Here is an excellent article covering predestination, Foreknowledge, OSAS, Romans 9, Free will and many other issues that have been distorted by the theologies of men.
This article brings a BIBLICAL view of these issues.
Predestined by God
.
Showing posts with label God's will. Show all posts
Showing posts with label God's will. Show all posts
Friday, April 16, 2010
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Juggling with Sovereignty: A word picture.
How do you view the sovereignty of God? How does your God exercise that sovereignty?
The Calvinist view requires that God controls every detail, even to the point that mankind’s every action and thought is the result of God’s determination. To ensure His sovereignty, God had to deny man the privilege of free will.
The non-Calvinist view agrees that God’s sovereignty cannot be undermined by man’s choices, but it also recognises that man is ABLE to express freedom of will. In other words, God’s sovereignty is not so fragile that a man made decision would undermine it.
Calvinism effectively denies God the right to endow His creation (man) with the freedom of choice. Thereby Calvinism itself is denying God a sovereign right to act as HE may desire. Calvinism, through its inability to trust God’s abilities, restricts God’s actions to the narrowness of its own theological imagination. It can not imagine a God who can maintain His sovereignty over a creation to which He has given the privilege of free will so they deny Him the right to equip His creation in that way.
Depicting these views of sovereignty metaphorically, I would you like to offer the following comparisons of two very different jugglers demonstrating the two very different views of God’s sovereignty
Taking the scriptural revelation of God I would see his ability to juggle an infinite quantity of balls, tossing them into the air and never losing track of any. He can let them out of his hand but he remains in control even though each ball follows a unique path through the air.
Contrast this to the Calvinist picture of God. To maintain control he “juggles” with one ball which he never lets out of his hand otherwise he would not be able to keep control of the situation and his “sovereignty” over that ball would be compromised.
The Calvinist view requires that God controls every detail, even to the point that mankind’s every action and thought is the result of God’s determination. To ensure His sovereignty, God had to deny man the privilege of free will.
The non-Calvinist view agrees that God’s sovereignty cannot be undermined by man’s choices, but it also recognises that man is ABLE to express freedom of will. In other words, God’s sovereignty is not so fragile that a man made decision would undermine it.
Calvinism effectively denies God the right to endow His creation (man) with the freedom of choice. Thereby Calvinism itself is denying God a sovereign right to act as HE may desire. Calvinism, through its inability to trust God’s abilities, restricts God’s actions to the narrowness of its own theological imagination. It can not imagine a God who can maintain His sovereignty over a creation to which He has given the privilege of free will so they deny Him the right to equip His creation in that way.
Depicting these views of sovereignty metaphorically, I would you like to offer the following comparisons of two very different jugglers demonstrating the two very different views of God’s sovereignty
Taking the scriptural revelation of God I would see his ability to juggle an infinite quantity of balls, tossing them into the air and never losing track of any. He can let them out of his hand but he remains in control even though each ball follows a unique path through the air.
Contrast this to the Calvinist picture of God. To maintain control he “juggles” with one ball which he never lets out of his hand otherwise he would not be able to keep control of the situation and his “sovereignty” over that ball would be compromised.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Sovereignty: True and False
Which of the following is most consistent with a biblical view of God’s sovereignty?
1) God is sovereign; therefore everything that happens within His creation has been predetermined and controlled by God. If anything happened that was contrary to God’s specific will (including anything that man does), then God’s sovereignty would be compromised. To maintain the integrity of His sovereignty, God and God alone chooses which individuals will be saved and will ensure that they are saved no matter what their individual attitudes towards God may have been. Man has no part to play (and no responsibility at all) regarding his own salvation or damnation because that would undermine God’s sovereignty.
Or
2) God is sovereign; therefore He alone has the sovereign right to determine the purpose for which His creation exists and He alone has the right to determine the laws and conditions by which His creation exists and continues to exist. By His sovereign choice He has given a degree of free will to mankind. God does not control man’s choices and actions but He has made mankind responsible for the choices he makes within that freedom given to him by God. God and God alone has determined the consequences for man’s obedience or disobedience. Man is able to make choices that are contrary to God’s will but as a result of that disobedience will suffer the penalty that God has ordained and that God will enforce. God expresses His sovereignty in a way of His own choosing to obtain an outcome of His own choosing. That outcome includes the adoption of men and women who willingly respond to the gift He has given to all – His Son Jesus
-----------------------
I wrote the two alternatives above because of the following (deleted) comment left earlier on this blog, submitted by the multi-pseudonymed Calvinist who may be familiar from other threads.
