LaRosa Johnson {dot} com

A few weeks ago at Austin Bible Church we finished our latest module of systematic theology, which consisted of reading through Lewis Sperry Chafer’s volume on Ecclesiology. Overall, it was a very interesting read, although the final chapter was quite a bit anticlimactic in my opinion. Even though the final chapter didn’t provide the conclusion that I was hoping for, Chafer did offer one nugget that I felt was worth sharing here on this blog. In his conclusion he writes the following (emphasis is my own):

In bringing to its end this discussion respecting the entire field of Ecclesiology, it may be restated that a true development of this great theme, if Biblical, must be built on the second Pauline revelation. As asserted at the opening of this treatise on Ecclesiology, the Reformation regained the truth of the first Pauline revelation, namely, justification by faith alone, but did not go on to restore the truth contained in the second revelation. It is altogether possible that the problems attending the restoration of the first revelation, being so far-reaching and revolutionary as a reaction from the Romish perversions of truth, were all that could be undertaken at one time or by one generation. Later studies of the New Testament developed the almost limitless theme of the second revelation. Unfortunately, however, theologians were unprepared to receive any added truth beyond that gained in the Reformation, and Protestant theology has, by a misguided loyalty to orthodoxy, never received the truth contained in the second revelation. It has been assumed that this added truth is dangerous if it was not included in the Reformation attainments and that it must be in conflict with those attainments. Early in the history of Protestantism there were individual theologians who caught the first gleams of truth contained in the second revelation, and an ever increasing light has fallen on this body of truth until today there is a great company of students of doctrine who hold and teach, along with the first revelation, the clear divine unfoldings respecting the Church which is Christ’s Body. Nevertheless, orthodox Reformed theology persists in its original, isolated, and exclusive recognition of the first revelation, and continues to reject and condemn as intrusive and disruptive the great certified findings of those theologians who have given their years of study to the second revelation. So persistent is this self-imposed loyalty to a limited Reformation theology that a complete disruption of orthodox forces has already set in. This is not a controversy between heterodox and orthodox contenders; it is wholly within the orthodox ranks and is properly analyzed as a dissension between those who without worthy investigation of all that is involved restrict their theology to the first Pauline revelation and those who, contending as earnestly for the first revelation, have, with great study and research, gone on to the understanding of the second revelation. The second revelation respecting the Church, if pursued worthily, leads with inexorable logic to such dispensational and general Biblical distinctions as have been set forth in this treatise. An attack against these distinctions cannot be sustained by recourse to the beliefs of Reformers and early theologians; for such is an assumption that there is no progress to be made in the knowledge of truth, that the very light which fell on the Reformers by which they emerged from Romish darkness could not fall upon any others in subsequent years to lead them into wider fields of the understanding of God’s inexhaustible revelation. There is an inherent weakness disclosed in this attitude. It tends to shirk all responsibility in the direction of advancement in the truth and to deify the writings of the Reformers or the writings of the founders of a sect, apparently forgetting for the moment that these worthy scholars made no claim to inspiration nor did they intend to set up a barrier past which no further investigation in the truth should advance. It is no disrespect to Reformers or church fathers to maintain an attitude of open-mindedness in the direction of new understanding of truth which was not accorded to men of earlier generations. No science would be benefited by such slavish assent to supposedly implacable teachers of the past.
Chafer, L. S. (1993). Vol. 4: Systematic theology (249–250). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.

To summarize the quote, Chafer is stating that one of the problems persistent in the faith among Christians & theologians is the tendency to stop at a given era of Christian history and claiming only that progression of doctrinal understanding is orthodox. The problem with this is that it has a very natural tendency to flavor one’s understanding of Scripture and the systematizing of theology that comes along with it.

In practice, what does that look like? Let’s say you stopped with the period right before the Reformers set straight the doctrine of soteriology. If your growth & understanding stopped there, you’d likely be a Roman Catholic and all of your understanding would come from that point of view. The same is true if you stop with the Reformers like Luther or Calvin. Many people follow the Reformers, so what’s wrong with that? Honestly, nothing; I read and appreciate their works. The problem lies in the fact that their writings are not God-breathed & inspired, which means that it contains error and they didn’t get everything right. How so? Much like Chafer is saying in the above quote, the Reformers did great in claiming a proper soteriology, but their understanding of ecclesiology was still very Romish. Yet, if you look at the Church history that followed the Reformation, it was this doctrine that began to get unraveled and understood, much in the same way that soteriology was restored in the Reformation.

It’s not a new idea (see James Orr’s The Progress of Dogma), but when you look at Church history as a whole, it’s very interesting to note how closely it lines up with the table of contents for most systematic theologies. In looking at the early church fathers, a lot of what they wrote about and discussed was the matter of canonicity and setting straight some of the core understanding of who God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is, which align with bibliology and theology proper. As you move on you get the Reformers correcting soteriology, followed by the next era tackling ecclesiology, and so on.

