mikemcg58

Response to My Calvinist Friends

Regarding this quote from Spurgeon:

To submit to a Creator who is too wise to err and too good to be unkind should not be difficult.
~Spurgeon

Submission is an act of the will which a person under Calvinism cannot do. All commands of God are meaningless under a Calvinistic framework. God cannot command all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30), when he gave them no ability to do so. How can Jesus preach “Repent and believe the Good News” (Mark 1:15) when it is impossible for a person either to repent or believe?

Since God preordained everything that happens, and everything is unchangeably God’s will, then every act of violence, every rape, every murder, and every war is his doing. You can’t deny that from a Calvinistic point of view. Everything that happens is God’s will. From the Westminster Confession: “God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.” Notice–“whatever comes to pass” was ordained by God This makes God the author of evil. Even though the second part that says “neither is God the author of sin” that does not make it so. You can’t have a round square no matter how much you preach it.

Removing God one step back does not make him less responsible for evil. Two cases in point from scripture, not quotes from other Calvinists: One, who was responsible for Uriah’s death? David was, even though he used the sword of the Ammonite army. God still held David responsible for Uriah’s death. Two, who was responsible for Naboth’s death? Ahab was, even though two “scoundrels” rose up against him and the people put him to death, God held Ahab responsible. Calvinism makes God responsible for all evil no matter how you phrase it. The square cannot be round, yet circular at the same time. That flies in the face of reality.

I know you believe you have the scripture on your side, but every cult believes it has the scripture on its side. Calvinism distorts the scripture. It distorts the nature of God. It makes Him the author of all evil in the world.

There are other and better ways to interpret the scripture rather than through a Calvinistic worldview. I lost respect for MacArthur when I began to see how he distorted and added to the scriptures to make them teach what he wanted them to say. It was not just over Calvinism either.

If I am wrong and you are right, then I could do no other. I was preordained for this before the beginning of time. I could never change because God predestined this for me. Calvinism is not found in the Bible. The god of Calvinism is not the God of the Bible.

If I am right, I will pray for you that God will open your eyes to see the errors of Calvinism. If you are right, there is absolutely no need to pray for anything because everything has already been predetermined and nothing can change.

K. I. S. S.

Anyone who has been in the motivational speaking or writing niche has heard the expression K. I. S. S., short for “Keep It Simple, S______.” The idea is for the speaker to make the message plain enough for even the most simple-minded person to understand. Speakers and teachers don’t want to go into much depth and confuse the person they are trying to motivate.

However, when it comes to brain surgery, a prospective patient might want to select a surgeon who went into much more depth in medical school than just a simplistic level. Imagine a medical school professor saying to a class of aspiring brain surgeons, “I don’t want to go too deep with you on this topic, so I’m just going to cover the basics to keep it simple for you to understand.”

Teaching high school and preaching at church over the years, I have heard similar statements: “Just stick with the basics.” “Back to the Basics” was a rallying cry in education circles decades ago. Students could not read, so teachers focused on the basics of reading. Later followed the “No Child Left Behind” movement. The classroom progressed only at the rate of the slowest child because, if anyone got ahead, that would mean one, or perhaps several, got left behind. Teachers found it difficult to challenge students because one might not accept the challenge and therefore be left behind. Mediocrity ruled in education.

Well-meaning church members often reflect this same value. They do not want the pastor to spend too much time talking about doctrine or deep teachings. The church members sometimes call them secondary or extraneous matters. “Just stick to the basics,” church members frequently say.

Twenty years ago, a popular deacon/Sunday School teacher in my church essentially told me to “KISS off.” Commenting on my preaching he said, “We don’t need all that Greek and Hebrew stuff. Just preach the Word.” I said, “Jim, that’s how you preach the Word.” Ironically, not long after that, a church called that deacon to be their pastor. A couple of years later I caught up with him and asked how things were going at church. He said the church was doing well, and he loved delving into the Greek and Hebrew meanings as he prepared his sermons. I don’t think he saw my eyes roll.

First Corinthians 3:1, 2 says, “But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready” (ESV). Essentially, Paul chastised them for not moving beyond the basics.

Additionally, Peter encouraged believers to crave pure spiritual milk the same way a newborn baby does so that believers could grow up into salvation (1 Peter 2:2). Lack of growth in a newborn often signals a health problem. A lack of appetite could lead to severe growth and developmental issues. As a child matures, the mother transitions the diet from milk or formula to more solid food. Usually, it has been specially prepared for the child to swallow it more easily. The child’s goal is to move to solid food. One day, that young person will enjoy eating steak.