In addition to the above alternative types of “sovereignty” I would ask which is the TRULY sovereign God:
1) One who can not maintain sovereignty unless he personally controls everything and everyone; who has to personally control every thought and action otherwise he can not be sure that his sovereign will can come to fruition. A god who needs to control man’s thought and action to ensure he has followers (even though they are followers against their will).
2) One who is secure enough in His sovereignty that He can allow man a degree of free will to enable man to become willing followers.
The issue of the definition of sovereignty depends upon what kind of God and gospel we believe; and how secure He and His sovereignty really are.
I’ve used the illustration before – what kind of God do you worship?
1) One who creates a Stepford wife for His son? A wife who “loves” because she is programmed to do so and has no real feeling for her husband?
Or
2) One who seeks a willing bride, a bride who can willingly respond with genuine love and affection for the bridegroom?
And note the common accusation at the end of “the evangelical’s” comment. It is an accusation many make in an attempt to discredit a person and his point of view without actually addressing the issue. They accuse a person of thinking they know it all because that person dares to oppose their own beliefs.
No I do not know it all – but I know enough to approach the whole of scripture with integrity so I can understand what God is revealing, and not merely use parts of scripture to support what I have already determined to believe.
Also, the claim about all pagan systems being ‘synergistic” is very ironic, considering that Calvinism shares the fatalistic viewpoint of both paganism and Islam.
1) God is sovereign; therefore everything that happens within His creation has been predetermined and controlled by God. If anything happened that was contrary to God’s specific will (including anything that man does), then God’s sovereignty would be compromised. To maintain the integrity of His sovereignty, God and God alone chooses which individuals will be saved and will ensure that they are saved no matter what their individual attitudes towards God may have been. Man has no part to play (and no responsibility at all) regarding his own salvation or damnation because that would undermine God’s sovereignty.
Or
2) God is sovereign; therefore He alone has the sovereign right to determine the purpose for which His creation exists and He alone has the right to determine the laws and conditions by which His creation exists and continues to exist. By His sovereign choice He has given a degree of free will to mankind. God does not control man’s choices and actions but He has made mankind responsible for the choices he makes within that freedom given to him by God. God and God alone has determined the consequences for man’s obedience or disobedience. Man is able to make choices that are contrary to God’s will but as a result of that disobedience will suffer the penalty that God has ordained and that God will enforce. God expresses His sovereignty in a way of His own choosing to obtain an outcome of His own choosing. That outcome includes the adoption of men and women who willingly respond to the gift He has given to all – His Son Jesus
-----------------------
I wrote the two alternatives above because of the following (deleted) comment left earlier on this blog, submitted by the multi-pseudonymed Calvinist who may be familiar from other threads.
the evangelical has left a new comment on your post "Frustration and Cranial Bruising":
"These people respect God’s revelation more than man’s theology"--excepting of course the revelation of His absolute sovereignty.
Really, Tim, which is it--monergism or synergism? The truth is humbling. All pagan systems are synergistic. ALL. What does that say about your synergistic system? Oh, but of course you alone hold all knowledge, and wisdom will die with you. Academics; head knowledge--or new birth...
In addition to the above alternative types of “sovereignty” I would ask which is the TRULY sovereign God:
1) One who can not maintain sovereignty unless he personally controls everything and everyone; who has to personally control every thought and action otherwise he can not be sure that his sovereign will can come to fruition. A god who needs to control man’s thought and action to ensure he has followers (even though they are followers against their will).
2) One who is secure enough in His sovereignty that He can allow man a degree of free will to enable man to become willing followers.
The issue of the definition of sovereignty depends upon what kind of God and gospel we believe; and how secure He and His sovereignty really are.
I’ve used the illustration before – what kind of God do you worship?
1) One who creates a Stepford wife for His son? A wife who “loves” because she is programmed to do so and has no real feeling for her husband?