Studying Church history makes it pretty obvious that our understanding of Scripture and theology has only expanded with time. Simply stated, we know a lot more now about the Bible and doctrine than previous generations did. What’s more, our current understanding didn’t come from thin air; instead, it was built upon the foundation that our forefathers laid before us. We recognize that Scripture is the source, we evaluate the teachings of those who came before us, accepting & keeping what they got right, and recognizing those areas where they didn’t fully develop some areas of teaching or just altogether missed the mark. This is how we grow and continue to progress in our understanding of Scripture. But, let’s be clear in understanding that I’m not saying that there is new revelation of Scripture (because the canon is closed), but our knowledge of what we do have in Scripture is growing. It’s much like science in many respects. We know & can do things now in science & medicine that couldn’t be done in times past, but only because of the foundation & study that was laid prior and subsequently building upon that foundation. The same is true of theology.

Admittedly, a lot of this requires an open mind. As a said above, if your understanding of Scripture stops at a certain era, then you will undoubtedly have your understanding flavored by that. I would dare say that this is the reason why different schools of theology constantly take issue with one another (i.e. covenant theology vs. dispensationalism).

I could say more, but I think the Chafer quote says it well enough. I’ll close by saying let’s have an open mind when studying the Scriptures and let’s not simply enslave ourselves to the understanding that we’re given by men who came before us. Let’s use them to lay the foundation and then let’s build upon it as we study to show ourselves approved and only holding to what we find true in Scripture. And most importantly, let’s walk in grace toward one another as we do this!

I’m in the midst of my journey to read through the Bible in a year. Within the past couple of weeks I’ve finished Exodus & Leviticus, and now I’m about halfway through Numbers. It’s been an exciting read thus far. I’ve been motivated to read and a lot of stuff that didn’t make sense before is being comprehended this time around.

With my recent reading, the Lord has really been rocking me. I’m seeing how the Israelites are being delivered & provided for time & time again by the Lord God, only to spit back in his face & complain. On more than one occasion God was ready to take out the Israelites because of their disobedience. Even people that you wouldn’t think would rise up against the Lord, like Miriam & Aaron, had their moments. It’s crazy, seriously! The Lord provides manna, but that’s not enough; no, they want more meat! The Israelites want to know why they’re stuck in the wilderness & left to die or killed by those in the Promised Land, when they “had it made” in Egypt, when they were really enslaved. Oh, and you can’t forget the Levites trying to rise up on Moses & Aaron, wanting to know why they’re in charge.

In all of this, the Lord was quick to want to just take the Israelites out completely, wiping them off the face of the earth, wanting to just start over with Moses. It can’t be said lightly enough that God’s anger toward them was fuming and He wasn’t playing around. If it weren’t for Moses praying for forgiveness, I don’t doubt that God would have done it.

What’s the lesson in this for me? God doesn’t take lightly to grumbling & complaining. Just looking at the Israelites & their attitude, God wasn’t very pleased. I can only think that He’s looking at me in the same light when I act in a similar manner. More than anything, this is serving as motivation for me to continue walking upright, while making sure that I keep my griping to a minimum. Instead of complaining, I need to learn to be more thankful for what the Lord has provided, as opposed to looking back to the past or wanting more than what He’s already providing.

Thanks for the lesson, Lord!

Everyone knows that I’ve wanted a new Bible for quite a while now, and there was one in particular that I’ve had my eye on. I had purchased others (such as my Scofield), but none of them were truly what I wanted. I wanted that Cambridge Wide Margin Reference Bible (NASB) with the goat skin leather, and nothing else would do, at least I had convinced myself of that fact. After talking to Robin, I was able to convince her to let me purchase it as a belated Father’s day gift to myself.

Yesterday was payday and I was more than ready to purchase the Bible! I waited to purchase it though, because my co-worker said that he might be able to get me a better deal (remember, the MSRP for this Bible is $229.99). Having looked at the Bible just last week, I figured anything better than Amazon’s $160.99 list price would be a steal. Well, the deal got better when I noticed that Amazon had lowered the price to $144.99 (the price I had originally seen it for last year), which meant that I could do overnight shipping and still pay no more than the price I had told Robin about last week. Unfortunately my co-worker wasn’t able to get a better deal, so I immediatley went to Amazon.com and purchased the Bible with overnight shipping. The funny thing, in waiting for my tracking number, I went back to the product page to look at the pictures again, and I realized that the price had jumped back up to $160.99 immediately after my purchase. What?! Wow! All I can say is that God was looking out for me.

Moving on, the Bible showed up today! It was delivered around 2:00 PM @ the office, since I figured it’d show up a little faster if I had it delivered to the office, instead of the house. I was so giddy! In true blogger fashion, I even did a bit of an unboxing, taking pictures as I opened it up.