For decades, American Christians have focused on “just the basics” regarding preaching doctrine. Just as children hate being introduced to adult food, such as broccoli and asparagus, churchgoers often hate being introduced to deeper teaching. In the same way a child says, “I don’t like broccoli. It tastes terrible,” churchgoers often complain when the pastor preaches doctrine. “I don’t like that teaching. It’s too judgmental.” A wise parent knows that the child needs to eat certain foods, so a wise pastor knows that the congregation also needs to study certain doctrines. Lack of eating good food leads to physical weakness. Lack of teaching good doctrine leads to spiritual weakness as well. Paul urged Timothy, “Watch your life and doctrine closely” (1 Timothy 4:16 NIV).

All teachers were students at one point in their lives. They had to complete schooling and progress to become teachers. Something about their past inspired them to become a teacher, but they did not become a teacher without preparation.

Most pastors, at some time in their past, attended church as regular churchgoers. Through their study of God’s Word, God called them to pastor. Often that call to ministry involves a seminary education where the prospective pastor receives in-depth training. The best pastors and teachers have paid the price and put in the hard work.

The author of Hebrews wrote: “About this, we have much to say, and it is hard to explain since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time, you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child” (Hebrews 5:11-13 ESV). The author here does not applaud the “back-to-basics” movement. Milk is good for babies. Simple doctrinal basics are good for newbie Christians and rookies, but people who have sat in church for years need to move beyond the basics and become skilled workers.

To paraphrase Peter, it’s time to grow up.

The Biblical Case for Modern Pastors

The following was a rebuttal I wrote in response to a youtube video about modern pastors.

You can watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DhgjsNR9ug&t=456s

In the description, the creator wrote: “So, if you wish to justify the modern day clergyman, called “the pastor” in a comment, First, would you please answer the following questions first:”

So I did. I cut and pasted these questions from the description as he wrote them. Below is my response.

Why did Peter tell elders NOT TO lord over God’s heritage? Isn’t that what modern-day clergy do? Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.” (1Timoth 5:17).

Why did Jesus say to His disciples, that the Gentiles have those in authority over them, to rule OVER them, BUT IT SHALL NOT BE SO AMONG YOU? “Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.” (Hebrews 13:7) “Bishop” (Gr. episcopos means “Overseer.” (1 Tim 3:2) Overseers have authority over those under them.

Why did Paul say he did NOT “peddle the Word of God for profit”? “Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.” (1 Cor. 9:14) Read the whole context of that verse. It is about paying the pastor. Verse 7: “Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?”

When did sermons replace a simple reading of the scriptures? “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine.” (2 Timothy 4:2) “So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.” (Nehemiah 8:8) This is what modern pastors are to do.

Where are we taught about “the worship service” in scripture? “Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.” (1 Tim 4:13) “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” (Colossians 3:16) The “worship service” came from the old synagogue style.

Where did Jesus send Peter, James, John, etc. to seminary? Paul’s seminary: “So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. This went on for two years so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord.” (Acts 19:19). “I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:11-12) Context says he spent three years in Arabia, about the same time as a seminary degree. They did not need the seminary as we know it today. They already knew Greek and Hebrew. They lived church history. They learn evangelism from Christ himself, but we can’t do that today. That is why seminary is needed.

When did Paul collect money for “a church building fund”? They had no church buildings in that day, so this argument is pointless. They used the synagogues where they existed and when they were able. If there was no synagogue, they met in public places (Acts 16:13). How were synagogues built? It require some sort of money.

Why do the clergy disregard Jesus teaching on the use of religious titles? “Apostle Paul” (Romans 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 1 Cor. 9:1; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:1; Colossian 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim 1:1; Titus 1:1) Paul often introduced his epistles with the title apostle. Peter called himself an Elder in 1 Peter 5:1. John called himself “the elder” in 2 John 1 and 3 John 1.
“If you wish to refute this video, please first answer these questions for us. Then leave your comment. Thank you.”

I believe I have done that. All scripture is from the KJV unless otherwise noted.

The Real Reason for Evolution

Most people have been thoroughly convinced that the study of evolution is a scientific endeavor that has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Anyone who denies evolution is simply a science denier. Could it be possible, however, that people have an ulterior motive to believe in evolution? Listen to their own words.