Or
2) One who seeks a willing bride, a bride who can willingly respond with genuine love and affection for the bridegroom?
And note the common accusation at the end of “the evangelical’s” comment. It is an accusation many make in an attempt to discredit a person and his point of view without actually addressing the issue. They accuse a person of thinking they know it all because that person dares to oppose their own beliefs.
No I do not know it all – but I know enough to approach the whole of scripture with integrity so I can understand what God is revealing, and not merely use parts of scripture to support what I have already determined to believe.
Also, the claim about all pagan systems being ‘synergistic” is very ironic, considering that Calvinism shares the fatalistic viewpoint of both paganism and Islam.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Word of "Faith"
I’ve made no secret about my one time involvement with Word of Faith (WOF) teaching. It’s a confession that one visitor to this blog has tried to use against me. On more than one occasion (here and elsewhere) he has tried to use it to discredit who I am and what I now believe.
Accompanying that attempt has been an assumption about the extent of my involvement and the effect it continues to have on my life. From the tone and the content of insinuations made I can see he assumes my attraction to WOF was inspired by greed.
While my involvement with WOF has never been hidden, I don’t recall writing about my reasons for getting involved with that teaching. I now want to address those reasons.
For several years I had been involved with a Pentecostal denomination that continually presented a Christian reality that I was not experiencing. No matter how often they insisted that healing and miracles were valid today – they were demonstrating nothing of that professed reality. There was a huge gap between professed belief and actual experience. It was a gap that didn’t seem to exist in scripture. What was the problem?
My introduction to WOF came at a midweek home fellowship meeting. Members of the group had been listening to tapes from one of Kenneth Copeland’s conferences and they were sharing some of the things that had excited them. I offered significant resistance to the things they were saying but eventually their enthusiasm got through to me.
Was I won over by the promise of a prosperous life? Or was it the claim that Christians could and should live in total health?
It was neither. The thing that broke down the wall of my resistance was a realisation of what faith meant. At that stage I didn’t know about the WOF teachings of faith being a force that anyone could utilise. I knew nothing about the emphasis on positive confession (confess and possess or the less reverent blab it and grab it). All I knew was that I gained an understanding of faith for the first time. It became much more than an “airy-fairy” mystical word that seemed to have no practical use.
At best my previous understanding of faith involved a lot of uncertainty and had more in common with “wishing” than with a firm trust in my redeemer.
For the first time faith became something more certain and firm, something concrete.
Having faith in God meant to trust Him no matter what.
It meant taking Him at His word and having confidence in what He had said. Primarily, in practical terms, that meant accepting His word as being the truth even when our circumstances or experience offered contradictory evidence. If God had promised something in scripture, and if all conditions of that promise were met, then we should have the total confidence of receiving what was promised, because God is not a liar.
The biblical faith I discovered was not a vague uncertain trust in God. It involved an absolute confidence in Him and His character. His word became the standard by which God and His purposes could be known. Through scripture His desires and plans for mankind were revealed. By knowing His will and in particular through knowing what He had provided for His children, we could have the foundation upon which our faith could firmly stand.
That is the area of WOF that attracted me. It was not the promise of health and wealth – it was the promise of living as a genuinely effective Christian witness, actually LIVING and demonstrating the Christian life described in the New Testament instead of tolerating the hypocrisy of professing one thing and living another. It gave a tangible reality to faith and it was no longer merely a theological concept.
THAT is what drew me to WOF. Its teachers were the first to give me a real understanding of what faith is and at the time they were the only ones who seemed to be teaching that truth.
However, their message came with a lot of excess baggage that was not so helpful. While their doctrines were always (supposedly) based on ‘the word” – like all false doctrines they were based on PARTS of the word. I became very adept at quoting scripture to promote the teaching I was receiving. But my quotes were learned mainly via Copeland recordings and not through turning to scripture for myself. I was therefore never aware of the correct context of those quotes. I was only familiar with the interpretations placed upon those verses by the Copelands and associated ministries.
