:46:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/10/Top-10-Characteristics-of-Lousy-Leaders https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/10/Blog-Housekeeping I did some under-the-hood work on the blog today. The RSS feed is at the same place as it has been, but all the old entries are included, with improved titles. Broken links have been fixed, but probably some more have been introduced. Let me know if you run into any--thanks! Mon, 20 Oct 2014 15:56:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/10/Blog-Housekeeping https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/10/Zechariah-12-14-Timeline 1 13:7 — The Good Shepherd is stricken. This is separated by a distance of many centuries until the next event on the timeline. 2 13:8 — The Tribulation period. This is the beginning of the "dark" period of the Day of the Lord. 3 12:1-3 — The nations come against Jerusalem at the end of the Tribulation. 4 14:1-2 — Israel is almost entirely destroyed by the nations. 5 14:3-7 — The Lord returns from Heaven in order to deliver the Jews from utter destruction. There will be a very strange evening-light phenomenon in the heavens. delivers Israel from their enemies by providing an escape route through a newly created valley through the Mount of Olives. 6 12:4-9 and 14:12-15 — God will supernaturally destroy Israel's enemies. The "blessing" portion of the Day of the Lord begins. 7 12:10-13:6, 9 — The spiritual salvation of the remnant, including their repentance from sin, the cleansing of forgiveness, and the removal of idolatry and false prophets from the land. It is difficult to place events #5-7 in strict chronological order, since the Lord's coming will effect both (somewhat simultaneously?) the destruction of Israel's enemies and the salvation of the Jewish people. 8 14:8-11 — Kingdom blessing includes certain transformations of the land and Christ's rule over the entire earth. Significant topographical modifications will be made to the area around Jerusalem. 9 14:16-21 — Kingdom blessing also includes the nations worshiping before God and widespread ceremonial holiness throughout Jerusalem, even on horses bells and cooking utensils. Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:08:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/10/Zechariah-12-14-Timeline https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/10/Zechariah-13-7-9-Timeline 13:7a The sword awakes against the shepherd and strikes him. This is the crucifixion of Christ. 13:7b The sheep will be scattered after Christ's arrest and subsequent crucifixion. Some interpret this as the dispersion after 70 AD when the city was destroyed by the Roman general Titus. But Jesus applies it to the disciples (Matt. 26:31, 56; Mark 14:27, 50) and to Peter specifically (Matthew 26:33-35, 69-74; Mark 14:29-31, 54, 66-72). 13:7c The turning of God's hand against the little ones represents the time of the dispersion which continues until the present day, with many Jews still outside of the land, and many catastrophes befalling them. I cannot help but thinking of the Holocaust in this regard. God ultimately did permit this atrocity, at the hands of wicked Gentiles. 13:8 Two thirds shall be cut off and die but one third shall be left. This refers to the Tribulation, which is full of death for Jews as well as Gentiles. See Revelation 8:11, 9:15, 12:13, 13:7, 13:15, 19:21. 13:9 The one third will be refined through fire and will call on the name of the Lord. This remnant refers to the same group which we read about in 12:10-13:6 that will be saved en masse at the last day. Fri, 17 Oct 2014 14:14:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/10/Zechariah-13-7-9-Timeline https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/10/A-Poor-Quality-Tract This past summer, I ran across the tract pictured above, written by the folks at MasterTracts.com. I cannot recommend it. The purpose of this post is to point out some serious problems with the tract. The picture on the front is cute, but it trivializes the important subject matter at hand: the gospel. The illustration about Santa is well and good, but the message starts to go off the tracks when the author writes, "They [children] want to get what they deserve." The fact is, children want what they want; they want to receive far more than they deserve. In fact, if they were to be judged on their performance, they would deserve little if anything. The tract has a jarring transition with the sentence "Why is hell necessary?" With this sentence, a heavy emphasis on hell comes to the fore, with no emphasis on heaven or a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. It offers some true statements about sin and the penalty for sin, but then it says, "God invites us to receive Jesus Christ as Savior, accepting His death as the full and just payment for our sins." This makes it sound like we accept the full and just payment for our sins, but that is not the case. The right way to explain it is that God has accepted Christ's work, and we are to exercise repentant faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and to believe in his resurrection from the dead in order to be saved (Romans 10:9-10). The author of the tract seemingly avoids calling upon the reader to acknowledge that Christ is Lord, something that is essential to a proper gospel response. The tract adds what seems to be a definition of the word saved when it says that those trust Christ "will be saved, i.e., not go to hell." That is hardly a sufficient definition of the idea of salvation. What of heaven? What of union with Christ? What of a personal connection to Him? Reconciliation? Forgiveness? Thus far, we might think to excuse some of these problems because of necessary brevity in a small tract format. I am inclined, however, to think that the errors we see indicate a deficient theology of salvation. Finally, the last sentence says that a perfect gift is awaiting, "but only if we do what he tells us." We have to be so careful about using words like "do" in a context like this. It is far better to say "but only if we trust in the Lord Jesus Christ." Bottom line: take care what you pass out as part of your evangelistic ministry. Not all tracts are created equal. A better option would be the Bridge Tract. Thu, 16 Oct 2014 22:48:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/10/A-Poor-Quality-Tract https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/09/Dying-Churches Conventional wisdom says that if your church has mostly old people, it is dying and will soon be buried and forgotten. What qualifies as old is somewhat slippery, with no one wanting to admit that they fall into that category, but we'll say, for sake of argument, the cut-off age is 55 years. I grant there are a lot of situations that have made the adage work out well. And the church needs to reach everyone in its community, including younger people and families so that it does not simply "die off." But in some cases, the idea behind the conventional wisdom has led to an age-based discrimination in which some churches take older folks for granted or even actively marginalize them. That is a big mistake. Here's why: An article in The Atlantic shows that the distribution of the population by age is markedly shifting toward the older end of the spectrum. The "age pyramid" used to be a triangle; now it is more rectangular, and in China it is an upside-down trapezoid because of government birth control policies. Older Christians often have a lot of Biblical and experiential wisdom, so it would be shortsighted to marginalize them. One church I know of drove all the older folks away with their "new methods" and destroyed the church as a true gospel witness. To ignore the elders smacks of the youthful "wisdom" of Rehoboam that rejected good counsel (1 Kings 12:6-8). Older Christians may be driven away from such churches and need a church home that is not so culturally relevant (with loud music, for instance) that it is irrelevant for the older culture. Older Christians have more time (especially if retired) and more disposable income to support God's work. The church must reach out to older people as well, for there are many who do not know the gospel of Christ. The Great Commission knows no age limits. The body of Christ is supposed to diverse, and I would argue it should be about as diverse in terms of ethnic and age makeup as the culture around it. A church with only young people might be "exciting" but it would not be right. The church needs older men and women to teach the younger men and women. In our culture, with the teen-ification of twenty somethings, I don't think this means that 30 year-olds qualify as "older" so as to teach the 20 year-olds. We need men and women in their 50s and 60s who have some Biblical meat on their bones to train the younger people how to conduct themselves, how to dress, how to run the home, how to participate in church, etc. (Titus 2:3-5) The fact is that all of us are getting older. I hope there are plenty of elderly-friendly churches when I reach that stage! Consider how your church might reach older folks. That will please God. Sun, 28 Sep 2014 22:08:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/09/Dying-Churches https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/09/Living-in-Light-of-the-End For some Christians, thinking about the end times, the Tribulation, the Antichrist, and how bad society is these days is a traumatic thing. Every current event is interpreted as if it is a herald of the immediate collapse of the world. This can bring paralyzing fear, or a morbid kind of existence. Here are a few quick pastoral thoughts on living in light of the end times. Do not worry. Our Lord taught us this in His sermons, but it is a hard lesson to learn. Do what you know God wants you to do. The Bible is very clear about this. Obey the instructions you have, don't concern yourself with the future which you do not know. Do not follow conspiracy theories. Your focus needs to be on things that are true and honest and just and pure and lovely, not on ugly and speculative and sinful things. Mon, 01 Sep 2014 22:17:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/09/Living-in-Light-of-the-End https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/08/Why-We-Don-t-Invite-People-to-Church Last month, Chuck Lawless wrote an interesting post on what consultants have learned about the question of why church members don't invite others to church. I noticed that a lot of these reasons are "me" centered. I just don't think about it. I'm afraid I'll be rejected. The music isn't that good. The preaching isn't strong. We've got too many church problems right now. Our church is already too crowded. Nobody ever challenged me to invite anyone. I don't know how to start the conversation. It's the Spirit's job--not mine--to bring people to church. It's too far for people to come. Thu, 07 Aug 2014 09:52:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/08/Why-We-Don-t-Invite-People-to-Church https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/06/Integrity What would I say if I were asked to speak before an audience of Christians on the subject of integrity? Here are some thoughts. What is the definition of integrity? "The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness." We must have integrity in our obedience to the Bible. We must have integrity in our marriages. We must have integrity in our teaching of others. We must have integrity in our planning (2 Cor. 1:17). We must have integrity in our confessions of faith. We must have integrity in our church governance. We must have integrity in our relationship with our children. Any other thoughts you would add? Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:52:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/06/Integrity https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/06/God-and-Morals-Part-4 Last time we pondered the definition of morals and saw that morals and sin are related to one another. We continue to another question now. Is it Immoral to Hold Wrong Morals? To hold a moral (standard of behavior) that is opposed to a moral that God holds is itself immoral, i.e., a sin. This is because God's standard is the standard. What He holds is right; holding something else is wrong. It is not honoring to Him. We may disagree as to our understanding of what God's revealed standard is, but it seems that we should agree that there is a standard and failing to hold that is itself a sin. God cares not only about what one does but who one is internally. Consider the simple command to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved. That is what God says is acceptable. If you reject Jesus, then you are saying that God's belief about appropriate behavior is wrong. Thus, it is true that all who reject Christ are immoral, at least in that part of their standards for behavior. Remember we said earlier that non-Christians borrow morality from the Christian God. They "borrow" it because although they have been given a conscience by God, yet they deny God's place of authority over them, but still use some of the God-given standard they have in their conscience in order to live in an orderly fashion. Are All Believers Moral? True Christians hold to a standard of behavior that is consistent with what is presented in the Bible, that is, with the standard God desires. In that sense, believers are moral. However, no Christian is completely consistent in following the Bible's moral standard and so falls short of the standard in some measure. Are Atheists Immoral? Christian, is it immoral to reject Jesus? Is it immoral to believe that abortion is OK? Is it immoral to believe that gay marriage is acceptable? Is it immoral to believe that a command of God is a sin? Is it immoral to trample the Savior underfoot and count the new covenant blood as nothing, and insult the Holy Spirit? Let me ask the question a different way. Do atheists believe that certain things are acceptable which God does not believe are acceptable? Certainly. Atheists believe it is acceptable to reject belief in God, or to live practically as if God doesn't exist. That is not acceptable to God. Atheists believe it is OK to reject salvation offered in Jesus Christ, whereas God commands all people to repent and believe the gospel (Acts 17:30-31). I expand my thought from atheists to the more general category of non-Christians. Many non-Christians today believe that the morals Christians hold are in fact wrong and Christians are thus evil. In these areas (abortion, gay marriage, as examples), they hold the reverse morals of the Christian. They would affirm that Christians are immoral! But the fact of the matter is, according to divine revelation, it is immoral to be an unbeliever; it is immoral to think that rejecting God is OK. Those who reject God and those who are Christians have, in many ways, diametrically opposed morals. The severe conflict between them will never go away because they hold different morals. The Christian contention is that those holding a set of unbiblical principles are in fact immoral. And we don't have to apologize for saying that. It is the real core of the difference between the believer and the unbeliever. Fri, 13 Jun 2014 22:46:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/06/God-and-Morals-Part-4 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/06/God-Makes-Christians-Good Are you evil? The point of this post is that you cannot call a genuine Christian evil in an unqualified sense. Variations on the question "are you evil" have repeatedly come up over the years of my ministry. I was reminded of it again as a I read a post by Ben Edwards at the DBTS blog. Consider the following interchange between two born again believers in Jesus Christ: Bill asks John, "How are you doing today?" John replies, "I'm good." Bill retorts, "John, there is none good, no not one!" Ouch! John is not good? He may be feeling fine, but Bill has pulled the rug out by changing the context of the question in the middle of the conversation. Certainly none of us measures up to God's standard of perfection (Matthew 5:48). Certainly Jesus called fathers evil in Matthew 7:11 and Luke 11:13, although He may have been speaking to a mixed audience of believers and unbelievers, or mostly unbelievers. Certainly there is none good like God (Mark 10:18). But does that mean that we have to see ourselves as just plain-old evil people, even if we have repented of sin and are making good progress on the narrow way? Not at all. Consider Barnabas. "He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith" (Acts 11:24). Other texts that refer to people as good are Proverbs 12:2, 13:22, 14:14; Matthew 12:35; and Luke 6:45. Barnabas was a good man. If you are a Christian, you should be a good man or woman too. You should be more like your Heavenly Father instead of like the evil earthly fathers Jesus mentioned. You should be good and getting better. You must NOT be evil. You must stop any evil that you are doing. God is in the business of taking the raw material of evil people and making them into good people. Where are you on God's assembly line? Thu, 12 Jun 2014 10:17:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/06/God-Makes-Christians-Good https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/06/Are-you-a-Christian Answer these questions and see. This is a self-evaluation tool for you to determine if you are thinking and living like a Christian, by the Bible's definition of Christian. Make no mistake that this is not a to do list to accomplish in order to become a Christian. You become a Christian by repentant faith placed solely in Jesus Christ who died for sinners and rose again. You can evaluate if your repentant faith is real by asking yourself some questions such as the following. You will notice that some of these questions are about your conversion, while others concern the evidence that exists in your life to justify or disprove your claim that you are a Christian. Note that the evidence comes from a general pattern of your life. To answer a question yes, you need not have perfection in the area in question. But answering yes also means that your life gives the evidence much more than "once in a while." Is your assurance is well-founded? These questions will help you to think clearly on that topic. Do you believe that Jesus is Savior? Do you believe that Jesus is Lord? Do you believe that Jesus physically arose from the dead? Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ? Are you a follower of Jesus? Do you tell others these things (#1-#5) about yourself? Have you made a conscious decision that you do not want to sin? Thinking of the time when you became a Christian, could an external observer see a difference in your life now compared to before? Do you enjoy sin? Do you desire to behave better? Are you ready to forgive those who have offended you? Has there been a change in your speech since the time when you became a Christian? Regarding your sinful habits, are you fighting against them? Do you believe Jesus’ death on the cross is sufficient to completely save you, or is something else needed to save you? Do you believe that you must do good works in order to obtain salvation? Do you do good works? Do you regularly confess your sins? Do you love the world or the things in world? Do you believe that Jesus has really come to the world in the flesh? Do you love others in what you say? Do you love others in what you do? Do you acknowledge that Jesus is the Son of God? Do you believe that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah? Have you been baptized by immersion in water? Do you love God with all your heart? Do you hate sin? Do you make a regular practice of attending church? Are you an active, serving member in a local church? Do you pray regularly? Do you read the Bible regularly? Do you love the world more than you love God? Do you believe the Bible is inspired (inerrant, authoritative, etc.)? Do you tell other people how to be saved? Do you believe Jesus died on the cross to pay the debt and penalty for your sins? Do you believe Jesus was born of the virgin Mary? Do you have idols in your life (things you can't live without)? What kind of television shows do you watch? Do you give a significant amount of your time and finances to support the Lord's work? Do non-Christians mock or persecute you for being a Christian? Do you believe Jesus is coming back to the Earth? Do you believe God created the heavens and the earth as recorded in Genesis? Do you believe God judged the earth with a world-wide flood? Do you believe that Adam and Eve were real individuals? Do you believe that people who don't believe in the person and work of Christ will go to hell for eternity? Do you believe in the Trinity? Do you believe Jesus is God? Are you dating an unbeliever? Do you refuse to obey clear commands in Scripture? Are most of your friends Christians? Thu, 12 Jun 2014 10:10:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/06/Are-you-a-Christian https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/06/Alcohol-and-the-Christian Hit a run post. I feel like I've said this before. We need to acknowledge that it is possible to ask a bad question. We can ask a question that misleads, or a question that exposes our own answer before we give an answer. For example: can a Christian drink alcohol? A better question would be: should a Christian drink alcohol? In this case, the first question is one of permission. It biases the discussion from the start, so that if a "yes" answer is extracted from the respondent, then all seems to be well for the alcohol drinker. The second question asks a question of value and points the discussion in the direction of what is best, rather than the lowest permissible standard. In reality, both questions need to be asked, and it is a failure to stop at the first question and not ask the second. That is the subject of a blog post worth reading. Wed, 11 Jun 2014 16:02:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/06/Alcohol-and-the-Christian https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/06/God-and-Morals-Part-3 Definition of Morals We next must define what the word moral means. I'll use Google's help and ask it to "define moral" so we have a sense of how it is used in modern English. Based on the repeated words and ideas in these definitions, morals have to do with principles, standards, beliefs, right, wrong, behavior and conduct. As an adjective used to describe a person, the word refers to someone who holds or demonstrates high principles for proper conduct. What "high" exactly means is not defined. As a noun, the word refers to the actual standards of behavior or beliefs themselves. These standards concern what is or is not acceptable conduct in that person's view. Let me make three notes at this point. First, it is easy to see that one person's standards or beliefs about acceptable behavior can differ from another person's, sometimes vastly. Second, a person's standards can be inconsistent with themselves. And third, because morals have to do with acceptable conduct, it is clear that morals and sin are in fact closely related, contrary to the objector I cited in Part 1. Their relationship is at least this: sin has to do with behavior that is unacceptable according to God's standards of behavior, and so sin is that conduct which is out of accord with God's morals. We could even suppose a set of standards other than God's and talk about the relationship of morals to sin. Say a person named Jane has a set of morals. I violate one of those; I could be said to "sin," that is, miss the mark, of her standards of behavior or belief concerning what is appropriate to do or not do. Clearly morals and sin are related. But there is another level to this question of the relationship between sin and morals that we need to investigate. More to come... Fri, 06 Jun 2014 15:42:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/06/God-and-Morals-Part-3 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/06/God-and-Morals-Part-2 What was the point of @RZIMCanada's original tweet? Andy was saying that Christians cannot legitimately claim that all atheists act immorally or that they have no morals. We do, however, say that they have no logical basis to ground their morals. In fact, they borrow morals given by God. They cannot give a rational account for morality within their own system. That is, if you ask them why murder is wrong, they will say something self-referential or circular like, "It just is." Or they will say that societal norms have evolved that way. But as soon as they appeal to one authority, they are caught because there are other "authorities" who disagree (Hitler is probably the most common counter-example). There is nothing in the atheist's system of thought that makes murder inherently wrong for all people. In the Christian worldview, there is such a firm ground for the moral "murder is wrong," and it is the Christian God, Who rules over all. More to come... Fri, 06 Jun 2014 14:05:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/06/God-and-Morals-Part-2 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/06/God-and-Morals-Part-1 Consider the following Twitter conversation: Several atheists mocked me for the question I asked. Another person wrote, "You are confused. Sin and morals aren't related in any way." Then I mentioned this subject to some folks at the church on Wednesday night and was surprised at the interest and conversation it generated. Evidently I must write some on the subject. So, here are some thoughts. Which God? The first objection is that I did not identify which God, and even worse, I must reject a great many gods so I'm guilty of the same immorality I questioned. Since all "gods" (lowercase) are about the same to @ALAtheist, everyone who claims one god over another is immoral. The answer to the objection is straightforward, though most certainly dissatisfying to the objector. Yes, there are many so-called gods, but the context of the conversation shows that we are talking about the Christian God. He is the one true and living God, the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, eternally existent in three persons united in their sharing of a single divine essence. This God is the God who created everything that exists, even the atheist who rejects him. There are no other true gods. There are figments of people's imaginations. And there are demons who masquerade as gods, gathering a following. But they are not God. More to come... Fri, 06 Jun 2014 13:44:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/06/God-and-Morals-Part-1 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/06/More-Free-and-Low-Cost-Software Last year, I wrote briefly about several software packages that are great tools for a small church or church plant. This is an update, so I won't discuss all of the programs that I mentioned earlier. Skype Skype continues to be a very helpful tool for calling free over the Internet as well as using the Skype credit to call landlines and cell phones throughout the world. One thing that I was disappointed to learn is that Microsoft has added (or was forced to add) features to make it easier for the government to have a backdoor into the communications being shared over Skype. That may not bother some of us since we don't have anything to hide, but a backdoor here in the U.S. means there is a a backdoor in closed countries, and our Christian friends using Skype could be found out. Office Software OpenOffice is upgraded to 4.1.0. FileZilla and GIMP also continue to see updates, as does Scribus. I have not had great luck using Scribus to do some simple one-page layouts, but it has been helpful on other occasions. Ghostscript 9.14 is the latest release of the postscript and PDF tools that Scribus uses under the hood. Thunderbird is well maintained and with the Nostalgy plugin helps me file and find emails very quickly. 9/18/2019 Update: I still use most of the software that I wrote above in this article and the previous one. One change: I am not using OpenOffice anymore. I'm inclined to think that LibreOffice (presently 6.3.1.2) has been maintained and improved better. It is built from the same base as OpenOffice. TeamViewer Occasionally someone in the church will ask help to fix a computer problem. OK, I can do that, but not too often! TeamViewer allows you to connect remotely and see the screen of the computer you are working on. GoldWave This is the one program on this list that is not entirely free, but it is worth the modest registration cost. We use Goldwave to record sermon audio and do edits on it afterward to clean up the audio. Top notch. ImgBurn ImgBurn can take a DVD and create a .ISO image from it, and then turn around and put that .ISO image onto a new DVD. I have used it to make backups of important DVD material that we have at the church. Password Safe Finally, I add Password Safe 3.33 to this list. With all the websites for banking, shopping, utilities, healthcare, etc. the list of passwords you have is probably quite long. If you don't some kind of secure password management tool, you are opening yourself up for trouble. For each website you use, you should have a unique password. And it should be hard, because about 70% of passwords you think are pretty good are actually fairly easy to crack. I can't show you a really good example here because it has so many strange characters the blog software or RSS reader will be unhappy. Since it is hard to create and remember such passwords, Password Safe helps you to to do it. It has a generator function for good passwords, and an easy way to copy them to the clipboard and paste them into the website you are visiting. It stores the passwords in a database that is encrypted, protected by one password that you remember that is very long, complicated, and never written down! It organizes the database according to categories so that your passwords are easy to find. With all the crooks out there and government snoopers (total depravity is a real problem, isn't it?), a good password program is a must. Fri, 06 Jun 2014 13:16:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/06/More-Free-and-Low-Cost-Software https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/05/Two-Reader-s-Editions-of-the-Greek-New-Testament I have been reading the Greek New Testament this year. I have two editions: Zondervan's Reader's Greek New Testament, 2nd Edition and Crossway's UBS Greek New Testament, Reader's Edition With Textual Notes. Advantage: Crossway. The Zondervan edition is very nice in a number of ways. It is a very handy size, nice paper, and inexpensive. It lays fairly flat even in Revelation. However, it has some ghosting because of the thin paper. Its font is small. And the biggest strike against it is that the footnotes are very difficult to locate with the eye because they are bunched together in a single huge paragraph at the bottom of the page. The notes only define terms but do not give verb parsings, which is another strike against this edition. The Crossway edition is much more expensive, has thicker paper (and still some ghosting), and is about twice as thick as the Zondervan. It does not lay flat when reading at either end of the New Testament. (Later addition: I take that back! After spending quite a bit of time reading Revelation, the binding is apparently happier and it stays open fairly well.] However, where it wins for me is the type is larger, a little darker than its competitor, and very clear. Even better, the footnotes are arranged in a two-column tabular format which makes locating the necessary note easy on the eyes. The footnotes define rare words and additionally give parsings of verbs. There is a lot to like about both editions, but I prefer Crossway's offering. Pick up either one and read! —MAP Thu, 29 May 2014 22:00:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/05/Two-Reader-s-Editions-of-the-Greek-New-Testament https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/04/Some-Thoughts-on-Prayer-from-a-Stranger A couple of weeks back, while I was taking a group from our church to the Creation Museum, we stopped for dinner at a restaurant in Lima, Ohio. Members of our group got into a conversation with a businessman there who was a Presbyterian. He has a ministry of encouraging people to pray. He handed me a laminated card that had these two lists on it: We Are to Pray For Ourselves - for cleansing from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9) and for wisdom from God (James 1:5) Our spiritual leaders - open to them a door for the word to speak the mystery of Christ (Col. 4:3) The believers who are sick - save and raise them (James 5:15) Our rulers - all in authority to come to knowledge and truth (1 Timothy 2:2 and 4) Our enemies - help us to love them and do good to them (Matthew 5:44) Rules for Prayer In praying we must be reverently single minded with a purity worthy of God as we contemplate God. We must be aware of our insufficiency and whether prayer be free or liturgical it must never be casual or perfunctory. Humbled through awareness of our residual depravity, we must give glory to God alone. Pray with confidence while laying before God or predicament and its perplexity and horror and expectantly look for God to extend his helping hand. To be sure, this is not a comprehensive theology of prayer. It is a good reminder nonetheless. I have no idea if it comes originally from another source, but I was thankful to meet someone else out there who is not ashamed to name the name of our great God and speak of honoring Him in prayer! Wed, 30 Apr 2014 21:38:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/04/Some-Thoughts-on-Prayer-from-a-Stranger https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/02/A-Troubling-Thought In John 8:45 and the second half of John 8:46, Jesus said, But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me...If I am speaking truth, why do you not believe me? Think of some truths, whether an essential truth of the gospel such as the substitutionary atonement or another clear teaching of Scripture.** Just why is it that some (many) people do not believe those truths? Have you had the frustrating experience of trying to teach someone a Christian doctrine only to run continuously into a brick wall of lack of understanding, lack of acceptance, or outright rejection? What is going on? Jesus diagnoses the problem in the surrounding context. People who do not believe the truth do not have God as their father (v. 42); do not love Christ (v. 42); have an inherent inability to understand the the words of Jesus or even listen to them (v. 43); have the devil as their father (v. 44); lust after evil things (v. 44); and are not of God (v. 47). That ought to be a troubling thought. Friend, if you are rejecting what the Bible says, you need to be troubled too. **In this statement, I am ignoring the question of the validity of "theological triage." What I can say for now is that I do not believe it is valid to divide truth into three levels and to affirm that only the first level contains the really important stuff that must be believed. There is a lot more truth that must be believed to please God than just "gospel" truth. Wed, 23 Apr 2014 22:45:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/02/A-Troubling-Thought https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/04/Sons-of-God This post is about Genesis 6:1-7 and particularly concerns the identity of the sons of God in verse 4. Someone sent me an article from gotquestions.org on the subject. Using the article's numbering system, view #1 is the view that the authors embrace, namely that the sons of God are fallen angels. This post explains that this view is the least Biblical view. God created everything to reproduce according to its kind (Genesis 1:11 and many others). The angel kind and the human kind are not compatible. That closes the case and points us elsewhere for the correct interpretation. As to their objections to view #2 (sons of God = powerful rulers) or #3 (sons of God = godly line of Seth), they write: The weakness of views 2) and 3) is that ordinary human males marrying ordinary human females does not account for why the offspring were "giants" or "heroes of old, men of renown." Further, why would God decide to bring the flood on the earth (Genesis 6:5-7) when God had never forbade powerful human males or descendants of Seth to marry ordinary human females or descendants of Cain? The oncoming judgment of Genesis 6:5-7 is linked to what took place in Genesis 6:1-4. Only the obscene, perverse marriage of fallen angels with human females would seem to justify such a harsh judgment. I respond to the first objection: the information that God placed into human genome can easily account for the production of giant humans. There are humans known to reach 8 feet in height in the modern era, and no reason why humans could not grow to a tremendous stature under the right conditions and with the right genes. In fact, the text mentions the giants first, before the sons of God are mentioned. I respond to the second objection: the Bible tells us precisely why God sent the flood on the earth, and that is because "the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." God's sorrow at making man refers to the entirety of mankind, not just the sons of God and daughters of men. God's statement about his Spirit not striving with man occurs BEFORE the giants and BEFORE the sons of God are mentioned, so they are not the sole reason for His judgment. As far as the support that the article marshals for its view (sons of God = fallen angels), it is quite lacking. 1. The authors say that the phrase "sons of God" always refers to angels in the Old Testament. I note in response that in the New Testament the same phrase always refers to humans, and always believing humans. This would support view #3 (sons of God = godly descendants of Seth or godly men more generally). Further, the other citations in the Old Testament are limited to the book of Job. Nowhere else in Moses do we find the exact phrase. God does refer to Israel as His son (Exodus 4:22) which at least slightly undermines the article's argument. 2. The authors say that angels can appear in human form. The simplest explanation for the perverted desire of the Sodomites was that they thought the angels were actually human men because they appeared to be so. 3. The authors suggest that angels can replicate human sexuality. This is an utter speculation that is not explicitly backed by any other Scripture (I include Jude 6 in that statement). A fourth interpretation is held by some interpreters, that the fallen angels (= demons) indwelt men and heightened their evil desires and actions (MacArthur Study Bible, note at Genesis 6:2). This is basically a variation of view #1. Let me review then the different interpretations: 1) The sons of God = fallen angels is impossible for the above reasons. To re-emphasize, this view breaks the "according to its kind" principle is far more problematic than the remaining views because it calls into question the veracity of God's word in the earlier chapters of Genesis and ultimately casts doubt on the operation of the created order. 2) The sons of God = powerful human rulers is far better, but the appellation "sons of God" seems too positive for such people. 3) The sons of God = godly line of Seth is the most reasonable. However, I grant there is a problem that these supposedly godly men erred in taking ungodly wives, which is not right but altogether too common down to the present day. 4) The sons of God = demon-possessed people cannot be sustained in the sense that nowhere else are demon-possessed people called by the positive term "sons of God." Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:26:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/04/Sons-of-God https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/04/Your-Christian-Life I was listening at lunch to a fine Bible teacher who was explaining how our thinking has to be right, as per Philippians 4:8-9. In explaining this, he said (paraphrase), if your thinking is not right, nothing in your Christian life will be right. That caused me to pause for a minute and think about this phrase "your Christian life." I think we need to be careful how we use this phrase. Allow me to ask you a question: if you are a Christian, besides your Christian life, what other life do you have? I believe the Bible clearly teaches that if you are a Christian, you have no other life than your Christian life. If you are a Christian, you have life, and you have it abundantly. You do not have a compartmentalized Christian life, walled off from your other life (or lives). A true Christian has a life that is Christ, from Sunday to Saturday, 24x7, 365 and every February 29. Sure, Christians are not perfect little angels! But if we are Christians, then that describes the totality of our being. We either are Christians or we are not. If you are living two lives, you better stop and figure out if you really have the Christian life you think you have. Thu, 03 Apr 2014 12:59:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/04/Your-Christian-Life https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/03/A-Frustration-with-the-NIV-2011 Here's a quick hit-and-run on the NIV translation. I was reading the Greek text of John 16:16 this morning, and ran across this difference between the 2011 NIV and its predecessor. Jesus went on to say, "In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me." (Joh 16:16 NIV-2011) In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me. (Joh 16:16 NIV-1984) I have to wonder why the words "Jesus went on to say" are added in the new translation. They are completely unnecessary, particularly because they were translated from whitespace in the Greek. It seems the added words give us less insight into the passage and more insight into the translator's minds, namely that they desired to emphasize the paragraph break between verses 15 and 16. Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:27:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/03/A-Frustration-with-the-NIV-2011 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/03/Holding-Church-Meetings-in-Bad-Weather One use of technology that we have found very helpful at Fellowship Bible Church is the conference call. When there is very bad weather, as today, we invite our people to participate in our Bible study and prayer meeting by telephone. We set up an account with freeconferencecall.com. The services gives you a phone number to call and a passcode. We are able to use the free level of service. There is some cost associated with using the service because our church members must be able to call a long distance number either on their land line, or be willing to use cell phone minutes to make the call. From caller's perspective, the service is easy to use, if perhaps a bit awkward at the first for those who have not done a conference call before. The caller dials the phone number, enters the access code followed by the # key, and then is connected to the call. When they hear the signal, we ask as a matter of etiquette that they announce their presence on the call. There is a special touch-tone command *6 that they can use to mute their side so that the rest of the callers cannot hear background noise (say, children making noise in the background). Pressing that touch-tone command again will unmute their side so they can be heard on the call if they wish to say something. If the person wants to speak, they might ask the moderator, "Pastor, this is George..." and await an acknowledgement from the moderator before "taking the floor." From the moderator's perspective, it is also fairly easy. While people are joining the call, he can welcome each person and others will also say 'hello.' After a couple of minutes when most people have joined the call, he can begin the meeting. The moderator has "special powers" and can mute everyone on the call simultaneously with a special code (*5) if the accumulated background noise is too much. Tonight, I plan to lead the call in prayer or ask someone to do that who I know is ready and willing to do so. Then I will start off with my Bible study by reading the passage and then saying what I want to say about it. This takes some adaptation from regular preaching since there are no visual cues such as body language. (We have not ventured into video conferencing yet.) I then plan to ask people to share prayer requests. This part is a bit tricky because everyone might start talking at once. A good moderator will help by asking the participants in a round-robin fashion if they have prayer requests. I might start with some folks I know already who have some, for example, some of our leaders or people who are not shy. Then I will ask other people by name and go around until I have gone through everyone I know to be on the call. After this, I would ask several to lead in prayer and then conclude the meeting. Since the prayer time is short on the call, I usually request that after the call, the people spend more time in their family units praying for all the requests that have been mentioned, or other things they wish to pray about. I might also ask them to take a moment to call someone else in the church who was not able to participate in the meeting just to greet and connect again. Sometimes people do not announce themselves at the beginning of the call. That's OK if they want to stay somewhat to the background. Also, the service sends a log after the call to the email address registered with the account. That way, I can see a list of all phone numbers that participated. This technology is a nice way to have a meeting if the weather constrains travel, or if a person is not able to get out due to some health issue. We do not do it often because church requires real contact with real people, but as a backup it is helpful. Wed, 12 Mar 2014 12:29:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/03/Holding-Church-Meetings-in-Bad-Weather https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/02/Consider-Well Guest post by Vincent Brattin, one of our church members. Consider Well (2/3/2014 by VJB) Does your church take a stand against moral decay Or are they afraid of what people might say? Does your music uplift, and teach real Christian truth Or do you have drum sets to placate your youth? Tell me true, is your pastor just "one of the guys" Wears t-shirts and jeans, never jackets or ties? And is your congregation so large over there That only a fraction gets pastoral care? Is the sermon you hear now so watered and thin That you're never challenged to deal with your sin? Are you being prepared to face worlds of wrong? Instead, will you fall when that cult comes along? Does your Bible translation still honor what's true? Or rather, will your paraphrase have to do? Do you help out the missions with treasure and prayer? Or maybe you act like they aren't even there? You attend Sunday morning--well, that's a good start Or do you think "Finished! Now I've done my part."