As I looked at the Bible, I had imagined it being bigger than what it looked like in person. I had my MacArthur Study Bible with me for comparison, and it was only about a half-inch wider than the MacArthur. Truly, not bad, as it fits my rather large hands well. As far as the feel, I was surprised that the leather felt so soft and pliable. I had been so used to rigid leather Bibles that I was completley taken aback; even still, it felt completely natural and smooth in my hands.

I’ve already started the process of copying over all of my highlighting that I had done in the MacArthur, and I’m looking forward to digging in and starting to take notes. This is really going to be a Bible that I cherish.

Click here to take a look at all of the pictures from the unboxing, and also get a glimpse at a part of my desk @ work. By the way, in case you’re wondering, I was @ Logos’ Twitter page on my laptop; and, yes, that’s a Logos stick on my laptop (I have a larger one on the lid too).

Also, a big thanks to the Bible Design Blog for their convincing review, which put the purchase over the top, going from a maybe to a definite yes!

Sometimes I feel like I’m a man on an island all by myself. I’m not speaking of the traditional sense in not having friends; instead, I am referring to being alone theologically, at least online.

For the most part, just about all of the people I know and “hang out” with online are Calvinists, many of whom are pretty hardcore. Most days that isn’t a problem for me because they’re my brethren. But, there are other days where I feel totally alone because I don’t have anyone online who shares my same theological views. So, a lot of times I end up getting into a theological discussion and find myself trying to discuss Scripture with my many Calvinist friends who are able to back each other up (and quite frequently I might add), while I have no one in my corner who shares my theological views to help me out. Many times it leaves me feeling overwhelmed and out of place, leaving me wondering why I started or joined a discussion in the first place.

It is definitely frustrating, but I try not to let it get me down. The only thing that ends up happening is that I become pretty quiet online and choose not to discuss theology as in-depth as I would like to. I do wonder, though, what it’d be like to not be on this island all alone and to have a tag team partner of sorts.

In the meantime, I will just keep praying, studying, and learning, while I man my island.

This morning I was doing some more thinking about Bibles and the Bibles that I own. The last Bible I had purchased was a Scofield Reference Bible; admittedly, I don’t use it much. The binding is rather stiff, there’s still no room to take notes, and I still enjoy the feel of my MacArthur Study Bible over any other Bible I own.

As I was talking to Robin, I remembered that Cambridge wide margin Bible that I had originally wanted to purchase a while back. The more I think about that Bible, the more I think that it’s the Bible I need. So, I decided to do a bit more research on it and stumbled across the Bible Design Blog (not a new site to me, but not one that I read often) and they had written a few articles concerning wide margin Bibles, including a review of the Bible I intend to purchase. As I read his justification for wide margin Bibles, there was one thing he said in particular that really sparked my interest and made the light turn on. He said:

The wide margin Bible is the thinking man’s Study Bible. Like the Study Bible, it is full of notes, outlines and annotations. Unlike the Study Bible, it doesn’t come with them. Instead, you make the notes yourself. That way, they’re the result of your study, not someone else’s. Don’t get me wrong: I have nothing against store-bought Study Bibles. It’s just that the one you make yourself is better. Sure, it demands more of you, but over time it gives more back.

I have to wholeheartedly agree with that statement! In part, that’s the entire reason why I want a wide margin Bible. I’m tired of having a Bible that is full of someone else’s notes, and I want to be able to annotate my own Bible as I study. The only way for me to do that is to have a wide margin Bible. Plus, it makes sense that if i’m going to be taking the time to do that in my Bible, then I should spend the money to make sure that it’s a quality Bible that is going to withstand writing and a lot of handling; I want a Bible that will be with me for years. That also brings up something else he said, this time from his review of the Cambridge Wide Margin Reference Bible (NASB):

Suffice it to say that the wide margin Bible is a great tool for students and teachers of Scripture. You use it and bond with it in a way that wouldn’t be true of most other editions. Misplace a fine Bible bound in goatskin and, alas, how sad. Can’t find your old standby, well-worn from reading? Good excuse to buy a new one. But lose the wide margin you’ve committed ten years of notes and outlines to … well, that’s a catastrophe.