While the understanding of faith that I’d initially gained was still valuable (that is trusting God’s word to be the truth): all validity was dependant on it REALLY being GOD’S word and not a false assumption that I mistook for God’s word. Believing in an assumption or a wrong interpretation of scripture is NOT an expression of faith in God. That is where my departure from WOF began. There were too many inconsistencies between what I was being taught and what I was reading in scripture for myself. Too much of scripture was being ignored or misapplied.
At first I pushed aside my concerns. After all no one is perfect and I couldn’t expect the teachers to get everything right – and they were the ones who had given me an insight into the nature of faith when my church and its leaders seemed to be as much in the dark as I had been.
Instead of being attracted to WOF by their teaching on prosperity, it was the increasing emphasis on earthly wealth that gave me most cause for concern. While I was struggling financially I could see these men and women living highly extravagant lifestyles, financed by the donations they solicited. It seemed that the way for me to get out of financial difficulties was by sending them money (?) – and their lifestyles showed how it all worked (and could allegedly work for me) with God clearly blessing them and their ministry with wealth. None of this (their extravagance) seemed compatible with anything that Jesus said about wealth. Those parts of scripture were among those conveniently ignored.
A major area of their teaching on faith that I could not reconcile with anything in scripture was the idea that faith is a force that works when it principles are put into practice. Even unbelievers were tapping into this force of faith and were reaping its benefits without realising what they were doing. This teaching made faith into something impersonal with a power of its own. It was not a matter of having faith in someone (God), it was important to have faith in your faith. This is where “positive confession” came into play. Continued positive confession was the means of reinforcing and expressing faith to obtain a desired outcome. Negative confession was equally effective, but the outcome was nothing to be desired.
I was never comfortable with this aspect of WOF teaching and when I read “The Seduction of Christianity’ by Hunt and McMahon the reason for my discomfort was made clear. The authors showed there was a relationship between these beliefs and practices with occultism and eastern mysticism. It was around that time that I broke away from WOF teaching.
WOF teaching is riddled with false doctrine and false practices (and I think that has increased in the 20+ years since I abandoned it). But like the majority of heresies there is enough truth to disguise the lies. In the case of WOF I gained a much stronger understanding of what faith is (and is not). Faith revolves around relationship; knowing God, His ways and His desires well enough to trust Him totally. Faith requires an understanding of His will and is focused on His will. It is not focused on our desire or our assumptions and it definitely is not a “force” to be operated.
Looking back now I can say that my understanding of faith began with my involvement with WOF teachers – but it developed and matured DESPITE their teaching and not because of it.
Accompanying that attempt has been an assumption about the extent of my involvement and the effect it continues to have on my life. From the tone and the content of insinuations made I can see he assumes my attraction to WOF was inspired by greed.
While my involvement with WOF has never been hidden, I don’t recall writing about my reasons for getting involved with that teaching. I now want to address those reasons.
For several years I had been involved with a Pentecostal denomination that continually presented a Christian reality that I was not experiencing. No matter how often they insisted that healing and miracles were valid today – they were demonstrating nothing of that professed reality. There was a huge gap between professed belief and actual experience. It was a gap that didn’t seem to exist in scripture. What was the problem?
My introduction to WOF came at a midweek home fellowship meeting. Members of the group had been listening to tapes from one of Kenneth Copeland’s conferences and they were sharing some of the things that had excited them. I offered significant resistance to the things they were saying but eventually their enthusiasm got through to me.Was I won over by the promise of a prosperous life? Or was it the claim that Christians could and should live in total health?
It was neither. The thing that broke down the wall of my resistance was a realisation of what faith meant. At that stage I didn’t know about the WOF teachings of faith being a force that anyone could utilise. I knew nothing about the emphasis on positive confession (confess and possess or the less reverent blab it and grab it). All I knew was that I gained an understanding of faith for the first time. It became much more than an “airy-fairy” mystical word that seemed to have no practical use.
At best my previous understanding of faith involved a lot of uncertainty and had more in common with “wishing” than with a firm trust in my redeemer.
For the first time faith became something more certain and firm, something concrete.
Having faith in God meant to trust Him no matter what.
It meant taking Him at His word and having confidence in what He had said. Primarily, in practical terms, that meant accepting His word as being the truth even when our circumstances or experience offered contradictory evidence. If God had promised something in scripture, and if all conditions of that promise were met, then we should have the total confidence of receiving what was promised, because God is not a liar.