Huxley, Aldous, “Confession of a Professed Atheist,” Report: Perspective on the News, vol. 3 (June 1966), p. 19. From an article by Helming, “An Interview with God.” “I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption…. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do…. For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.” (emphasis mine) (Morris, Henry. That Their Words May Be Used Against Them. San Diego: Institute for Creation Research, 1997. 447.)

p 10 “My guess is that the popular theory of evolution appeals precisely as an alternative to the Christian view of man, which not only demands faith but imposes moral obligations. People who adopt Evolutionism are not driven to it by consideration of the evidence; they like it without respect to the evidence, because they are passionate creatures, and it offers no moral impediment to their passions.” (emphasis mine)
Sobran, Joseph, “The Averted Gaze, Liberalism and Fetal Pain,” Human Life Review (Spring, 1984), pp. 1-14.

And the quote I was most looking for is: Watson, D. M. S., “Adaptation,” Nature, vol. 124 (August 10, 1929), pp. 231-234. p. 233 “If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” (emphasis mine).

In their own words, you can see that evolution has nothing to do with science. It is all about eliminating morality.

What Did the Reformers Reform? Part 1

The Protestant reformers never renounced the basic biblical heresies of the Catholic Church. They simply reformed them. Most notably the doctrines of original sin, infant baptism, and Communion or Eucharist. (I will deal with Communion and Eucharist in a later post.)

Original sin is the idea that we are guilty of the sin of Adam. The idea behind infant baptism is to wash away Adam’s sin so that babies may potentially enter into the kingdom of God if their parents raise them in the Catholic church (https://diosav.org/resources/sacraments-of-initiation/baptism/the-baptism-of-infants#:~:text=Infant%20Baptism%20has%20been%20practiced,of%20the%20means%20of%20salvation.).

Calvinists follow the same idea. We are guilty of Adam’s sin and thereby so depraved that we cannot choose to do God’s will. The Bible does not teach this doctrine, Calvin does. They like to quote Romans 5:12 as a proof text: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.” It does not say that death passed to all men because Adam sinned. It says that death passed to all men because all men sinned (Romans 3:23). I am not guilty of Adam’s sin. I am only guilty of my sin.

Nowhere does the Bible teach that we are responsible for the sin of another person, not even Adam. In fact, it teaches the opposite. Ezekiel refutes the Proverb: “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children’s teeth are set on edge.” (18:1). The Jews believed that persons were punished for their parents’ sins. That is why the disciples asked Jesus about the blind man, “Who sinned, this man or his parents that he should born blind?” (John 9:1-2). Ezekiel 18:3 says, ““Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul of the father As well as the soul of the son is Mine; The soul who sins shall die.” Here he teaches that each is responsible for his own sin. In verse 20 Ezekiel continues: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”

Notice: The son shall not bear the guilt of the father. We are not condemned because of the evils that others do, nor are we saved by the righteous acts of others. We are condemned by our own sin and we are not saved by the merits of others including saints.

Likewise: Deuteronomy 24:16, “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin.” Also, Jeremiah quotes the same proverb as Ezekiel (Jeremiah 31:29), and his conclusion is the same: “But every one shall die for his own iniquity; every man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge.” (31:31)

The doctrine of our being guilty of what Adam did runs contrary to scripture. Therefore, the Calvinists’ view of original sin is unbiblical. The practice of infant baptism is also unbiblical because there is no need to wash away Adam’s sin. The Reformers (Characterized by Luther and Calvin, and others) retained these unbiblical doctrines and practices. Reformed false theology is still false theology no matter how you reform it.

If you are confused or turned off by Calvinism, here is a book that will help you: The Potter’s Promise

Words Not Found In the Bible

No, not THOSE words. I mean the words you may have heard in church over the years, or in the media, and critics say, “That word is not in the Bible!” Then they try to tell you that you have been misled to believe unbiblical teachings.

One popular word heard today is “Rapture.” Much has been made of it in movies and books from the Left Behind series. After the recent release of the remake of the movie, several articles appeared claiming that the doctrine was false because the word “rapture” was not in the Bible.

To understand why, you need to know a little about Bible translations. The problem with many critics of the Bible is that they do not know anything about the Bible, or how we got it. Some people even believe that Jesus spoke in perfect Elizabethan English.

Biblical writers used three languages to record God’s message to mankind. The Old Testament used ancient Hebrew. Later books used Aramaic, a derivative of Hebrew, much as Italian is a derivative of Latin. The New Testament writers used the Koine Greek language, which was the common language of the day, much as English is today. There never was a written language known as Reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics.