? Do you enter your church and think "what can I do?" Or do you think "serve" is what happens to you? Chorus: Consider well your house of worship-- Are you where God would have you be? And are you growing as a Christian? Just ask the Lord to help you see. Sun, 09 Feb 2014 08:26:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/02/Consider-Well https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/01/Reading-the-Greek-New-Testament In case you want a real challenge, you can do your devotional Bible reading in the Greek New Testament. Click here for a reading schedule that moves from easier to harder books throughout the year, and gets you through the entire New Testament in that time. Tue, 14 Jan 2014 22:31:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/01/Reading-the-Greek-New-Testament https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/01/Romans-1-8-Sermon-Notes My sermon notes are available in Word document format. There are 48 files covering Romans 1 through 8. They are available by clicking here. Mon, 13 Jan 2014 22:42:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/01/Romans-1-8-Sermon-Notes https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/01/Do-Not-Forget-God As they were on the verge of entering the promised land, Moses reminded the people of Israel how God had cared for them over the preceding years. But a danger would come when they began to enjoy rich material blessings: Beware that you do not forget the LORD your God by not keeping His commandments, His judgments, and His statutes which I command you today. (Deuteronomy 8:11) when your heart is lifted up, and you forget the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage; (Deuteronomy 8:14) Then it shall be, if you by any means forget the LORD your God, and follow other gods, and serve them and worship them, I testify against you this day that you shall surely perish. (Deuteronomy 8:19) The same danger applies today to us. Many readers of this post are extremely rich by comparison to the rest of the world. Consider the following quotation from economist Mark Perry at the American Enterprise Institute: For example, nearly half of the world's richest 1% of people live in the U.S., and the threshold required to make it into that elite group is only $34,000 per person, according to World Bank economist Branko Milanovic. If your household income is over $34,000, you are the 1%! This can pose a serious danger because riches can beget a self-sufficient disposition. Such a disposition is death to reliance upon God. Do not forget your God! If you are a follower of Jesus Christ, you cannot allow money or material wealth to have the mastery over you. Sun, 12 Jan 2014 07:06:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2014/01/Do-Not-Forget-God https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/12/Listening-to-Your-Bible I extolled the value of Bible reading during the Sunday morning service, encouraging our flock to read Scripture diligently. You can listen in at our audio page. Someone emailed me a helpful reminder after the sermon about a Bible app that not only allows you to read, but also to LISTEN to the Bible as it is read. I should have emphasized in my sermon the great value of this method of getting into the Bible. After all, many early Christians had no other option but to listen as the Scriptures were read to them. We have the benefit of having inexpensive printed copies of the Bible available to us everywhere, and now we have the benefit of inexpensive audio copies of the Scripture as well. Besides being able to use time you otherwise cannot use to read (say, as you drive), an audio Bible is a good way to learn through the Scripture through another "learning channel." Learning through reading is complemented well by listening. You can also learn by writing it out and reading it out loud yourself. There are many Bible apps available, but here are a few key ones: Bible.is is the app that I was reminded of after the sermon yesterday. It reads the Bible to you, among other things. Bible.com, aka "YouVersion". It seems everywhere I turn, people are using this version to read the Bible, and especially on phones. The great thing about reading on a phone is that it is easy to hold and doesn't tire out your hand and arm so much as a larger and much heavier tablet. OliveTree Bible Study software. This app offers lots of translations and Bible resource books, commentaries, etc. It has been a pleasant experience to use this app to read a good portion of the Old Testament with my wife Naomi in the evenings this past year. Mon, 30 Dec 2013 17:19:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/12/Listening-to-Your-Bible https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/12/2014-Bible-Reading-Schedule The 2014 Bible reading schedules are available as PDF files (below) and soon will also be available on the front page of our site, in left menu bar under the Bible Guide. Why should you regularly read the Bible? Because you are not supposed to live by bread alone, but by every word of God (Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4, Deuteronomy 8:3). Read the New Testament once in 2014 Read the New Testament twice in 2014 Read the New Testament four times in 2014 Read the Old Testament once 2014 Key chapters for young readers Thu, 26 Dec 2013 09:46:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/12/2014-Bible-Reading-Schedule https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/12/Some-Dead-Flies-in-the-Lives-of-Good-Kings In Ecclesiastes 10:1, Solomon teaches a little nugget of wisdom: Dead flies putrefy the perfumer's ointment, and cause it to give off a foul odor; so does a little folly to one respected for wisdom and honor." Some examples of such folly are recorded in 2 Chronicles 16-20. Asa and his son Jehoshaphat were generally good kings in the southern kingdom (2 Chronicles 14:2, 17:3). However, they each had some dead flies: Asa made a treaty with Syria and did not rely on the Lord (16:1-10). Asa became angry when confronted by the prophet Hanani and imprisoned the prophet and became oppressive to those of his own people (16:10). Asa had a foot disease, yet did not seek the Lord about the matter but rather relied on the physicians (16:12). Jehoshaphat allied himself with wicked Ahab in a battle against Ramoth Gilead (18:2-3). Apparently, he did not imprison the prophet like his dad had done (19:2-3). Jehoshaphat allied himself with very wicked Ahaziah to build ships to sail to the west; another prophet rebuked him for this alliance (20:35-37). These are some obvious illustrations of the need for separation in the believer's life—separation from sin and sinful partnerships. They are also good lessons that a few foolish decisions can do severe damage to one's reputation. How can we avoid similar sins? First, as you make a decision (like to make a treaty or ally yourself with someone or some group), ask yourself if you are relying on the Lord most, or upon some other support, such as pragmatism or medicine or covetousness? Second, as you make those decisions, ask yourself if they are necessary things to do. The treaty was not necessary for Asa; the ships were not necessary for Jehoshaphat. You can avoid trouble if you avoid doing unnecessary things. You can avoid the difficulty of having to separate from something if you never start that something. Third, do you become defensive or angry when someone questions or confronts you about the decision you made? That's a sign that something is wrong—if not the decision itself, then your attitude about it. Fourth, ask yourself if the people with whom you are allying yourself are of like mind in their desire to follow the Lord. Do they believe as you do? Do they live righteously? Are they serving God or money? Let's ask for help from the Lord to avoid the dead flies. Thu, 19 Dec 2013 11:18:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/12/Some-Dead-Flies-in-the-Lives-of-Good-Kings https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/12/Luke-15-in-F I recently learned that Pastor and Professor Ivan French went to be with the Lord on December 12, 2013. One of his former students, George Zeller, passed along the following humorous translation of Luke 15 about the prodigal son. Feeling Footloose and Frisky, a Feather-brained Fellow Forced His Fond Father to Fork over the Farthings, and Flew Far to Foreign Fields where he Frittered his Fortune Feasting Fabulously with Faithless Friends. Fleeced by his Fellows in Folly, and Facing Famine, he Found himself a Feed-Flinger in a Filthy Farmyard. Fairly Famishing, he Fain would've Filled his Frame with Foraged Food from Fodder Fragments. "Fooey, my Father's Flunkies Fare Far Finer," the Frazzled Fugitive Forlornly Fumbled, Frankly Facing Facts. Frustrated by Failure, and Filled with Foreboding, he Fled Forthwith to his Family. Falling at His Father's Feet, he Forlornly Fumbled, "Father, I've Flunked, and Fruitlessly Forfeited Family Favor." The Far-sighted Father, Forestalling Further Flinching, Frantically Flagged the Flunkies to Fetch a Fatling From the Flock and Fix a Feast. The Fugitive's Fault-Finding Brother Frowned on Fickle Forgiveness of Former Folderol. But the Faithful Father Figured, "Filial Fidelity is Fine, but the Fugitive is Found! What Forbids Fervent Festivity? Let Flags unFurl! Let Fanfares Flare!" The Father's Forgiveness Formed the Foundation For the Former Fugitive's Future Fortitude! So, while brother French now enjoys the Fabulously Fantastic Fun of that which is Future for us Forgiven God Fearers, may you enjoy a little Fruit of his eFFort! Tue, 17 Dec 2013 19:38:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/12/Luke-15-in-F https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/12/Christian-Theism-vs-Atheism I've been doing some study in Acts 19. We have in that chapter the interesting situation that Paul, the Christian, is debunking the imaginary polytheistic beliefs of a whole community that believes in the goddess Diana (goddess of the hunt, moon, and birthing). He did the same in Athens (Acts 17) and elsewhere on his missionary tours. In these cases, the Christian confronted a polytheistic world for its belief in imaginary gods and calling it to abandon those beliefs in favor of the belief in the one true God. Today it is in vogue for atheists to mock the "imaginary" beliefs of Christians in a God they cannot see, who is written about in a Bible that contains all kinds of supposed evil. To them, God is an imaginary friend on the one hand, and His book and practices are unspeakably evil on the other. This mocking is done by those who imagine spontaneous generation occurred in a primordial pea soup of unknown origin that created complex and varied living systems. These organisms are now in a life and death struggle for survival in a world filled with natural and man-made evil. It seems like the atheist/evolutionist believes in something you cannot see or replicate and which resulted in a world full of evil. I'll take the Christian Theistic explanation any day! Especially since I understand things a lot differently than the caricature that atheism makes of Christianity. God cannot be seen? True...except that God came as a man in the incarnation and He was seen for over three decades on this earth. The evidence for that is quite overwhelming. God is evil? That simply reflects sinners laying blame for sin at the feet of God instead of at their own feet. God is not a sinner; man is. Just like Adam and Eve tried to shift blame for evil onto someone or something else, so the sinner today does the same thing and shifts blame onto God. But once blame is assigned properly--to people--then God's actions in judging the blameworthy can be understood properly. Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:33:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/12/Christian-Theism-vs-Atheism https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/12/Reading-the-Bible-Part-6 Let us review where we have been: 1. The first reason you should read the Bible is that its central figure is a man named Jesus of Nazareth, who made claims that are extraordinary. One claim he made was that he would die and rise again from the dead. 2. The second reason you should read the Bible is because it explains many things in the world that others have no good explanation for. 3. The third reason you should read the Bible is because it covers all the really important events of world history. 4. The fourth reason you should read the Bible is because so many people and institutions do not want you to read it. 5. The fifth reason you should read the Bible is that its central character, Jesus Christ, claimed to be the son of God. In so doing, he actually claimed to be God in the flesh. Maybe you have a problem with one of those points? Try this: suspend disbelief for the time being and take them at face value. Then move on to point #6 and think about it for a while. The sixth reason you should read the Bible is that it explains why you do bad things and why everyone else does too. These things are called by the term "sin" in the Bible. The Bible states the fact that all people do bad things. For example, Romans 3:23 says, "for all have sinned." Ecclesiastes 7:20 says, "For there is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin." The Bible explains that the tendency to sin comes from our parents, through their parents, and their parents, all the way back to the first man and woman in the garden of Eden. God gave them a command to do certain things and not do certain other things, and they chose to rebel against God (Genesis 2:17, 3:1-24). All of humanity has been in a state of rebellion and sin ever since then. Therefore, while we recognize that our parents have given us many good things, there is one bad thing they gave us, and that is the tendency to sin. The natural consequence of sin is death. Sin is the ultimate reason for death of every sort, whether by cancer or accident or heart failure or just "old age." Do you agree that you have this "sin" problem? We will see next time a seventh reason you should read the Bible is that it tells of Jesus, who said that He was the only way to have our sins washed away so that we can win the battle against sin and death. Mon, 09 Dec 2013 19:04:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/12/Reading-the-Bible-Part-6 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/12/Gods-Gift-of-Tongues Here's a nice little book about the spiritual gift of tongues. It sticks close to Scripture and its organization is easy to follow: Tongues Predicted by Christ (Mark 16) Tongues Fulfilled at Pentecost (Acts 2) Tongues Fulfilled at Caesarea (Acts 10) Tongues Fulfilled at Ephesus (Acts 19) The Gift of Tongues in the Assembly (1 Corinthians 12) The Problem of Tongues in the Assembly (1 Corinthians 13:1-3) The Duration of Tongues in the Assembly (1 Corinthians 13:8) The Value of Tongues in the Assembly (1 Corinthians 14:21-26) The Purpose of Tongues in the Assembly (1 Corinthians 14:21-26) The Regulation of Tongues in the Assembly (1 Corinthians 14:27-40) Appendix 1: Twelve Reasons Why Biblical Tongues Were Real Languages Appendix 2: 1 Corinthians 13:8 and Temporary Gifts The lengthiest chapters are the 8 and 9 regarding 1 Corinthians 14. Zeller has an interesting thesis in chapter 9 that has to do with 14:21, which says: In the law it is written: "With men of other tongues and other lips I will speak to this people; And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me," says the Lord. (1 Corinthians 14:21 NKJV) Zeller notes a repeated pattern in the Old Testament, and in the New, that goes like this (p. 78): God has a message for the people. The people refuse to listen to God. God causes tongues to be heard as a sign of judgment. Dispersion follows. The point is that tongues are a sign of judgment against unbelief. This view is not novel, as I have heard it preached by other dispensationalists. I have not heard about this idea in the recent debate on continuationism—but it would be interesting to hear the continuationist response. The "tongues for judgment" view is fairly convincing, as the pattern is evident from Babel through the major prophets and then into Acts 2. As such, it baffles me why some Christians are so insistent on wanting a spiritual gift that has to do with judgment and has such a low edification value (1 Cor. 14:5). Zeller then uses this as the basis of his argument that tongues must have only lasted until the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 because step 4 of his paradigm (dispersion) was completed at that point and therefore tongues had served out their purpose. This is intriguing, but I am not convinced. (I understand the termination of tongues contextually from 1 Corinthians 13 and Ephesians 2:20.) The book is by George W. Zeller, God's Gift of Tongues: The Nature, Purpose, and Duration of Tongues as Taught in the Bible, Wipf & Stock Publishers 2005, 126 pages including bibliography. This book was earlier published by Loizeaux Brothers in 1978. It is available at Amazon. A better way to get the book is to send me an email request through our contact page. I will get you in touch with Brother Zeller and he can get the book to you at a reduced price. Wed, 04 Dec 2013 16:45:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/12/Gods-Gift-of-Tongues https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/12/Did-Jesus-Denounce-Gay-Marriage NPR and newspapers around the country recently printed a political cartoon by Signe Wilkinson supporting gay marriage. In the cartoon, Rev. Frank Schaefer is shown reading a suspension letter. He was defrocked for officiating at his son's gay wedding and "not denouncing gay marriage." The second panel shows a sympathetic caricature of Jesus saying that he did not denounce gay marriage either. That would be convenient, if it were true, but any honest reading of the New Testament would not be able to come to that conclusion—not if the reader takes the text at face value. Certainly Jesus did not "denounce" gay marriage using Westboro Baptist methods. He did not get on a soapbox and preach against gays or one or the other specific form of sexual sin. He didn't express hate toward sinners trapped and dying in their sin. But he did set out the positive expression of God's holiness, and that is one man joined to one woman for life: And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Matthew 19:4-6 NKJV) Jesus also set forth the principle that all sins, not just sexual ones, come from within the heart of man, that center of personality and will that is the real person. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. (Mathew 15:19 NKJV) Not only did Jesus himself teach these things; his followers, the apostles, were even more pointed in their letters, which form most of the New Testament. Jesus authorized and superintended the writing of the New Testament, so he is "implicated" in all of its contents. Consider: However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. (John 16:13 NKJV) The apostles came to this important conclusion in an early church council: As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. (Acts 21:25 NIV) Sexual immorality is any sexual activity outside of marriage, defined as one man and one woman joined together permanently. Paul was another of Jesus' commissioned writers: Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NKJV) It is instructive to note that the sins of homosexuality, sodomy, fornication, adultery, thievery, greed, drunkenness, and others are placed on the same "level." Good Christians are not out to pick on one sin more than others. Christians want to live holy lives as a reflection of the purity of their God and Savior Jesus Christ. They proclaim an upright kind of life. There are lots of reasons why people think of some sins as worse than others. In some cases, the earthly consequences of certain sins are heavier than the consequences of other sins. And in other cases, sins are especially distasteful to the Christian because they seem unnatural. Paul gives warrant for this thought in Romans 1: For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. (Romans 1:26 NKJV) Paul's statement about the natural order doesn't require that we be obnoxious in our presentation of the truth. Unfortunately, supporters of gay marriage will normally perceive the Christian to be obnoxious just because of the content of what he is saying, regardless of his manner. Back to the original question then: did Jesus denounce gay marriage? Basically, yes. He set forth the right way to do things, and commissioned certain ones to write further details on it in which he, together with them, spoke against gay marriage. Mon, 02 Dec 2013 16:32:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/12/Did-Jesus-Denounce-Gay-Marriage https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/11/Examples-of-Bad-Interpretation Examples of a bad hermeneutic: That all birds in the Bible represent the devil. That all leaven in the Bible represents sin. That all fig trees in the Bible represent Israel. In some places in Scripture, birds, leaven, and fig trees may indeed represent those things, but not always. If the context says so, fine. But if you are importing the meaning of a symbol from a remote context to your local context, you will almost certainly make the local context say something that its author never meant to say. When you take care to avoid this interpretive error, you will find that: The birds in the mustard "tree" (Matthew 13) do not represent Satan and thus the kingdom of heaven is NOT necessarily populated with a bunch of sinners. The idea that the birds represent evil in the kingdom of heaven has been used to distinguish the kingdom of heaven from the kingdom of God, a distinction which is unsustainable because of many other texts of Scripture. The leaven mixed into the lump of dough (Matthew 13) does not represent sin making its way throughout the kingdom of heaven to sully it, even though leaven represents sin elsewhere in Scripture. The fig tree does not always refer to the nation of Israel in symbolic form (see Revelation 6). Tue, 26 Nov 2013 18:11:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/11/Examples-of-Bad-Interpretation https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/11/Genetic-Entropy-and-the-Mystery-of-the-Genome-by-Sanford I just finished read an interesting, although somewhat technical, book by Dr. John Sanford. He begins by defining the "primary axiom" of biological evolution this way: Life is life because random mutations at the molecular level are filtered through a reproductive sieve acting on the level of the whole organism (page 5). To summarize even further, life comes about because of random mutations filtered through natural selection. Upon that axiom the whole house of evolution stands. Sanford says the axiom is basically uncritically accepted by all evolutionary biologists and population geneticists. The thesis of the book is that the primary axiom is not true. In the first place, on its surface it doesn't seem plausible because of the massive complexity of the genome and the amount of information it encodes in any living creature. In the second place, the genome of, say, human beings, is degrading over time. This is "entropy" in the genetic makeup. In the third place, the primary axiom cannot create new genetic information within the timescale suggested by evolutionists. Therefore, Sanford writes on p. 139, We have reviewed compelling evidence that, even when ignoring deleterious mutations, mutation/selection cannot create a single gene within the human evolutionary timescale. When deleterious mutations are factored back in, we see that mutation/selection cannot create a single gene, ever. This is overwhelming evidence against the Primary Axiom. In my opinion this constitutes what is essentially a formal proof that the Primary Axiom is false. He concludes this way on p. 150: What is the mystery of the genome? Its very existence is its mystery. Information and complexity which surpass human understanding are programmed into a space smaller than an invisible spec of dust. Mutation/selection cannot even begin to explain this. It should be very clear that our genome could not have arisen spontaneously. Michael Behe wrote an interesting blurb on the back cover: "In Genetic Entropy, Cornell University researcher John Sanford lifts the rug to see what evolutionary theory has swept under it. He shows that, not only does Darwinism not have answers for how information got into the genome, it doesn't even have answers for how it could remain there." Scott Buchanan has written a rebuttal and Sanford responds. The book is Dr. John C. Sanford, Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, FMS Publications, 2008, 226 pages including glossary and index. Multiple editions are available. Tue, 26 Nov 2013 10:02:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/11/Genetic-Entropy-and-the-Mystery-of-the-Genome-by-Sanford https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/11/The-Bible-is-Fiction USA Today and Examiner.com report that a pastor in California noticed Bibles mislabeled for sale as "fiction." Costco relabeled the Bibles and apologized. Problem solved. Or is it? There are many people who would agree that the Bible is fiction. They would argue that Costco should have kept the category as is because it is accurate. But on what basis do they make that claim? The news articles did not impart information that would help readers to know whether the Bible is actually fiction or not. Here are some thoughts to fill in that gap. The first four New Testament books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) are biographies of Jesus written by eyewitnesses and close associates. The fifth book, Acts, is a history of the early church, also written by an eyewitness. As they consist of eyewitness accounts and have been confirmed in many points by archaeology, they can hardly be called fiction. Those who suggest these writings are fiction would do well to consider the historical evidence for Jesus in comparison to any other major figure of the ancient world whose existence they acknowledge. The remainder of the New Testament books are letters from Paul, James, John, Peter, and Jude to particular recipients. As such, they are first-century "epistles" of great historical value that discuss the Christian faith. Such letters are not in the fiction genre but are rather of the epistolary genre. As for the Old Testament, the first five books were written by the hand of Moses. They record events before his lifetime, such as creation, and many events in which he was a firsthand participant. Many of these events, again, are substantiated by archaeological evidence. No one can doubt that the law of Moses was a historical reality and greatly influential upon the Jewish people. Joshua and Judges and the books of the Hebrew Kings (Samuel, Kings, Chronicles) are also historical books. The prophets basically predict Israel's demise and call the nation back to faithfulness to its covenant with God made through Moses. These are ancient documents of no small import, many replete with fulfilled predictive prophecy and prophecies that have not yet come to pass. The argument can be sustained that none of these books are fiction. The poetic books are the remaining section of Scripture that I haven't mentioned. These books, such as the Psalms, contain Israel's hymnody and wisdom for living. These may be called poetic in genre, but not fiction. Many Psalms, for instance, reflect back on the historical realities of the nation of Israel. Proverbs mirror the historical Mosaic covenant. True—our atheist opponents will say that the Bible's content is fictional. Some events recorded in the Bible, such as the creation account, are rejected in favor of evolutionary origins. Other parts of the Bible are rejected because they are not convenient to an un-holy lifestyle. But all this is a reflection on a belief system or worldview, not on the Bible itself. The Bible presents itself as non-fiction. Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:32:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/11/The-Bible-is-Fiction https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/11/More-Verses-for-I-Sing-the-Mighty-Power-of-God Last year, I mentioned to our congregation that the Isaac Watts hymn "I Sing the Mighty Power of God" seemed to be lacking in that it focuses on general revelation in creation, but does not address the power of God in salvation. I was particularly thinking of Ephesians 1:19: And what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power. So I asked if someone might compose a verse for the hymn that would fill in this gap. The result of the work of two our our church members can be found in this PDF file which you are welcome to use in your church and personal worship if you so desire. Their verses are: I thank you, God, that in your plan I would become your own Foreknown before the world began to bow before your throne. So greater still than all your lands, the sun, the sky, the sea Is resting safely in your hands for all eternity. I sing the mercy of our God who conquered sin and death. He sent to earth His only Son to suffer in our stead. I sing the love of Christ our Lord who gave His life for us, That we may stand before the throne redeemed, victorious. Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:27:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/11/More-Verses-for-I-Sing-the-Mighty-Power-of-God https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/11/How-to-Ruin-Children Some more "anti-advice." How to Ruin Children, starting at 39:08 Don't discipline them when they do wrong. Allow them to get away with disobedience, rebellion, and disrespect. Don't teach them to work hard and don't let them get a job until the last possible minute. Do their work for them. Do not teach them manners. Give them everything they want. Let them play lots of video games to fill their minds with violence and become accustomed to the feeling of addiction. Encourage them to communicate with others only through text messages. Teach them that church is not very important. In fact, teach them that other things like sports and school and entertainment are more important. Do not teach them their Biblical role in life and home. Do not teach or live out the gospel in front of them. Wed, 13 Nov 2013 09:19:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/11/How-to-Ruin-Children https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/11/What-is-the-International-Church-of-Christ The International Church of Christ, www.icoc.org, is definitely a cult. The following quotation is taken from Handbook of Denominations in the United States, 12th Edition (2005) by Frank S. Mead, Samuel S. Hill, and Craig D. Atwood, p. 255-56. Many of its former members describe it in negative terms. It was founded by Kip McKean (1955-) while serving as pastor of the Lexington Church of Christ in Massachusetts...includes intensive recruitment of members...members of the church commit themselves as disciples and to bringing new disciples into the fold. Discipling is based on a strict obedience to the "discipler." All personal decisions, including dating and marriage, are subject to the approval of the discipler. Members are expected to confess all of their sins, which may be recorded for future reference...The ICC...is not congregational in polity. All congregations are linked in a pyramid structure with McKean's Los Angeles congregation at the top. The ICC teaches that believer's baptism by immersion is necessary for salvation. Those not baptized into the International Churches of Christ are considered damned, and members are urged to sever ties with those not baptized. Some of the above is dated now. McKean has stepped down from his original leadership role, but the troubling requirement of baptism for salvation remains, along with a high degree of control of members by leadership. Further information can be found on Wikipedia. Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:45:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/11/What-is-the-International-Church-of-Christ https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/10/A-Handy-List-of-Lists Sometimes I run into a handy list that serves as a good reminder. Other times I create one. I thought I'd collect such lists here both as a place to store the summary of what I learned, and to hopefully help my readers. Enjoy! Guest Blindness Gradual slippage is hard to detect Relationships can blind pastor to reality Pastor has received positive feedback from some Pastor does not ask for feedback from all guests Feedback from members is positive Visitor Friendly Church Getting around: plenty of signage for everything Website: easy to find service times, doctrine, map Parking: make clear visitor spots Restroom: make it easy to find one Bible: show me how to follow along Connect: make it easy to connect to a small group Connect: tell me how to join the church What is Reformed Theology? Historic orthodox doctrine Protestant Reformation doctrine Fundamental doctrine Calvinistic doctrine Covenant Theology Reasons for Recent Rise of Calvinism - Mark Dever Writings of C. H. Spurgeon Writings and preaching of D. Martin Lloyd Jones Publishing of Banner of Truth Trust bringing Calvinist doctrine to readers Evangelism explosion showed Calvinists can be evangelistic Inerrancy controversy brings Calvinist theologians to forefront Founding of the PCA J. I. Packer's Knowing God Preaching and writing of R. C. Sproul and John MacArthur John Piper and Desiring God Young and African American Calvinism Reformed para-church ministries like T4T, TGC, 9 Marks, Acts 29 and popular speakers Mon, 04 Nov 2013 20:45:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/10/A-Handy-List-of-Lists https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/10/He-Was-of-the-Same-Trade So says Acts 18:3. It got me thinking about working in the trades. I'm convinced that we need to elevate the status of "the trades" in our day. What I mean by "trades" are those professions where a person works with his hands, physically building, fixing, etc. Far too often people in the trades are looked down upon as not having a college degree and maybe even belonging to a lower class of society. Blue collar or white collar? Plumber, electrician, carpenter or accountant, lawyer, doctor? Sure, we appreciate the plumber when we have a leaking toilet, but do we have a level of prejudice the rest of the time? Consider James 2:1-12. The Bible says that three famous Christians—the apostle Paul, Aquila, and Priscilla—worked together in the same trade as tentmakers. Whatever "tent making" looked like, it doesn't seem that they were big businessmen with MBAs and hundreds of employees working for them. They worked with their hands (1 Corinthians 4:12), and Paul admonished others to do the same (Ephesians 4:28, 1 Thessalonians 4:11). For our high schoolers, we should extol the value of hard work and reinforce to them that a job like Paul's doing manual work is a fine occupation. Perhaps that would mean foregoing a four-year college education and the $100,000 of debt that it could create—so much the better! Let us not look down on our brothers and sisters who do work that is viewed poorly by society. Mon, 21 Oct 2013 14:00:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/10/He-Was-of-the-Same-Trade https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/10/The-Lord-is-My-Portion Have you ever wondered what this verse means? "The LORD is my portion," says my soul. That is verse 24 of Lamentations chapter 3, part of one of the most well-known and beloved passages of Scripture that talks about the Lord's compassions being new every morning. Great indeed is the faithfulness of God! But what does "portion" mean in verse 24? A little word study helps clarify its sense. It is from a Hebrew word "helek" which according to the Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament means (1) a share of booty, (2) share of possession, or (3) metaphorically to describe of the relationship between God and man. Nehemiah 2:20 uses it in sense #2 when responding to the enemies who were trying to stop the work of rebuilding: "The God of heaven Himself will prosper us; therefore we His servants will arise and build, but you have no heritage (portion) or right or memorial in Jerusalem." The enemies did not have a share of possession in Jerusalem and so had no right to meddle in the work. Joshua 14:3-4 uses it in a similar sense: "But to the Levites he had given no inheritance among them...And they gave no part to the Levites in the land, except cities to dwell in..." The Levites had no inheritance = portion = possession in the land as the other tribes did. The most helpful use of the word for purposes of defining it is in Numbers 18:20: "Then the LORD said to Aaron: 'You shall have no inheritance in their land, nor shall you have any portion among them; I am your portion and your inheritance among the children of Israel.'" In this single verse, the word is used in both senses #2 and #3. In the first use, the LORD uses the word synonymously with Joshua 14:3-4 about a share of possession in the land. In the second use, the LORD says that He Himself is the portion of the Levites. In this way, the LORD says that His ministers are not to focus themselves on a possession of land, but rather upon their "possession" of God. God is better than any possession they might own, particularly in this transient world. They have a supremely valuable relationship to the LORD. This is something like what we mean when we say "I am His and He is mine." So when Jeremiah says that the Lord is his portion, He is saying that he has a precious relationship with God. When everything else is taken away, if you are a Christian, then you still have God, and He is all you need. May God be your ever-satisfying portion! Sat, 19 Oct 2013 17:45:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/10/The-Lord-is-My-Portion https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/10/Christian-Observance-of-the-Sabbath This past week, I received a question through our website as to why not all Christian churches observe the Sabbath. Here is my answer to the inquiry. Not all Christian churches observe the Sabbath because they believe quite differently about the Law of Moses than other Christians who say it still regulates us. The following briefly outlines our beliefs. 1. We believe the Lord's day is the first day of the week, when our Lord arose from the dead, which is Sunday. Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, John 20:1, 20:19; Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2, Revelation 1:10. 2. We do not believe we are under the regulative regime of the Law of Moses. Romans 6:14-15, Galatians 4:21, 5:18. Rather we are under the Law of Christ. 1 Corinthians 9:21, James 2:8. 3. The Sabbath command has been explicitly set aside by newer revelation. Colossians 2:16. 4. Some Christians esteem one day to be more important than another, and other Christians esteem every day alike. Each of us must be fully convinced in our own minds, and live accordingly in light of the coming judgment. Romans 14:1-13. 5. Some of us believe a valid principle revealed by the Sabbath command is that man needs rest one of every seven days. I trust you will consider the Scripture shared above. If nothing else, it would be good for you to hold your position with full faith, and permit others to hold their view, without passing judgment upon them as the Romans 14 passage directs. Sat, 19 Oct 2013 11:36:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/10/Christian-Observance-of-the-Sabbath https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/10/Role-of-Vocation I was asked a question about the general role of vocation. As a Christian, how should I use my vocation? Is it OK to have a non-great-commission job? Here's a first cut at an answer. Is it OK to have a non-great-commission job? Absolutely. Not only is it OK, but it is necessary for most people. There might be one-half of one percent of the population who are pastors and full-time Christian workers in any denomination. This means that the vast majority of people will have "regular" jobs. However, it may be that if you are asking yourself that question, you should dig a little deeper. Are you gifted for ministry? Would it be better stewardship of those gifts if you entered full-time ministry? Do you desire to be in ministry? Assuming for the moment that you confirm your place in a secular vocation, how can you use your job as a Christian? Be an excellent employee: hard working, reliable, honest, timely, skillful and growing in skill. Be a witness on the job: show and tell your faith to others. While avoiding greed, seek to excel to earn more that you may use to give to the Lord's work. Do not allow the job to take you away from family and church and ministry. A common mistake is for a husband to take a job in which he is often traveling away from his wife. Take seriously the negative effect that the workplace may have on you. Are your co-workers especially lewd and coarse? Is alcohol served in this job? Does the job demand that you miss Sunday and mid-week meetings at church? It's probably time to find another job in such cases. If you are in a place of influence in a company or policy-making role, think about how Christian values can be plugged into your policies and practices. They need not be called out by chapter and verse, but somehow include them in how you do business. Use your job as a way to glorify God (1 Corinthians 10:31). Thu, 17 Oct 2013 06:44:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/10/Role-of-Vocation https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/10/Reading-the-Bible-Part-5 A fifth reason you should read the Bible is that its central character, Jesus Christ, claimed to be the son of God. In so doing, he actually claimed to be God in the flesh. His first followers concurred, and his enemies also agreed that he was making such a claim. Consider some Bible texts to this effect: Matthew 16:16 - When asked who he thought Jesus was, the discple Peter said: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." John 1:49 - Another disciple said: "Rabbi, you are the Son of God." John 8:58 - Jesus Himself said, "Before Abraham was, I AM." God said something similar of Himself in Exodus 3:14. John 10:30 - Jesus said, "I and my Father are one." John 10:36 - Jesus said, "I am the son of God." John 11:4 - Jesus identified himself as the Son of God again. John 11:27 - Martha said, "Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God." John 19:7 - The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God." John 20:30-31 - "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." Acts 9:19-20 - "Then Saul spent some days with the disciples at Damascus. Immediately he preached the Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God." Romans 1:4 - Paul proclaimed that Jesus was "declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." 2 Corinthians 1:19 - "For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us..." Romans 9:5 - "Christ...who is over all, the eternally blessed God." There are many other texts of the Bible that identify Jesus this way. You should read the Bible to become acquainted with this one-of-a-kind person called Jesus. You will find out that he appears not only in the pages of the New Testament, but also of the Old Testament. You will also find out that as the Son of God, He is qualified to save you from your sins. In fact, He is more than willing to do so if you come to Him with repentant faith. Tue, 15 Oct 2013 21:32:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/10/Reading-the-Bible-Part-5 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/10/Been-There-Done-That Guest post by Bill Goodwin Several years ago I went elk and grizzly bear hunting with bow and arrow in Montana. It was to be a nine day horseback trip into the mountains near the Continental Divide. It was late October and the weather was perfect. Our outfitter, Willis Kent, ready with the horses and equipment, led us up to the base camp from which we planned to hunt further up the mountain. After hunting for two days one of my partners and I each shot a bull elk while they were in the midst of fighting, a very unusual happening that was a precursor of yet another unusual event. We field dressed the elk and had to leave them on top of the mountain until we could retrieve them in the morning with pack mules. It was getting dark fast and Willis warned us not to try to guide the horses in the dark as they knew their way back to camp. We started down a trail that we had not been on before. Within a few minutes we were below the timberline and darkness happened very suddenly. Willis asked me to bring up the rear and reiterated that we should not try to guide the horses, just let them follow his lead horse. As we proceeded four strong physical senses came into play. One, that our horses were in a descent angle; two, the only light that was visible was the occasional spark ahead of us from the horse’s shoes clipping rocks; three, the sound of the hooves on those rocks; and fourth, the tremendous sense of blindness from the total blackness all around us. What a helpless feeling, literally unable to see any part of the horse you are sitting on! Willis also told us to keep our head down to avoid getting our eyes clawed out by the occasional tree limb that we couldn’t see. At times our horses would be going down such a steep incline that they’d run down one incline and up the next. Imagine, riding a running horse downhill in pitch blackness, not seeing where the downhill ends and the uphill begins and all I can do is hang on to the saddle horn, grip the horse with my legs, and keep my head down to prevent being swept off the horse by a limb! Finally we reached camp, took care of the horses for the night, sat down to our supper and made plans to go back up in the morning with the pack animals to bring down the game. The next morning we went up that same trail. I saw that trail for the first time, since it was now daylight, and I must say, I was shocked! The higher we got, the more I looked at how close we were at times to the edge of what would have been a long drop had a horse made a wrong step! What would have happened if one of us forced our horse to turn at the wrong time?! (There had been times, because of the hairpin turns that the horse in front of you was really at your side and lower, making you think your horse was going in the wrong direction!) The natural tendency would be to take the reins and force your animal to turn, but we stuck to our instructions not to try this. “Where is all this story going?”, you ask. Well, for me it has plenty of lessons if I wish to apply them. First, I want to say that I mean no disrespect for the Lord, but I want for the moment to think of the Lord as being like that horse. If I’m a Christian, I can make no progress in the right direction without being in strong contact with Him. I also must recognize that God is in total control of all situations as I travel life’s trail. Col. 1:17, “and by Him all things consist.” God has the advantage over me in that He’s been there before me. God knows the trail, even in the dark He can still see the pitfalls, the rocks, the steep inclines, the edge of the cliffs to avoid. Even if the trail ahead seems crooked to me as in the hairpin turns, God knows what He’s doing, I shouldn’t try to force Him to fit my mold, but I should conform to His direction. God says in Romans 12:2, “Be not conformed to this world...” This world has diligently tried to ‘humanize’ God by trying to force Him to conform to our philosophy. The opposite is the truth. I also find another truth. When my head is steadily bowed in prayer it is less likely to get knocked off or clawed up by the tough ‘limbs’ of this world. Another lesson I found is to quit trying to control my own life, let go of the reins and instead, realize that God says in Ps. 37 that He holds us by HIS hand, not us doing the hanging on. Our strength is not sufficient. Only God is capable of carrying me through death’s door to be with Him eternally. Those horses were completely knowledgeable of the trail. We had to trust them: our lives depended on it. Only God knows how to lead us to life everlasting, He, and He alone is able to provide the Way to that eternal life. If you repent, and put your faith and trust unreservedly in Him, He can and will forgive you of your sins. Only He is qualified to ‘carry’ you through the judgment because He has ‘Been There, Done That.’ Thu, 03 Oct 2013 23:04:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/10/Been-There-Done-That https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/09/Reading-the-Bible-Part-4 The fourth reason you should read the Bible is because so many people and institutions do not want you to read it. You have to ask yourself, "Why is it that the Bible is so spoken against?" Do you know the answer for yourself? Why is the Bible banned from schools, and school libraries? Why do people try to destroy it? Why do various governments around the world try to suppress the Bible and prevent it from being distributed among their peoples? What is so bad in this book that people hate it and are opposed to it? Is it really immoral? Maybe its message attacks the foundation of people's worldview? Does it threaten their money or power? These considerations are all motivations that I think should drive you to check out what is going on. Read it for yourself and see what the big deal is. Mon, 30 Sep 2013 22:00:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/09/Reading-the-Bible-Part-4 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/09/Seven-Elements-of-an-Effective-Testimony Notes from a message by Pastor John O'Dell, September 22, 2013 What was my religious background before I was saved? What was my previous attitude toward Christ or Christians or Christianity? What stirred my interest to have a relationship with Christ? What were the circumstances surrounding my salvation? Where was I and what was I doing? Who did God use to explain the way of salvation to me? How was I saved? What did I do to be saved? I must be clear that I trusted Christ as Savior and nothing else. What difference has salvation made in my life? What is different now than before? Take these questions and study the personal testimonies of Paul the Apostle (Acts 22, 26) and also Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4). In the latter case, you need to make some obvious adjustments to the questions because Nebuchadnezzar could not have known Jesus Christ. Rather he became a believer in the God of Daniel. Pastor O'Dell also emphasized that we should be brief and to the point. Do not extol the sin of your past but rather focus on the glorious work of God. Do not try to tell someone else whether he is a Christian or not, because you do not know. Remember that evangelism is a process, but salvation is instantaneous. Salvation is by grace without works, but there is something I did to be saved—namely, I responded to the gospel by faith. Take care not to use terminology or indirect phrases that will confuse an unchurched person. Make sure not to confuse what is necessary for salvation: it is not walking an aisle or saying a prayer or keeping track of a special date or time. We are saved by trusting in Christ as our own personal Savior. Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:04:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/09/Seven-Elements-of-an-Effective-Testimony https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/09/Reading-the-Bible-Part-3 The third reason you should read the Bible is because it covers all the really important events of world history. Actually it is a library, a collection of 66 smaller books combined into one large book. The books describe the important events in world history and the things that God reckons as high priorities. For example: Creation - God created all things Corruption - the Fall into sin Catastrophe - the Flood that changed the world Confusion - Babel, the origin of languages Covenant - The promise of God to Abraham Commandment - Law of Moses, creation of the nation of Israel Christ - Son of God came to reveal God and die for us Cross - Jesus' Death for Sin to Provide Forgiveness and New Life Church - God's present-day work in God's people Coming - Jesus Christ is coming back a second time Consummation - Future kingdom, judgment, and heaven The first 39 books are called by Christians the Old Testament. The same collection of books is called the Hebrew Bible by Jewish people because it was originally written almost entirely in the Hebrew language by Jewish authors. The last 27 books are called by Christians the New Testament. They were originally written in Greek. Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:30:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/09/Reading-the-Bible-Part-3 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/09/Eyes-on-Men Guest post by Bill Goodwin I've written before about my father-in-law, Dale Nichols, and his expertise with a rifle. This time I'd like to tell you about a competition shoot in which he was a finalist. The competition was keen among those Northern Michigan men. It finally was reduced to Dale and another marksman. They each were assigned their targets and were to shoot ten shots at 100 yards. Any style sights were allowed. The other marksman was using a .30-06 with a telescopic sight, while Dale used his .30-06 with peep sights. They each had fired nine shots. The man with the telescopic sight had hit the target so perfectly that there was but one hole in the center where all nine shots hit. They were preparing to fire that final shot when the other man swung his rifle over on Dale's target and looked through his scope and said, "Dale, you've got just one hole in the center of your target too." Then he swung his rifle in place for his final shot and fired. Dale fired his final shot. That tenth shot the other man fired was one half inch to the right of the center. Dale's final shot was in the center, winning the match. The Bible says in Romans 12:1-2, “...let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus...” Whether it's a race or rifle competition, if we take our eyes off the goal, we'll miss the target and suffer loss. Phil. 3:14 says, "I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." Any mediocre Christian can lead a mediocre Christian life. But like my father-in-law whose skill was not only in accuracy, but in concentrating on the "mark", a skilled Christian can have more success by not allowing himself to place his "Eye on Man." Mon, 23 Sep 2013 19:11:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/09/Eyes-on-Men https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/09/Perfect-Score-You-Lose Guest post by Bill Goodwin My father-in-law, Dale Nichols, was well known in his Northern Michigan home County of Emmet. Besides being one of the best and most knowledgeable potato farmers in the area, he also was well respected as an expert marksman with his deer rifle. Often, he'd enter a shooting competition that usually attracted the finest marksmen in the Northern tip of the Lower Peninsula. On one of those occasions, the field of competitors was reduced to just him and another well-known marksman. Fresh targets were set up and the two men were assigned a target number. Each shooter was to fire ten shots. They each took their turn and when they were finished the targets were inspected. Dale's target had just one hole in the center, each round of the ten stayed in the same hole. His worthy competitor had just one hole also dead center. They each had shot perfect scores! When the judges further inspected they realized that Dale's opponent had fired at a target not assigned to him. He was disqualified! Lost! Of course everyone, including Dale Nichols, were downcast to have a good competition end this way, but rules are rules, and all respected it. When we go through this life, we too, can do everything right in our own judgment. We often say that we've not cheated at school, or work, or play, that we've helped our neighbors when their cows got out, or taken food to a needy family. The list of our life's good deeds could add up to a “perfect score” in our eyes, and yet we could still end up in the 'lost' column. You see, it doesn't matter what your score is, did you do it according to the Judge's standard? God's standard of judgment is based on God's Standard! Think of it! God says, “All the ways of man are clean in his own eyes, but the LORD weigheth the spirits…There is a way that seems right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” Proverbs 16: 2, 25. So you see, even God knew your score when He wrote that over 2000 years ago. If God knows your score, don't you think you should give more heed to the 'how' of it rather than the 'score' of it? Don't be in the lost column with a…PERFECT SCORE, YOU LOSE!! Sat, 21 Sep 2013 23:07:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/09/Perfect-Score-You-Lose https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/09/The-Old-Cross-and-the-New Editor's note: This is by A. W. Tozer. I found it on a tract recently and thought it worthy of your (re)consideration. ALL UNANNOUNCED AND MOSTLY UNDETECTED there has come in modern times a new cross into popular evangelical circles. It is like the old cross, but different: the likenesses are superficial; the differences, fundamental. From this new cross has sprung a new philosophy of the Christian life, and from that new philosophy has come a new evangelical technique-a new type of meeting and a new kind of preaching. This new evangelism employs the same language as the old, but its content is not the same and its emphasis not as before. The old cross would have no truck with the world. For Adam's proud flesh it meant the end of the journey. It carried into effect the sentence imposed by the law of Sinai. The new cross is not opposed to the human race; rather, it is a friendly pal and, if understood aright, it is the source of oceans of good clean fun and innocent enjoyment. It lets Adam live without interference. His life motivation is unchanged; he still lives for his own pleasure, only now he takes delight in singing choruses and watching religious movies instead of singing bawdy songs and drinking hard liquor. The accent is still on enjoyment, though the fun is now on a higher plane morally if not intellectually. The new cross encourages a new and entirely different evangelistic approach. The evangelist does not demand abnegation of the old life before a new life can be received. He preaches not contrasts but similarities. He seeks to key into public interest by showing that Christianity makes no unpleasant demands; rather, it offers the same thing the world does, only on a higher level. Whatever the sin-mad world happens to be clamoring after at the moment is cleverly shown to be the very thing the gospel offers, only the religious product is better. The new cross does not slay the sinner, it redirects him. It gears him into a cleaner and jollier way of living and saves his self-respect. To the self-assertive it says, "Come and assert yourself for Christ." To the egotist it says, "Come and do your boasting in the Lord." To the thrill seeker it says, "Come and enjoy the thrill of Christian fellowship." The Christian message is slanted in the direction of the current vogue in order to make it acceptable to the public. The philosophy back of this kind of thing may be sincere but its sincerity does not save it from being false. It is false because it is blind. It misses completely the whole meaning of the cross. The old cross is a symbol of death. It stands for the abrupt, violent end of a human being. The man in Roman times who took up his cross and started down the road had already said good-by to his friends. He was not coming back. He was going out to have it ended. The cross made no compromise, modified nothing, spared nothing; it slew all of the man, completely and for good. It did not try to keep on good terms with its victim. It struck cruel and hard, and when it had finished its work, the man was no more. The race of Adam is under death sentence. There is no commutation and no escape. God cannot approve any of the fruits of sin, however innocent they may appear or beautiful to the eyes of men. God salvages the individual by liquidating him and then raising him again to newness of life. That evangelism which draws friendly parallels between the ways of God and the ways of men is false to the Bible and cruel to the souls of its hearers. The faith of Christ does not parallel the world, it intersects it. In coming to Christ we do not bring our old life up onto a higher plane; we leave it at the cross. The corn of wheat must fall into the ground and die. We who preach the gospel must not think of ourselves as public relations agents sent to establish good will between Christ and the world. We must not imagine ourselves commissioned to make Christ acceptable to big business, the press, the world of sports or modern education. We are not diplomats but prophets, and our message is not a compromise but an ultimatum. God offers life, but not an improved old life. The life He offers is life out of death. It stands always on the far side of the cross. Whoever would possess it must pass under the rod. He must repudiate himself and concur in God's just sentence against him. What does this mean to the individual, the condemned man who would find life in Christ Jesus? How can this theology be translated into life? Simply, he must repent and believe. He must forsake his sins and then go on to forsake himself. Let him cover nothing, defend nothing, excuse nothing. Let him not seek to make terms with God, but let him bow his head before the stroke of God's stern displeasure and acknowledge himself worthy to die. Having done this let him gaze with simple trust upon the risen Saviour, and from Him will come life and rebirth and cleansing and power. The cross that ended the earthly life of Jesus now puts an end to the sinner; and the power that raised Christ from the dead now raises him to a new life along with Christ. To any who may object to this or count it merely a narrow and private view of truth, let me say God has set His hallmark of approval upon this message from Paul's day to the present. Whether stated in these exact words or not, this has been the content of all preaching that has brought life and power to the world through the centuries. The mystics, the reformers, the revivalists have put their emphasis here, and signs and wonders and mighty operations of the Holy Ghost gave witness to God's approval. Dare we, the heirs of such a legacy of power, tamper with the truth? Dare we with our stubby pencils erase the lines of the blueprint or alter the pattern shown us in the Mount? May God forbid. Let us preach the old cross and we will know the old power. (A. W. Tozer, Man, the Dwelling Place of God, 1966) Sat, 21 Sep 2013 20:17:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/09/The-Old-Cross-and-the-New https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/09/The-Ceiling-Tile-Counter Guest post by Bill Goodwin Editor’s note: This seemed to be an interesting observation of our culture that I publish here to stir up your thinking. Sometimes my wife and I play a little game in restaurants. While eating, we notice a young family in the next booth or table. They have one, two or three children, some, or all, of which are not the best behaved. Mother is busy feeding one or trying to correct or control the others while trying to grab a few bites for herself. This activity continues throughout the mealtime while dad feeds himself and once in a while injects a comment into the scene. About this time, either my wife will say to me, or I to her, “I’ll bet he’s a Ceiling Tile Counter.” By and by they finish their meal. Mother gets up, starts packing up the kids’ coats, hats, toys, and grabs one of the kids, then her purse and the guest check. Our suspicions are beginning to play out. She heads for the cash register. The rest of the family trails along with dad bringing up the rear. He has that hump-shouldered look with a shuffle to match. Mom has now reached into her purse and hauled out the necessary currency and offers it with the check to the cashier. Guess what dad’s doing?!!! He stops behind the last kid, looks at his wife, then looks at the action at the cash register, and.....WALLAH!, his head tilts up and he slowly gazes at the ceiling for what must seem to him an eternity, hoping this indignity passes quickly! Why does he count ceiling tiles? HE’S EMBARRASSED, because his responsibility has been usurped! A pitiful sight, just standing there, fidgeting, and he can’t do anything but count ceiling tiles!! By the way, according to our survey, seven of ten Ceiling Tile Counters grow beards! Why?! Because it’s the one thing his wife can’t do! He’s got to let his male hormones show somehow!! This is not meant to be critical, but merely an observation based on years of combined experience. Comical? Somewhat, but sad. Sad to think that simple, basic principles of God’s Word are not put into play. First of all, the man’s relationship to God is the same relationship his wife has with her husband, as is the children’s relationship to their parents. Like dominos, each one affects the other. It all falls on the man, his relationship, or lack thereof, with God. P.S. If you receive a birthday card or Christmas card from the “Ceiling Tile Counter” couple, you’ll notice the signature usually has the wife’s name first. The same is true if you receive a check from them. Thu, 19 Sep 2013 09:21:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/09/The-Ceiling-Tile-Counter https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/09/Abortion-in-the-Case-of-Rape Today I happened upon an interview of Billy Graham by Larry King. I was taken aback by his answer to a question about abortion in the case of violent rape. The question at 10:40 was, what is "your stand on abortion in the case of violent rape"? Graham's answer starts at 11:40: I would be for abortion in violent rape. I am against abortion...except in cases of violent rape and in cases where the mother's life is in danger. Now, this is not meant to be a Graham-bashing post. I will let the facts speak for themselves for this particular interview. This post rather is meant to challenge you to re-think the issue of abortion in such a case, and I use Graham's statement as a template that probably fits many people who believe the same way he does. So, do you support abortion in the case of rape? One more question: would you support capital punishment for the rapist? Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:44:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/09/Abortion-in-the-Case-of-Rape https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/09/The-Bible-Hardcopy-or-Soft Fox News reports on the recent American Bible Society survey that revealed some interesting facts: A steady increase in use of online Bibles versus print Bibles. A decrease in ownership of Bibles in homes (92% 20 years ago, 88% today). The most read and searched version was the KJV, a fact which Fox does not note is probably due to the fact that it is far more widely available due to copyright restrictions on other versions. The YouVersion Bible app surpassed 100 million downloads. Thanks to Andy Bennett for the heads-up. Mon, 09 Sep 2013 22:20:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/09/The-Bible-Hardcopy-or-Soft https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/09/Behold-How-Good-and-How-Pleasant-It-Is Psalm 133:1 in NKJV says, Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! One of Fellowship Bible's dear friends, Rob Meisel, visited with us yesterday. He gave an update on his ministry and at the end, shared with us a traditional Jewish hymn based on this text. Enjoy a little Hebrew and English with a great Jewish melody in this mp3 file. You can read about the hymn at wikipedia. Mon, 09 Sep 2013 17:09:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/09/Behold-How-Good-and-How-Pleasant-It-Is https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/09/Unlocking-Revelation-from-GLOW I received another one of those pamphlets that made me wonder, "Who is sponsoring this?" So, I had a faithful helper in the church do a little research. The title page of the pamphlet had "GLOW" and "Unlocking Revelation," and its contents advertised a "life-changing Bible prophecy seminar coming to multiple locations in SE Michigan." It referred to the website www.unlockrevelation.com and also www.glowonline.org What we discovered was that the seminar is put on by the Seventh Day Adventists. The meeting will be held at the nearby Ann Arbor Adventist Elementary school. I believe it would be good for advertising like this to have clear markings as to the group it comes from. True--such transparency may not enhance the popularity of the pamphlet, but it does do a lot for openness and integrity. As far as Adventist beliefs, it is debated among evangelical Christians whether the group is a cult or not. I will not take up that question here. However, there are deep problems with Adventist doctrines, particularly their emphasis on law, Sabbatarianism, soul sleep, the prophetic gift, and the final punishment of the wicked. For at least these reasons, we certainly could not recommend attending the seminar! Mon, 02 Sep 2013 08:26:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/09/Unlocking-Revelation-from-GLOW https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/08/Reading-the-Bible-Part-2 The second reason you should read the Bible is because it explains many things in the world that others have no good explanation for. It gives an explanation of: 1. How we got here. The Bible tells us how God created the world and all life forms, including humans. 2. A world-wide catastrophic flood. This explains major climate changes that occurred thousands of years ago; the disappearance of dinosaurs; the geographical and topographical features of our world; and the layers of rock and fossils around the world. 3. The origin of all the languages at the tower of Babel. The sudden appearance of many languages defies any other explanation. These first three you can find in Genesis chapters 1 through 11. 4. Why people die. 5. Why we are here on earth and what is going to happen to us. These two items (#4 and #5) are found in various places in the Bible. Ask me if you want to find out more. Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:24:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/08/Reading-the-Bible-Part-2 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/08/Reading-the-Bible-Part-1 One thing you can do to develop your spiritual awareness is to read the Bible on your own. The Bible is the most printed and purchased book in the history of the world. It behooves you to know what it says so you can be a well-rounded person. This is true, despite the opposition you might fear in reading it because many people do not want you to be exposed to what it says. In addition, there are a lot of other good reasons to read it. I will share some of them in the a series of posts, starting with this one. The first reason you should read the Bible is that its central figure is a man named Jesus of Nazareth, who made claims that are extraordinary. One claim he made was that he would die and rise again from the dead. Now anyone can make that claim, but this man did it. This is obviously unprecedented. How do we know his resurrection really happened? Like with many other things that we hold to be true, we believe them because of the testimony of witnesses and evidence. In a courtroom, the clear and agreeing testimony of several witnesses suffices to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an event occurred. With the resurrection of Jesus, we have many witnesses. Consider this passage written by a famous Christian named Paul. 3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas [Peter], then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep [died]. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also... (1 Corinthians 15:3-8 NKJV) In a courtroom, 500 witnesses would certainly suffice to prove the truth of a claim. The resurrection is not merely a legend. It was the subject if eyewitness testimony, even of skeptics (Paul himself). This is why you should read the Bible. You can start in the section called "The Gospel According to John." You will learn some interesting things. More on that later. Mon, 26 Aug 2013 21:21:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/08/Reading-the-Bible-Part-1 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/08/Chicago-Bible-Students Yesterday I posted a question about the Chicago Bible Students. I did receive an email back from a representative of the organization who explained a little more about them. Basically, they see themselves as true followers of the teachings of Charles Taze Russell from the pre-Rutherford version of Jehovah's Witnesses, although they claim that the JW name came into common use after some split(s) in the movement. The representative quoted extensively from Russell's writings. This group does not believe in the deity of Christ as orthodox Christians do. My correspondent wrote: In direct reference to Jesus, we believe Col. 1:15-18, that He was God's firstborn, the beginning of the of the creation of God, Rev. 3:14; that as the man Christ Jesus, He paid the ransom price for Adam, 1 Tim. 2:5,6; and that at His resurrection, He was given the reward of the divine nature, even as His Father, who set Him down at His right hand, Heb. 10:12. According to their teaching, Jesus was a human who did not have a divine nature until after the resurrection. This is a false teaching that Christians must note and carefully avoid. Wed, 21 Aug 2013 15:48:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/08/Chicago-Bible-Students https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/08/Scriptural-Proof-of-the-Future-Restoration-of-National-Israel or, "Becoming More Familiar with the Old Testament Prophets" In July, I spent some time with our church family reading through a number of prophecies about the future restoration of Israel. Because most of them were from the Old Testament, I put the subtitle on the message to indicate the need that most Christians have of becoming more familiar with their Old Testament. Here is the list of texts that we examined: Exodus 19:5-6, and note God's initial intention for the nation which was thwarted by their sin Jeremiah 31:27-40 Jeremiah 33:14-26, and note the kingdom/political overtones Ezekiel 36:22-38 Ezekiel 37:1-28 Daniel 9:27 Daniel 12:1-3 Hosea 14:1-9 Joel 3:18-21 Amos 9:11-15 Obadiah 17-21 Micah 4:1-13 Zephaniah 3:8-13 Zechariah 12:6-14 Zechariah 14:3-21 Matthew 25:31-46 Acts 1:3-7, esp. v. 3 Romans 11:1-6 Romans 11:11-12, 25-32 Revelation 20:7-10 Deuteronomy 30:1-10, and note the general nature of this promise that is comes into play multiple times throughout history At various times throughout the message, I asked some key questions: Have these conditions been seen or not in Israel after the exile and return? Do these conditions sound like spiritualized or allergorized prophecies or literal ones? Does it sound like a church of Gentiles and Jews could replace Israel in the fulfillment of these promises? Do Israel's works merit God's restorative favor? But does God grant favor based on works? The answer to the last question ought to spur some serious thinking about the failure of Israel to obey the first covenant and how that affects their long-range prospects. Obviously, individual or national works can never merit God's favor. God sets His favor on whomever He wills. We believe, based on the numerous texts cited above and others, that He will grant grace to Israel despite their failures, just as God has set His favor upon all true Christians despite their failures. Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:09:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/08/Scriptural-Proof-of-the-Future-Restoration-of-National-Israel https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/08/Who-are-the-Chicago-Bible-Students Back in July at the Ann Arbor Art Fair, a man collecting trash from the booths on Liberty Street gave me a pamphlet entitled "How to Study the Bible and Have it Make Sense." It is printed by the Chicago Bible Students. That group has a very nice looking website. But their name "Bible Students" seems to associate them with the Bible student movement of the Watchtower Society, that is, the Jehovah's Witnesses (Wikipedia). They claim to be totally independent and emphasize Bible reading and topical Bible study. I have inquired of them to see what they are all about. Tue, 20 Aug 2013 12:15:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/08/Who-are-the-Chicago-Bible-Students https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/08/What-was-Delivered-in-Romans-6-17 Someone at FBC raised a question about the last phrase of Romans 6:17. The KJV translates: ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. The NKJV translates: you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. So which is it? My Hendrickson KJV 1611 reprint shows a footnote next to verse 17 which says "Gr. whereto ye were delivered." And that is indeed the case no matter what Greek text you examine (Bibleworks GNT=NA27, BYZ=Pierpont Robinson Byzantine Text, and the STE=Estienne's 1550 Greek New Testament). The words "form of doctrine" are the direct object of the verb obeyed, and the phrase "to which you were delivered" indicates the destination doctrine, if you will, where believers have been brought in their obedient faith. It is true that a form of doctrine was delivered to the saints in Rome; but this text emphasizes a different idea, that the believers were delivered to the form of doctrine that saved them. Leon Morris writes on this, We would expect [Paul] to say that the teaching had been delivered to the Romans, but instead he says that they had been delivered to the teaching...Christians are in subjection to the teaching God has g iven them. They do not have godliness, but godliness has them.(The Epistle to the Romans in the Pillar New Testament Commentary series, p. 263). Tue, 20 Aug 2013 10:38:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/08/What-was-Delivered-in-Romans-6-17 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/08/Free-Software I am thankful that God has permitted us to live in an age where we have the computer as a tool to carry on the work of the ministry. Furthermore, I am thankful that we have at our fingertips a lot of freely available software. Some is produced by commercial entities trying to drive their bottom line, and some is produced by communities of open source developers. I thought I would take a minute to share a few of the key software programs I have used. Chrome, Firefox, and Adobe Reader These tools are probably well known to you. Chrome and Firefox are popular alternatives to the Internet Explorer web browser on Windows computers. Adobe is the standard PDF reader program. It is not the most lean, but it works. Skype Need to talk to and instant message with missionaries across the globe, and do it cheaply? This is the tool for you. It has grown to have a lot of other features, like connecting with facebook. When I travel for the missionary work that I am involved in, I love to have this so I can video call my home and see my wife and children, and even read to them before bedtime. Mozilla Thunderbird This email and rss reader program has been mentioned on this blog before. But I use it to aggregate together all seven of my email accounts so I can read them in a single place and store messages in a single database. Perhaps in the future I will describe how I use it to quickly store email messages in predefined folders with a keypress, or how I use it to do an "email merge" so I can write a personal letter to all our church members. Open Office 4 This open-source, free office productivity suite has a word processor, spreadsheet, database, presentation program, drawing program. It obviously competes with Microsoft Office. I have used this since back in version 2; the spreadsheet and database were helpful to me at various points. I did have a bad experience with a corrupted database, at which point I moved to Microsoft Access (may it never be!). I use the database for maintaining my list of contacts and church members. Also, I hope sometime to convert my Excel library catalog into a database. FileZilla This program is an "FTP client" which means that it understands the File Transfer Protocol" and lets you transfer files back and forth easily with an FTP server such as your webhost. We use this weekly to upload content to our church website, such as sermon audio mp3 files. Gimp Gimp is the Gnu Image Manipulation Program, another open source project that provides functionality like Adobe Photoshop. It does what is called raster grahpics, which basically means pictures and other images made up of a bunch of pixels. It used to be a toy, as the experts say, but it is the real thing today. It does have a bit of a learning curve, but once you learn basic selection tools and how to manipulate layers, you can do a lot with it to develop graphics for fliers and web sites. Inkscape If you think Photoshop = Gimp, then you can think of Inkscape = Adobe Illustrator. Inkscape is a vector grahpics program, which means that it represents images with mathematical formulas. Images designed with this tool scale very well to different sizes. Scribus Last but not least is Scribus. It is like Quark Express or PageMaker of old, and can substitute somewhat for Adobe InDesign. Adobe has adopted a new subscription pricing model that will keep many small-time users out of the market for it. In other words, with the new editions, there is not a way to buy it once and forget it for awhile. This makes software like Scribus even more desirable. I picked up Scribus and used it to do the layout of a one-page flier in a couple of hours. I had some experience as a news editor of my high school newspaper with PageMaker on the Macintosh platform, so I am familiar with some of the concepts of desktop publishing. But I believe familiar with Word can learn to navigate around fairly well in this tool. It outputs PDF files so you can share them with your print shop or on the net. These tools are ideal for a small church or church plant because they don't break the budget. You will probably come to a point when you need to hire help for graphics and printing, but these can get you started. The amount of work that has gone into creating these software packages is incredible--and they freely available. What a blessing. Sat, 03 Aug 2013 20:48:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/08/Free-Software https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/07/One-Nation-Under-God-Indivisible You probably thought this was going to be a American-Christian-patriotic post, right? Not exactly. The nation I am talking about is the future restored Israel. Here's what God's word says about it: And I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all; they shall no longer be two nations, nor shall they ever be divided into two kingdoms again (Ezekiel 37:22). God has planned the restoration of national Israel, and He will carry out that plan just as sure as the sun came up this morning (Jeremiah 31:35-37). Tue, 16 Jul 2013 08:49:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/07/One-Nation-Under-God-Indivisible https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/07/Parable-of-One-Way-of-Salvation For the occasion of our joint Singspiration Worship Service with Hiawatha Bible Church, I wrote the following parable. I hope it may be a help to someone who may be trusting the wrong thing for their salvation. A man maybe about your age was resting in his recliner Sunday afternoon. He dozed off and as he was sleeping, he dreamed about the time when Jesus would come back to the earth. The thought he had in his mind had to do with how it would go with him when it came time to be examined to see if he were fit to enter the kingdom of heaven. There was a long line of souls in front of an immense and beautiful throne, upon which sat One he was sure was the Lord. He heard a few people ahead of him in line call out the name of the Lord and tell Jesus how they had done some spectacular things in His name. The man then heard Jesus reply that he never knew those people, and he threw them out and prohibited them from entering the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 7:21-23). The sight was very troubling to the man in his dream, because he realized those people were finished. They had no hope. He also heard some others tell Jesus that they had done their best to keep the 10 commandments. "Did you keep all of them?" Jesus asked them. "No," they replied, "not quite. We messed up on a few things, but for the most part we are good people." Then the man heard Jesus say these words, "as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them" (Gal 3:10). These poor souls had not kept the law that they had professed to keep, so it made some sense that they would not make it into the kingdom. It was still troubling though, because they had falsely thought they were OK when they were not. The man began to wonder, as he watched the scene continue, if he himself was deceived about some things. Then there were those who didn't at first speak to the Lord on His throne. So He broke the silence and asked them, "Who is it who was in charge of your life before you came here? Whose instructions did you follow or whose name did you respect?" As I listened in to their conversations, there were many different answers to that question. Some said that they themselves were in charge of their life; or some other historical religious figure or prophet. Jesus quickly dismissed all of these people. To the question of who had been in charge of their lives, others replied that Jesus was. But the man who was dreaming all this got the feeling that they were confused a bit, because the expression on their faces indicated that the answer they gave did not match up to the person they were looking at. They almost had a question mark at the end of "Jesus" when they said it. This elicited a further question from the Lord on the throne. He asked, "Which Jesus are you talking about?" Some wrongly identified Jesus as one of the angels; some began talking about His mother in a way that seemed to deflect attention from the question; others said that it was the Jesus who was the first of God's creation; yet others emphasized it was the Jesus who sought to pour out life's material blessings on their lives. Once again, Jesus dismissed all of the people who answered in these various ways by saying, "If you do not honor the Son as you honor God the Father, you do not honor God the Father." There were a few who said that they were talking about the Jesus who is Lord, the creator of all things and the Son of God, who offered Himself as a sacrifice for their souls. They didn't seem to have a question mark in their voices when they said the name of the Lord. These the Lord permitted to pass the throne and enter a small doorway to the right side. There were more people in line than the man could count. It was a very emotional experience to see so many people going the one way, and so few the other way. There were a whole bunch of people standing in line who, as their turn came, explained to Jesus that they had done a lot of good things that they expected would be added to what Jesus did to pay for their entrance ticket to the kingdom when He lived on the earth Himself so many years ago; some told Jesus that they thought He had not resurrected from the dead; some, surprisingly, openly admitted they were sure He would not be coming back to the earth again--but of course, here He was. The man dreamed that Jesus told these people to depart too. There was an air of hopelessness surrounding such folks, because it was pretty obvious that there were no second chances. Occasionally, there were those who said something different. When the Lord asked what they had done to enter the kingdom of heaven, they said, "Nothing, Lord. I believed that on my behalf you did everything Yourself to make it possible for me to enter the kingdom heaven. My sins were many but your righteousness was greater than my sins. You and your action on my behalf is the only way to enter here." Jesus replied in an affirming tone, "Whoever believes on [me] will not be put to shame" (Romans 10:11). These were ushered past the throne and into the kingdom like a few of the people earlier. The man had not gotten to the front of the line by the time he awoke. He breathed a sigh of relief that it was only a dream, but he felt as if he had learned a valuable lesson. "Time to break out my Bible and make sure I know the right way to enter the kingdom of heaven" (Romans 10:17, John 3). [June 30, 2013--MAP] If you are visiting tonight, we want to thank you for attending our singspiration worship service. We are a group of Christians who delight in knowing the Jesus that the books of the Bible describe. He is our Lord, the Son of God, the perfect man, who died in our place, who rose again from the grave, who ascended into heaven. He is our LORD. Because of our gratefulness to Him, we sing tonight. He has put a new song in our mouths--even praise to our God; we pray that many will see it and fear, and will trust in the LORD (Psalm 40:3). Mon, 01 Jul 2013 09:01:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/07/Parable-of-One-Way-of-Salvation https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/06/Authority-and-Rebellion The context of this post is the various authority/subordinate relationships that God has appointed for you. For instance: you are a wife under the authority of your husband; you are a citizen under the authority of the state; you are a student under the authority of your teacher; you are an employee under the authority of your employer; or you are a Christian under the authority of God's Word. Think about when the authority says something to you. Are you listening? If not, you are not acting appropriately toward the authority God has placed over you. In other words, you are not respecting the authority, and that is sin. Next, assuming you listened, do you do what the authority has said or asked you to do? Doing what you have listened to is important. Listening without doing is like looking into a mirror and doing nothing about it (James 1:22-25). If you develop a habit of ignoring what the authorities in your life say or ask you to do, if you stonewall, or if you delay, then you are promoting in yourself a spirit of disobedience. The cultivation of that kind of spirit is very dangerous. Instead, cultivate an attitude of listening and obedience. Not only does that please the Lord, but it will promote harmony in the authority/subordinate relationship. MAP Thu, 27 Jun 2013 09:57:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/06/Authority-and-Rebellion https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/06/Dad-What-is-Abortion Yesterday morning, as every weekday morning, I drove my two boys to school. On our way, we pass a short street that leads to an abortion mill. Sometimes there is someone visible on the main road who is protesting abortion. Yesterday, my boys took note of a woman doing just that. They asked about it. I told them she was protesting abortion. "Dad, what is abortion?" Let that sink in for a second. And while it is sinking in, ask yourself how you would answer a 7- and 8-year old who asked that question. I thought it was a good time to delicately expose them to one of the very dark sides of our nation and world. I asked them if they understood what it means for a woman to be pregnant. Then I asked them what would happen if a baby was born too early and helped them think of the possibility of the baby dying. They have a friend in school who was born very prematurely, so I was able to relate this matter to that situation. Then I said that sometimes, accidents happen where the baby in the mommy's tummy is killed, or sometimes for reasons we don't understand the baby is born too early and cannot live. Then I said that sometimes a pregnant woman has people take away the baby out of her tummy so the baby dies. (I hesitate to call the "people" by the title "doctors" since they don't follow the Hippocratic oath.) That is what an abortion is. The conversation was not more than a few minutes. But with it, another level of childhood innocence and ignorance was shattered. I hate that this sin-cursed world makes that innocence depart with age. But there is nothing stopping it. My older son then thoughtfully said, "Dad, I don't understand why someone would want to do that." I don't either, son. Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:34:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/06/Dad-What-is-Abortion https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/06/Kids-Corner-Ant-and-the-Sluggard My wife Naomi picked up this table from somewhere. I've corrected some spelling. Add a picture of an ant and a slug and you have the start of a Bible lesson for your kids! AntSluggard WiseFoolish Hard workerLazy PerseveresLikes idleness CooperatesHates work DiligentKnows it all ResponsibleMakes excuses Takes initiativeDoesn't finish things Enjoys learningDoesn't want to learn Thu, 13 Jun 2013 21:46:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/06/Kids-Corner-Ant-and-the-Sluggard https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/05/How-Much-of-Your-Life-is-Pretend We associate pretend things with childhood. There is something endearing about watching a child in pretend play. There are valuable developmental things going on in children as they pretend and emulate what they see in their world. But it seems out of place for adults to play like younger children (1 Corinthians 13:11). The thought I'd like you to think about is this: how much of your life is pretend? It is probably not a very high percentage of overall hours if your life is close to the average American's. According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, working and sleeping take about 16.4 hours out of 24. These are fixed costs associated with "just living." But on average, Americans have five daily hours of leisure activities where they have more control over what they choose to do. Well over half of that segment of the day is devoted to watching television and playing games. Setting aside the possibility that you are watching documentaries and educational television, I would venture to say that most TV and games are pretend activities. You are watching and vicariously experiencing the made-up activities of others. You see pretend violence and pretend relationships. You view pretend situations. You become actively involved in your pretend mind with simulated reality video games. I would argue that adult pretend of this nature is not substantially different from child pretend. Does there seem to be something wrong with such pretend? Besides the fact that it seems out of place for adults to have so much pretend in their lives, there are other thoughts you can ponder. For example, pretend has a real effect on the mind and body. Have you ever experienced an elevated pulse when watching something with suspense or violence? What do you think repeated exposure to that sort of pretend does to the mind and body? Pretend TV shows teach (preach!) real values, whether bad or good. What about the numbing effect of pretend on our interaction with the real world? If our leisure time is filled with pretend, it can have an anesthetizing effect on us, removing awareness of the things that are really going on. Perhaps Satan lures our flesh through pretend in entertainment in order to dull our senses to what he is doing in the world. Pretend can distract us from global trends, political realities, personal relationships, and the needs of others in view of the ultimate reality that life is short and each person will soon be called to judgment. Don’t pretend your life away! Mon, 20 May 2013 10:40:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/05/How-Much-of-Your-Life-is-Pretend https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/05/Bible-Book-Outlines Ever wanted to look at an outline of a book of the Bible? Maybe you have one in your study Bible, but would like another opinion? Maybe you are looking for a quick summary of the contents of a book of the Bible. We have some outlines that may help. Check the links below to see if your book is listed. For the Old Testament: Genesis Outline Exodus Outline Leviticus Outline Numbers Outline Judges Outline Ruth Outline 1 Samuel Outline 2 Samuel Outline 1 Kings Outline 2 Kings Outline 1 Chronicles Outline 2 Chronicles Outline Ezra Outline Nehemiah Outline Esther Outline Job Outline Isaiah Outline Daniel Outline Hosea Outline Joel Outline Amos Outline Obadiah Outline Jonah Outline Micah Outline Nahum Outline Habakkuk Outline Zephaniah Outline Haggai Outline Zechariah Outline Malachi Outline For the New Testament: Acts Outline Romans Outline Galatians Outline 1 Thessalonians Outline Titus Outline James Outline 2 Peter Outline Jude Outline Revelation Outline Mon, 13 May 2013 23:35:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/05/Bible-Book-Outlines https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/04/Interesting-Missions-Article-by-an-Atheist Matthew Parris writes as an atheist, and says that he truly believes that Africa needs God. Fascinating. I thought of contextualization when I read this. Christianity, post-Reformation and post-Luther, with its teaching of a direct, personal, two-way link between the individual and God, unmediated by the collective, and unsubordinate to any other human being, smashes straight through the philosphical/spiritual framework I've just described. It offers something to hold on to to those anxious to cast off a crushing tribal groupthink. That is why and how it liberates. Those who want Africa to walk tall amid 21st-century global competition must not kid themselves that providing the material means or even the knowhow that accompanies what we call development will make the change. A whole belief system must first be supplanted. And I'm afraid it has to be supplanted by another. HT: BaylyBlog. Fri, 05 Apr 2013 14:11:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/04/Interesting-Missions-Article-by-an-Atheist https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/03/Thanks-to-Anonymous Today our family received an envelope with a nice letter full of Scripture and a monetary gift. It was sent anonymously, and we are unable to guess who sent it. We thank the Lord for His provision. And we thank you, whoever "you" are, who were thoughtful and generous enough to send it. May the Lord bless and keep you too! Tue, 12 Mar 2013 20:58:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/03/Thanks-to-Anonymous https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/02/Repentant-Faith Among some Christians, the idea of repentance is not accepted as part of the gospel. As American Protestant evangelicals, it has been drilled into our heads that salvation is by faith alone. And that is certainly true. But those words, "faith alone," can be taken too far in a way that changes the meaning of "faith." Real Christian faith is repentant faith. The meaning and frequent use of the idea of repentance in the New Testament should be enough to convince us of that. For instance, you can study Matthew 3:2, 3:8, 4:17, 9:13, 11:20-21, 12:41; Mark 6:12; Luke 13:3-5, 15:7, 15:10, 16:30, 24:47; Acts 2:38, 3:19, 5:31, 11:18, 17:30, 20:21, 26:20; Romans 2:4; 2 Timothy 2:25; Hebrews 6:1; 2 Peter 3:9. I dealt with this issue in a different way in a previous post. Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:07:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/02/Repentant-Faith https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/02/Is-Every-True-Believer-a-Disciple There are some professing Christians who claim that there is a distinction between a Christian believer and a disciple. For instance, consider the four differences between 'believer' and 'disciple' proposed here. Or, the seven differences listed in Dr. Rick Flanders' articles here and here. Or Bob Wilkin's primary distinction of being under Biblical instruction, here. According to this form of doctrine, there can be disciples who are not believers, believers who are not disciples, and disciples who are believers. You can find many other web sources that teach this doctrine. Other online sources oppose this teaching. For instance, here. As I read through John 18 this morning, I wondered if Peter would have consoled himself with that kind of doctrine after he denied Christ. Remember that in John 18:17, a servant girl asked him if he was a disciple of Jesus, and he denied it. He denied being Jesus' disciple again in John 18:25-27. Do you expect that Peter said to himself, "Self, I just denied being a disciple of Jesus, but at least I did not deny being a believer in Jesus"? Such a thought seems impossible. Peter denied being a disciple and a believer in his "I am not" statement. For those who hold to the "believer distinct from disciple" theology, and who consider themselves believers but not disciples, I would simply ask, do you think it is realistic to try to affirm that you are a believer but not a disciple? How do you differentiate your denial of being a disciple from Peter's denial of being a disciple? Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:02:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/02/Is-Every-True-Believer-a-Disciple https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/01/Upcoming-Marriage-Seminar Tri-Lakes Baptist Church has invited our church family to participate in a marriage seminary taught by Dr. Greg Mazak of Greer, South Carolina. For the flyer, click the image below. Wed, 16 Jan 2013 00:45:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/01/Upcoming-Marriage-Seminar https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/01/Outline-of-Romans I'm doing some work in Romans in preparation for an upcoming expositional series on the book. Below is an outline I've put together, with the help of a number of other outlines. Introduction and Theme, 1:1-17 Paul will proclaim the gospel to the Christians at Rome. God's Condemnation of Sinful Humanity, 1:18-3:20 Humanity falls short of God's righteousness and is justly condemned under God's wrath. There is thus a universal need for the gospel. Imputation of Gospel Righteousness and Justification by Faith, 3:21-5:21 Christ satisfied God's wrath and provides righteousness for humans. Impartation of Gospel Righteousness, 6:1-8:17 God's grace in sanctification, and why Christians must not live in sin. Faithfulness of God to the Individual in the Gospel, 8:18-39 The individual's salvation is secure in God all the way to glorification. Faithfulness of God to Israel in the Gospel, 9:1-11:36 The promises of God in the previous era have not failed and will yet be fulfilled. Manifestation of Gospel Righteousness, 12:1-15:13 The individual Christian will exhibit the character of Christ, particularly by following the law of love. This section of Romans describes how to live as a justified person. This section is tied to section 4: there, the focus is on the source of sanctification in being freed from sin and the work of the Spirit, and the general application of not living in sin. This section shows how that sanctification looks in practice with specific applications. Apostle Paul's Proclamation of the Gospel, 15:14-33 Paul’s Ministry to the Gentiles, to Rome, and then to Spain. Closing, 16:1-27 Greetings, final exhortation and benediction. Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:38:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/01/Outline-of-Romans https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/01/1-Timothy-Note-Set Tonight we uploaded 31 documents containing my sermon notes for the entire book of 1 Timothy. You can browse the notes by visiting this page. Wed, 02 Jan 2013 23:04:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/01/1-Timothy-Note-Set https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/01/New-Sermon-Notes-Available I uploaded notes for the last 24 sermons of my Hebrews series, from 11:20 through the end of the book. I hope they might provide some help to someone out there, for what they are worth. Please visit this page to see them. Tue, 01 Jan 2013 23:23:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/01/New-Sermon-Notes-Available https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/01/Happy-New-Year-of-Bible-Reading Our church website is updated to show the 2013 Bible reading schedule each day. Look at the lower left side of the page and you will see it. It changes every day to keep pace with the printed reading schedules (available below). Read the New Testament once in 2013 Read the New Testament twice in 2013 Read the New Testament four times in 2013 Read the Old Testament once 2013 Key chapters for young readers Have a happy new year! May God's Word change you entirely, from inside out. Tue, 01 Jan 2013 08:49:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2013/01/Happy-New-Year-of-Bible-Reading https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/12/Unguarded-Statements One of the commentaries to which I referred in my studies for my recent series in 1 Timothy was George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles in the NIGTC Series (Eerdmans). When I read the following statement from p. 275, that old idea of "unguarded statements" came to mind: What Paul says to the rich through Timothy is what he says to Timothy himself (vv. 11ff.), what he has said of himself (Phil. 3:8ff.; 1 Cor. 9:24-27), and what he has said to others (Gal. 6:7, 8): Good works demonstrate the reality of faith and salvation and are needed to receive eternal life (cf. Mt. 7:21; 25:34-40, 46b)...What both Paul and Jesus are saying is that one who has accepted God's grace and salvation must evidence it in one's life. Thus they are quite willing to say, as both an encouragement and a warning, that this evidence of salvation is a necessity for the reception of eternal life." I can interpret what Knight is saying in a favorable way, but the more I look at it, the more I think I would be too generous if I did so. When he writes that "good works demonstrate the reality of faith and salvation" I can say amen to that. Ditto for "one who has accepted God's grace and salvation must evidence it." But then to say that these good works are necessary to receive eternal life and are needed for the reception of eternal life, I have to balk at that. The problem with his statement is that only one who has already become a partaker in eternal life can do good works and is qualified to do them in the first place (Ephesians 2:10, Titus 1:16). I believe Knight wishes to maintain a robust doctrine of perseverance, and I charitably suppose that he believes in at least two kinds of "eternal life": the kind you receive when you are saved, and then the kind you receive when you are glorified. But these statements leave a lot of reading between the lines and can certainly misguide someone into thinking they receive eternal life by a combination of genuine faith and works. It is this latter conclusion that has to be guarded against. Eternal life is received by faith alone in Jesus Christ. Yes, genuine faith, but still only faith. Works are the outworking of true faith. Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:29:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/12/Unguarded-Statements https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/12/More-on-Constitutional-Amendments In my previous post on this subject, I mentioned two texts that indicated an upcoming change in the way God dealt with the nation of Israel. One was Deuteronomy 18:15, and the other was Psalm 110:4. The first promises another prophet and the second promises another priest. Particularly with the priest, there had to be a change of the divine law, because the new priest would not be from the line of Aaron. There is another key text that must be considered because it indicates a major change in the "constitution." It is Jeremiah 31:31-34. Here, the Bible promises another covenant. It is not like the covenant that God made with Israel in the days of Moses. Israel broke that covenant, and God, by so saying here in Jeremiah, shows us that He is pleased to set it aside in favor of something new and better. This new covenant is the subject of extensive revelation in the Hebrew Bible, as well as in the New Testament. Jesus Himself said, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you" (Luke 22:20 NKJV). Certainly God made provision for changing His dealings with mankind from the old Mosaic covenant, with a new prophet and a new priest and a new covenant. We Christians are convinced that this program change centers around Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God. Stay tuned... Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:38:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/12/More-on-Constitutional-Amendments https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/11/Changing-the-Divine-Constitution I'm writing this with my Jewish friends in mind... In a founding document such as a constitution, it seems prudent to have a mechanism by which the document can be updated to reflect changes in circumstances or conditions previously unforeseen by the authors of the document. Such changes will necessarily reflect modifications in the rule of conduct of the people who are under the sway of the founding document, whether it is an organization, a church, or an entire nation. A similar amendment mechanism is found in the Bible. Amendments to the code given in the Bible are not required due to the author's lack of foresight (God knows everything past, present, and future). But we can easily imagine a scenario where God has a pre-planned change in mind that would require a change or update to the founding documents. I am thinking about the Law of Moses as the founding document of the ancient nation of Israel. That Law formalized the organization of the nation in civil, ceremonial, and moral aspects. A Jewish reader of that document has to take seriously the fact that there are provisions within the document itself that allow the founding document to be updated. The point is that the Jewish person should not only not be surprised at such an update (aka the New Testament), but he should expect that an update was pre-planned, and be looking for it. What texts in the Hebrew Bible indicate a future change? Here are two: Deuteronomy 18:15 says that there will be another prophet that will arise like Moses, and that this prophet must be obeyed. A prophet like Moses would be expected to bring new revelation from God, thus potentially changing the way in which people live. Psalm 110:4 says that there will be a new priest in the order of Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18-20). A new priest would mean that a change in the law would be necessary so that he could operate lawfully within the nation, since no priest was permitted by Moses outside of the tribe of Levi. Such is the argument of Hebrews 7:11-19. In both of these cases, provision is made in the initial "constitution" of Israel that permit that constitution to be changed. But this is nothing new. In fact, the law itself was a change on the previous status quo, in which there was various revelation and instruction passed down from Adam and Eve, Noah, Enoch, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and others. The Law gave a new body of instructions that required obedience. It was different than the rule of life previously. No one accuses God, on account of His giving of the Law, of changing the rules midway through the game. He used His divine prerogative to change the constitution at a key point in time. He did not give up that prerogative when the Law of Moses was written down. Undoubtedly some readers may agree that provisions are present in the Law for its own update and even perhaps its own replacement. However, those readers might object that they are still looking for the update, that the update is definitely not the New Testament, and that Jesus is not the updater of the Law of Moses. The answer to that objection will have to wait until a later post. Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:50:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/11/Changing-the-Divine-Constitution https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/11/New-Blog-Address My blog has moved, along with our church's website, from one host to a new one. The new RSS feed url is http://www.fbcaa.org/cms/feeds/MAPBlog/, accessible above in the title next to the orange RSS icon. Sorry for any inconvenience that this might impose on you. I hope you continue reading! Tue, 27 Nov 2012 21:23:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/11/New-Blog-Address https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/11/Marriage-Conference Tri-Lakes Baptist Church has invited our church, among others, to attend a marriage conference this coming February 15 and 16. The idea is to give some extra attention to strengthening our marriages. Tri-Lakes wants to be a blessing to our married couples by hosting the conference. The main speaker will be Dr. Greg Mazak of Trinity Bible Church in Greer, SC. Dr. Mazak is a noted speaker and teacher around the country, especially in the area of the family and counseling. For more information, please visit www.trilakesbaptist.org, or call the church at 810-229-9402. Special hotel pricing will be available if you are coming from a distance and need accommodations. Wed, 07 Nov 2012 12:25:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/11/Marriage-Conference https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/11/2013-Bible-Reading-Schedule The Bible reading plans for 2013 are now available. There are five of them depending on where you are in age and how much time you want to invest in your spiritual growth. Read the New Testament once in 2013 Read the New Testament twice in 2013 Read the New Testament four times in 2013 Read the Old Testament once 2013 Key chapters for young readers I hope you will read along with us. Repeating this program over the years is a very good way to hide God's Word in your heart. --MAP Fri, 02 Nov 2012 22:12:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/11/2013-Bible-Reading-Schedule https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/10/Dont-Be-Such-a-Good-Listener The words of a talebearer are like tasty trifles, And they go down into the inmost body. (Proverbs 18:8 and 26:22 NKJ) This proverb is a good reminder for one who finds himself on the receiving end of gossip and has a hard time resisting the temptation to continue listening. We know we are supposed to be good listeners. But in the case of gossip, I'm afraid we are too well-practiced at listening. We should shut off the flow of delicious morsels as soon as we see them coming. Don't be a bad listener! Think about how you will respond the next time someone bears a tale. Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:35:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/10/Dont-Be-Such-a-Good-Listener https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/10/2013-Preserving-the-Truth-Conference On January 4-5, 2013, the second Preserving the Truth Conference will be held at First Baptist Church in Troy, Michigan. Please visit truthconference.org for more information. Mon, 08 Oct 2012 22:59:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/10/2013-Preserving-the-Truth-Conference https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/10/Psalm-119-133 My verse for the day turned out to be Psalm 119:133: Direct my steps by Your word, And let no iniquity have dominion over me. (Psalm 119:133 NKJ) I was thinking about this recently in light of the idea of how we should pray for ourselves. The Psalms are filled with prayers to God from the author about the author. We too can legitimately pray these sorts of things for ourselves. Prayer for self is not necessarily selfish, although we can easily fall into that trap (James 4:3; consider the prayer of Jabez in 1 Chronicles 4:10). Wed, 03 Oct 2012 23:33:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/10/Psalm-119-133 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/09/Surviving-Seminary-Pastors-Perspective Mark and Heather Snoeberger have written a helpful two-part article on surviving seminary as a family (here and here). I greatly appreciated the principles that they promoted, such as unity in their marriage, maturity, spiritual growth and formation of their family, hard work, and frugality. Particularly noteworthy is their testimony of treating the seminary education as a shared task between husband and wife. My wife and I find that pastoral ministry requires the same kind of shared view of things. Trying to carry on in ministry while the husband pulls the load and the wife heads in another direction is a problematic situation. But that is not my point in this post... In response to the article, a prospective seminary student asked me some questions related to time management and how to "balance" seminary with work, church attendance and ministry, and personal life. He is concerned about providing for the family so that his wife can fulfill her biblical role of keeping the home and working with the children. He is concerned about attending and serving in the local church in a way that he is faithful and not skipping meetings. Finally, he is concerned about maintaining his spiritual/devotional life as well as his physical health. About work: Mark did not say if he had to work full time or part time during his seminary education. During the M.Div., I had the blessing of being self-employed and working afternoons (not the afternoon shift--just afternoons). Travel for my work was required on only a few occasions. This left my mornings available for classes and evenings and weekends for study. Students who are fully supported are greatly blessed because they can devote themselves entirely to their studies. I think that is a rare situation, at least in our circles. Many students struggle to work about 40 hours a week and then try to divide the remaining time for their wife, children, church, and personal health. About church: I was able to be fully involved in the ministry of the local church as I went to school. When Fellowship Bible Church called me to be their senior pastor, I was taking the Th.M. During the first months of the pastorate, I took some time off from classes to focus on the initial ministry. As far as the seminarian's attendance at church goes, it is unacceptable for the student to be so consumed with work and seminary that he does not attend all the regular meetings of the church. If it comes down to it, it is absolutely appropriate to dial down the number of classes taken during a semester and take more years to complete the training. It is not very important to finish seminary in three years anyway; there is no need to be in a rush. A good case can be made that taking somewhat longer is better--it gives more time for the material to sink in. I took the M.Div. in four years; the Th.M. in six, with one year of overlap between the two. About physical and spiritual health: Taking the M.Div. in four years (the majority of it in three with summer classes thrown in to help) was a challenge. It was at once spiritually filling and spiritually draining. Physically I was ill on a number of occasions due to exhaustion and dehydration. Trying to learn while you are dead tired is not the wisest approach. My questioner is rightly concerned about his spiritual health as well. It is easy enough to downplay 'devotional time' for a seminarian--after all, he is deeply in the Word in all his classes, right? What value does a skimpy devotional life have compared to that? To the contrary, the reality is that academic studies are of a different sort than personal spiritual maintenance. You might object that seminary shouldn't just be academic. Indeed! But when there are so many classes, so much material, tests that are looking for specific information, papers to write, etc., it is all too easy to pursue studies in an unattached, academic way that does not fully engage the soul along with the mind. Seminary education is not to be treated lightly. It is a huge commitment. I fully believe that at the right seminary, it is an investment that is well worth the effort. However, a sense of proportion in the elements mentioned above will help you to succeed. You don't want your program of study to overwhelm the day-to-day concerns of church attendance and ministry, physical and spiritual health, and family. MAP Mon, 01 Oct 2012 20:50:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/09/Surviving-Seminary-Pastors-Perspective https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/10/2-Chronicles-18-20 Judah's King Jehoshaphat had a tough time learning a key lesson: do not get cozy with wicked people. After he allied himself with Ahab and helped Ahab in battle to recover Ramoth Gilead from the Arameans, God sent a message to him through Jehu: Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the LORD? Therefore the wrath of the LORD is upon you. This was about 863 B.C. About 10 years later, Jehosphaphat allied himself with Ahaziah of Israel, another wicked king. This time, Eliezer prophesied against Jehoshaphat and said: Because you have allied yourself with Ahaziah, the LORD has destroyed your works." This is a good lesson for us--do not tie yourself up in ventures with unbelievers. It will cost you. Remind yourself of 2 Corinthians 6:14. Mon, 01 Oct 2012 17:01:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/10/2-Chronicles-18-20 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/08/Complaint-or-Compassion-and-Joy Our church's Bible reading plan has us in Luke 15 today. A few key statements (from NKJV) seem to summarize the chapter well: And the Pharisees and scribes complained, saying, "This man receives sinners..." (15:2) I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents... (15:7) I say to you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents. (15:10) When he was still a great way off, his father saw him and had compassion... (15:20) And bring the fatted calf here and kill it, and let us eat and be merry, for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found. (15:23-24) It was right that we should make merry and be glad, for your brother was dead and is alive again, and was lost and is found. (15:32) Personal note: I am very glad that Jesus receives sinners! Thu, 09 Aug 2012 08:49:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/08/Complaint-or-Compassion-and-Joy https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/07/Difference-Between-Two-Churches Here is another question for my Great Commission and Church Planting class: How do you view the two churches I describe below? Do you view them as very different? You walk into the first church and begin to notice that all the people there are old. Say 70 years old or older. The pastor is likewise elderly. You begin to look for another young or middle-age family like yourself. You don't see any. What do you think of this church? You walk into another church the next week and there are tons of children running around. There are many youthful looking families. The pastor looks young too. The place is bustling with activity. In contrast with the church you visited last week, you don't notice any elderly folks. What do you think of this church? A common first impression of the elderly church is that it is dying, not reaching out to its community, and somehow it is "bad." The younger church seems vibrant and alive, and it is somehow "good." But why would we think of the church this way? What if the elderly church happened to be in the middle of a retirement community? And why do we think that a church with no elderly people is better than a church with no young people? Don't both churches have a key missing demographic—in other words, both are lacking something they really ought to have? Tue, 24 Jul 2012 09:38:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/07/Difference-Between-Two-Churches https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/07/Church-Planting-or-Church-Splitting I'm doing a series on the Great Commission and church planting in our Adult Bible Fellowship class. During the first session, I asked some diagnostic questions of our members and attenders. Here's one: How many of you have been in a church that has carefully planned and executed a church plant in a neighboring community? I clarified that what I meant was not whether you were personally involved in a plant, but were in a church that did a plant, no matter what your role was. The answer was a show of a few hands. The follow-up question: How many of you have been involved in a church that has split into two or more churches? The answer was a show of many hands—far outnumbering those who have been in a church that did a plant. I know my study was totally unscientific, but it does represent the reality of the saints in our church. I suspect it represents the situation of many believers in many churches across our land. Now a question for you: why are things like this? Mon, 23 Jul 2012 10:59:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/07/Church-Planting-or-Church-Splitting https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/07/Doctrine-is-Like-a-Fungus Doctrine is like a fungus. Matthew 16:5-12. Good doctrine can be like yeast, spreading through the church or an individual for a beneficial result. Bad doctrine can be like mold, spreading through the church or an individual for a devastating result. Beware of bad doctrine. Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:18:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/07/Doctrine-is-Like-a-Fungus https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/07/The-Battle-Over-Interpretation Last Thursday the United States Supreme Court narrowly upheld the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in its decision in NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. (11-393c3a2.pdf). Frankly, I was disappointed by the majority opinion in the case. Don't get me wrong--I believe that providing health care to those who need it is a good thing. My disagreement with ACA has to do primarily with how it accomplishes its goal. The act is contrary to the principles of liberty that underlie the founding of our constitutional republic. I found the dissent by justices Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia to be a very coherent, constitutionally rigorous, and convincing defense of their opinion that the entirety of the ACA should be struck down. There were three portions of their dissent that particularly caught my attention regarding the issue of textual interpretation. The dissenting justices provided some helpful thoughts that we can profitably ponder in our own reading of the Bible. I have believed for years that the disagreement in constitutional interpretation between the liberals and the conservatives is very closely paralleled by the disagreement between Christians over Biblical interpretation. To be sure, more conservatives and evangelicals are embracing what they call 'literal' interpretation, but they do not share the entire range of meaning of that term when they thus speak. The difference in interpretive approach is even more pronounced between conservatives and liberals. The ACA case points out three areas that are critical when interpreting a text. 1. Double Meaning and Textualism "What the Government would have us believe in these cases is that the very same textual indications that show this is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act show that it is a tax under the Constitution. That carries verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of the sophists." (Dissent, pp. 27-28). The dissent points out that the solicitor general, representing the Obama administration, seeks to benefit from both sides of a patent contradiction. Normal readers would understand that either the financial obligations laid on a non-insured person under the ACA are a tax or they are a penalty, but they cannot be both at the same time. The government argued on the one hand that the law was a penalty, so the case could be heard by the court, and on the other hand it argued that the law was a tax, so that the law could be upheld as constitutional. Apparently Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the court were convinced. The dissent correctly points out that we must look at the textual indications in the bill itself to see whether the financial obligation is a penalty or a tax. Along with that, they argue that it is 'verbal wizardry' to take the exact same text and make the bill mean two different things from the same text. Court precedent has a very plain understanding of the term 'tax' and another and different understanding of the term 'penalty.' The law, as written, uses the term 'penalty' and the penalty is in fact structured as such. The language and meaning are consistent that the bill imposes a penalty on someone who will not purchase an insurance policy. For those of us busy interpreting the Bible for our churches in sermons or commentaries, we need to be keenly aware that a text has a single meaning. We have often heard that a text may have many implications or applications; but it has only one meaning. Some interpreters have opted for a double-meaning or multiple-referent approach that I cannot embrace. But what we must all agree on is that even if you believe in double meaning, you cannot take a text and make it mean, at one and the same time, two things that are opposites of one another! To do so would be nonsense. 2. Original Meaning, Authorial Intent, and the Larger Context When discussing the issue of severability and whether some portions of the law could be struck down while others are upheld, the dissenters write: "The question is whether the provisions will work as Congress intended. The 'relevant inquiry in evaluating severability is whether the statute will function in a manner consistent with the intent of Congress.'” (Dissent, p. 50). Certain provisions of the ACA rely on other key provisions (namely the individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion). The question is this: if you strike down the two key provisions, can the remainder of the provisions make sense as intended by Congress? The dissent says 'no' because of the intertwining of the minor provisions with the major provisions. Even if some minor provisions could make some kind of sense without the major ones, the dissent suggests that their effect would be different than the effect intended by Congress. The court should not get into the business of upholding some parts of a law which now have a new meaning apart from the major provisions. That would have the effect of striking down one part of the law and rewriting the other part because the context of the other part has changed. This is a helpful concept for us to consider in Biblical interpretation. We can easily fall into a compartmentalized view of the Bible in which we believe our interpretation of one part does not affect another part. Readers of this blog know that I have expressed major concerns over the doctrine of creation held by many evangelicals--a doctrine which, in their view, must be harmonized with science to be relevant and sensible. But, I ask, does such a harmonization agree with authorial intent? It doesn't seem to. And, does harmonizing with science affect our interpretation of other texts in the Bible? Absolutely it does. If the author's intent is overridden in one area, it can easily change the context in significant ways that affect the interpretation of other portions. When authorial intent is discarded in the interpretation of one portion of a text, there is no telling what happens to the interpretation of another portion of the text, even if authorial intent is supposedly upheld in that other portion. 3. Changing the Meaning Toward the end of the dissent, the justices argue against what the majority has decided. They convincingly claim that Roberts, et al., deal not with the Law that Congress wrote, but rather with the law that Congress could have written. Their argument is that the text of the Law is before the court, and it is the court's job to decide on the law as written, not on a variation of the law that could have been written and could have been before the court had Congress written it differently. "The Court’s disposition, invented and atextual as it is, does not even have the merit of avoiding constitutional difficulties. It creates them." (Dissent, p. 64). The dissent thus says that the majority opinion has invented a meaning for the ACA that is not in the ACA itself. The ACA imposes a penalty for an individual who does not obey the individual insurance mandate. The majority has decided to construe that penalty as a tax in its desire to find some way in the constitution to uphold the law. The 'atextual' interpretation of the law has resulted in a messy decision that creates more problems than it solved. Concluding Thoughts There is a real battle in the area of interpretation today. People who are our leaders now (in government and in churches) grew up in a philosophical environment that allows multiple contradictory meanings without any apparent cognitive dissonance in the person holding those contradictory meanings; an environment that allows the reader to determine the meaning of a text rather than the author; and an environment that permits a person to change or dismiss an authoritative source if it conflicts with their own self-authority. Given this kind of thinking, I wonder if we really know how to read. Sure, we can sound out the words or spit them out from memory if we learned the look-say method, but do we really read and understand them? Do we understand that we cannot find two contradictory propositions from the same words? Do we understand that God is not the author of contradiction and confusion? Do we understand that meaning does not reside in us, but in the text as intended by the author? Do we understand that we are not the authority, but an external authority is, whether the constitution or the Bible? The Christian ought to understand that contradiction, reader-centrism, and modification of the plain meaning of the Bible are not consistent with godly interpretation. May God help us to approach His authoritative text very carefully so that we do not make the errors we have discussed above. Tue, 03 Jul 2012 11:57:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/07/The-Battle-Over-Interpretation https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/06/Having-Trouble-with-Revelation Are you mystified by the book of Revelation? You're not alone! A few years ago I taught through Revelation for our church on Sunday evenings. I made a lot of effort not to get bogged down in a lot of details so as to preserve the big picture of the book. Very shortly thereafter, I taught the same series to a group of senior citizens. They had a great interest in the book. Perhaps this is not surprising in the sunset years...the desire to know what is on the horizon, which grows nearer and nearer for those in retirement. Whatever stage of life you are in, the things coming in the future are relevant for our conduct now, as 2 Peter 3:11-14 exhorts. The notes are available in this PDF file. Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:31:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/06/Having-Trouble-with-Revelation https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/06/Juvenilized-Christianity Thomas E. Bergler writes a helpful article entitled "When Are We Going to Grow Up? The Juvenilization of American Christianity" in Christianity Today. Here's a sampling: What happened? Beginning in the 1930s and '40s, Christian teenagers and youth leaders staged a quiet revolution in American church life that led to what can properly be called the juvenilization of American Christianity. Juvenilization is the process by which the religious beliefs, practices, and developmental characteristics of adolescents become accepted as appropriate for adults. Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:09:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/06/Juvenilized-Christianity https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/05/Doomed-to-Repeat There is a common proverb that goes like this: Whoever is ignorant of history is doomed to repeat it. Many people have affirmed this idea. I myself have done so. The problem is that it is false. Well...it has a bit of truth to it. Namely, the idea is that if you are ignorant of the mistakes made in the past, you may well repeat those mistakes. But just as true as the common proverb are the following statements: Some who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. Some who are ignorant of history are blessed to repeat it. Some who are knowledgeable of history are doomed to repeat it. Some who are knowledgeable of history are blessed to repeat it. So my first point is to lay out these three other possibilities. My second point is to bring to your remembrance that knowledge alone of history is no guarantee of victory over mistakes or sins. If we really believe that, we deny the doctrine of total depravity and embrace a kind of gnosis which is obviously false. People sin in egregious ways even when they have historical examples of the same kind of sin leading to terrible consequences. Part of knowing history is knowing that other people who have known history have not succeeded in avoiding the repetition of its sins. Anyone who has understood their reading of the Old Testament can see this. My third argument has to do with the fact that the proverb exposes an underlying philosophy that is contrary to the orthodox Christian belief that the Bible, God's Word, is our sole rule of faith and practice. A person who heartily accepts the proverb looks to history as a rule of faith and practice. History becomes another Bible, or at least close to it. To the contrary, we don't have to know historical theology to live a successful Christian life. Now, don't get me wrong—knowing the history of interpretation may indeed help us interpret the Bible better; and knowing church history may help us to live better. But knowing historical theology may also induce us to interpret the Bible wrongly and to live incorrectly. This brings me to my fourth point. Why can knowing history have such a deleterious effect? To adapt another proverb about the church fathers: You can find anything in history. Practically any good deed, good belief, right choice, wrong choice, bad belief, or bad deed can be found in history. (There's nothing new under the sun?!) By immersing yourself in a study of history, you may end up embracing the wrong things you find there. Tue, 29 May 2012 21:34:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/05/Doomed-to-Repeat https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/05/He-Gave-Himself-a-Ransom-For-All There are a substantial number of Christians who believe that it is incorrect to say that Christ died for all mankind. To them, it is only correct to say that He died for the elect. There are others, such as myself, who are Calvinistic, who do not believe in universalism, and who do believe that the design of the atonement extends to more than just elect human beings. It also encompasses in some way the non-elect, so that I can say that Christ died for all human beings. So how do I defend this broad referent as opposed to a narrower "all kinds of men" or "all the elect"? This is a question that I answered in my sermon yesterday on 1 Timothy 2:1-7. Here are the reasons I gave for taking the broader referent: 1. The plain normal reading throughout the seven verses is "all men" not "all kinds of men" or "some men," or "the elect." 2. There are words in Greek that could clearly convey the limited concepts, but those words are not used here. 3. The text does not indicate that God does not desire the salvation of some men; it rather says God desires that ALL men be saved. 