The biblical faith I discovered was not a vague uncertain trust in God. It involved an absolute confidence in Him and His character. His word became the standard by which God and His purposes could be known. Through scripture His desires and plans for mankind were revealed. By knowing His will and in particular through knowing what He had provided for His children, we could have the foundation upon which our faith could firmly stand.
That is the area of WOF that attracted me. It was not the promise of health and wealth – it was the promise of living as a genuinely effective Christian witness, actually LIVING and demonstrating the Christian life described in the New Testament instead of tolerating the hypocrisy of professing one thing and living another. It gave a tangible reality to faith and it was no longer merely a theological concept.
THAT is what drew me to WOF. Its teachers were the first to give me a real understanding of what faith is and at the time they were the only ones who seemed to be teaching that truth.
However, their message came with a lot of excess baggage that was not so helpful. While their doctrines were always (supposedly) based on ‘the word” – like all false doctrines they were based on PARTS of the word. I became very adept at quoting scripture to promote the teaching I was receiving. But my quotes were learned mainly via Copeland recordings and not through turning to scripture for myself. I was therefore never aware of the correct context of those quotes. I was only familiar with the interpretations placed upon those verses by the Copelands and associated ministries.
While the understanding of faith that I’d initially gained was still valuable (that is trusting God’s word to be the truth): all validity was dependant on it REALLY being GOD’S word and not a false assumption that I mistook for God’s word. Believing in an assumption or a wrong interpretation of scripture is NOT an expression of faith in God. That is where my departure from WOF began. There were too many inconsistencies between what I was being taught and what I was reading in scripture for myself. Too much of scripture was being ignored or misapplied.
At first I pushed aside my concerns. After all no one is perfect and I couldn’t expect the teachers to get everything right – and they were the ones who had given me an insight into the nature of faith when my church and its leaders seemed to be as much in the dark as I had been.
Instead of being attracted to WOF by their teaching on prosperity, it was the increasing emphasis on earthly wealth that gave me most cause for concern. While I was struggling financially I could see these men and women living highly extravagant lifestyles, financed by the donations they solicited. It seemed that the way for me to get out of financial difficulties was by sending them money (?) – and their lifestyles showed how it all worked (and could allegedly work for me) with God clearly blessing them and their ministry with wealth. None of this (their extravagance) seemed compatible with anything that Jesus said about wealth. Those parts of scripture were among those conveniently ignored.
A major area of their teaching on faith that I could not reconcile with anything in scripture was the idea that faith is a force that works when it principles are put into practice. Even unbelievers were tapping into this force of faith and were reaping its benefits without realising what they were doing. This teaching made faith into something impersonal with a power of its own. It was not a matter of having faith in someone (God), it was important to have faith in your faith. This is where “positive confession” came into play. Continued positive confession was the means of reinforcing and expressing faith to obtain a desired outcome. Negative confession was equally effective, but the outcome was nothing to be desired.
I was never comfortable with this aspect of WOF teaching and when I read “The Seduction of Christianity’ by Hunt and McMahon the reason for my discomfort was made clear. The authors showed there was a relationship between these beliefs and practices with occultism and eastern mysticism. It was around that time that I broke away from WOF teaching.
WOF teaching is riddled with false doctrine and false practices (and I think that has increased in the 20+ years since I abandoned it). But like the majority of heresies there is enough truth to disguise the lies. In the case of WOF I gained a much stronger understanding of what faith is (and is not). Faith revolves around relationship; knowing God, His ways and His desires well enough to trust Him totally. Faith requires an understanding of His will and is focused on His will. It is not focused on our desire or our assumptions and it definitely is not a “force” to be operated.
Looking back now I can say that my understanding of faith began with my involvement with WOF teachers – but it developed and matured DESPITE their teaching and not because of it.
Monday, March 02, 2009
LIVING ACCORDING TO GOD'S WILL?
How far away from living “TOTALLY according to God’s will” can we be before it becomes a serious issue regarding our relationship with God?
Is it ok to be living 90% “according to God’s will”, or 70%? How about 50% - is that an acceptable pass mark?