The etymology of “rapture” shows that it comes from Latin. The word origin according to dictionary.com is “’act of carrying off,’ from Middle French rapture, from Medieval Latin raptura ‘seizure, rape, kidnapping,’ from Latin raptus “a carrying off, abduction, snatching away; rape’” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rapture?s=t). So basically the word means a snatching or carrying away. Jerome translated the Bible into Latin in the late fourth century. It became the official translation of the Roman Catholic Church in sixteenth century. As a result, many theological terms come from Latin-based words. Keep this in mind for future articles.

Where does the Bible teach the rapture, if at all? In First Thessalonians 4: 16-17 Paul writes: “For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.” Notice the phrase “caught up” in that last verse. Paul used the Greek word “harpazo” here. A Greek Lexicon reveals that this word comes from a root that means “to take for oneself” and the verb means “to seize, pluck, pull, or take by force” (QuickVerse 3). This would be like a vinedresser walking through the vineyard and plucking up the grapes for the harvest. This is the idea that Paul is trying to convey, that the Rapture, (The Latin-based word used here from the Vulgate) is a plucking up, a “catching up,” or a harvesting of the believers who are alive at Christ’s return.

Next we must ask ourselves, “Do other verses teach this same idea?” Matthew 24:30-31 says, “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.” So when Christ returns, He will gather believers to Himself.

Paul is teaching that at Christ’s return, Christians who have died (fallen asleep) will be raised immortal and imperishable, and living Christians will be transformed “in the twinkling of an eye” (First Corinthians 15:51-52). Then all who are so changed by resurrection or transformation, will be caught up to meet Christ in the air (First Thessalonians 4:17). That is what “the Rapture” means.

It is beyond the scope of this article to deal with the details as many books have undertaken such challenges. I would simply encourage you to research and study on your own. You can reach your own conclusions. Just do not let someone unnerve you by saying “That word is not in the Bible.”

Words Not Found in The Bible -Part 2

Excerpt from my book Embracing Faith Volume 2 https://amzn.to/3v7oWKp

Another word related to the end times such as rapture is the word “Millennium.” Often preachers refer to it as The Millennium. This word literally means one thousand years. Eschatology, or the study of the end times, refers to a one thousand year period in which Christ will return and reign on earth (Revelation 20:4).

This word does not appear in the Bible for exactly the same reason that “rapture” does not appear. It also is a Latin translation of the Greek word found in the New Testament. Revelation 20:2 introduces the word “kilia” to refer to the period of Christ’s reign. You will recognize the word as a part of many English words that refer to measurement. The slang term “kilo,” short for kilogram, means one thousand grams. A kilometer is one thousand meters. Therefore, kilia refers to a thousand-year period of time in Revelation 20:3.

The Latin Vulgate used the word millennium to translate it. It comes from the Latin “mille,” meaning one thousand, and “annus” meaning year, as in the word “annual.” Hence, millennium refers to one thousand years.

A Short Course in Millennial Studies

Theologians have written many volumes about the Millennial Period, which are beyond the scope of this column. Nevertheless, let me give you a brief summary. Theologians teach three basic views about the Millennium as it relates to the coming of Christ:

Amillennial—“a,” meaning “not,” means that there is no literal thousand-year period. Supposedly it refers to an indefinite period.

Post-millennial—This view states that Christianity will improve the world, progressively making it a better place until Christ returns. This view was popular until about 1914 when World War I broke out, although some people still hold to it.

Pre-millennial—This view holds that the world will not, nor cannot, improve until Christ returns to establish his earthly kingdom. This view seems to follow Revelation 20:1-7 more closely than the other views.

Another broader term, called the Preterist view, believes that all the prophecies of Revelation and many from Matthew 24 have already happened by the end of the first century.

Why I hold to the Pre-Millennial View

Taking the amilliennial view would rob the words of the passage of their meaning. Why specify a thousand years if it did not mean a thousand years. Another word would have better indicated an indefinite period of time.

The post-millennial view has been invalidated by history. While the world has experienced scientific and technological breakthroughs in the last two centuries, the world is far from the utopia that theologians envisioned its becoming in the nineteenth century.

The preterist view also fails to hold up to the words of scripture. To this point, we have not seen Satan chained and cast into the Abyss. If anything, he and his minions seem to be very active in today’s world.