4. The text ties together prayer for all men with the provision of the atonement for all men. Notice that contextually the "all men" in verse 1 is the same as the "all men" in verse 4, which is again the same as the "men" in verse 5, and which again is the same as "all" in verse 6. The paragraph goes together as a unit. It seems unreasonable to believe "all men" to be universal in the opening sentence and then limited to some other kind of "all" (all kinds?) in the later references of the same paragraph. 5. The clarification in verse 2 regarding governmental authorities and a peaceable life indicates that the "all men" the Ephesian church is to be praying for includes unbelieving leaders—those who could potentially make their lives difficult by persecution. A good way to have a tranquil existence as a Christian is to have formerly non-Christian leaders turned into Christian leaders. We are to be praying for unbelieving people as part of our fulfillment of the Biblical exhortation in verse 1. 6. God desires all to be saved, including leaders. We expect that some will be saved and some will not be saved. But we do not know who the elect are in advance of their salvation, so we cannot pray for them only. We are to be praying for unbelieving people, some of whom may not be elect. Taking these together, I cannot get around the fact that Jesus gave Himself a ransom for all. Of course He did not give Himself with the end result that all will be saved. There is a sense in which Jesus gave Himself a ransom for (only) the many. But we have to grapple with the fact that somehow the design of the atonement extends beyond the elect so that there is another sense in which Jesus gave Himself a ransom for all. Explaining that sense has proved very difficult over the centuries, but I hope to add a few more words of explanation in future posts. Mon, 21 May 2012 16:16:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/05/He-Gave-Himself-a-Ransom-For-All https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/05/Guthrie-on-Church-Discipline In preparation for my sermon on 1 Timothy 1:18-20, I ran across this good paragraph by Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, p. 69. The concluding clause 'that they may learn not to blaspheme' shows clearly that the purpose [of the disciplinary process] was remedial and not punitive. However stringent the process the motive was mercy, and whenever ecclesiastical discpline has departed from this purpose of restoration, its harshness has proved a barrier to progress. But this is no reason for dispensing with discipline entirely, a failing which frequently characterizes our modern churches. Tue, 15 May 2012 14:17:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/05/Guthrie-on-Church-Discipline https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/05/Kingdom-Reoffer-Acts-3 The question is basically this: does Acts 3-4 constitute a second offer of the kingdom, after Jesus' first offer during His public ministry? Alva McClain in his excellent work The Greatness of the Kingdom promotes the reoffer view (pages 403-406). I am not convinced that Acts 3-4 constitute a second offer of the kingdom. I will state my objections to the re-offer view, then address some supporting arguments for the re-offer view. Before doing that, however, I will note that this is a tertiary if not a quaternary theological issue. For this debate to even make sense, you first have to be a Christian, and a dispensationalist as well. We should not be fighting over this issue :-) First, my objections. 1. It is does not seem clear when reading the text of Acts 3 and 4 that an offer of the kingdom is being given. In other words, the audience hearing Peter preach would probably not connect what he is saying with an immediate coming of the kingdom. I grant that the audience and disciples believed a kingdom would be coming in the future (Acts 1:6) but Jesus had quelled at least the disciples' high hopes (1:7) and focused them on the Great Commission (1:8). Instead of the Israelite conversion meaning immediacy of the kingdom, I would argue that the Israelite conversion was necessary to the kingdom. This necessity must be added to the necessity of at least some of the other people groups (1:8) being converted as well. Now, I do grant that "repent and be converted so that times of refreshing may come" sounds a lot like "repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." So, I can be sympathetic to the re-offer view. There is at least one major difference--the king is absent. 2. The recipients of the offer are not the "right" recipients in Acts 3, where the main support for the re-offer view is drawn. They are the hoi polloi (OK, the ho laos). Apparently the national leaders have to be involved in accepting the offer, and they are not involved until Acts 4. McClain counters that "men of Israel" means "the nation." It seems to me to be a general address that means "men who belong to Israel" not "listen up you whole nation of Israel." 3. We are agreed that Jesus did offer the kingdom to the nation in his first advent. They rejected it. There were several points of rejection along the way, with Matthew 12 being a major one and John 19:15 being another. The national religious leaders were intransigent (unwilling to change their views). This stubbornness was key in Jesus' declaration about the unpardonable sin. Technically that sin had to do with their attribution of Jesus' miraculous power to the Devil, but in reality it constituted a rejection of the king entirely. They were confirmed in a pattern of rejection. It could be that God gives them another offer of the kingdom...but given that they were (in the main) in this stubborn state, it seems more likely that the whole idea of offering the kingdom was dropped at this point. The kingdom will have to be imposed rather than willingly accepted (the Tribulation prompts their acceptance of it). We could get into the whole idea of God "giving over" the leaders to their sinfulness and whether they had a "second chance." I am a generous "second chancer" as long as the person is alive and breathing...but the fact is that they had rejected the offer before, and we see clearly that they continued in that same rejection through the book of Acts and geographically throughout the Roman empire in the synagogues. 4. Jesus declared that the kingdom would be taken from the present nation and it would be given to a nation bearing the fruits of it (Matthew 21:43). That second 'nation' is not another Gentile country, but rather a later rendition of the Jewish nation. The people in Acts 3-4 were the very same nation that crucified Christ (just a couple of months previously). It doesn't seem that a re-offer to the same people is in order after that promise from the Lord. 5. The phrase "so that times of refreshing may come" does not require an fulfillment that follows /immediately/ on the heels of their repentance. It certainly could, but it is not required. 6. The audience in Acts 3 is quite positively responsive. We could not say that everyone responded, but by Acts 4:4, the number of men who had responded positively was 5,000. With women and young people this number may have topped 15,000 people. That is a pretty good response, yet that apparently was not good enough for the kingdom to come. 7. The re-offer view does not give proper place to the church, which was predicted by Christ in Matthew 16 and 18. What I am thinking here is that with a re-offer just days after the ascension, that leaves very little time for the church age and the fulfillment of the Great Commission. It also does not do justice to the parable of Luke 19:11-27 where the nobleman goes on a long journey to a far country. The implication is that there is some time lapse between the first and second advents. Some additional thoughts, not as well formed: 8. The re-offer view seems to suggest a continuance of the offer throughout the book of Acts. While the kingdom was waning and the church was waxing, the offer was dying off too. Were there three, four, five, ... offers of the kingdom? Was the offer valid until Acts 28? Can we call the "re-offer" view the "continuing offers" view? 9. With an offer in Acts 3, I wonder about the applicability of that passage to the modern era. Can I preach Acts 3 like I did on Sunday evening, or shall I explain that some of it does not apply today? 10. Finally, for now, another issue is John 3. Jesus opened the door to the kingdom for those who were born again. We have that same hope today...just not /immediately/ upon receipt of the initial gifts that come with salvation. Now I address some of the arguments for the re-offer view. 1. Theological argument. I appreciate the construction of theological cases for or against certain propositions, but this one is not convincing to me vis-a-vis the Biblical text. For instance, the assertion that "miracles are always associated with the kingdom" has a measure of truth to it, but I just cannot find a proposition in special revelation that supports it that strongly. 2. Waning of miracles. The gradual phasing out of miracles supposedly relates to the decline of the kingdom in Acts, since miracles and the kingdom are closely connected. It just seems to me that the kingdom was put on hold at the crucifixion, the Great Commission was active, the canon was being established, and the waning of miracles corresponded to the establishment of the canon rather than the decline of the kingdom. This has to do with the authenticating function of the miracles for the messengers of God (cf. Hebrews 2:4 and surrounding context). The fact that Paul could not heal Trophimus or Epaphroditus, or even himself, shows us nothing about the re-offer of the kingdom. It simply says that God was not pleased to extend the miracle of healing to every case of sickness. In fact, we know God had good reasons for not healing Paul; and He possibly healed Epaphroditus through normal means rather than miraculous ones. 3. Some of McClain's arguments are pretty persuasive, I admit. However, I do not think that the regal character of the Abrahamic covenant is very clear (p. 405 bottom). Neither is the prediction of the reoffer of the kingdom in Matthew 22:1-7 (p. 406 middle). The latter seems pretty remote. Neither is his argument about waning miracles in Acts (see above, and p. 409). Finally, I am not convinced by his statement that the gospel miracles would be sufficient proof for all time (p. 410 bottom), for the very reason that the apostles could plausibly use some further divine authentication now that Jesus was absent, to authenticate the new and different nature of their ministry. His argument fails to account for the miracles done around the Mediterranean by Paul. As I complete my thinking on the subject for the moment, I caution myself that any single unifying theme has its limitations. Whether it is covenant, or kingdom, the interpreter can fall into danger if he or she interprets everything in light of that one theme, and may end up finding things that are not really there. Mon, 14 May 2012 21:34:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/05/Kingdom-Reoffer-Acts-3 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/05/Bruce-Humdrum-Pastors-False-Teachers I noted this paragraph from F. F. Bruce when I was studying Hebrews 13:17: There would always be a tendency throughout the churches for visitors who came purveying new and esoteric doctrines to be regarded as much more attractive and interesting personalities than the rather humdrum local leaders, who never taught anything new, but were content with the conservative line of aposolitic tradition. Nevertheless it was those local leaders, and not the purveyors of strange teaching, who had a real concern for the welfare of the church and a sense of their accountability to God in this respect. If the discharge of their responsibility and the ultimate rendering of their account were made a burden to them, the resultant disadvantage would fall on those who were led as well as on the leaders. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Revised in NICNT. Eerdmans, 1990, pp. 385-6. Thu, 10 May 2012 16:17:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/05/Bruce-Humdrum-Pastors-False-Teachers https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/05/Not-OK-to-Give-on-a-Credit-Card Sometimes when I run into a topic for the third time or so, I have to write a post to "get it out of my system." Here's one such post. Should a church member give on a credit card? The Wall Street Journal Sunday edition (May 6, 2012) has a story entitled "Trust in the Lord...But Check Out the Church" by Veronica Dagher. A portion of it was: "While the couple was very committed to their church, they were also putting themselves in financial jeopardy by racking up debt by tithing on a credit card they weren't able to pay in full every month..." I would advise this couple to immediately stop giving on their credit card. In fact, I would discourage anyone from giving to their church on a credit card. I might be persuaded about giving on a debit card because that draws from money the couple already has, but the transaction fees are an unnecessary waste of donated funds for the minor increase in convenience. A better method is to give using personal check, cash, or an automated bill-pay through your bank. Some object to credit-card giving because it feels impersonal or the church gets charged a transaction fee (see Is it OK to Tithe With a Credit Card?). I object because giving on borrowed funds is not Biblical. The principle that underlies my advice is this: "For if there is first a willing mind, it is accepted according to what one has, and not according to what he does not have" (2 Corinthians 8:12 NKJ). In other words, giving should come from money that you already have. God happily accepts giving of that sort. Verse 11 reiterates the encouragement to give according to the means that you have. Giving should not come from prospective money that you have not yet earned, because you have no way of knowing if you will actually earn it. James 4:15 reminds us that the future is in the hands of God and we have to conduct ourselves accordingly. This is the main reason that I do not support the "faith-promise" method of missionary support. I suppose the "if" clause that is inherent in the faith-promise is the escape hatch, but we simply do not know what we will earn. Instead, we encourage people to work, earn a living, and from what they take in each pay period, carefully think through what they should give. Planning ahead is fine, as is planning a certain percentage of your income to give. One more thing, while I'm on the subject of giving. The tithe may be an appropriate level of giving. However, the tithe is not mandated for the New Testament Christian. For those that are destitute, 10% may be too much to give if they cannot meet their basic needs. That doesn't let anyone off the hook, because just about everyone can give something (maybe money, maybe time, or something else). But for those who are wealthy, giving a tithe would be sinfully stingy. Whether a lot or a little, just don't give on a credit card! Thu, 10 May 2012 11:30:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/05/Not-OK-to-Give-on-a-Credit-Card https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/05/Abortion-and-Maternal-Mortality-Ratio A common argument for keeping abortion legal is that if it were made illegal, many pregnant mothers would die from clandestine abortions, otherwise known as "coat hanger" or "back alley" abortions. A new study of the maternal mortality ratio in Chile disproves this unproven propagandist assertion. Dr. Elard Koch and colleagues have written a study entitled Women's Education Level, Maternal Health Facilities, Abortion Legislation and Maternal Deaths: A Natural Experiment in Chile from 1957 to 2007. Chile has outlawed basically all abortions since 1989. Yet, Koch concludes his article with these telling sentences: "Finally, prohibition of abortion in Chile did not influence the downward trend in the maternal mortality ratio. Thus, the legal status of abortion does not appear to be related to overall rates of maternal mortality." Translation: if you make abortion illegal, you are not therefore necessarily going to raise the number of mothers who die from clandestine abortions. I'm thankful for evidence-based medicine concluding, in this case, the same thing we know intuitively. Making abortion illegal will not cause mothers to flock to back alleys to potentially harm themselves. Their self interest will help them be more responsible about their sexual activity, and also encourage them to give birth to children they have conceived. Making abortion illegal has the added benefit of protecting another segment of the population: the unborn! For further reading, check out the following: Chilean Study Proves that Outlawing Abortion Does Not Lead to "Coat-hanger Deaths" A ground-breaking abortion study from Chile, an interview with Dr. Koch Thu, 10 May 2012 09:26:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/05/Abortion-and-Maternal-Mortality-Ratio https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/05/Martuneac-Bing-Apostasy Last month, Lou Martuneac re-posted an article by Charlie Bing entitled The Christian and Apostasy (original available here). He then briefly pulled the post, wrote a clarifying post, and put the original back into place. The clarification that he wrote was helpful, but it leaves something to be desired. Primarily, the lay reader has to wonder how Bing's view is any different than the crossless gospel that Martuneac has inveighed against for years (and rightly so). If there is substantially no difference, then why doesn't Martuneac call the spade a spade? The paragraph that caused Martuneac the most consternation was Bing's conclusion: As Christians we can depart from the faith, deny the faith, or stop believing in Christ as our Savior. But since the security of our salvation depends on God's faithfulness, not our own, we can never lose eternal life. A Christian may leave the faith, but God never leaves the Christian. Apostasy from the faith does not forfeit salvation, though it will forfeit future rewards. Let me ask a question of Bing: Is that really what you mean? Is there really such a thing as a Christian person who denies the faith, who ceases believing, or, as you suggest of the widows in 1 Timothy 5:14-15, who follows Satan? How can a believer not believe? How can a person who follows Christ stop following and instead follow Satan? Are these short, temporary lapses, like Peter's denial, or are you suggesting that a believer can permanently cease believing? In the absence of any other qualifying statements, it seems as if Bing really does believe what he wrote in that conclusion. Given that assumption, I have to conclude that Bing is in serious conflict with God's Word. Nowhere in Scripture are such boldface statements supporting apostasy ever made. Bing's theological system may indeed demand such conclusions, but the Scripture never clearly teaches that "true Christians can leave the faith." If anything, it rather clearly teaches that "true Christians never leave the faith" (Hebrews 3:14). Bing's article goes wrong in its interpretation of the texts listed in the first section: Peter denied the Lord. Luke 22:34, 54-62 God’s chosen nation, Israel, stopped believing. Rom. 3:1-3; 10:16-21. The apostle Paul predicts apostasy in later times. 1 Tim. 4:1-3 The warning of First Timothy 4:16 implies a Christian can depart from the faith. There were widows in the church who “turned aside to follow Satan.” 1 Tim. 5:14-15 The apostle Paul describes false teachers who strayed from the faith. 1 Tim. 6:20-21 Those who deserted the apostle Paul and opposed him (2 Tim. 1:15; 4:9-10, 14-16) are to be gently instructed so that they can escape the snares of Satan. 2 Tim. 2:24-26. Hymenaeus and Philetus strayed from the truth. 2 Tim. 2:17-18 -Those in error can overthrow the faith of others. 2 Tim. 2:18 The book of Hebrews addresses those who were in danger of leaving the faith. Heb. 2:1-3; 3:12; 6:4-6; 10:26-39; 12:25 His interpretation of these texts is in the following sentence: "It is clear from the passages listed above that those who apostasize are true Christians..." He has missed the mark quite badly in so saying. Of all the examples he cites, Peter and Timothy are the only "clear" cases of Christians. Unbelieving Israel to whom he refers did not consist of saved people. The end-times apostates are non-Christians. Widow-followers of Satan are not clearly "true Christians." False teachers are not clearly Christians. Those who turned away from apostolic teaching are not clearly Christians. Those with shipwrecked faith and those with heretical teaching such as Hymenaeus and Philetus are not "clearly" Christians. Those addressed in Hebrews were not all clearly Christians, particularly because there were those who departed in contrast to those of whom the author was convinced of better things, and things that accompany salvation (6:9). After making this mistake, Bing's article goes off in an entirely wrong direction. Little further analysis is needed. But what should we do who wish to adhere closely to God's revealed doctrine of salvation in the Bible? We ought to remind ourselves that apostasy is not okay. It is deadly, and we must heed the warnings of Scripture very carefully. Straying from something does not necessarily mean one really embraced it; rather, it can very well mean that the embrace was not a genuine one at all. Tue, 08 May 2012 17:06:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/05/Martuneac-Bing-Apostasy https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/05/We-are-Still-in-Business Just over a year ago, there was a lot of news on Rob Bell's book Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. In an opinion piece out at the time last April, Time Editor Bill Saporito suggested that the evangelical's business plan was threatened by Bell's thesis that denied the reality of Hell as it has been traditionally taught by evangelicals. Saporito's article is a very crude, money-centered, and uninformed way of looking at the whole question. For instance, he writes, "Part of the deal, at least in practical application, is that you can't get spiritually right without monetarily supporting the church. Pay to play, in other words." So which evangelical out there preaches that you have to pay in order to get to Heaven? Were someone to preach that way, they could not legitimately use the evangelical label. What of the relational aspect of Christianity? Where does Saporito consider God—doesn't He have something to say about all this? To his credit, Saporito writes, "The adverse reaction to Bell's hell among some Evangelical leaders is based first on deeply held belief, not economic consequences." That's right. We don't care about the economic consequences. What is true is true, whether or not it is popular or economically viable. I can say that our church, for one, is still in business. Bell has not prevailed against the true church. By God's grace, we shall continue to stand for the truth, Hell included. Tue, 08 May 2012 16:22:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/05/We-are-Still-in-Business https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/04/How-to-do-a-Mailing-Part-2-Update Back on April 6 I wrote about our mass mailing to homes in our neighborhood. Here's a bit of an update. As far as positive response, we had several visitors come out to the Easter worship service. One came back over the next couple of weeks for the teaching series on the resurrection that began on Easter. We also had someone from a neighboring community who saw our website and who was interested in the content of the series. We have had almost as much negative response as we've had positive response. Our negative respondents consist mainly of atheists who do not want to receive our mailing, or who want to tell us how foolish we are to believe in the resurrection. We have corresponded with them to challenge their presuppositions, but that usually doesn't go very far. Overall we have had better success with this mailing than with our previous two iterations. Does anyone have a list of best practices for church mailings? Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:12:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/04/How-to-do-a-Mailing-Part-2-Update https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/04/Good-News-Bad-News Some thoughts on the the gospel: The bad news is that we are sinners; the good news is that Jesus died for our sins; the bad news is that the wages of sin is death; the good news is that if we believe in Christ we will be forgiven all sins; the bad news is that before we are saved, we are enemies of God; the good news is that if we believe in Christ we are reconciled to God; the good news is that we can have a right standing before God; the bad news is that we are going to die; the good news is that Jesus rose from the dead so we can too; the good news is that the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ; the bad news is that punishment for sins will happen in the lake of fire; the good news is that Jesus is preparing a blessed place of rest for Christians in heaven; the bad news is that sin is our master before we are saved; the good news is that Jesus is our master after we are saved; the good news is that there is such good news! Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:48:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/04/Good-News-Bad-News https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/04/Good-Friday-not-an-Ordinance We normally have a Good Friday service at Fellowship Bible Church. Traditionally, we had it at noon. But work schedules are not as friendly to Good Friday as perhaps they used to be, so we shifted last year to a 7pm service. It seems to work well. What I noticed this year (not that it was new, just new to me) is that there are lots of people who regard Good Friday (or Easter, or Christmas) as far more important than "normal days." I try to give latitude to those who esteem one day more highly than another (Romans 14:5-6). Personally, I bias toward the opposite end of the spectrum, like the one who considers every day alike. But what we cannot do is to elevate Good Friday to a place higher than the ordinance of the Lord's Table. I made that point in the opening remarks of the Good Friday service, and I know it took at least one person off guard. The Good Friday service has become for some people a way, if not the most important way of remembering our Lord's death. Do you think things like "I really have to be at church on Good Friday." Do you think the same way about the first Sunday night of every month when your church gathers for the Lord's Table? Which is more important--the ordinance or the special day? I simply reminded our church that there are only two ordinances--water baptism by immersion and the Lord's Table. The second one of those is the Lord's appointed way for us to remember His death until He comes. Holidays do not rise to the level of an ordinance! Thu, 19 Apr 2012 12:21:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/04/Good-Friday-not-an-Ordinance https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/04/Comment-on-Brandenburd-Opposition-to-Combs Kent, Regarding your post at The Actual History of King James Onlyism pt. 1, I tried to post a comment around April 11, and again on the 13th, but perhaps they didn't make it to you. Below is the substance of it. In the interest of public criticism, as you suggested in your post today, I'm putting this out there to see if it might be of help to you. Here goes... Your case has a logical flaw. Combs states that there were a few "odd" individuals who claimed perfection for the KJV. In your rebuttal, you quote three sources as if they are not "odd" individuals who support your view of perfection of the KJV. They might not be odd, but they are most certainly not making a case for KJV perfection. If you look at each quote, what they basically say is that each group decided to use the KJV and to circulate it as their standard. The fact that they did not see a need to correct it, nor wanted to use resources to correct it, nor saw a need to add notes or comments, is not proof that they thought it was a perfect translation. They seemed to think it was a very good translation and they focused their attention on things other than re-translating. They were interested in distribution, not translation. Similarly, a church today can decide on a standard translation without necessarily meaning that they believe in the perfection of that translation. Do you think I am missing something? Wed, 18 Apr 2012 22:20:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/04/Comment-on-Brandenburd-Opposition-to-Combs https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/04/Episcopal-Church-and-Homosexuality August 6, 2003 News Summary Minneapolis, Tuesday, Aug 5, 2003: The Episcopalian Church yesterday elected Rev. Canon V. Gene Robinson to the New Hampshire Diocese. He is now the first openly gay bishop of that denomination. The vote was by the Episcopal general convention. He was previously the assistant to the New Hampshire bishop. He is a divorced father of two, currently living with a male partner. Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, head of the church, said the bishops voted 62-45 to confirm Robinson's election. Two bishops abstained, but their ballots under church rules were counted as "no" votes. The Episcopal Church, with 2.3 million members, is the U.S. branch of the 77 million-member global Anglican Communion. The vote is causing quite a stir among conservatives of that denomination. The Episcopalian denomination has for some time accepted gay and lesbian people into its fellowship. Listen to the same article: "Robinson said he attended a gathering of gay Episcopalians Tuesday night where some were in tears, saying their gay children had called to tell them they would now return to the church." Or, "Later this week, the Episcopal convention is expected to consider a measure on drafting a same-sex blessing ceremony." In an interview Wednesday [August 6, 2003], Robinson said he hoped his critics would not leave the church, though he disagrees with their view that gay sex violates Scripture. "I think they're wrong about this," he said. "I think they'll come to know that they are wrong, in this life or the next one." (Election of Gay Bishop Prompts Walkout, By RACHEL ZOLL, AP Religion Writer). Commentary This decision is only one further step in the downward spiral that the Episcopalian denomination (among others) is taking in its apparent effort to keep up with the ways of the world: note the Supreme Court decision in June overturning Texas' sodomy laws, and recent Canadian movements toward legalization of homosexual marriage. Certainly we are in the midst of a great movement away from the truth of God, as Paul tells Timothy in 1 Tim 4:1-3; 2 Tim 3:1-5, 13, 4:3-4. It is unfortunate that we must even talk of these things (Eph 5:12) but in the interest of declaring the "whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27) we will reproduce here the Biblical teaching on the issue of homosexuality. Let it be emphatically said that the critics of Robinson are not wrong. Homosexuality is clearly condemned in the Scriptures as immoral, ungodly, wicked behavior. The following paragraphs show this from five clear texts in the Bible. Note well that these are the clear teachings of the Bible, not of a radical man or denomination. Lev 18:22, 20:13. "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination...If there is a man who lies with a male as those who life with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood-guiltiness is upon them." The Mosaic law clearly prohibits homosexuality as something that is detestable. The law, as an expression of the holy will of God for the Jews, contains principles are clearly applicable to us today. While we do not have a civil law which functions as it did in Israel, i.e. the punishment today for such behavior is obviously not the death penalty, we do understand that God hates this practice, as he hates all sin. Rom 1:26-27. "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." If some should argue that the Mosaic law has passed out of force in this age of grace, they would be correct. But they would not be correct to use this as an argument supporting homosexual behavior, for it is again condemned here, in the New Testament epistles. Paul carries the principle forward "from the creation of the world" (verse 20) all the way to the present (vs. 32) where he uses present tense verbs to speak of those who "know the ordinance of God...practice such things...they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them." So, the Episcopal church has given approval to one who is practicing homosexuality. Such is a double-sin: one of allowing the sin and another of promoting the sin. Paul is very clear in Romans that such behavior, first of all, is sourced in what the NASB calls "degrading passions." These are the evil lusts or passions which drive lesbian and homosexual behavior. These passions are only genetic in the sense that sin is genetic, i.e. all people are born with a sin nature. They are not a disease in the classic sense of that term; instead they come from the "disease" called sin. Such behavior, secondly, is unnatural. The word used in Greek indicates that which is inborn or native, according to the laws of nature and the created order. There are plain physical indications of the order of God's creation, and homosexual behavior violates these. Such behavior, thirdly, is indecent. This word means shameful, unseemly. These ideas do not lend themselves to support of homosexual behavior in the least. Such behavior, fourthly, is error. This word has two related ideas. The first is a straying from truth or orthodoxy. Such behavior is indeed a departure from that which is right. Additionally, the word for "error" means deception. Many have deceived themselves into thinking that homosexuality is either natural, a preset human condition, a valid choice, or "ok for someone else but not for me." No! In fact, it is error. It is sin. Deception often comes, as in this case, by setting up a human standard (in our own autonomous minds) as opposed to looking to God's perfect standard. Such behavior, fifthly, leads one into the judgment of God. This is indicated in the phrase "God gave them over to degrading passions" and they "receiv[ed] in their own persons the due penalty of their error." This is more than God permitting them to sin, because He had permitted sin already at the Fall. It is also more than God's withholding of his goodness, for the gospel is available to all today; none can say that God is not good. This judgment is God's confirming of the wicked in their lifestyle and His allowing them to experience the full penalty (temporal and eternal) of their error. These are indeed weighty words for those who are caught in such practice. For you Christians out there, this ought to burden your soul to witness to those caught in such behavior, to save a soul from death (James 5:20). 1 Cor 6:9. "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals..." The word for effeminate refers to pedophilia and generally to homosexuality. The word "homosexuals" is translated by the KJV as "abusers of self with mankind." This means a sodomite or homosexual. Very clearly Paul is calling out these, among other sexual sins, as violations of God's will. 1 Tim 1:9-10. "...realizing the fact that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching." Here again the word for homosexual is used. Note that all of these deeds are paralleled with each other as being lawless and rebellious. They are all "contrary to sound teaching." Sure, teachers go about today saying cultural norms dictate that Paul is outmoded or a bigot or a homophobe. Not at all. In fact, Paul says that some of the Corinthians were saved out of such sin. He thanked God for them (1 Cor 1:4) and he sent his love to them in the final verse of his first letter (1 Cor 16:24). Far from a homophobe, Paul was instead a sin-o-phobe. He wanted to see all men come to the obedience of the faith (Rom 1:5) and to be delivered from the power of darkness (Acts 26:18). This is God's continuing desire today (2 Peter 3:9). The case is quite clear that Rev. Robinson is wrong. Pray for him to realize this soon. A follow-up article can be read at The New York Times. Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:14:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/04/Episcopal-Church-and-Homosexuality https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/04/How-to-do-a-Mailing-Part-2 We tried again--our third iteration. This time, we wanted to try a 8.5 x 11 size on glossy card stock, color printed on both sides. We had an idea for a design that a man in our church turned into a beautiful layout in a high resolution PDF file: Our intended target was the Ann Arbor community. Instead of targeting families with children (our first mailing), or new movers (our second mailing), we elected to send to every residential address on certain routes. Our budget allowed us to mail almost 17,000 pieces to homes in two zip codes that are near the church building. We will have to do three more mailings to reach all of Ann Arbor. We hope to do that eventually. The design is a basic invitation to our Resurrection Sunday services, but adds a twist--an invitation to a short series on the topic of the resurrection that we hope will be attractive for some people to come and hear our take on it from the Bible, to hear about objections to the resurrection and answers to those objections, and to be able to participate by asking questions. The back of the card also includes a brief statement of "where we are coming from" in our approach to the question, which effectively presents the core gospel truths in a succinct format. By this means, we intend to put a basic gospel message (a 'tract' if you will) into every home. At least they will have that even if they do not elect to come to the church meetings. We had a few extra prints that the mail service company sent to us. These we posted around town and handed out as individual invitations. What was surprising to us was that even with the larger size (8.5x11 versus 9x6 inch), the printing and postage was cheaper than the last time by about 4 cents per piece. The total price for everything (other than our volunteered in-house graphics work) was 18.4 cents per piece. We did not have to purchase a mailing list for this mail because we used the Post Office's Every Door Direct Mail program which delivers mail to every residence on selected postal routes. We also did not have to pay the separate non-profit application and permit fee because we had previously been authorized as a non-profit mailer with the post office. The mailing service company is allowed to use their own permit with our non-profit status to get the non-profit rate of about 7 cents per piece (as opposed to around 14 cents otherwise). Postal people sometimes call this a "ghost" permit. I don't believe in ghosts, but I like what they did for us this time :-). Now, how about results? Well, the invitation was for Easter services, so I cannot tell you yet. What I can tell you is that we have gotten several positive responses already, and we expect to be seeing at least a few new people on Sunday. We are thankful for that. I hope to report back later on what ends up happening. Fri, 06 Apr 2012 16:18:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/04/How-to-do-a-Mailing-Part-2 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/03/The-Lamp-the-Spirit-and-Hermeneutics I received a question via email as to what the lamp in the tabernacle represents (Leviticus 24:1-4). The inquirer suggested that it may represent the work of the Holy Spirit. My response was as follows: The lamp has been variously identified. I believe the oil has been identified with the Holy Spirit, and the light of it has been identified with the Word of God (Psalm 119:105, for instance). At best, however, these are only analogies. Now, analogies are often helpful for understanding and I don't discard them entirely. But I am unable to think of a Bible text that teaches any typological relationship between the tabernacle lamp and some other New Testament person, idea, or event. The question really boils down to a hermeneutical question. In the absence of a specific revelatory proposition that makes an identification, I cannot identify a relationship between the lamp and anything else. In other words, when Leviticus 24:1-4 talks about the lamp of the tabernacle, it represents...the lamp of the tabernacle! That's what plain, literal, normal hermeneutics would guide us to realize. The words do not represent a hidden spiritual truth. The meaning of the words is plainly written. Now, if Hezekiah 14:45 were to say, "Christ is that lamp of the tabernacle," then I would have to deal with that revelation. Absent that, I am not required to hunt for a deeper meaning. Why should we believe there is no hidden meaning? Because, first of all, God intended to communicate something, and hidden truth does not communicate well. In Lev. 24, God desired to tell the priests how to arrange the operation of the tabernacle. If God had wanted to teach something about the Spirit, He would have done so openly and plainly (I leave room for parables and so forth here). Second, hidden meanings (if there were any) can only be extracted by certain "interpretation experts," yet these experts often differ as to their conclusions. Who is right? Third, if you (generic use of 'you') make a specific identification of what the lamp represents, then you are going beyond what Scripture explicitly teaches. How could you then stand in front of the church and say "this means that, and this is the application of what is represented..." with any level of certainty? The person listening would have to wonder where in the world you got the idea from. This brings up a fourth objection to hidden meanings, and that is that preaching them provides a bad example of Bible study to the Christians listening to the preaching. Hope that is helpful. --MAP Wed, 21 Mar 2012 14:39:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/03/The-Lamp-the-Spirit-and-Hermeneutics https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/03/Preaching-of-Jesus-in-Acts Reading through the book of Acts lately, I have been struck by the preaching of the gospel in the early chapters. These first Christian sermons talk about sin and forgiveness and repentance (2:38, 3:19), but they focus even more upon the identity and activity of our Lord. Here are some examples: Jesus: attested by God through miraculous signs, 2:22, 4:30 Jesus: delivered up and crucified, 2:23 Jesus: raised from the dead, 2:24 Jesus: made Lord and Messiah, 2:36 Jesus: glorified by God after being delivered and denied by the people, 3:13-14 Jesus: the prince of life, killed and raised again, 3:15 Jesus: the name by which miraculous healings in Acts were performed, 3:16, 4:10 Jesus: the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, 3:18 Jesus: coming again to restore all things, 3:20-21 Jesus: the message of resurrection from the dead for all people, 4:2 Jesus: the only one by whom someone can be saved from sin, 4:12 Jesus: the focal point of opposition from Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles, and the Jews, 4:27 Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:42:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/03/Preaching-of-Jesus-in-Acts https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/03/Easy-Believism-in-PCA The Trinity Review had a good article by Timothy F. Kauffman critiquing what I would call a cheap grace or easy believism version of Reformed theology being promoted by some well-known PCA pastors. The article is entitled "Sanctification, Half Full: The Myopic Hermeneutic of the 'Grace' Movement, Part 1" (Trinity Review, no. 304). It reviews the positions of Steve Brown at RTS, Tullian Tchividjian at Coral Ridge Presbyterian in Florida, and Tim Keller at Redeemer Presbyterian in New York. Kauffman claims that these men are promoting a passive approach to sanctification that in fact merges sanctification into past justification, eliminating the active participation of the believer in his sanctification. This was interesting to me because it seems I have heard of a debate like this in another circle some time ago...Also, based on Kauffman's review and quotes, their teaching seems to me to have some ideas in common with so-called exchanged life teaching. Thu, 15 Mar 2012 12:21:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/03/Easy-Believism-in-PCA https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/02/Extending-Logic-of-Abortion The UK Telegraph reported earlier today on a fresh rendition of an old idea: if abortion is OK, then so is killing young infants. The report covers an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics entitled "After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?" The authors write, "The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual." Thus they extend the logic of abortion to cover infants outside of the womb. How can anyone doubt the parallel pro-lifers make of abortion to the Nazi extermination of Jews, or the treatment of Dred Scot and his brethren as non-persons? I suppose I could spend a lot of time rebutting the article, but in the end, one of our church members is right: not much needs to be said. This article reflects the sick minds of people who are dead in their transgressions. They profess themselves to be wise but show themselves to be fools. Anyone that thinks it is OK to kill a baby is an extremely dangerous person promoting extremely dangerous ideas. Their ideas are so morally corrupt that they ought not to be given a hearing. --MAP Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:00:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/02/Extending-Logic-of-Abortion https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/02/Cultivating-Humility I was invited a week ago to bring a message on "Cultivating Humility" for the seminary students at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. I enjoyed the visit and the opportunity to think on the subject of humility, though I am no expert on it! Let me share a couple of key points from my message to the students. First, I noted that by obeying 1 Peter 5:7 (casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you) we demonstrate humility under the mighty hand of God. To the extent that we keep our cares to ourselves, we are showing that much pride, as if we can handle all our problems apart from God's provision. Second, I mentioned how extensively humility and its opposite, pride, show up in our systematic study of God's Word. These ideas touch the doctrines of sin, Satan, salvation, sanctification, the church, Jesus Christ, and the Triune God. Pride is sometimes called the very essence of sin; Satan sinned through pride; salvation rescues us from our own pride and requires humility to receive; sanctification is, in part, about the gradual removal of pride; the church is often upset by Diotrephes types who love to have first place; Jesus is the best example of humility; and God hates pride. Third, I explained how God will exalt the lowly. The Bible mentions in many places how God will bring down the proud and lift up the humble. But He does not lift up the humble to the place that the proud would like to have. Rather, 1 Peter 5:5 says just how God will exalt the humble—He does so by giving them grace. We don't need the fame or fortune that a self-centered proud person wants. Humble believers have the grace of God in salvation, sanctification, eternal life, a future dwelling with God, and all the other grace-based blessings that accompany our salvation. We don't want to take the low road to things that proud people want; rather we will receive exaltation by being given the very grace of God. What else could we really need?! Finally, I emphasized that we must be diligent to exercise humility in all our relationships, whether toward our pastors (1 Peter 5:5), toward everyone (1 Peter 5:5), and especially toward God (1 Peter 5:6). –MAP Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:37:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/02/Cultivating-Humility https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/02/Church-Ministry-Seminar Tri-Lakes Baptist Church is hosting a Church Ministry Seminar on Saturday February 25 from 9am to 3pm. They have graciously invited our church, and a number of others as well. It is geared toward local church workers, such as Sunday school teachers, not just pastors. Please find more information on it by clicking the flyer below. Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:52:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/02/Church-Ministry-Seminar https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/02/Sexual-Abuse-Everywhere Some months back 20/20 did a report on so-called "IFB" churches (Independent, Fundamental, Baptist Churches) regarding allegations of sexual abuse and cover-ups by some leaders in those churches. The scandal in the Catholic church continues to rage on. Then there was the Penn State debacle with Jerry Sandusky that took down head coach Joe Paterno. What could be next? Well, a couple of stories right here in Ann Arbor have hit the news lately. The first happened at the University of Michigan Medical Center. The second, at a local elementary school. Here are some links if you want to read up on them: University of Michigan hospital situation Eberwhite Elementary lawsuit and follow-up article Just this morning another story of the same sordid sort was in the news in the Los Angeles schools. To add further evidence of the massive problem, the CDC recently reported that one in five women in the U.S. have been raped (page 20 of this PDF report). As I reviewed all these facts, a few thoughts came to mind. First, what in the world is going on? The frequency of these incidents, in all kinds of venues, is ridiculous. Our society is so debased. Second, I have small children. What do I do in order to help protect them? Third, what are best practices for our church and schools to prevent and to handle such cases? Fourth, I noticed that even though the religious institutions have taken a beating in the press, the problem is far more widespread than just some perverts in churches. Big secular institutions are being hit with this as well. One common thread in many of these cases is the delay in reporting to the police. That is a bad mistake, and one that we need to resolve not to repeat. In some of the cases mentioned above, authorities were contacted, but they might not have been the right authorities. If we are in "management" and something like this comes to our attention, we cannot hide it, shelve it, or ignore it. The people below us on the authority ladder may not know exactly what to do, or may be apprehensive about getting involved. We can exercise appropriate leadership by being actively involved in reporting the incident and encouraging them to be as well. A call to the police with the person who has told us of the incident would be a good start. Hopefully we will find out about the problem in a timely manner. We must do things right in the sight of the Lord, as well as in the sight of men (2 Corinthians 8:21). Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:52:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/02/Sexual-Abuse-Everywhere https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/02/How-to-do-a-Mailing Direct mailings are not a panacea marketing solution for churches. They lack a personal connection with the recipient, but they can serve well to introduce a church to a large part of the population in a city. That is what we wanted to do late last year. We did one mailing a couple of summers back that did not turn out very well, as far as cost and response. So we did a bit more research and made a better attempt the second time. This is far from a "best practices" document, but here are some things we found. Step 1. Decide on what size piece you will use in your mailing. We decided on a 9x6 inch card, with color printing on both sides. There is such a dizzying array of possibilities as far as size of the piece and postage costs that it is helpful to just pick a size and run with it. This reduces the universe of possibilities to a manageable size. Step 2. You need to get a sample card layout that will help you know how much space you actually have. You can contact me for a PDF file sample, or obtain one from your mailing service provider. Step 3. It is important to think about your target audience in your crafting of the mailing to them. We decided that we wanted to let new movers know about the church. This told our mailing list provider how to extract data from their databases, and it guided us as to what to write on the mailing. If we were mailing to new college students, the mailing would look different. Of it it was a saturation mailing, to every address on many routes in the city, that would look different as well. Step 4. Once the size and layout is settled, along with the target audience, you can begin to figure out what will go on the card. We designed the text and features of the mailing with all of the above things in mind. Step 5. We decided to have the design of the card done "in house" because we have some talented people in that area. You might not. Likely your mailing service provider can provide help, or recommend someone who can. After several iterations using Photoshop, and going back and forth on the exact dimensions of where the address and stamp and so forth would go, we had a complete design. Step 6. Decide how many you can print/mail. Our mailing service provider could tell us the cost to print X number of cards, and how much the mailing and postage fees would be. We went back and forth with them before settling on printing and mailing 10,000 cards. This number fit our budget. The total per piece price (print, mailing list, and postage) was 22.4 cents per card. We thought that was a very reasonable cost given the number of homes we would be able to reach. We could not walk to that many homes in a reasonable amount of time using the volunteers in our small church. Beside the problem of limited resources, door-to-door work in our area (and in much of our American situation) has been ruined by the cults. We believe that we have to be more creative about reaching folks and the mailing was one way to do it. The mailing was sent in November of 2011. Did we see any results? Frankly, not many. Some folks contacted us with address information that was bad. This was itself an opportunity to have an interaction with those folks. One person on an anti-junk-mail crusade contacted us, so we had an opportunity to minister to that person through correspondence. We are not aware of anyone who has come to the church through the mailing. But then again, this was the first attempt. Mailing has to be done consistently and regularly for it to have an impact in a community. We plan to use mailings again in the future to keep our community aware of our ministry and to get the gospel into many homes. We have a Great Commission responsibility to do what we can with the resources God has given us, and this is one way among others for us to discharge that responsibility. Lots of personal invitations and flyers in common gathering places in Ann Arbor are other ways we use to reach the community. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 12:49:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/02/How-to-do-a-Mailing https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/02/Common-Law-Members-Part-4 Now, here comes a tough question. What about a common-law member who is errant in doctrine or practice? Can you exercise church discipline on such a person? The common answer I have heard is, "no" because they are not members, have not agreed to be bound by the "terms and conditions," and thus they can sue you if you publicize their sin to the church. That is a practical answer, but it is not Biblical. I do not see in Matthew 18:15-17 where official membership is part of the equation. "And if he refuses to hear them, and if he has signed a membership application, tell it to the church..." is not what the text says. The text is talking about a brother. If I could be allowed to make a distinction between a member and a believer, I would make it here. Practically there are situations where you have to be able to treat the errant brother as a believer even if he is not a member. Indeed, we share more in common with members of our church than generic believers, but we do share some things with believers, especially those who are attending our church. And one of those things we share is a responsibility to carry out the Biblical command of accountability through discipline, whether the person "signed on the dotted line" or not. All this was a factor in the origination of my "common-law" concept because I do not think it is appropriate for a person to be loosely joined to a church, not a member, and think that they can walk away any time things get a little sticky. Such situations are all too frequent. For example, person A is a member, and has abandoned any attendance at the meetings of the church. Person B is a non-member, but was attending all along as well, and then stopped. In the church meeting, we "discipline" person A by dropping him/her from the membership roll. Another member asks, "What about person B?" Good question. Person B is guilty of the same behavior, but B is treated differently just because his/her name was not on the list. But if common-law members are warned ahead of time that they will be treated as members on the discipline side of the equation, that might encourage them to consider the whole package of membership so they can partake of the benefits as well as the accountability aspect of it. Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:28:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/02/Common-Law-Members-Part-4 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/02/Common-Law-Members-Part-3 Our local church membership process is quite simple. We essentially ask the candidate to publicly answer four questions: Are you saved? Have you been baptized by immersion since you believed? Do you agree to subscribe to the doctrine and constitution of the church? And are you conducting yourself generally as a Christian? If a credible "yes" is given to all four questions, the church votes to receive the person into membership. Actually, our membership class explains all of this in great detail in four sessions, followed by a time of sharing testimonies with the church board. To those common-law members who may object to this simple process of membership, here are some thoughts: Isn't checking up on a person's salvation testimony a wise thing to do? Shouldn't we safeguard the gospel and the local church by asking a few select questions? Church discipline is a safeguard for the church after a member has entered; the membership questions form a safeguard for the church on the incoming side. Both are fallible processes, but shouldn't we make some attempt through a formal process? If the church membership is asked to vote in order to add a member, shouldn't they be assured that the person applying for membership is in agreement with them on the basics? Such agreement would have to be publicly testified for the church to accept it. So, what should we do about those who are not willing to publicly give a positive response to these four questions? Some people languish in that state so long that a third category like a common-law member seems practical, even if not ideal. Christians are not supposed to somehow float along with no connection to a church family. The fact is that these people share in many things of the church--worshiping, hearing the preaching of the Word, giving, sharing meals, doing mundane tasks around the church, their names are in the church directory, etc. Some things they cannot do, of course. The kicker for me is that as a pastor I feel some responsibility toward them, and I actually exercise shepherd oversight and care for them as much as possible. So, they are kind-of-members but not full members. Maybe they are being silly, or even sinful, in their refusal to commit to membership, but then again there are a lot of other ways our official members can be silly or sinful and the pastor still shepherds them. Thu, 02 Feb 2012 11:07:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/02/Common-Law-Members-Part-3 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/02/Common-Law-Members-Part-2 In my experience, people have a few reasons (excuses?) for refusing church membership: 1) A desire not to commit or not to be subjected to certain restrictions or conditions in the church; 2) A bad experience with a previous church; 3) An objection to membership on grounds of principle. Examples for each case, written from the first person perspective: 1) A church carries a heavy load of debt and I do not want to tie myself into that debt load and ethical responsibility to care for the debt. Or, I feel that certain conditions of membership are too restrictive or legalistic. 2) A previous church in my life burned me when the church went down a wrong path. The church lacked integrity in its selection of a pastor or other business matters. I do not want to be officially associated with or involved in that kind of situation again. 3) I do not believe the New Testament gives explicit instructions about how local church membership is to be done or even that there is such a concept. Or, Once I become a believer, I am automatically a member of the church through which I was saved. I am not justifying any of these reasons; I'm just saying they are thoughts in people's minds. Maybe the non-member wants the best of both worlds by basically being a member but not committing to membership; or the leadership wants the best of both worlds by counting the person as a member most of the time but when things get difficult they can simply write off the person without any public mention of it. Some of my Baptist readers may be flummoxed by this line of thought, but it is real. If you are a person who grew up in churches that do not have a substantive membership, or do not promote it (ahem, some Bible churches), or if you are very strongly opposed to extra-Biblical structures, you know what I am talking about. Wed, 01 Feb 2012 09:26:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/02/Common-Law-Members-Part-2 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/01/Common-Law-Members-Part-1 What is a common-law member? When I came up with the term, the idea that I had was this: a common-law member is a person who regularly attends our church, who does not have another church, who supports the church financially, who is not disgruntled with the church, but for whatever reason refuses to submit to a simple process of church membership. It is akin to a common law marriage, which Princeton's WordNet defines as "a marriage relationship created by agreement and cohabitation rather than by ceremony." There is no official ceremony, but the people agree to live together as married. With a common-law member, there is a level of agreement to participate in church together, even if there is not full agreement on the part of the membership or church leadership in the sense that they are not the happiest with the arrangement, but are content to "live with it." More later... Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:35:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/01/Common-Law-Members-Part-1 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/01/Privilege-Supporting-Missions It is still kind of amazing to me that believers can take money and turn it into ministry in their own church, or in global missionary efforts. Useless paper dollars can be transformed into the eternal salvation of human souls. Wow. Recently the Lord has allowed our church to begin regularly supporting a new missionary family in addition to the others that we have already been supporting. Our philosophy is not to support dozens and dozens of missionaries for small change every month. Rather, we want to have a select team and offer each family more substantial financial support. One of the other things that we were able to do to open 2012 was decide that we will temporarily increase all of our missionary support by 1/3. So, for the first half of 2012, instead of sending X to each missionary for the 6 month period, we are sending 1.33 * X. We decided to do this in light of the hard times that they are facing. I hesitated to write the previous paragraph, mainly because I don't want to be seen as tooting our own horn. And, I am supposed to preach a message on humility at DBTS in a couple of weeks! But I decided that this is not an individual-type thing where pride is puffing up an individual sinner. Instead, this is a church-type thing, and as a challenge to our brothers and sisters in like-minded churches, we think it is good to raise the level of support to the cause of missions rather than to cut it. Even Paul offered a financial challenge to his readers based on the generosity of other churches (2 Corinthians 8:1-3). Obviously, the recent state of the economy in Michigan may not allow everyone to rise to our challenge, but there are some churches who probably could. Consider some of our "tough" times in light of currency fluctuations and recessions in other countries and reduced support levels from US churches to missionaries overseas, and you can imagine the pinch some of them are feeling. Just this morning, a missionary wrote how their mission told them last week that they would be having an increase in their health insurance premiums. Surprise surprise! But this increase is not accompanied by an increase in support from their churches! We need to remember that the workers are worthy of their hire. They are not rightly in the work for the "hire," but they do need some "hire" to stay in the work. Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:05:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/01/Privilege-Supporting-Missions https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/01/Churches-Must-Address-Political-Questions The first sentence of Dr. Bauder's article "Let Me Tell You How to Vote" certainly captured my attention. It said, "Churches have no business addressing political questions." After reading the article a couple of times, I still was perplexed. Perhaps, I thought, he has simply made a too-broad statement that is inconsistent with the rest of his article. Maybe he purposefully said it with the intention of returning to the issue later to clarify things. Maybe he means something different by "political questions" than I do when I use that general phrase. Maybe the church is not supposed to address political questions, but the Christian academician is permitted to do so. The article is helpful, and one of the ways it was helpful was that it prompted me to think on the issues. Generally I agree with the principles Dr. Bauder puts forth. I differ in where I draw the line as far as principle and application, and this affects my summary statement. That is, churches have to address political questions because those questions often have some connection to Christian morality. So...here are some of my thoughts. I wondered if we would be having the discussion in the way that Bauder frames it if we did not have to concern ourselves with 501(c)(3) constraints. In other words, if we were given totally free religious speech, would we just "spit it out" and avoid the circumlocutions? When I say "circumlocutions," I am thinking of the ways in which Bauder frames his eight biblical concerns such that they are effectively recommendations on "who to [not] vote for" even though he writes in terms of "general principles." If you preach Bauder's list, most people are going to understand your message in light of the current political situation and candidates. Consider some of his concerns and how they would be "heard" by the contemporary audience: 1. Reputation for Integrity - Don't vote for Newt Gingrich. 2. Right to Life - Don't vote for Barack Obama, and maybe not for Mitt Romney either, and possibly not for Ron Paul either. 3. Rule of Law - Don't vote for Barack Obama, and maybe not for some of the other candidates because of their weak stand on the immigration issue. 4. Restraint of Evil - Don't vote for Barack Obama. 5. Respect for Property - Don't vote for Barack Obama or most other Democrats, nor many establishment Republicans. 6. Recovery of Moral Responsibility - ditto. 7. Recognition of Israel - Certainly don't vote for Barack Obama, and probably not for Ron Paul either. 8. Responsible Use of Nature - Don't vote for most everyone on the left. Now, as I said, I am in almost 100% agreement with Bauder's principles. However, in a sin-cursed world it is tough to apply them with 100% consistency. Maybe Rick Santorum is left standing after all these principles are applied, but maybe not. Couldn't we just say what we mean in terms of contemporary application instead of talking around it? Another thought on the point about integrity comes to mind. Bauder says "a man who will violate his marriage oath is one who will violate his oath of office." He does not say "a man who has violated his marriage oath in the past is necessarily of the same character now and will certainly violate his oath of office in the future." All men are inconsistent in some ways. Some would violate their oath toward their spouse but not toward their job. Others maybe have learned their lesson and do not want to repeat their past mistakes. Another thought: I would add a ninth biblical concern to Bauder's list. 9. Reduction of Debt by Paying it Off Fully. Proverbs 22:7 tells us that the borrower is slave to the lender, and Psalm 37:21 says that the wicked borrow and do not repay. The United States is currently a slave nation as well as a wicked nation in this regard. The continual piling up of yearly deficits into the national debt is morally wrong. The weak dollar policy that causes inflation, lessening the value of debt that is paid back on the same face value, is morally wrong as well. A default on sovereign debt would be morally wrong. And the surreptitious reduction of the purchasing power of savings held by our citizens by means of that same inflation is also morally wrong. The point about debt, then, brings me to my final thought. Bauder makes the popular appeal to downplay purely economic issues in one's decision to vote (the idea is "don't worry about your pocketbook, vote for life/integrity/property rights/etc.!"). The problem is that many economic issues are also moral issues. Most of the concerns enumerated by Bauder are not only spiritual concerns; they are also economic concerns; and they are also political concerns, at least in the common sense of the term "political." Since the Bible gives us wisdom for all areas of life, it does so also for political questions. In preaching the whole counsel of God, we will necessarily run into passages that have applications that deal with political questions. It is true that principles must guide our decisions as to how to vote, but these principles at some point have to come down to the level of application in answer to the question "who to vote for," or at least who not to vote for, as well. —MAP Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:14:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/01/Churches-Must-Address-Political-Questions https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/01/Childrens-Ministry-Entertain-or-Teach For those thinking about children's programs in the church, the following by Ken Ham is a helpful reminder: Sadly, many churches today make the mistake that we disciple adults but only entertain children; they don't teach our young people the "deep" things of the Christian faith because they believe children cannot understand much of it. But we are failing our children when we don't teach them the Word of God and give them answers in today's modern scientific world. Children in our churches are largely biblically illiterate, and they don't see Scripture as relevant in their lives. We shouldn't be surprised that two thirds of the young people growing up in the church will leave the church in their 20s (as we examine in our book Already Gone). Fri, 20 Jan 2012 20:19:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/01/Childrens-Ministry-Entertain-or-Teach https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/01/Great-Variety-in-the-Great-Commission Last weekend we had several missionaries in to speak to the church. It was a wonderful and refreshing time in which we could refocus on the Great Commission as the new year begins. We learned about missions work in limited access countries through the Internet, about Bible distribution, about the training of national pastors, and about translation of the Scriptures into some of the nearly 6700 languages that do not have any Bible translation. Not all of these ministries are "traditional" evangelistic and church planting ministries, but they are necessary to carry out the Great Commission. It is marvelous to think about how God uses so many different Christians in so many different ways, working together to accomplish the Great Commission to bring the gospel to the world. And then, to think that many of us can stay right where we are and participate in that work through prayer, financial support, and other service ministry—that's amazing! Join me in thanking God for His great work in the world. --MAP Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:03:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/01/Great-Variety-in-the-Great-Commission https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/01/2012-Bible-Reading-Schedule The Bible reading plans for 2012 are now available. There are three of them: Read the New Testament twice in 2012 Read the New Testament once in 2012 Read the Old Testament once 2012 Key chapters for young readers I hope you will read along with us. If not on this schedule, use some other schedule. This is how to hide God's Word in your heart. --MAP Sun, 01 Jan 2012 22:20:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2012/01/2012-Bible-Reading-Schedule https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/12/Baby-Zygote-Take-2 An esteemed theology professor contacted me with some concerns about my previous post. In particular, he questioned what I was saying about the beliefs of the believers at the Institute for Creation Research. It seemed that I should make a couple of clarifications. What the ICR video was doing was rehearsing Henry Morris's special creation view of the virgin birth: The Necessity of Special Creation Therefore, even though He was nurtured in Mary's womb for nine months and born without her ever knowing a man, it was also necessary for all this to have been preceded by supernatural intervention, to prevent His receiving any actual genetic inheritance through her. The body growing in Mary's womb must have been specially created in full perfection, and placed there by the Holy Spirit, in order for it to be free of inherent sin damage. Christ would still be "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3), because His body was nurtured and born of Mary, who was herself of the seed of David. He would still be the Son of Man, sharing all universal human experience from conception to death, except sin. He is truly "the seed of the woman" (Genesis 3:15), His body formed neither of the seed of the man nor the egg of the woman, but grown from a unique Seed planted in the woman's body by God Himself. That is, God directly formed a body for the second Adam just as He had for the first Adam (Genesis 2:7). This was nothing less than a miracle of creation, capable of accomplishment only by the Creator Himself. "That holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). The special creation view says that there is no "actual genetic inheritance" from Mary to Jesus. This is the main point to which I objected in my previous post. I believe that there is a real, organic connection between Jesus and Mary so that Jesus is a son of Adam, a son of Abraham, a son of David, a human being in the line of Davidic kings. But I also listed three other objections. The first one was as follows: First, it [the video] does not make clear that Joseph had absolutely no role in the parentage of Jesus. He was a bystander in that sense. Jesus was conceived and born of a virgin. In this first objection, I did not intend to suggest that ICR denies the virgin birth by including the involvement of Joseph. I understand that the believers at ICR do indeed champion the virgin birth and it seems obvious that they do deny any procreative involvement of Joseph. That said, my intention was to critique the special creation view by referring to the words used in the video. The video said: While Joseph and Mary were his earthly parents, the Bible says that Jesus was God's only begotten Son. To the theologically uninformed viewer of the video, to say that Jesus' earthly parents were Mary and Joseph leaves just a little bit to be desired. They were his earthly parents, but did not come to be so through the normal earthly means. The video, unfortunately, does not make explicit that Mary was a virgin, and I believe that it would have been better if it had. I could eliminate this objection, but maybe I should rather reword it: "The video should make clear that Jesus was born of a virgin and that Joseph was his adoptive father." There is no question that the late Henry Morris and the ICR folks believe this proposition. But it gets lost in the video's scientific discussion of zygotes and all the rest. My third objection included this sentence: They have no Biblical warrant to talk about a fully formed zygote with no connection to Mary or Joseph. Now, it is true that ICR has Biblical warrant to talk about the lack of connection to Joseph, but my point was not to suggest that they were implying a connection there. Rather, the point was again to use their own words and say that, on the whole, they have no warrant to talk about the virgin birth like that. The mention of zygotes, and the idea that there is absolutely no connection to Mary, seems to go beyond what the Bible teaches. So, I still would like to see ICR revise the video. They could say something like this: "But what about Jesus? The Bible says that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. Joseph was the adoptive father of Jesus, but God was His real Father. Since Jesus had to be sinless in order to die for our sins, the only thing He inherited from Mary was His human-ness. The Spirit of God ensured that, concerning His connection with Mary and the human nature and body that He received, that none of these contaminated Him with sin. This humanity added alongside His deity rendered Him the perfect God-man. Because of His connection to Mary, He could be a real human with a real connection to Adam, Abraham, David, and the Jewish nation from which He came. Jesus thus "inherits" characteristics from both God and Mary and has a resemblance to both God and humanity. His birth was a miraculous and unique event in history. And so we can celebrate Christmas knowing that our creator and savior arrived by miraculous means to live a miraculous life and accomplish a miraculous purpose." Hopefully all this wordiness does not make things worse! --MAP Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:55:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/12/Baby-Zygote-Take-2 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/12/Take-Down-That-Video The Institute for Creation Research has produced a series of neat little videos called That's a Fact! But the latest one, episode 7 (Baby Zygote), needs to be taken down and redone because it has a very serious theological error. Here is what the last half of the video says: "But what about Jesus? While Joseph and Mary were his earthly parents, the Bible says that Jesus was God's only begotten Son. He came completely from God. Some scientists think that the holy thing that was placed in Mary's womb was a fully formed zygote cell. Normally a zygote is made from two reproductive cells: one from the father, and one from the mother. But since Jesus had to be sinless, in order to die for our sins, He didn't inherit anything from either Mary or Joseph. Instead, Jesus inherited everything from His heavenly Father. His birth was a miraculous and unique event in history. And so we can celebrate Christmas knowing that our creator and savior arrived by miraculous means to live a miraculous life and accomplish a miraculous purpose." Do you notice anything theologically suspect here? Is it true that Jesus did not "inherit anything from either Mary or Joseph"? From whence came Jesus humanity then? Why didn't God just form Jesus like He formed Adam and put Him onto the earth for His public ministry? ICR's video promotes an unorthodox view of the virgin birth that calls into question Jesus' full humanity. They should take it down and redo it to make clear that Jesus has a true, organic connection to the human race through Mary, and that He is not a tertium quid. Besides, the video has other problems. First, it does not make clear that Joseph had absolutely no role in the parentage of Jesus. He was a bystander in that sense. Jesus was conceived and born of a virgin. Second, the video puts too heavy an emphasis on "scientists." Notice how many times the video refers to scientists. Where does it refer to the Bible? What is our authority here? How about referring to some theologians? Or how about mentioning what Christians have understood for centuries about the full humanity and deity of Jesus—part of what we call orthodoxy? Third, the video offers mere speculation. "Some scientists think that..." And this speculation is where they go wrong. They have no Biblical warrant to talk about a fully formed zygote with no connection to Mary or Joseph. Whenever we speculate, we can get into big trouble. Sure, our speculations may be right. But just as likely, perhaps more than likely given our sinful minds, our speculations can be wrong. Such is the case here. ICR has done some helpful things, but they should stick to science. Theology is not their forte. They have been historically KJV-only, they have often referred to the odd hermeneutical principle of first reference, they have taught that the gospel is found in general revelation, and with this video they are continuing to promote an unorthodox view of the humanity of Jesus Christ. (See an article by Henry Morris that promotes this special creation view of the virgin birth.) Be cautious when using their materials. --MAP Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:26:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/12/Take-Down-That-Video https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/11/Power-of-the-Question I assigned one of our men this past Wednesday evening to bring a message from God's Word after our corporate time of prayer. He spoke from Mark 10:17-22 about the rich young ruler. His message reminded me of the power of a question to engage the mind of the hearer in the message. Here are the introductory questions he asked: What kind of a ruler is this young man? Does his title (rich young ruler) tell us anything important? What is meant by "eternal life"? What's the significance of the discussion of what is "good"? Is there any significance to the specific commands Jesus mentions and the ones he leaves out? Is Jesus suggesting one can earn eternal life by keeping the commandments? Why does Jesus tell the ruler to sell everything and give to the poor in order to follow him? Is the giving away of possessions a universal requirement for all disciples? Why is it so hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of God? What is Jesus' primary challenge or message to the rich young man? Then, at the conclusion of the message and asked some more pointed questions: God sees into each of our hearts and knows very well the "one thing you lack." What might that be for you and me? Do we serve any personal idols? In what ways have we watered down the true cost of discipleship? What have we given up for the sake of the Kingdom of God? Are we trading treasures on earth for even greater treasure in heaven? Food for thought... Fri, 18 Nov 2011 16:32:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/11/Power-of-the-Question https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/10/Cheat-Sheet-for-Osteen I saw it too. The snippet of the Piers Morgan interview of Joel Osteen and his wife that was posted on Al Mohler's blog. Here is a cheat sheet that Osteen is welcome to borrow for the next interview. I've simplified the questions to get to the point. Question: Is capital punishment OK? Answer: God permits the governing authority to restrain evil by ending the life of certain criminals. I support capital punishment as long as it is coupled with strict rules of proof and evidence including multiple eyewitnesses, as specified in the Bible. Question: How can you support capital punishment and be against abortion since both, in your view, end a human life? Answer: The answer again goes back to the Ultimate Authority--God. God makes it clear that capital punishment is permissible and necessary as a consequence of some serious sins. The criminal is killed as a consequence of his sin; the unborn baby is killed for convenience or some other reason. So yes, capital punishment does kill someone, but it is not murder because it is the lawful taking of a human life, where the law we are talking about is God's moral law. Abortion is murder because it is the unlawful taking of a human life. God in the 10 commandments prohibits murder and thus prohibits abortion. Question: Is same-sex marriage sin? Answer: Yes. The Bible makes that very clear. Question: Would you ever marry two gay people? Answer: No. I couldn't participate in that sin. Besides, such a "ceremony" is not a marriage in the first place. Question: Would you ever attend a gay marriage? Answer: No. I could not support sin that way. Question: What if Texas brings in a law legalizes same-sex marriage? Answer: That doesn't change a thing in my view. The state would be wrong in that case. Same-sex marriage would be legal under Texas law, but it would still be immoral and a sin. Similarly, abortion is legal in the United States, but it is still a sin. Question: Shouldn't Scripture be dragged kicking and screaming in the modern age? Answer: No. Rather, we should submit ourselves to the authority of God rather than expecting Him and His word to bow to us. Thu, 13 Oct 2011 22:06:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/10/Cheat-Sheet-for-Osteen https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/10/Difference-Between-Holy-Spirit-Ministry-OT-NT Another question posed to me: "How was the Holy Spirit that was with early believers like Abraham, Moses or David different than the Holy Spirit living in me?" There is not a clear consensus on the answer to the question. 1. Some theologians say the Holy Spirit's ministry to believers is essentially the same in both testaments. 2. Others say there is a distinction between the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the OT and His ministry in the NT after Pentecost.      2a. Some make a hard distinction, so that the Spirit did not indwell OT believers at all; He came upon them and left them sometimes, but He permanently indwells NT believers.      