OR are we totally incapable of living “according to God’s will” at all?
Is God’s will so far beyond our capabilities that even the death and resurrection of Jesus, and the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit aren’t enough to bring us into line and to equip us to live according to His will?
Does it matter whether we live “TOTALLY according to God’s will” or not? Does God overlook our disobedience all together or does He expect something more of us after we’ve been blessed by His gracious gift of salvation?
Is it ok to be living 90% “according to God’s will”, or 70%? How about 50% - is that an acceptable pass mark?
OR are we totally incapable of living “according to God’s will” at all?
Is God’s will so far beyond our capabilities that even the death and resurrection of Jesus, and the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit aren’t enough to bring us into line and to equip us to live according to His will?
Does it matter whether we live “TOTALLY according to God’s will” or not? Does God overlook our disobedience all together or does He expect something more of us after we’ve been blessed by His gracious gift of salvation?
Thursday, April 17, 2008
SINNERS ACCORDING TO GOD'S WILL?
I recently posed the following question on a Christian discussion forum;
"Is it possible to be living TOTALLY according to God's will for your life and still be a sinner destined for hell?"
And received this reply:
How could one be "living TOTALLY according to GOD's will for their life" and wind up in Hell ?
I would agree with the sentiments of the person who responded to my question and I’d come up with come up with the same answer they obviously infer – it is impossible to live totally according to God’s will for your life and still be cast into hell.
Yet there is a very common theological viewpoint that presents just the opposite.
Maybe people are thinking I’m mistaken – surely there could be no such widespread doctrine in mainstream Christianity. Let me assure you that there is – it goes by the name of Calvinism.
According to this doctrine God personally predestined some to be saved, and others not to be saved. It is God’s will and God’s will alone that determines our eternal destiny. Therefore those who are condemned to hell are doomed entirely because they are following God’s chosen will and plan for their lives.
But what about sin? Surely they are condemned because of their sin? That is true – but WHY are they sinners? Did they really have any choice in the matter? Calvinism says no because all men are born in a totally depraved state that ensures they can do nothing but sin.
And why are they born into this state?
Because of Adam’s fall in the garden…
But wait, there’s more… According to Calvin, God Himself ordained that Adam should sin. Adam ALSO had no choice in the matter but was merely following God’s ordained plan for his life.
So here we have a doctrine that states that God Himself ordained man to be born into sin, that same God condemns sinners to hell and yet leaves the majority with no chance of being redeemed from that penalty of their sin. ALL because they are fulfilling God’s ordained will and purpose for their lives!
Now, I ask again. "Is it possible to be living TOTALLY according to God's will for your life and still be a sinner destined for hell?"
Calvin and his followers think so – though I’m sure they’d deny it. But that is EXACTLY what their doctrine is saying no matter how much they protest that this isn’t the case.
"Is it possible to be living TOTALLY according to God's will for your life and still be a sinner destined for hell?"
And received this reply:
How could one be "living TOTALLY according to GOD's will for their life" and wind up in Hell ?
I would agree with the sentiments of the person who responded to my question and I’d come up with come up with the same answer they obviously infer – it is impossible to live totally according to God’s will for your life and still be cast into hell.
Yet there is a very common theological viewpoint that presents just the opposite.
Maybe people are thinking I’m mistaken – surely there could be no such widespread doctrine in mainstream Christianity. Let me assure you that there is – it goes by the name of Calvinism.
According to this doctrine God personally predestined some to be saved, and others not to be saved. It is God’s will and God’s will alone that determines our eternal destiny. Therefore those who are condemned to hell are doomed entirely because they are following God’s chosen will and plan for their lives.
But what about sin? Surely they are condemned because of their sin? That is true – but WHY are they sinners? Did they really have any choice in the matter? Calvinism says no because all men are born in a totally depraved state that ensures they can do nothing but sin.
And why are they born into this state?
Because of Adam’s fall in the garden…
But wait, there’s more… According to Calvin, God Himself ordained that Adam should sin. Adam ALSO had no choice in the matter but was merely following God’s ordained plan for his life.