Therefore I hold to a pre-millennial view. Christ will come to establish his kingdom on earth for a thousand years. Then what? Satan is released from his prison. He will deceive the nations, round up armies, and lead them against Christ one last time. He never learns. After a thousand years of unparalleled peace and prosperity on earth, mankind will one more time try to overthrow God’s rule in the world.

Christ will crush this final rebellion. Satan will be cast into the lake of fire along with the Beast and the False Prophet who have already been there a thousand years. They will be “tormented day and night forever and ever” (Revelation 20:10)

The Great White Throne Judgment will then take place (20:11-15). Everyone whose name was not written in the Lamb’s Book of life will be cast into the lake of fire to spend eternity. “And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night” (Rev. 14:11)

Finally, this universe will pass away and God will create a new heaven and a new earth (21: 1; see also Isaiah 65:17). Then heaven and earth will be united, and Revelation 21:3 says, “And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, ‘Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God.’” Notice that God will dwell with mankind on the new earth. Think of it! God will be with us. That will be heaven on earth and, “And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away” (verse 4).

You become a part of that new creation now by becoming a new creation through faith in Christ alone. “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new” (2 Corinthians 5:17).

You can purchase a copy of Embracing Faith Vol. 1 at www.amazon.com.

Words Not Found in the Bible

Critics say, “That word is not in the Bible!” Then they try to tell you that you have been misled to believe unbiblical teachings.

BACK TO YOUR (HEBREW) ROOTS?

“A confused effort to live like Old Testament Jews and help Christians to appreciate Hebrew roots they do not actually possess.”

By Mike McGuire

For several years there have been movements encouraging Christians to get back to their roots, their Hebrew roots. Many movements, called Messianic movements, have led some Christians to celebrate Jewish feasts and to feel spiritually superior to other Christians who do not follow Jewish feasts. These movements are not new. Paul dealt with “Judaizing” in the first century. Many of the teachers believed that people had to become Jewish before they could become Christian.

“So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ” (Colossians 2:16-17 NKJV). Here Paul deals with the same idea of keeping feasts and observing sabbaths. Some believers felt superior to others and required them to observe festivals, new moon celebrations, and sabbaths.

Today some Christians worship on the Sabbath. They feel that they must do so because the Ten Commandants say to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. They feel that not having church on Saturday is a violation of that commandment. Many Christians worship on Sundays in honor of Christ’s resurrection on the first day of the week. Christians followed this tradition in the New Testament. Jesus appeared after his resurrection on the first day of the week as the apostles gathered together (John 20:19). Christians gathered together on the first day of the week to break bread and Paul preached (Acts 20:7). Paul also asked the Corinthians to take up an offering for the church in Jerusalem on the first day of the week (1 Corinthians 16:2). No commandment was ever given for a day to esteem as holy among the Christians.

Paul also wrote in Romans 14:5, “One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.” Paul never indicated that one day to worship was better than another. He said that each person should be convinced in his own mind. If you and your congregation worship on Sunday, Paul said that it was all right. Those who worship on Saturday should not try to force others to worship then. Those who worship on Sunday should not seek to force others to do so. Whichever day you chose, you do it unto the Lord (Romans 14:6).

Besides Sabbath worship, author Todd Friel lists nine additional things that characterize Messianic movements:

Celebrating Old Testament festivals
Obeying select Old Testament laws
Circumcision upon conversion
Keeping kosher or partially kosher
Elevating unbiblical texts like the Mishnah to the level of Scripture
Calling Jesus by his Hebrew name, Yeshua
Never spelling G-d
Women wearing long skirts and head coverings
Men wearing untrimmed beards

(Friel, Todd, Judge Not, p. 163, 164)

Friel calls this a confused effort to live like Old Testament Jews and help Christians to appreciate Hebrew roots they do not actually possess (p. 164). The New Testament never even hints that Christians should follow Old Testament Laws or extra-biblical teachings. The danger is that we cannot select which laws to obey. A Christian who tries to follow certain laws becomes obligated to keep all of them. This is what Paul meant by falling from grace, not losing one’s salvation, but trying to earn salvation by keeping the law (Galatians 5:2-6). Paul wrote: “If righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” (Galatians 2:21).

James echoed the same message: “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it (2:10). If we try to keep the law, we must keep all of it, not just certain parts, like the festivals or Sabbath attendance. If we fail in one part, we become guilty of breaking it all. We cannot keep the Law regarding sacrifices because there is no Temple and no altar. If we try to follow the Law, we will fail at the point of the sacrifices.