2b. Some make a softer distinction, so that the Spirit did do something in OT believers but He does more in the NT believer. I believe (2b). Here's my explanation. a. The same Spirit is active in the lives of OT believers and NT believers. b. The Spirit of God did have a ministry to OT believers. Proverbs 1:23 suggests this. He worked in them to help them believe and guide them. This ministry falls somewhat short of what the Spirit does in our lives today. c. The Spirit of God has an extensive ministry in NT believers and in the church. He baptizes believers into the body of Christ and into Christ (1 Cor. 12:13 and Gal. 3:27). That Spirit-baptism ministry was promised by John the Baptist (Matt. 3:11) and by Jesus (Acts 1:5). Peter recalled it in Acts 11:16-17 as happening in the past, so we know it first happened after John the Baptist but before Acts 11. I pinpoint it as actually happening in Acts 2 at Pentecost. It was not something the Spirit did for OT believers, because there was no body church for them to be baptized into. d. The Spirit also indwells every NT believer from the time of salvation. If someone does not have the Spirit, that person is not a believer (Rom. 8:9). He also teaches us (1 John 2:20, 27), guides us (Rom. 8:14, Gal. 5:18), prays for us (Rom. 8:26), seals us (Eph. 4:30), and other things. e. To summarize, I believe that the Spirit baptizes and indwells every believer in this age. Those specific ministries were NOT done by the Spirit in the OT era even though He was active in the lives of believers in "lesser" ways. f. Take caution when studying the book of Acts. It explains things that happened, but what happened was not necessarily the "normal" for the entire church age. Acts is a book of transition from the OT to the NT era. We express this by saying that "not everything in Acts is 'normative,' that is, not everything teaches the normal pattern of how things are." For instance, sometimes you see someone saved in Acts, but the Spirit does not come into them until sometime after their salvation. What happens today is that the Spirit indwells every believer from the moment they are saved. g. In terms of application, many of us do not really understand what we have as Christians in terms of God's Spirit. The spiritual resources available to us are amazing, yet we grieve the Spirit and often don't walk in the Spirit. What are we doing!!!??? Sat, 01 Oct 2011 17:10:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/10/Difference-Between-Holy-Spirit-Ministry-OT-NT https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/10/Theistic-Evolution-a-Dangerous-Error That is the question I received. Here is my reply: Theistic evolution is not eternally fatal, as are other deviations such as a denial of salvation by faith alone or the deity of Christ or His substitutionary work. Those are the "fundamentals." However, theistic evolution is an error. For a short time I used to hold to that back in college. But I quickly realized the conflict of that position in light of the Scriptures. The plain reading of the text is that God created everything directly, and in a short amount of time (six days). Read Exodus 20:11 if you have any doubts on the latter point. Genesis 1 is very clear that God spoke "and it was so." There was no delay between His speaking and the fulfillment. Someone who reads the Biblical text as if it allows for theistic evolution gives us a signal that they will read other texts of Scripture that way. What other clear doctrines will they deny? They may not be taking the text very seriously at all. This may (I say "may") lead to symptoms like worldliness. Sat, 01 Oct 2011 17:02:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/10/Theistic-Evolution-a-Dangerous-Error https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/08/Art-Fair-Evangelism-Report Our church sent out a small crew to the Ann Arbor Art Fair last month to do some evangelistic work. The reports I received back were encouraging to me, and so I thought I would share them with you. Some minor edits have been made, including omitting of personal names. L_______ writes: Hi all, I just wanted to get going on reporting about our time out on Saturday at the Art Fair, as we mentioned we would do... As we set out for the Diag, we were somewhat surprised to find it less populated in the grassy areas than expected during Art Fair. We first approached a young woman who was on her lunch break from work/school. She was super friendly and when we asked her if she'd like to talk about faith she quickly reassured us that she's a Christian and attends a Lutheran church regularly and she and her parents do Awana, etc. She shared more about her devotion to the church, but it was soon apparent to us that her understanding was that she has always been a Christian. I tried to ask her if she knew at what point she understood her sin and need of a savior as I conveyed a bit about my upbringing of being raised in the church, but not believing. She didn't really answer directly and J_______ tried to drive home our inability to save ourselves and how it's not about what we do, but what God has done in Christ, but she took that in a wrong direction saying something to the effect of "yes, it's about caring for each other and encouraging one another and doing what you can" (or something similar). I think her name is D*. We can pray that since she is exposed to Scripture that God would open her eyes to the truth of the gospel. This conversation got us talking about how difficult it can be to share with people who profess faith in Christ. On the one hand you don't want to condescendingly doubt whether their faith is genuine, but on the other hand, there are many who will profess faith who are in great danger (Matthew 7:21-23). Any ideas and gentle questions you all might have asked these types would be greatly appreciated! :) After that encounter, we were flatly rejected by a family of three who would not take a tract and were fairly objectionable to our presence, though kind enough to wish us a good day (they said they'd just been talking about religion, or perhaps proselytizing or the like - something tells me they were united against these things). Rejoice! - Luke 6:22-23 We walked and approached several more folks and though they did not seem open to talking, several took tracts. We can pray that they would read them, repent and believe. We spoke with a Hindu fellow briefly who quickly reassured us he is not Christian and I told him we aren't out looking for Christians. I asked him if he had a faith and he said "yes, I'm Hindu, I'm on your side" - we shared that what we believe is very different but he did not seem to want to talk as per his dismissive, yet kind enough remarks, but he took a tract. Lastly, we spoke with three gentlemen who were cooling off in the shade of a building closer to the Union. This was our most encouraging conversation. I asked if they attended church and they said they can't right now b/c they are in a program where they cannot go to church or attend any services (some sort of intense AA program). We asked what they believe about God. J1* said he believes there is a God and that He's been looking out for him thus far. They shared a bit about the AA teaching of a "higher power" that they don't call God, but focus quite a lot on in the program. We shared the gospel and shared that this is what the Bible teaches. I was able to relate some of my own life experience, having lived much of my life in a similar direction as they had, caught up in the lies that the world tells you about what's "ok". J2* was raised nominally Catholic, it seemed, and had some great questions and Biblical knowledge that was interesting to talk with him about. He asked "what if you fall away or backslide?" and I shared John 10:27. We talked more in depth about the gospel and I shared that there isn't anything any of us can do to make ourselves right with God, but it's through faith alone in the risen Christ. I was mentioning how amazing it was the way God taught his people about atonement throughout the OT and J2* said "what about when Abraham had to offer his son" - which I thought was God's grace that he knew such a story and that I was able to share how that was pointing to the gospel and that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. J1* expressed that he would like to read the Bible if he could get his hands on one and we quickly offered ours if he would read it - he took it and said he would. We recommended to start with the book of John. J2* said he had a Bible and J3* was very quietly listening the whole time. Though he was not interested in talking, praise God he heard the gospel too and they all took a tract. J_______ gave J1* Pastor's phone number in case he wanted to call with any questions. Pray that these guys would repent and believe the gospel, that they would read their Bibles, and that when they're out of AA soon they would find a gospel preaching church (FBC perhaps) to grow in grace in. They said they may look up FBC's website and come join us one Sunday soon. I was extremely encouraged by all of your hearts for evangelism and to labor with you out in the fields sowing seeds! Pray that others will water them and may the Lord of the harvest make them grow. I hope to read more soon regarding A_______, J4______, and B_______'s time out on Saturday. Though I heard a bit on the way back in the car, I look forward to reading your reports! Your Sister in Christ, L_______ Then B_______ writes two reports: Hi everyone, Thanks L_______ for the detailed report. It has helped me to pray. On the outreach, I wandered from the non-profits section eastward on the north side of the art fair. Then I looped around through the Diag, into the Michigan union, and then back to meet you guys at the non-profits. I talked to a guy at a booth for Coexist (www.coexistfoundation.net). They were fund-raising for a girls orphanage in Shri Lanka. I told him that Christ was the only way, but he refused to talk about religion other than to say we need to get along and the Muslim/Hindu war was partly responsible for the need for the girls dorm. Pray that he reads the tract I gave him, that he understands sin and atonement, and that the greatest love is found in God. I talked to another guy who said that the Catholic church was the only true church, yet he condemned the church as corrupt and involved with dark conspiracies (like the Illuminati). He was very bitter and didn't want to talk at length. I told him that the Catholic church can't high-jack the truth and that he can go straight to the Bible, the original and authoritative source of the truth. I talked to Z*, a Chinese Buddhist. He was very mocking at Christianity while at the same time praising the fact that it gave me happiness and wishing me success in my outreach. His children were listening and seemed to know more about Christ than he, though one began mocking to when he saw his dad's example. Z* (like most Buddhists) doesn't believe there is a God. He says he doesn't want to even consider whether or not there is a God. I told him about the evidences for God (the creation and the Bible) and that sin blinded his eyes from seeing that there is a God. Please pray that God would open his eyes. I talked to T*, an old guy sitting on a bench and reading a thick book. He was a learned man who spent much time studying Buddhism and similar religions. When I asked him if he wanted a booklet that tells how to have eternal life, he laughed and said he wouldn't want to live that long. I then asked him if wanted a personal relationship with the Creator God who made all things. We then got into friendly discussion in which I managed to cover the main points of the Gospel. His view is that life would get tiresome if it lasted forever. Like most Buddhists, he believes that life has a beauty that is eternal even though it doesn't last forever. Buddhism has obviously mixed up his mind and made the illogical seem palatable to him. Like I told Z*, I told him of the evidence of creation and that I would pray for him that God would open his eyes. Lastly, I had a really good conversation with an atheist named R* in front of Michigan Union. I'll tell more about him in a separate email. In Christ, B_______ Hi everyone again, I wanted to tell about R*, but ran out of time yesterday. I had a good conversation with R*. I was able to tell him my personal testimony. He said no child would look at creation and think there is a God. I told him how, as a child, I thought there was a God and I was worried I would be good enough to go to heaven. R* asked "you weren't good enough were you?" R* looked a little surprised when I said that I wasn't good enough and that Jesus died on the cross to pay my penalty for sin. I also told R* about the difference Christ has made in my life. R* said the Bible is no different than any other religious book. I told him it was inspired. He challenged me to show him a single verse from the Bible that says so. I showed him 2 Tim 3:16. R* asked why I was talking to him about the Gospel. I told him it was because the Bible commands me to do so. R* said that the world came into existence by random chance. I told him about the evidence of creation and that I would pray that God would open his eyes to the truth. R* looked sincerely at me and asked me if I would be open minded and at least consider other possibilities. I told him I was open minded to the truth, but the Bible is the authoritative source of truth. Towards the end, R* said "you keep threatening to pray for me, why don't you do that?" So I prayed aloud for R* right there with him. He said "If something good happens from your prayer I will have you to credit ... and the Lord too". I am thankful for how the Lord used each of us on the outreach and for the demonstration of the power of the Gospel. In Christ, B_______ Sat, 20 Aug 2011 21:32:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/08/Art-Fair-Evangelism-Report https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/08/On-Making-Books-and-Blogs The Spirit of God tells us through Solomon: "And further, my son, be admonished by these. Of making many books there is no end; and much study is wearisome to the flesh. Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is man's all." (Ecclesiastes 12:12-13 NKJV) My wife Naomi and I were talking about this recently, and she wrote to me the following paragraph. "I also recently came to the realization that of the making of blogs there is also no end! I guess they fit right in there with the books. While it is encouraging to read Christian blogs and books, we should always remember that, no matter what advice or opinion we may read, the end of any matter is to fear God and keep His commandments. There are so many people who are influenced by books they read--particularly books on parenting, husband/wife relationships, church matters, etc... There are lots of wonderful resources out there with good and godly advice and encouragement. But we must remember the only infallible guide is the Bible. Sometimes book-advice can have implications or results that can also produce fruit that is contrary to the Word of God. We must make sure that, rather than following any given book, that we are following THE Book—the Bible." This goes along with what I've said for a long time: If you don't have time to read the Bible, you don't have time to read anything else. The Bible is the sufficient rule of faith and practice for us in parenting, marriage, church, and all things. Fri, 05 Aug 2011 19:50:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/08/On-Making-Books-and-Blogs https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/08/Marriage-and-Submission I had a conversation with some church members on the subject of marriage counseling and how submission fits into the picture. One of the gentlemen said that in some marriage counseling, there is no mention of the idea of submission. Not surprising, I thought, given the lack of popularity of the concept these days. Later it struck me: how in the world could someone avoid talking about submission in marriage? The Bible is full of texts that talk about it. Then, I realized this amazing fact: every major Bible passage on marriage talks about submission, particularly regarding the wife. Maybe I've missed some passages, but there seems to be a pattern here. Consider: Ephesians 5:18-33, Colossians 3:18-19, Titus 2:4-5, and 1 Peter 3:1-7. Add to those 1 Corinthians 7, which is next door to 1 Corinthians 11:3. In each passage, either the verb for submit (hupotasso) or the word for headship is present. Note: this post is one-sided because it is dealing with a one-sided error. Tue, 02 Aug 2011 18:07:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/08/Marriage-and-Submission https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/08/Abortion-is-Age-Based-Discrimination So says Mark Harrington at CreatedEqual.net. I couldn't agree more. Remember the SLED acronym - abortion is justified by its proponents by four main arguments: the baby's Size (small), Level of development (lacking certain capabilities), Environment (hidden away in the uterus), and level of Dependency. No other people are murdered based on these criteria. Why should the murder of unborn babies be based on them? Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:58:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/08/Abortion-is-Age-Based-Discrimination https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/07/Johns-Gospel-and-Repentance I was recently asked this question: "How do you account for the total non-mention of repentance in John's Gospel? Does this mean that believing includes repentance? Is repentance a requirement for salvation, or only for discipleship?" Here is my answer: 1. In the absence of other clear teaching, arguments from silence are tenuous at best. Esther does not use God's name, but God is behind the scenes and the book does belong in the canon. You could probably say most books of the Bible are silent on one or more doctrines, but that does not warrant a big conclusion from that silence. If I grant the premise of the question, that John does not mention repentance (and that is a widely held premise), I would not grant that means that repentance is not part of saving faith. 2. I do not believe you can legitimately build your theology of salvation on John's gospel alone, and upon an argument from silence at that. 3. I believe that saving faith is repentant faith. That is, saving faith includes a change of mind not only about Jesus but about sin. So, I could say that believing includes repentance. Mark 1:15, Acts 2:38, Luke 24:47, Acts 5:31, 11:18, 20:21, Romans 2:4, Hebrews 6:1, and 2 Peter 3:9, among other verses make it clear that repentance is not dispensable. Repentance is "built in" to John's use of belief. In other words, Suppose you were to ask John, "Is belief that is unrepentant over sin (as in James 2:19) the kind of belief you were talking about in your gospel?" I believe based on the Scriptural evidence that John would answer, "Absolutely not!" 4. I question the premise (mentioned in #1 above). I agree that John does not use the word "repent" in his gospel. He does use it often in Revelation. But the word does not have to be used for the concept to be present. Let me suggest several places where repentance is conceptually present:     4.a. Jesus tells two people to "go and sin no more" or words to that effect: John 5:14, 8:11.     4.b. John 12:40 quotes Isaiah 6:9-10 (see Matt. 13:15, Mark 4:12, Acts 28:27) and says "lest they should understand with their hearts and TURN and I should heal (forgive) them." Here we see the idea of conversion, turning away from sin and turning to God. I understand this to be synonymous with repenting and believing. Luke 1:16-17 uses the same word twice, from epistrephw, in a similar manner. See also Luke 22:32, Acts 9:35, 11:21, 14:15, 15:19, 2 Cor. 3:16, 1 Thess. 1:9, 1 Peter 2:25. All of these verses use the concept of turning away from sin/idolatry/etc. to God. Acts 3:19 and 26:20 even use the term immediately next to "repent." 5. The nature of belief that John presents assumes repentance about at least one thing--who Jesus is. Now, some interpreters limit repentance to just that--one's view of Jesus. I disagree that repentance is that specific. I believe it has to do with sins more generally, and one very notable sin is unbelief in Christ's person and work. John focuses on this notable sin of unbelief and calls his reader to change his mind about it. You could say this accounts for the non-mention of repentance--John is using "unbelief/belief" terminology in calling his readers to turn away from unbelief (repent) and turn toward belief. Consider:     5.a. The Spirit will convict of sin "because they do not believe in Me" (John 16:8-9).     5.b. The whole purpose of John's gospel is to get the reader to change his beliefs so that he believes in Jesus as the Christ and Son of God, John 20:31. This implies a change of mind away from a wrong belief to a right belief.     5.c. John 8:24 says a person will die in his sins if he does not believe in Christ. Obviously a change of mind is needed.     5.d. Jesus appeals to several witnesses in John 5:31-47, all of which testify to Christ. Yet, many of the Jews refused to change their minds/beliefs about Christ. Jesus is calling on them to change their minds. 6. Saving faith is more than mere mental assent to the facts of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. It also involves the man's will and affections such that he desires to seek pardon from sin and that he understands the personal application of forgiveness from God. To believe, according to John's use of the term, a man has to understand his lost condition due to sin, and want to get the remedy for that lost condition. The idea of repentance is built in to this kind of belief. Update 10/4/2019: A few days ago I made a connection in my mind that had escaped my conscious notice until now. I wrote the above in 2011. In 2017, I wrote an article on the use of repentance in the book of Revelation. Now, I realize that the 2017 article is a helpful addition here. John may not have used the word "repent" in his gospel, or even in his 3 general letters, but he certainly wrote about it in his letters to the seven churches, and elsewhere in the Apocalypse. It would be very strange if John believed repentance was not a part of the gospel, for him then to discuss it as a crucial part of the same gospel. Wed, 20 Jul 2011 06:15:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/07/Johns-Gospel-and-Repentance https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/05/Psalm-84-3 Even the sparrow has found a home, And the swallow a nest for herself, Where she may lay her young--Even Your altars, O LORD of hosts, My King and my God (NKJ). Mon, 23 May 2011 10:22:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/05/Psalm-84-3 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/05/Some-Questions-for-Jehovah-Witnesses I've had several opportunities to talk to Jehovah's Witnesses lately. To help you in working with these folks, I'm going to list below a number of questions that you could pose to them. The idea of the questions is two-fold: first, that you would reflect on how you would answer them yourself; and second, to demonstrate that many of their beliefs are highly questionable and should raise doubts in their own minds about their teaching. Are you saved? Are you in Christ? Are you born again? Are you going to heaven? Are you sure of eternal life? Do you know that Jesus is Jehovah? Do you know that the 144,000 are Jews? Are you sure your sins are forgiven? How many gods are there? If one, then how do you explain the New World Translation of John 1:1? Regarding the Holy Spirit, how can someone grieve an impersonal "active force"? (Ephesians 4:30) Haven't Jehovah's Witnesses had a number of false time-of-the-end prophecies? How many years should a person study ancient Greek before he is competent to translate the New Testament? (The NWT translation committee had only one person, Fred Franz, who knew any Koine Greek at all, and he had only two semesters.) Do you think it is safe to trust your eternity to a group of people (the board of directors of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society) who at any time can change their minds when deciding religious matters, and in fact have already done so many times in the past? Why are you willing to trust an organization that prevents you from checking out its own history? Why do you claim that Jesus was nailed to a stake with his hands together, when even the NWT admits that "nails" (plural) were used? (John 20:25) Why are your members strongly encouraged to shun their families who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, when the Bible says we should try to win over unbelievers through our conduct? (1 Peter 3:1) [If applicable] I once had a blood transfusion. Can I still become a Jehovah's Witness? If yes, then why would I be excluded from having eternal life if I were to have another one? The Bible not only speaks to us today, but also did so to its original audience. How do you think the original audience would have understood Acts 15:20, particularly the phrase "abstain from blood"? Could they really have been referring to blood transfusions, a medical procedure that would not be developed for 1,900 years? The ninth Commandment reads "You must not testify falsely as a witness against your fellowman." (Exodus 20:16). Why are you following the teachings of a man (Charles Taze Russell) who claimed in court to be able to read Greek, but was actually unable to do so? Why do you teach that there is no Hell--that the non-Jehovah's Witnesses who die are merely annihilated--when the Bible refers to Hell so frequently (Luke 16:19-31, Lazarus and the Rich Man, for instance)? Credit belongs to two of our church members, Vincent Brattin and Dwayne Reid, for assisting me in compiling this list of questions. Mon, 16 May 2011 11:16:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/05/Some-Questions-for-Jehovah-Witnesses https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/05/Keller-on-Creation I recently received a question via email on my creation talk at last January's Preserving the Truth conference. The substance of the question was this: Where did you discover that Tim Keller holds to theistic evolution? Supposedly PCA churches hold to the Westminster Confession which includes creation, though not necessarily a young earth. This is a good question because my talk slides did not show thorough documentation for the views of each conservative or broader evangelical that were listed. Here are two sources that support my assertion that Keller holds to theistic evolution and the Framework Theory: A 14-page paper written by Tim Keller for BioLogos. The Confessing Evangelical blog, which interprets Keller the same way I do. In the paper, Keller's whole purpose is to support the notion that biblical orthodoxy is compatible with evolution. He very approvingly cites Kline's "because it had not rained" argument to support a non-literal reading of Genesis 1. "It means Genesis 1 does not teach that God made the world in six twenty-four hour days. Of course, it doesn't teach evolution either, because it doesn't address the actual processes by which God created human life. However, it does not preclude the possibility of the earth being extremely old" (p. 5). Further, he approves of Kidner's variant on the theistic evolutionary model for the creation of man (p. 10). I'll grant that I am reading just a little bit between the lines, but what is clear is that Keller believes it is feasible to hold to a literal Adam and Eve while at the same time believing in their creation through evolutionary biological processes. It is not easy to pin Keller down because he believes that whatever view one takes, he should always be open to correction (p. 13). I appreciate humility and the ability to receive correction. But where God has clearly spoken, this kind of humility can actually blur into unbelief. Mon, 02 May 2011 15:28:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/05/Keller-on-Creation https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/05/Separation:Everybody-Doin-It I've been interested to watch the debate on fundamentalism, conservative evangelicalism, and separation unfold over the past months. I have some thoughts on the subject that I hope will help us stay on the Biblical track that I would like to develop over some upcoming posts. Actually, I already have three posts on the subject that you can read elsewhere in this blog. You will have to forgive me for my somewhat lax use of the term separation. I will use the term generically for now, understanding that there are different gradations of separation depending on the case. There is the "put out" kind; the "come out" kind; the "stop having fellowship" kind, and the "don't start having fellowship" kind, among others. But even though there are different species of separation, I will, at least initially, be speaking about separation as a genus, the broader category that includes all the species as sub-types. The point of this post is this: basically everyone is doing some kind of separation. As I pointed out in the "Non-Separatist Separtists" post, even those known as new evangelicals (who repudiate the doctrine of separation) exercised separation from their fundamentalist brethren. Others lamented how attacks on inerrancy came into the movement and how those holding errant views should have no right to the evangelical label. This is an attempt to exercise some kind of separation. Other examples: A parent tells his child to stay away from certain types of friends, or the playground bully. Dads and moms restrict their children or themselves from watching certain kinds of television programs because of sinful content. A church puts out an unrepentant adulterer from its membership. A church decides to avoid any partnership with ecumenical organizations or para-church ministries that do not share its beliefs. A man decides to cut off a dating relationship because the woman is an unbeliever. A businessman realizes he cannot continue in the close business association with an unbelieving partner. A husband decides to take his family out of a church because of a perceived shortcoming in the ministry, and to move to a different church. A Baptist never darkens the door of a Presbyterian church. A pastor leads his church to direct missions funding to some missionaries or mission funds and not others. People choose to attend or join one local church and reject others because of doctrinal differences such as mode of baptism, cessationism, continuationism, views on social issues, type of music, personal dress standards, and any number of other factors. My thought here is limited to those factors that are considered issues of right or wrong by the person. Other factors come into play (size of the church or youth group, for instance) that are not matters of right and wrong, at least as I see it, but are rather just preferences. If it is the case that "everybody's doin' it," what we need to do is think about how consistent we are and how faithful we are to God and the Scripture. Mon, 02 May 2011 10:52:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/05/Separation:Everybody-Doin-It https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/04/Accusation-of-Bibliolatry Recently an anonymous person accused our church of being full of Bible-worshippers, by which I think they meant people who worship the Bible instead of the God of the Bible. But how they mean this is not very clear, since God's word and God Himself are so closely connected (Psalm 138:2). Regarding the definition of Bibliolatry, I found that gotquestions.org has a helpful definition. Let me quote a couple of key parts of it here: “Typically, the accusation of bibliolatry is used as an attack on those who hold to the inerrancy, infallibility, and supremacy of Scripture. It is often employed as an inflammatory and derogatory attack on believers who hold to ‘sola scriptura’ and/or a literal interpretation of the Bible. “It is important to note that the charge of bibliolatry does not claim some Christians literally bow down before a Bible and worship it, as if it were an idol. While there may be some strange cult out there that literally worships the Bible, that is not what bibliolatry is referring to. The accusation of bibliolatry is that some Christians elevate the Bible to the point that it is equal with God, or to the point that studying the Bible is more important than developing a personal and intimate relationship with Jesus Christ.” For those who make the accusation of bibliolatry against another, might I suggest some cautions? In my experience, I have found people who make such an accusation are frequently those who do not participate fully in the church's meetings and activities. That is unfortunate, because they do not see or understand the full range of what I will call godly devotion that is exhibited by the church members, and so cannot make an accurate evaluation of their spiritual character (Proverbs 18:13 comes to mind here). For instance, if the accuser only comes for the weekly meeting that is heavy on preaching and teaching, they will miss the earnest prayers of the saints in the mid-week prayer meeting. They do not have an accurate picture of the church's devotion as a whole. Another caution for the accuser is to ensure that they are not expecting all believers to have the same kind of pietistic or emotional display of devotion that they themselves exhibit. Some believers may be more withdrawn or reserved, but be just as fervent in spirit as others who are more outgoing. But what about the person who receives the accusation? It is easy to dismiss such a charge out of hand as blatantly false or to consider the source as a wacky believer. Both may be true, but it is profitable to stop and examine ourselves to make sure we are not pridefully exalting intellectual knowledge of doctrines (1 Corinthians 8:1) at the expense of a real personal relationship with Christ. I happened to be reading Gordon Fee earlier today and he expressed a similar thought this way from Philippians 3: “For [Paul] Christian life is not simply a matter of 'salvation' and 'ethics'; it is ultimately a matter of knowing Christ. So too with resurrection; Paul's focus is not on 'everlasting life' or anything else such. The goal of the resurrection, the 'prize' for which Paul strains every effort in the present, is Christ himself” (Paul's Letter to the Philipppians, NICNT, p. 337). At the same time, this kind of self-examination has to be balanced with the understanding that eternal life is to know God and His Son Jesus Christ (John 17:3). Knowing God is only done through faith, and faith only comes by hearing the word of God delivered by a herald (Romans 10:13-17). Further, the word of the gospel, which the Bible is, is instrumental in our regeneration (James 1:18). I guess what I'm saying is: Don't make the charge lightly, and don't take the charge lightly. Thu, 21 Apr 2011 20:51:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/04/Accusation-of-Bibliolatry https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/arti/le/Present-Truth-Present-Error For some time I have been receiving a magazine called Present Truth from Life Research International. It took me some time to figure out exactly who these people were (I recall not being able to find them online some time ago). While I don't have all the details down pat, they seem to believe in the Trinity, six-day creation, the free will of man, the resurrection of Christ, and His second coming. They have an odd view of the the church, as they believe it is composed of true believers and hypocrites, as well as a strange view (almost post-millennial) of the condition of man just prior to the second coming. Wed, 20 Apr 2011 22:50:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/arti/le/Present-Truth-Present-Error https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/04/Non-Separatist-Separatists I've recently run into some examples of an odd situation. The basic form of it is that there is someone or some group who articulates or at least clearly practices a non-separatist position (NS). The NS then initiates some act of separation from someone who articulates a belief and practice of separation (S). Maybe it is just me, but something strikes me as very inconsistent in the NS's behavior. Example 1: Church attender says, "You believe in separation and we do not. We have to leave." The church (S) was content to allow the church attender to keep attending (though not to join membership) in hopes that the attender would learn the Scriptural position that requires separation from unbelief, compromise with unbelief, errant brothers, and the world. Example 2: Great Homeschool Conventions recently kicked Ken Ham out of upcoming conventions because he called out Peter Enns and other evolutionists on their views that conflict with the clear teaching of Scripture. The goal of AiG was to warn homeschoolers from the bad influence of evolutionism, and so they teach accordingly. The Convention group is not separatist by any stretch of the imagination—it includes secular and Jewish groups, among others, in its ranks, but it decried AiG's "unChristian" behavior. See Kicked Out of Two Homeschool Conferences for more details. Example 3: In a way, it seems to me that the New Evangelicalism did a similar thing. The movement was clearly NS. It repudiated separatism from the start because it was disgusted with fundamentalist separatism (S). And though it had no resultant ability to separate from doctrinally unorthodox younger evangelicals that came into its midst, it did put a good bit of distance between itself and fundamentalism. It started schools (like Fuller) and organs (like Christianity Today). It re-entered academic, theological dialogue and social action that were not in accord with the S's. The new evangelicals might not call this separation, but it sure looks a lot like it to me. May I make a couple of applications? Let us be careful that we do not exercise separation in an inconsistent fashion. Don't separate over small things while at the same time avoiding separating over bigger things! And don't claim you are a non-separatist if you are separating over separatism or other things you don't like. In such a case, you are a separatist, just for different reasons than the people you are separating from. Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:28:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/04/Non-Separatist-Separatists https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/04/Is-Biblical-Christianity-Unchristian Some people harbor notions that certain teachings of Christianity are somehow sub Christian. Such Biblical teachings are considered "too harsh" or "too unloving" or even "too lax" to be possible of the Christian God as He is understood by (say) the common man. For instance: Sat, 09 Apr 2011 21:24:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/04/Is-Biblical-Christianity-Unchristian https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/04/Could-God-Have-Used-Evolution The question before us asks what God could do, but really the right question to ask is, "What did God do?" For that, we have to carefully exegete the text of Scripture to determine what it says. As I have been arguing in my "essentials of young earth creationism" series, the plain interpretation of the text inevitably leads to the conclusion that God did create in six days. But, to the question...Let us forget for a moment what God did do and consider the hypothetical case. 1. In a sense, we could say yes. God can do anything, with the caveat that He can do anything that is in accord with His holy nature. So we could say, hypothetically, God could have used evolution just as well as he could have created everything in a nanosecond or in six 24-hour days. 2. But all things considered, no, God could not have used evolution. If God had used evolution, then certain things would have to be true: Evolution requires many multiplied generations of living things for the necessary changes to occur. Evolution requires many deaths to make progress and improvement. Survival of the fittest requires death of those living things that are not most fit. God would have had to design in death somehow as part of the system for evolution to work. Death would have applied to all species leading up to homo sapiens. Death in homo sapiens would have naturally have continued simply as a result of the design of the entire system based on evolution. But according to Romans 5:12, human death is a result of sin. (I believe all death is a result of sin, but let us just limit our discussion to human death for now). There seems to be a conflict here—is death a natural continuation of the way things always have been, or is it the result of sin? Biblically, only the latter is tenable. But someone might say that death is a result of sin and that death started millions of years ago because sin entered right from the beginning. But then the question is, what sin? Was it the sin of Satan? It could not be the preceding sin of personal beings, since personal beings did not exist until far later in the evolutionary timetable. But if earthlings were punished for Satan's sin, then God's character would be tarnished because He would be punishing the earthly creation for the sin of someone else. This is not just. Or did God allow death to enter, knowing that sin would later enter? Such an "anticipatory punishment" does not seem just either. Or, perhaps God simply designed limited lifespans with death to make evolution work. But this would not be a very good creation. It seems crummy to require death as a tool of "improvement." Such a system is broken from the start. It does not fit the "very good" pronouncement of Genesis 1:31. And it means that "the wages of sin is death" is not the only way that death comes: "the wages of using evolution is death." But sin is always pictured in the Bible as having the wage of death, and death is not a wage of anything else. In short, if God had used evolution, he would have had to use death to accomplish creation, and that is not "very good" nor very just nor does it harmonize with Romans 5:12 very well. I conclude then that God could not have used evolution. The hypothetical is an impossible hypothetical because it is not in agreement with God's holy nature. Sat, 09 Apr 2011 14:41:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/04/Could-God-Have-Used-Evolution https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/04/Romans-15-1 Romans 15:1 - We then who are strong ought to bear with the scruples of the weak, and not to please ourselves (NKJ). Wed, 06 Apr 2011 08:35:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/04/Romans-15-1 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/03/Genesis-Science-Textbook The paleoevangelical blog has an entry titled Genesis 1-2: Before We Made It a Science Textbook. It raises the following point: "...it might be instructive to consider what people who were committed to the complete reliability and authority of Scripture believed–before we felt compelled to read the text as an explicit refutation of Darwinism." In my work on young earth creationism, I have not thought of the Bible as a science textbook. Given my science studies, I find the Bible very different than a science textbook. The whole idea that we treat the Bible as a science textbook seems to portray young earth creationists as intellectual simpletons who are stuck on defeating Darwin. But Darwin is only one problem, and YEC folks are presenting a positive case for their view from the Biblical text. Many scientific theories can be proposed on a YEC foundation, but the science part is secondary to the Bible part. It is actually the concordists who are stuck on Darwin, and we who are in the YEC camp wonder why they insist on doing that. May I suggest this rewriting of paleo's statement: "it might be instructive to consider what people who were committed to the complete reliability and authority of Scripture believed–before we felt compelled to read the text as somehow supporting Darwin." Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:07:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/03/Genesis-Science-Textbook https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/03/Essential-Literal-Hermeneutic-Part-3 Finally, given the principles I outlined in the previous two posts, we can draw some conclusions as to the way we should interpret Genesis 1-2. Tue, 22 Mar 2011 21:01:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/03/Essential-Literal-Hermeneutic-Part-3 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/03/Martuneac-Defense-of-the-Gospel I haven't read on the Lordship salvation controversy in a while, but I recently picked up Lou Martuneac's In Defense of the Gospel and have read through most of it. Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:20:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/03/Martuneac-Defense-of-the-Gospel https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/03/Principle-Changing-Membership-List Principle: No individual or sub-group of the church or outside the church can unilaterally change the membership roll of the church, either in or out. Fri, 11 Mar 2011 17:19:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/03/Principle-Changing-Membership-List https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/03/Logos-Commentary-Series I was alerted yesterday to the upcoming Evangelical Exegetical Commentary that has been revived after some uncertainty as to its fate. Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:53:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/03/Logos-Commentary-Series https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/03/Principle-End-of-Discipline Principle: Once church discipline is initiated, it is only properly concluded by repentance and restoration. It cannot be concluded by resignation of membership. Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:37:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/03/Principle-End-of-Discipline https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/03/Question-on-Separation-an-Answer In a previous entry, I asked the following question: In your view and considering 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15, how would Paul deal with professing believers who reject (1) a six-day creation; (2) a millennial reign of Christ; and (3) the cessation of revelatory sign gifts? Dr. Robert McCabe from Baptist Theological Seminary responded to this question as follows: “In the context of 2 Thes 3:14-15, along with Matt 18, and assuming that a believer has been clearly taught about (1) a six-day creation; (2) a millennial reign of Christ; and (3) the cessation of revelatory sign gifts, I would say that a church needs to hold this brother/sister at arm's length.” “However, I need to nuance this in two ways. On the one hand, principle in 2 Thes 3 goes beyond a specific local assembly in that it seems to apply to anyone with whom a local church has an existing relationship. On the other hand, I do not think this applies to evangelicals with whom I have no existing relationship. I think the better term to use is non-cooperation, rather than separation. This is to say, I would not do joint ministry efforts with an evangelical leader/church who do not embrace (1) a six-day creation; (2) a millennial reign of Christ; and (3) the cessation of revelatory sign gifts. However, this does not involve separation since there was no existing relationship. I would think it better to refer to this situation as one of non-cooperation.” I want to offer a word of thanks to Dr. McCabe for offering an answer to the query. Tue, 08 Mar 2011 20:25:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/03/Question-on-Separation-an-Answer https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/03/Essential-Literal-Hermeneutic-Part-2 The first essential element of young earth creation is literal hermeneutics. Without this kind of approach to the Scripture, there is no way that young earth creationism could emerge from the text. Fri, 04 Mar 2011 21:55:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/03/Essential-Literal-Hermeneutic-Part-2 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/03/Initial-Grant-of-Abrahamic-Covenant Some interpreters have suggested that the text in Genesis 12:1-3 is not a statement of the Abrahamic Covenant (AC) because it does not use the Hebrew covenant word "berit." The covenant is given in Genesis 15, which does use the special term. When I heard this interpretation some years ago, I was skeptical because I had been taught otherwise. To be sure, when I initially heard this interpretation, I did not consider the omission of the key covenant term. I recently have been preaching through Hebrews and the subject of the AC arose at Hebrews 6:13-15. Someone asked me a question after the sermon about this interpretive issue. After having re-studied the issue (see below), it seems that there are overwhelming grounds to understand that in Genesis 12:1-3, God initially grants the promises of the AC to Abram. These promises consist of national, personal, and international provisions. The national promises include a reference to a land which we know as the promised land. Some of the provisions have been fulfilled, in particular, the personal provisions to Abraham. The national and international provisions are in process of fulfillment and/or are awaiting their full realization. There are three key reasons why I believe the AC is initially granted in Genesis 12:1-3. 1. Promissory nature of Genesis 12:1-3. The AC is a unilateral promise of God to grant certain blessings to Abraham, his seed, and the nations of the earth. The language of Gen 12 seems to have a strongly promissory atmosphere about it. Since the covenant is almost completely, if not entirely, unilateral, it is reasonable to see a one-sided giving of the covenant with no “cutting” mentioned between parties as being a legitimate giving of the covenant promises. 2. Verbal and conceptual similarities of Genesis 12:1-3 with the other AC texts. The following table shows the data used to establish this argument. Genesis 12 Genesis 15 Genesis 17 See Also v. 1 : Get out of your country…to a land v. 7 : I will give this land v. 7 : brought you out of Ur…to give you this land to inherit it v. 16 : they shall return here [to this land] v. 18 : To your descendants I have given this land v. 8 : I give to you and your descendants…the land 13:15, 17 : all the land…I give to you 26:3-4 : For to you and your descendants I will give all these lands and will confirm the oath I swore to your father Abraham 28:4 : that you may inherit the land 28:13 : I will give you and your descendants the land 35:12 : the land which I gave…I give to you 48:4 : I will give this land v. 2 : make you a great nation v. 4 : one who will come from your own body v. 5 : So [as many as the stars] shall your descendants be. v. 2 : multiply you exceedingly 13:16  I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth 18:18 : Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation 22:17 : multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore 26:4 : I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven 28:3 : make you fruitful and multiply you 28:14 : your offspring will be like the dust of the earth 35:12 : Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations v. 2 : bless you, make your name great 14:19-20 : Blessed be Abram of God Most High…delivered your enemies into your hand 22:17 I will surely bless you (NIV) v. 3 : blessing and cursing 27:29 : may those who curse you be cursed, and those who bless you be blessed v. 3 : in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed v. 4-6 : you shall be a father of many nations v. 16 : she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples… 18:18 : all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him 22:18 : In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed 26:4 : in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed 28:14 : in you and in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed Genesis 15:18 uses the covenant term “berit” so it seems that this chapter marks the official “cutting of the covenant.” The close associations between this text and Genesis 12:1-3 substantiate that 12:1-3 is at least somehow related to the AC, if not the initial granting of it as I understand. Genesis 17 uses the term “covenant” about 13 times. The similarities of chapter 12 with the many clear references to the AC throughout Genesis weigh in favor of taking 12:1-3 as the initial offer or grant of the AC. It certainly demonstrates intent on God’s part to do things for Abraham that were included in the later “official” statements and reiterations of the covenant. Some of the texts referenced above do not use the specific term “berit” in reference to the AC promises (Gen 13, 18, 22, 26, 27, 28, 35). But coming as they do historically after the giving of the covenant, it would seem to be a stretch to say they are not the covenant or restatements thereof. The use of “berit” should not be used as a determining factor as to whether the covenant is present; rather, the idea of the covenant is what is important. Further, I do not believe that any passage in Genesis offers a more complete statement of the covenant than Genesis 12. The passages after Genesis 12 unfold one or two aspects of the covenant, but do not explicitly state them all. 3. NT Usage of Genesis 12:1-3. Genesis 12 NT Reference or Allusion 7 : to your descendants I will give this land Acts 7:5 : “But God promised him that he and his descendants after him would possess the land, even though at that time Abraham had no child.” Of course, the land promise is also given in Gen 13 and 15 before Abram had a child. By Gen 17 Ishmael was born, so he had one child by then. 3 : in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed. Acts 3:25 : “of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, `And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.'” This text not only refers to Genesis 12, but also 18:18, 22:18, 26:4, 28:14. Note that it cannot refer to Gen 15 because Gen 15 does not contain a complete statement of the covenant. Gal 3:8 : this is a similar quotation of 12:3, 18:18, etc. 7 : land promise Heb 11:8 : “By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance.” Note the term inheritance as it suggests that God has promised something to Abram at the point of his initial calling. Hebrews 6:13-15 refers to the oath-backed covenant; it is quoting specifically from Genesis 22:16-18. I believe the strongest argument for seeing the AC in Gen 12:1-3 is that the NT quotations of the covenant in Acts 3:25 and Gal 3:8 refer to Genesis 12 and 18 and following chapters of Genesis, but they do not and cannot refer to Genesis 15 because that statement of the covenant does not include the specific portions about personal blessing, blessing and cursing, and all the families of the earth being blessed. Genesis 15 is primarily about the land and Abram’s inheritance of it. His descendants are also included in the promise, but the promise says nothing about the personal or international aspects of the covenant. Thu, 03 Mar 2011 21:00:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/03/Initial-Grant-of-Abrahamic-Covenant https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/02/Essential-Literal-Hermeneutic-Part-1 The first essential element of young earth creation that I listed last month was literal hermeneutics. Tue, 15 Feb 2011 21:42:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/02/Essential-Literal-Hermeneutic-Part-1 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/02/My-Vote-Read-the-Lines An interesting conversation on seeing Christ in the OT started with Mark Snoeberger's post, with a response at the paleoevangelical blog, and some more by Snoeberger in the comments of the post here. Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:52:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/02/My-Vote-Read-the-Lines https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/02/Common-Ground-A-Clarification Dr. Kevin Bauder has just written a very helpful article on the proper use of common ground in the Christian's apologetic method. A statement in the opening paragraph caught my attention as one that could be further clarified. Bauder writes, "Presuppositionalists reject the notion of common ground and insist upon the antithesis between revealed truth and all human attempts to discover truth while denying revelation." Most presuppositionalists will understand the point, namely that the "Van Til" method rejects all grounds which the unbeliever would consciously accept. However, the first part of the sentence is a bit overstated. Presuppositionalists do use common ground--it just happens to be ground that the unbeliever does not want to accept as common but which, because he lives in God's world, he is standing on anyway. Some quotes from Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics, will show that this use of the term common ground is legitimate. Page 115, last line: "The common ground between believer and skeptic is metaphysical." Page 129, second line: "Because the believer and unbeliever do not stand on epistemological common ground..." Page 141, favorably quoting Gordon Clark in the middle of the page: "A point of connection in the sense of a common principle is a logical impossibility... . But Reformed theology, while denying a common epistemological ground, has always asserted a common psychological or ontological ground." Page 288, last paragraph: "Only if Christianity is true when it claims that all men have a presupposed knowledge of God can there be any common ground on which to maintain an argument at all..." Page 289, first full paragraph: "The only point of contact between any skeptic and believer who argue with each other must be the truth that the non-Christian is attempting to disprove!" Page 289, bottom of the page: "...the Christian apologist must not carry on his dispute with the unbeliever on the unbeliever's own terms or opinion of himself. Common ground cannot be found at this level...the Christian apologist should show the suppressed beliefs that make the unbeliever's formal reasoning and knowledge possible and that offer common ground for legitimate argumentation." The bottom line is that there is a proper common ground, and an improper common ground. The presuppositionalist insists on using only the proper common ground and rejects the improper type of common ground. Fri, 04 Feb 2011 16:42:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/02/Common-Ground-A-Clarification https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/01/Essentials-of-Young-Earth-Creationism Just what are the necessary or indispensable elements of the young earth view? Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:36:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/01/Essentials-of-Young-Earth-Creationism https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/01/Do-Not-Be-Intimidated-by-Science This post continues the series derived from my recent talk on the foundational truth of young earth creation in the Bible. Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:10:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/01/Do-Not-Be-Intimidated-by-Science https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/01/Preserving-the-Truth-Slides The PowerPoint slides for my Preserving the Truth talk on young earth creationism are available here. Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:51:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/01/Preserving-the-Truth-Slides https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/01/Creation-What-Bible-Says-and-What-I-Believe The Bible is very clear in what it says regarding creation. Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:15:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/01/Creation-What-Bible-Says-and-What-I-Believe https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/01/Question-on-Separation In light of the Preserving the Truth Conference question and answer session last Saturday, one of FBC's church members asks this question: In your view and considering 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15, how would Paul deal with professing believers who reject (1) a six-day creation; (2) a millennial reign of Christ; and (3) the cessation of revelatory sign gifts? Any one care to comment? Please send me an email or post on your own blog and let me know and I will post or point to your reply. Mon, 10 Jan 2011 21:45:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/01/Question-on-Separation https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/01/Why-Does-the-Universe-Look-Old This question sits in the middle of the debate over the age of the earth. The whole notion of young earth creationism is attacked because of the creation's appearance of age. How do we explain the appearance of age? Thu, 06 Jan 2011 09:43:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/01/Why-Does-the-Universe-Look-Old https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/01/Hebrews-6-1-3 I just got a copy of David L. Allen's Hebrews commentary in NAC. I was interested in his take on Hebrews 6:1-3 since that is where I am preaching on Sunday. What caught my interest was his interpretation of the plural "baptisms" at verse 2. Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:16:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/01/Hebrews-6-1-3 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/01/Non-Essentials-of-Creationism One of the main points of my talk at the Preserving the Truth Conference will be that there are certain "non negotiables" that must be believed for one to be a Young Earth Creationist. These are the sine qua nons or indispensable elements regarding the doctrine of creation. Wed, 05 Jan 2011 13:05:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/01/Non-Essentials-of-Creationism https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/01/Preserving-the-Truth-Conference Lord willing, I will speak on Friday January 7 in afternoon sessions of the Preserving the Truth Conference. Mon, 03 Jan 2011 19:54:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2011/01/Preserving-the-Truth-Conference https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Philippians-2-14-15 The idea in these two verses is that we are to avoid complaining and disputing with the goal of being children of God who are blameless and harmless and without fault. Wed, 29 Dec 2010 09:04:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Philippians-2-14-15 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Hebrews-5-1-10 Jesus was introduced by the title "Great High Priest" in Hebrews 4:14. Chapter 5 begins to explain His priesthood. Tue, 28 Dec 2010 10:46:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Hebrews-5-1-10 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Two-Reasons-for-the-Incarnation When the angel spoke to Mary and to Joseph, he gave two explanations for the incarnation. Sat, 25 Dec 2010 09:00:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Two-Reasons-for-the-Incarnation https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Testimony-of-Jeremy-Wichert This morning I published the personal testimony of a friend named Jeremy Wichert. It is an outstanding read about God's grace in the life of a young man. Fri, 24 Dec 2010 08:42:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Testimony-of-Jeremy-Wichert https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/2011-Bible-Reading-Schedule-Part-2 The Old Testament Bible reading schedule is now available. Tue, 21 Dec 2010 23:56:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/2011-Bible-Reading-Schedule-Part-2 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/2011-Bible-Reading-Schedule FBC's Bible reading schedule for the NT is available. Tue, 21 Dec 2010 23:12:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/2011-Bible-Reading-Schedule https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Until-You-See-the-Son-of-Man-Coming-in-His-Kingdom This post is about the sometimes puzzling texts Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, and Luke 9:27 "... there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Fri, 17 Dec 2010 16:26:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Until-You-See-the-Son-of-Man-Coming-in-His-Kingdom https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Love-and-Purity Love and purity go together. Thu, 16 Dec 2010 22:58:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Love-and-Purity https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Adultery-Lust-Radical-Removal-Sin A good message on Matthew 5:27-30. Sun, 19 Sep 2010 16:19:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Adultery-Lust-Radical-Removal-Sin https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Death-and-Dying As I mentioned in June, this summer in the Adult Bible Fellowship we studied the topic of Death and Dying. The notes turned out to be about 34 pages. Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:23:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Death-and-Dying https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Children-Obey-Your-Parents Here is a helpful bit of advice from missionary George Black, who served with Gospel Mission of South America in northern Chile until past the age of 100. Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:25:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Children-Obey-Your-Parents https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Knowing-the-Times Knowing the Times is a brief publication that we plan to offer about once a month in a bulletin-insert format. Its purpose is to inform Christians of some religious and cultural current events that are significant developments, threats, or weaknesses that affect the Christian church. Mon, 05 Jul 2010 16:27:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Knowing-the-Times https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Craig-Version-Causal-Determinism William Lane Craig is a staunch defender of the doctrine of middle knowledge. He extols the virtues of middle knowledge and critiques the Calvinistic belief in causal determinism and compatibilist freedom. Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:28:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Craig-Version-Causal-Determinism https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Insensitivity-Toward-Death In the Adult Bible Fellowship at our church, we are studying a series on death and dying which I've entitled "At the End of Life." A morbid subject, to be sure, but one that I think has some good application for us. In yesterday's lesson, we covered five reasons as to why people can become desensitized to death. Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:29:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Insensitivity-Toward-Death https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/How-God-Knows-Counterfactuals Last month, I finished the last requirement for the master of theology degree at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. It took six years, with a lot of Greek and Hebrew. The DBTS Th.M. program was quite substantial, as it required 13 classes and the writing of a 70- to 100-page thesis. My paper is entitled "How God Knows Counterfactuals." Thu, 03 Jun 2010 16:30:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/How-God-Knows-Counterfactuals https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/What-Dispensationalism-Is-Not-Part-3 A 15th thing is not a necessary part of the dispensational system of belief. Mon, 17 May 2010 16:33:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/What-Dispensationalism-Is-Not-Part-3 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/What-Dispensationalism-Is-Not-Part-2 Almost two years ago (June 17, 2008), I posted a list of things that are not necessary to the dispensational system of belief. In this post, I add one more that I ran into and had forgotten to call out in that post. Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:34:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/What-Dispensationalism-Is-Not-Part-2 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/2010-Bible-Reading-Schedule Next year, we embark on another journey through the Bible, this time twice through the NT and once through the OT. The reading schedules are available in PDF. Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:36:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/2010-Bible-Reading-Schedule https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/What-Are-False-Gods Are they figments of people's sinful and creative imagination? Or are is there something more sinister behind them? Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:41:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/What-Are-False-Gods https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Compelled-to-Speak The early chapters of Acts record several persecutions against the church. In ch. 4, the apostles Peter and John were jailed and interrogated by the Sanhedrin. In ch. 5 the apostles were incarcerated again. After a miraculous release, they were brought before the Sanhedrin. This time they were beaten and reprimanded. In all three cases, the Jewish authorities were disturbed and angry that the apostles were preaching and teaching about Jesus (4:2, 5:17, 5:28). A fourth persecution came about on the occasion of Stephen's preaching (Acts 6-7). Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:06:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Compelled-to-Speak https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Rejection-of-God Stephen's speech to the Sanhedrin contained several references to the Jewish people rejecting God and his messengers. The first is in v. 9 where the patriarchs sold Joseph into Egypt as a slave because they were jealous of him. The next is in v. 25 where Moses was rejected by his brethren from delivering them from the hand of Pharaoh (see also v. 35). Verse 39 tells us that Moses was rejected again when the people wanted to go back to Egypt. The nation also rejected God, attempting to replace Him with a golden calf and other idols (v. 41). Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:05:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Rejection-of-God https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Neither-Common-Nor-Unclean Acts 10:1-11:18 is a crucial passage in the history of the gospel as it expanded to the Gentiles. Peter's vision of the large sheet with all kinds of animals was central in this. God gave the vision teach him something. It seems obvious from 10:9-16 that Peter would have understood the vision to mean that animals he formerly considered unclean were now clean (God had declared them to be so) and he could eat them. As a Jewish man, he would have been very particular to observe the various food laws and it would have been repulsive to him to eat anything unclean (Lev. 11:1-47). This understanding of the vision certainly agrees with the teaching of Mark 7:19 where Jesus "purified all foods." Also, 1 Tim. 4:3-5 teaches that food is to be received with thanksgiving and prayer instead of being rejected by a legalistic kind of religion. Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:41:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Neither-Common-Nor-Unclean https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/A-Book-Burning Ephesus had its share of trouble in the spiritual realm. There were men who had not heard of the gospel of Christ nor of the Holy Spirit (1-7); there were Jews who were hard-hearted (8-9); there were demon-possessed people (8:12); there were self-proclaimed exorcists (13-17); there were those who practiced the black arts (19); and there were many idolaters who worshiped the Greek goddess Diana. Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:20:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/A-Book-Burning https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Seeing-the-Obvious The apostle affirms that the gospel not only reveals the righteous standing available from God (1:17), but also the wrath of God (1:18). This wrath is directed toward mankind, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. The truth that is rejected is nothing other than the truth about who God is. Our text then tells us three things about this truth of God. Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:19:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Seeing-the-Obvious https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/How-You-Cannot-be-Justified This quotation comes from Genesis 15:6 which describes Abraham's reaction when God again confirmed the promises to Abraham which we call the Abrahamic covenant. The apostle Paul appeals to Abraham's "discovery" of this truth (Rom. 4:1) to bolster his conclusion from 3:28 that men are "Justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law." To be justified means "to be accounted righteous" just like Abraham was. In chapter 4, we learn that people are justified apart from three things: works, religious ordinances, and the Mosaic Law. Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:18:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/How-You-Cannot-be-Justified https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Resurrection-Implications If, in the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantage is it to me? If the dead do not rise, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!" Do not be deceived: "Evil company corrupts good habits." Some in Corinth believed the heresy that there is absolutely no resurrection of any dead people (v. 12). As true believers, we understand that this is utter foolishness. But the "resurrection chapter" gives us a number of implications of this hypothetical doctrine. First, Christ would not be risen (v. 13, 16). Second, gospel preaching would be vain (v. 14). Third, personal faith would be useless (v. 14, 17). Fourth, gospel preachers would be liars (v. 15). Fifth, believers would remain in their sin (v. 17). Sixth, all who had died in Christ would be without hope (v. 18). Sixth, Christians would be a miserable bunch if all they had was hope in this life, and no hope after death (v. 19). Seventh, to be baptized behind those who have died to fill in the "gap" left by their passing would be silly (v. 29). Eighth, it would be a total waste to risk life and limb for the gospel (v. 30, 32a). And finally, ninth, it would be a natural conclusion that we should eat and drink to enjoy life now, for soon comes death and the unknown after it. This latter conclusion is the philosophy called hedonism. The argument is "if no resurrection, then live for self pleasure." Wrong belief on resurrection leads to this godless philosophy of life. Be assured that if you keep company with such people, you will be negatively affected (v. 33). But as believers, we know that God has and will resurrect the dead. Thus, the implication is reversed: "If there is a resurrection (and there is!), then we cannot live for self pleasure." Formal logic would not allow for such a conclusion (maybe you can still live for self pleasure even though there is a resurrection?), but anyone who knows God will not be bothered by this, because we have been awakened to righteousness and understand that we must not sin (v. 34). See also 2 Cor. 5:14-15. MAP Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:17:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Resurrection-Implications https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Who-is-Spiritual This devotional is a companion to Romans 8:5-9, "Two Kinds of People." The major point of those verses was to say that there are only two kinds of people: saved and unsaved. We saw there that the saved have certain characteristics. Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:17:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Who-is-Spiritual https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Sown-and-Raised The point of this section is to help us understand the nature of the new body that we will receive upon resurrection. Paul has already established that there is a resurrection. Now he turns to answer the foolish man who, doubting the resurrection in the first place, asks the question, "Well, what kind of body will come out of that grave?" Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:46:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Sown-and-Raised https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Fearing-the-Lord 2 Kings 17 records the final demise of the northern kingdom, the one called "Israel" after the split from Judah when King Solomon died. The Assyrian king took the people captive to Assyria, and re-populated the land of Israel with Babylonians and others (v. 24). The antecedent of "They" in our text consists of those foreigners transplanted into Israel. Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:45:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Fearing-the-Lord https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/God-Honoring-Worship-Part-1 This passage has a lot to teach us about the proper worship of God. First of all, worship must not be profane. This word carries the connotations of strange, foreign, unlawful, unauthorized, forbidden, and illegitimate. Nadab and Abihu took it upon themselves to invent a different act of worship to God, a way that was out of bounds. By application, we must strive to pattern our worship after that which is authorized. Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:44:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/God-Honoring-Worship-Part-1 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/God-Honoring-Worship-Part-2 As an outgrowth of what happened earlier that day to Aaron's sons (Lev. 10:1-3), God commanded Aaron to avoid wine or any intoxicating drink when performing priestly functions (v. 9). An implication of this is that Nadab and Abihu may have been drunken when they tried to worship God in their own way. Their senses would have been dulled by their intoxication in such a way that they behaved unwisely in their priestly duties. They paid for it with their lives. Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:43:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/God-Honoring-Worship-Part-2 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Two-Kinds-of-People God sets forth in this passage the extreme difference between two types of people. On the one hand is the carnal or fleshly person. They a) live according to the flesh; b) have a fleshly mindset; c) live a life that is spiritually dead; d) are at enmity against God; e) are not subject to God's law; f) are unable to be subject to God's law; g) are "in the flesh"; h) cannot please God; and i) do not have the Spirit and therefore do not belong to Christ. This is none other than the unsaved person... Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:41:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Two-Kinds-of-People https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Mormon-Doctrine-of-Salvation Yes, it most definitely does. In conducting evangelism around Ann Arbor, my wife and I have heard numerous times the Mormons say "We are saved by Jesus Christ after all that we can do." This is a clever statement, but it belies the fact that the Mormons believe in a doctrine of salvation by works. They must do good works ("all that we can do"). Then, the atonement of Christ is added to that ("after"). Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:15:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Mormon-Doctrine-of-Salvation https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/How-Jesus-Fulfilled-the-Law First, let us be sure we understand the term "Law." The Law (capital L) refers to the Mosaic Law given at Mount Sinai to Moses. It started with the 10 commandments in Exodus 20 and has many other elements to it. Some say there are 613 specific commandments. In any case, the whole Mosaic Law is what we are referring to. Second, we must understand that no one has or could fulfill that Law, apart from Jesus Christ. All people find even the 10 commandments impossible to follow, particularly when considering Christ's high standard given in the Sermon on the Mount. Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:13:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/How-Jesus-Fulfilled-the-Law https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Why-Confess-Sins-if-Forgiven-Already The issue of the forgiveness of sins is obviously dear to all Christians. But some believers have found it difficult to understand how a Christian's sins can be said to be completely forgiven (Col. 2:13, 1 John 2:12) and yet at the same time that confession of sin is a necessary element of the Christian's life (1 John 1:9, James 4:8, 5:15-16; see also Lev. 5:5, Num. 5:7, Ezra 10:1, Neh. 9:2-3, Psalm 32:5, Prov. 28:13, Daniel 9:4, 9:20). They might ask, "Why should I confess my sins when they are all forgiven already?" Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:09:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Why-Confess-Sins-if-Forgiven-Already https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Sin-Leading-to-Death The verse about sin leading to death in 1 John 5:16 is one of those knotty passages that has really bothered people. The idea is this... Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:08:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Sin-Leading-to-Death https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Restrainer-in-2-Thessalonians-2 It is a much debated text, but I'm convinced that it is an oblique reference to the Holy Spirit and particularly His presence in the church during this age of grace. This is evident because... Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:07:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Restrainer-in-2-Thessalonians-2 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Review-Coming-to-Grips-with-Genesis I have posted my review of Coming to Grips with Genesis on our church website. You can read the PDF... Tue, 08 Sep 2009 21:16:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Review-Coming-to-Grips-with-Genesis https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Our-Bible-Reading-Plan At Fellowship Bible Church, we have been systematically reading through the New Testament. We are on our third time through, just now in the middle of Romans. It has been a great help to many of our people, and I wanted to take the opportunity here to encourage you to work through some systematic Bible reading plan. Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:17:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Our-Bible-Reading-Plan https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Middle-Knowledge-and-Open-Theism I plan to work on a lengthy paper critiquing the doctrine of middle knowledge. A question that arose in my studies relates to the relationship of open theism to middle knowledge. One reason that this question arose is when people ask me what middle knowledge means, they often assume it is related to open theism. It also interested me that two authors (David Basinger and William Hasker) wrote in both Clark Pinnock et al., The Openness of God as well as Hasker, Basinger, and Eef Dekker (eds.), Middle Knowledge: Theory and Applications. Why would they write in both books if there was not some kind of relationship between the doctrines? Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:17:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Middle-Knowledge-and-Open-Theism https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/The-Strengths-of-Premillennialism Sam Storms provides an outline of the premillennial view here, though he is refuting it at each point because he is an amillennialist. But I thought a point-by-point response would be helpful for someone reading out there in web-land, so here goes. The listed items are his evaluation of what a premillennialist must believe. My comments follow each one. Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:18:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/The-Strengths-of-Premillennialism https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Dear-Pastor-Dever-Part-1 Dear Pastor Dever, You said in your sermon that "...you are in sin if you lead your congregation to have a statement of faith that requires a particular Millennial view." Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:23:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Dear-Pastor-Dever-Part-1 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Dear-Pastor-Dever-Part-2 Dear Pastor Dever, Again regarding your statement on millennial views...It seems that with the judgment you judge, you could well be judged. Capitol Hill Baptist's statement of faith includes a couple of things that don't seem essential for church membership... Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:22:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Dear-Pastor-Dever-Part-2 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Dear-Pastor-Dever-Part-3 Dear Pastor Dever, Your statement on the sin of including millennial views seems to have an underlying assumption: that one holds views of eschatology in complete isolation from his other views. But no one is this way in practice. One's millennial view comes with other baggage necessarily attached. Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:21:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Dear-Pastor-Dever-Part-3 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Tip-for-Medicare-Part-D Perhaps it seems a little out of character for me to comment on an issue like Medicare Part D. However, my soul is vexed when I hear misinformation and see elderly folks having difficulties with their medication because of shortcomings in the program and unhelpful pharmacies. My mother-in-law was in this very predicament and it took me some time to sort through it. Mon, 02 Feb 2009 21:24:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Tip-for-Medicare-Part-D https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Religion-and-Morality There is a stately building on the University of Michigan campus called Angell Hall. On the front is the following inscription... Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:25:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Religion-and-Morality https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Abortion-Funding I probably knew this before, but lately in the news I was reminded that the federal government is supporting Planned Parenthood with my tax money. I read in the "What in the World!" flyer from Bob Jones University, Volume 45, Number 3, the following: "Planned Parenthood took in just over $1 billion during the fiscal year ending in June 2007. They received $356 million in health center income, $337 million in government grants and contracts..." They were quoting a story from the June 23, 2008 Wall Street Journal. Fri, 12 Sep 2008 21:26:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Abortion-Funding https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Light-Bulbs-and-Abortion "The incandescent light bulb, one of the most venerable inventions of its era but deemed too inefficient for our own, will be phased off the U.S. market beginning in 2012 under the new energy law just approved by Congress." Tue, 09 Sep 2008 21:27:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Light-Bulbs-and-Abortion https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/MiniFlash-and-Rapid-Hebrew-Reading The Rapid Hebrew Reading class at DBTS requires the student to learn a large number of words (2,153). To help, I've put together a MiniFlash flashcard database for my Palm PDA. To download it, click here and save the file on your computer. Tue, 02 Sep 2008 21:27:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/MiniFlash-and-Rapid-Hebrew-Reading https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Essentials-of-Dispensationalism Previously, I mentioned four essential components of the Dispensational system of thought. If these are removed from the system, it ceases to be what it is. Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:28:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Essentials-of-Dispensationalism https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/What-Dispensationalism-Is-Not-Part-1 In this post, I want to convey what is not entailed by the interpretive system called Dispensationalism. When I use the verb entail, I mean that there are certain things that do not follow from Dispensationalism as a logical consequence. These things are not necessary accompaniments or results of holding to Dispensationalism. Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:29:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/What-Dispensationalism-Is-Not-Part-1 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/What-Dispensationalism-Is Our first order of business is to understand what Dispensationalism is. A good starting point in matters of definition is Charles C. Ryrie's book Dispensationalism. My discussion will largely reflect his text but will expand on it somewhat. There are four issues which are essential to the Dispensational view of the Scriptures. They are... Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:30:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/What-Dispensationalism-Is https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Improvement-for-Thunderbird-Email This post is a little out of the ordinary for this blog, but a little frustration with Mozilla's Thunderbird software induced me to write. Hopefully someone "out there" will see it and get this suggestion to where it should go. I searched around for an easy way to do this but did not find one after some searching. Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:32:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Improvement-for-Thunderbird-Email https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Is-Dispensationalism-Dead Ever since I talked to a pastor in Florida a few weeks ago, I have been thinking about the future of Dispensationalism. My title above was inspired by this pastor showing concern that the resurgence in popularity of Reformed theology may basically kill dispensational thought. In fact, he reported that Charles Ryrie, speaking at a Bible conference recently, said that the greatest threat to Dispensationalism is Reformed theology. Caution: This is not to say that if Dispensationalism dies it takes Christianity down with it--I'm not trying to raise Dispensationalism to the level of a fundamental of the faith! More on that later. Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:31:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Is-Dispensationalism-Dead https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Rodman-Illustrating-Church-Truth I heard an interesting interview yesterday on News Radio 760, WJR in Detroit. Frank Beckmann was interviewing former Detroit Pistons coach Chuck Daly (mp3, between 08:26 and 9:16). The conversation turned to Dennis Rodman, a controversial player on the 1980's and early 1990's "Bad Boys" championship teams. I certainly cannot Christianize Rodman's antics, but the conversation was interesting in another aspect. Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:34:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Rodman-Illustrating-Church-Truth https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Already-Not-Yet-Part-2 In my December 7 post, I said, "I cannot grasp something that is 'already' true and 'not yet' true at the same time and in the same sense." It seems to me that this is just another way of expressing the logical principle we call the "law of non-contradiction." Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:35:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Already-Not-Yet-Part-2 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Polygamy-Part-4 In my September 14, 2007 post, I probably raised more questions than I answered with respect to the issue of polygamy and its practice in the Old Testament. One statement I made elicited some response from at least one reader. I said that "though Exodus 21:7-11 regulates polygamy, this does not necessarily endorse it." The question was whether that is a valid principle. If something is regulated, shouldn't we suppose that it is within God's will? That is to say, since God regulates polygamy, it seems that, at least in some cases, it must be allowable and God does thus endorse it. Of course, later in the same post, I said that the Levirate institution causes tension with my view "in that God gave this as part of the Law and so in some sense endorsed it." Sat, 16 Feb 2008 21:36:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Polygamy-Part-4 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/My-New-Pulpit-Bible One of our families brought some relatives with them to church on the weekend of February 2-3. On the Saturday, they were planning to visit the Bible display at the University of Michigan called "The Evolution of the English Bible: From Papyri to KJV" and they brought with them their own replica edition of the 1611 KJV. The next day, they brought their Bible to Fellowship Bible. I got the above picture holding the Bible. It weighs 35 pounds and is a very nicely done replica. Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:37:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/My-New-Pulpit-Bible https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/What-is-The-Family I was in the parking lot of a store this afternoon and was approached by a young man who asked me if I would take some literature about God's love and Jesus. I looked at it--a full color brochure of several pages--and asked him what it was about. He said he was a missionary from "The Family." When I questioned him about his belief in Christ and salvation by faith alone, he seemed to say some true things. When said that I was a pastor and I indicated that I would look at their website and find out more information, he wanted me to give them a donation (even a small one, he said) to offset the cost of printing the brochure. I declined, and he wanted the brochure back, and instead gave me a little piece of paper with a message supposedly from God on it. The message emphasized God's love but says nothing about sin or Jesus' death or repentance. Jesus is simply the "key" to eternal life that one needs to receive to get in at the end of one's road. Sat, 29 Dec 2007 21:38:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/What-is-The-Family https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/More-on-Preterist-View-of-Revelation A careful reader pointed out that the preterist view is not "one size fits all." There are "full" preterists and "partial" preterists. The latter are more common... Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:39:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/More-on-Preterist-View-of-Revelation https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Not-Already-Not-Yet-Again Just thinking out loud here...I thought about entitling this entry "Enough Already Not Yet Enough" but I wondered if that would confuse the issue! I don't know about you, but the "Already/Not Yet" view of the fulfillment of prophecy has been grinding on my theological nerves for some time. Frankly, it seems to be theological double-talk. I cannot grasp something that is "already" true and "not yet" true at the same time and in the same sense. Is the kingdom of God already inaugurated, or is it not yet? Progressive dispensationalists will answer "yes," just like I answer "yes" to the question "Do you want pie or ice cream?" I want both pie and ice cream! Progressives want both "inaugurated" and "not" at the same time. Granted, the meaning of this phrase seems to be "already in the spiritual sense" and "not yet in the final sense" but the finer points don't always come across clearly. Fri, 07 Dec 2007 21:40:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Not-Already-Not-Yet-Again https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Principle-of-First-Reference There is a proposed hermeneutical principle in the study of the Bible which its proponents call the principle of first reference. When a word or concept is encountered, the first reference in the Bible to that word or concept is consulted as the most significant defining or foundational passage. (If anyone reading can supply a better definition, please send it to me.) Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:42:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Principle-of-First-Reference https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Great-Thanksgiving-Meeting Wednesday evening we had a combined meeting at Faithway Baptist Church in Ypsilanti. We sang some hymns, listened to a men's trio and ladies quartet sing, shared testimonies of salvation and of God's goodness in many other ways, and heard preaching from Ephesians 5:20 on "An Exhortation to Thanksgiving"... Fri, 23 Nov 2007 21:43:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Great-Thanksgiving-Meeting https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/A-Cross In yesterday's entry, I mentioned the issue of the cross as a decoration in our church. We do not have a cross upon the front wall or on the outside of the building. There are some historical reasons why this was the case up to the time I started the pastorate at Fellowship Bible. So what is wrong with putting a cross up in the front now? Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:44:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/A-Cross https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/A-Cult Lately I was reminded that some folks that have left Fellowship Bible Church have spread the word that we are a "cult." I wondered what that meant. When I inquired of the best source I could find for information on what these folks are saying, I found that the we are a cult because... Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:45:00 -0500 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/A-Cult https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Atheist-Alarmism I decided I should read Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation to learn about the current state of the atheist community. One thing I learned by reading his initial "Note to the Reader" is that he believes we are in a moral and intellectual emergency because of the supposed Christian beliefs of the population of the United States. Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:46:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Atheist-Alarmism https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Richard-Dawkins-Atheism Atheist and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote in a 1989 New York Times book review, "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." He later added a fifth possibility, that such a person is a victim who has either been tormented, bullied, or brainwashed (see his essay Ignorance is No Crime). Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:46:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Richard-Dawkins-Atheism https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Elementary-Hebrew-Grammar-Audio When I taught elementary Hebrew at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary during the 2006-2007 school year, I recorded some helps for the students regarding the vowel points. My Hebrew teacher, Dr. Robert McCabe, passed on the audio of a native Jewish man saying the alphabet. Please click the following links to download the mp3 audio. Fri, 05 Oct 2007 21:47:00 -0400 https://www.fbcaa.org/MattPostiffBlog/2010/12/Elementary-Hebrew-Grammar-Audio