So here we have a doctrine that states that God Himself ordained man to be born into sin, that same God condemns sinners to hell and yet leaves the majority with no chance of being redeemed from that penalty of their sin. ALL because they are fulfilling God’s ordained will and purpose for their lives!
Now, I ask again. "Is it possible to be living TOTALLY according to God's will for your life and still be a sinner destined for hell?"
Calvin and his followers think so – though I’m sure they’d deny it. But that is EXACTLY what their doctrine is saying no matter how much they protest that this isn’t the case.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
GOD'S AGENDA
It is so easy to get caught up in the latest fads or with our own obsessions that we become driven by the wrong goals. We take our eyes away from God and where He is heading and create our own path. Either we follow the crowd and the latest “spiritual” gimmick; or we take our own direction and gather those around us who say what we want to hear, “confirming” we are on the right track.
These tendencies can take us along many side roads – and for a while we may still be in sight of God, even though we are not walking along the path He has intended. But, if we don’t correct our progress we’ll eventually find ourselves moving further away from Him.
To get to the right path we need to recognise where God wants to take us; what is His ULTIMATE purpose for mankind. We need to make sure we are not making the same mistake as Peter: “…seeing things merely from a human point of view, not from God’s” Mark 8:33
Over recent weeks I’ve been regularly meditating on these things wanting to know more about HIS purposes, what HE considers to be important and how mankind fits into HIS plans. I have heard preachers giving different views about the Christian life. Many preach about the blessings God has provided and the importance of living in those blessings. I have heard some refer to the blessings of Eden as being the standard we should be pursuing (Gen 1:28); others refer to the blessings of Abraham (Gal 3:9) or to the blessings promised to Israel (Deut 28:1-14).
Should appropriating these “blessings” be the Christian’s main goal? Is the blessing of His Children in THIS world God’s primary desire and purpose? Is this the reason for the redemption God provided for us through Jesus?
This is what I’ve found:
Scripture clearly reveals that God’s redemption plan culminates in a new home in a new heaven and new earth (Rev 21:1). The new heaven and new earth are the “better place, a heavenly homeland” mentioned in Hebrews 11:16 and the “prize” mentioned in verses 39-40.
Man’s first home, Eden, was never intended to be the BEST for mankind. It was never intended to be mankind’s destiny. It is therefore NOT an existence to be aspired towards. We should not hold it up as an example of how blessing should impact our lives today. Eden was merely the starting point for man; it was never the end goal. Eden ALWAYS allowed the potential for sin. God gave Adam and Eve free will. Even prior to their creation God knew they would choose disobedience, and through this foreknowledge had designed a plan for man’s redemption.
The new heaven and new earth will have NO potential for sin. The tree of life will be there, but not the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The choice for God or against God is made here in the current creation. The new creation will only allow access to those who have already chosen obedience and have been clothed in Christ’s righteousness. “The old world and its evils are gone forever” (Rev 21:4).
The new heaven and new earth are the ultimate home of God’s family. This was intended even before the current creation was brought into being . This current earth is (and was always meant to be) the “proving ground” to prepare a family with whom God could share an eternal, perfect, sin-free home.
God’s redemption plan was implemented with the goal of populating this future home. The plan had various stages. The MAJOR stages are the covenants known broadly as the Old and New Covenants (Testaments). Each of these covenants contains their own individual conditions and promises. We need to ensure that we recognise those differences and where we stand in relation to the conditions and promises contained within them. In other words, which parts of these covenants are relevant to us?
1) God’s covenant with Israel (Old Covenant) promised earthly reward for obedience to His law. This reward centred on life within a designated geographical area – “the promised land”. The blessings associated with obedience were physical, material and political. (Deut 28: 1-14). Obedience to God meant being obedient to a specific, detailed written Law.
2) Jesus’ ministry introduced a totally new concept: the Kingdom of God (or Kingdom of Heaven). This was the MAIN subject of His ministry. He introduced it and described it to His listeners. It is a Kingdom “not of this world”. The gospel He preached (and instructed us to preach) was the gospel of the Kingdom. It is a Kingdom entered through faith, leading to obedience through the working of the indwelling Holy Spirit, (a law written on our hearts). He opened the way to this Kingdom through His death, burial and resurrection, introducing and mediating a new covenant “superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises”. (Heb 8:6).