The Church dealt with this issue at the Council of Jerusalem as recorded in Acts 15. There the Judaizers wanted to make the Gentile Christians follow Jewish practices to become followers of Christ. The Church and the Apostles debated the issue. They finally arrived at the conclusion that they would not “test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?” (15:10).

Can we Christians learn from studying the festivals? Yes. Can we learn from studying the Laws? Yes. Are we better off if we follow them? Resoundingly no. These things were shadows that led us to Christ, who is the substance. Why do we need to go back to the shadows when we have the light? The old covenant is obsolete (Hebrews 8:13)

Learn more about the new covenant at Crescent Park Baptist Church, Odessa, Texas. Mike McGuire is the pastor. You can leave comments at www.mikemcguireministries.com Also available in Hard copy. Look for Embracing Faith on amazon.com.

WHAT “ONE QUESTION” WILL GOD ASK YOU?

“Did you love enough?”

What “one question” will God ask you when you die? If you are to believe Paulo Coelho, God will only ask you one question when you die. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey on the OWN network, he stated, “And God, in my opinion, is going to ask only one question… ‘Did you love enough?’ If you say yes, Welcome to heaven! If you say no, you are in the limbo, you know?” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TbIEaWL0Eg) That seems simple enough.

Is that statement accurate? It sounds so good because he is so sincere. He has also authored several books. But let’s examine this belief. The first question his statement brings up is, “How do you know when you have loved enough?” Who determines whether we have loved enough? How many times have we looked back at situations and thought to ourselves that we could have loved more, been kinder?

The second question is, “What does he base this belief on?” In the quote, he clearly states, “In my opinion…” He never claims that he received this message from Divine revelation. He openly states that it is his opinion. Because we live in an age of relativism, no one can say he is wrong. He is entitled to his belief, and he has every right to express his opinion. Such a statement is open to scrutiny.

Apart from human opinion, let’s consider what the Bible teaches. When you face God after you die (Hebrews 9:27), is the human opinion of theology what you want to face God with? As you stand in line awaiting judgment, you say to yourself, “I got this!” You wait there thinking, “I only have to answer one question, and it’s not tough.” Coelho’s opinion notwithstanding, Judgment Day will be a little bit tougher than that. When Christ faced down some possessing demons in Matthew 8:29, they begged him not to torment them before their appointed time. Apparently judgment involves torment.

We might expect that demons should be tormented. After all, they are demons. Will humans face eternal torment as well? That is not a popular concept even among theologians and preachers, but what did Jesus teach? When Christ judges the nations according to Matthew 25:41, “He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’” So humans will wind up where the demons go. They will be banished to everlasting fire. That is what Jesus taught, not human opinion.

Also according to the Apostle Paul, the judgment sounds a little more stringent than only one question as well. He wrote in Romans 14:12 “So then each of us shall give account of himself to God.” Giving account sounds more like an audit than only one question. Suppose the IRS calls you in for a tax audit. Are they going to ask you only one question? “Did you pay enough taxes last year?” If you answer yes, then the audit is over. Will it be that simple? Jesus said, ^“But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the Day of Judgment” (Matthew 12:36). We will have a lot of explaining to do.

Finally, notice Coelho’s opinion of what happens if you answer wrong. “You are in the limbo, you know?” So if you do not pay enough taxes, will the IRS leave you in Limbo? They will have a carefully prescribed system of interests and penalties, which could include jail time if you answer wrong. Notice in Matthew 25 that Jesus does not send people to limbo. He set aside a special place for them, which was originally prepared for Satan and his angels.

Sins must be atoned for. You can do like many people and simply dismiss them. You can delude yourself into believing that you have not sinned. You can tell yourself there is no such thing as sin. You may believe that sin is not that bad since we live in the twenty-first century. You may deny it or redefine it, but the wages of sin is still death (Romans 6:23).

Another option is to atone for your sin yourself. You pay for your sin from your own means. You go to your own account of righteousness to pull out enough to cover the cost of your sin only to find, “there is none righteous, not even one” (Romans 3:10). Oh and you cannot pull from somebody else’s righteousness account because no one is righteous. In fact, you are destitute. You “fall short” (Romans 3:23). The payout plan is eternal.

The only other option is to allow Christ to pay the debt for you. First Peter 2:24 says that He, “Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness.” And First Peter 3:18, “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God.”

If there is any one question God will ask us when we die, it will not be, “Did you love enough?” It will be, “Did you love my Son enough to turn your life over to Him?” How would you answer that question? Remember that your eternal destiny depends on how you answer that question.