3) The “better promises” are eternal and are not limited to our earthly lives.
Israel’s “promised land” of the old covenant was geographical. The “promised land” of the new covenant is Heavenly. We can be part of that Kingdom now. Many of its benefits are available to us on earth, but the Kingdom’s complete expression and experience is still future, being fulfilled in the completion of the new creation.
These tendencies can take us along many side roads – and for a while we may still be in sight of God, even though we are not walking along the path He has intended. But, if we don’t correct our progress we’ll eventually find ourselves moving further away from Him.
To get to the right path we need to recognise where God wants to take us; what is His ULTIMATE purpose for mankind. We need to make sure we are not making the same mistake as Peter: “…seeing things merely from a human point of view, not from God’s” Mark 8:33
Over recent weeks I’ve been regularly meditating on these things wanting to know more about HIS purposes, what HE considers to be important and how mankind fits into HIS plans. I have heard preachers giving different views about the Christian life. Many preach about the blessings God has provided and the importance of living in those blessings. I have heard some refer to the blessings of Eden as being the standard we should be pursuing (Gen 1:28); others refer to the blessings of Abraham (Gal 3:9) or to the blessings promised to Israel (Deut 28:1-14).
Should appropriating these “blessings” be the Christian’s main goal? Is the blessing of His Children in THIS world God’s primary desire and purpose? Is this the reason for the redemption God provided for us through Jesus?
This is what I’ve found:
Scripture clearly reveals that God’s redemption plan culminates in a new home in a new heaven and new earth (Rev 21:1). The new heaven and new earth are the “better place, a heavenly homeland” mentioned in Hebrews 11:16 and the “prize” mentioned in verses 39-40.
Man’s first home, Eden, was never intended to be the BEST for mankind. It was never intended to be mankind’s destiny. It is therefore NOT an existence to be aspired towards. We should not hold it up as an example of how blessing should impact our lives today. Eden was merely the starting point for man; it was never the end goal. Eden ALWAYS allowed the potential for sin. God gave Adam and Eve free will. Even prior to their creation God knew they would choose disobedience, and through this foreknowledge had designed a plan for man’s redemption.
The new heaven and new earth will have NO potential for sin. The tree of life will be there, but not the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The choice for God or against God is made here in the current creation. The new creation will only allow access to those who have already chosen obedience and have been clothed in Christ’s righteousness. “The old world and its evils are gone forever” (Rev 21:4).
The new heaven and new earth are the ultimate home of God’s family. This was intended even before the current creation was brought into being . This current earth is (and was always meant to be) the “proving ground” to prepare a family with whom God could share an eternal, perfect, sin-free home.
God’s redemption plan was implemented with the goal of populating this future home. The plan had various stages. The MAJOR stages are the covenants known broadly as the Old and New Covenants (Testaments). Each of these covenants contains their own individual conditions and promises. We need to ensure that we recognise those differences and where we stand in relation to the conditions and promises contained within them. In other words, which parts of these covenants are relevant to us?
1) God’s covenant with Israel (Old Covenant) promised earthly reward for obedience to His law. This reward centred on life within a designated geographical area – “the promised land”. The blessings associated with obedience were physical, material and political. (Deut 28: 1-14). Obedience to God meant being obedient to a specific, detailed written Law.
2) Jesus’ ministry introduced a totally new concept: the Kingdom of God (or Kingdom of Heaven). This was the MAIN subject of His ministry. He introduced it and described it to His listeners. It is a Kingdom “not of this world”. The gospel He preached (and instructed us to preach) was the gospel of the Kingdom. It is a Kingdom entered through faith, leading to obedience through the working of the indwelling Holy Spirit, (a law written on our hearts). He opened the way to this Kingdom through His death, burial and resurrection, introducing and mediating a new covenant “superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises”. (Heb 8:6).
3) The “better promises” are eternal and are not limited to our earthly lives.
Israel’s “promised land” of the old covenant was geographical. The “promised land” of the new covenant is Heavenly. We can be part of that Kingdom now. Many of its benefits are available to us on earth, but the Kingdom’s complete expression and experience is still future, being fulfilled in the completion of the new creation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)