Again, I have to say that I completely agree. I can see that in my own pattern of purchasing Bibles. I don’t have a vested interest in any of the Bibles I own because the only method I have to make them my own is highlighting & underlining, which I can just as easily do in any Bible. But, when it comes time to own a Bible where I’m putting in my own notes & thoughts, it becomes that much more valuable to me, and all the more irreplacable. Think about it; I spent about $60-70 on my MacArthur Study Bible and it’s a great Bible, but I’m not that attached to it because I’ve tried to replace it several times over time with something “better.” Yet, if you purchase a quality Bible that you can make your own, you’re investing more than just money into it, but a part of you. I think that’s all the justification I need to finally get this Bible. The plan is to hopefully swing it so that I can purchase it as my Father’s Day gift. Then I think I’ll be set, aside from maybe purchasing a Pitt Minion to have as an everyday Bible for when I don’t plan on taking notes. I think that’ll work…

So, I’ve been reading through and studying the book of Revelation over the past few weeks. Overall it has been an interesting read and I’m learning a lot. There was a lot I already knew, but so much more that I didn’t know before engaging in this study. One of the more interesting things is the straightforward nature of the text. It really doesn’t leave much room for error or personal interpretation, although many people tend to still do so. Another thing to note is that even in the plain reading of the text, you end up being left with more questions than answers; there are so many items & symbols that just don’t get interpreted and have to be left as is. Either way it has been a fruitful study and I’m looking forward to diving into chapter 13 tomorrow.

I had Greek class tonight, and it was a lot of business as usual; but, I can feel that I’m really starting to pick up on stuff and have it make sense to me. Like tonight, I actually felt like I understood the material and was getting somewhere with it. I was even reading the Greek text with more ease than I had been. The best part was doing exercises and being able to answer some of the questions without even thinking, that felt good.

Overall, I’m still encouraged and taking it day by day. The Lord is blessing and I’m feeling better equipped to teach His word. But don’t stop praying for me, I still need all the prayer I can get.

Yeah, I know what I said about study Bibles. I said I’d never buy another study Bible. I even selected the next (and last) Bible that I was going to buy, all $160 dollars of it from Amazon’s website. Well, you know what? Neither one of those happened. I bought another study Bible, and I didn’t purchase that mammoth of a Bible. So, what happened?

After writing that piece on stewardship a few days ago, I really took time to sit down and think through things. I talked with Robin and discussed where we were, how we planned on wisely using our tax return, and so forth. The more I thought about it, I just couldn’t bring myself to break down and spend $160 for a Bible, even if it’s the one that was formatted exactly like I wanted it to be. True, the Word of God is priceless, but when you can buy a paperback Bible for less than $5, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to put that kind of money into one. With many hours spent in thought, I ultimately decided that I wasn’t going to spend that much money on a Bible when my MacArthur Study Bible was still in great working order (study notes aside).

So, that’s where I stood, I wasn’t going to buy that wide-margin Bible, and I wasn’t going to look at buying another. Then I went out with the family today to run some errands. I had promised Robin a new dining room table with our tax return, so we went and purchased that (to be delivered in 2-3 weeks). The day was supposed to be spent visiting different furniture stores to find the right table, but we found the perfect one at the first store we visited, which meant we had the rest of the afternoon to do some other shopping as we made our way back home.

I decided to ask Robin to stop by Family Christian so that we could look around; they had a necklace she wanted to get for her mom (wasn’t in stock) and I wanted to get a copy of Fireproof. Generally when I walk into Family Christian, or any Christian store for that matter, I make a B line for the Bibles. Well, today I happened to spot a centennial anniversary edition of the Scofield study Bible. I’d been wanting to buy a Scofield just to have in my library (yes, I already own a digital copy in WORDsearch), but I never bought one because no one every had the NASB in stock. So, it just happened to be my luck and this copy was NASB, and the last one on the shelf. I debated for a minute and decided to crack it open (luckily it wasn’t wrapped in plastic, cuz if it is, I leave it alone). I flipped through the pages (thumb-indexed, nice!) and saw that the notes were sparse and didn’t overpower the Scripture in any way, that’s just what I was looking for. The cross references were in the margin, which wasn’t that big of a deal and the price was right (regular price $79.99 on sale for $49.99). So, I decided to buy it and let it become my Bible of choice for everyday use, replacing my MacArthur.

Knowing that this isn’t a top of the line Bible, although pretty high quality, I wanted to make sure I took care of it. You know, throwing a bare Bible into a book bag isn’t always the nicest environment for keeping a Bible looking nice. So, I opted to find a Bible cover to put this new Bible in; which is funny because I hadn’t owned one in years because I had always enjoyed looking at the leather and the way it felt in my hands. Anyway, I found a nice one for $20 that had the names of Jesus written on the front. I picked it up, gave it a look over and determined that it was large enough to fit my Bible, so I opted to get it.

Once I got both of them home, I was pretty impressed and pleased with my new purchase. I now have a Bible that is of good quality and a sturdy means of keeping it well protected, especially when putting it into my book bag for carrying around.

In making this purchase, there is one thing that I wanted to comment on. It amazes me just how much Christian bookstores sometimes mark up their items. Remember, I said that the sticker on the Bible had the Scofield listed at $79.99, which I thought was a fair price, and a steal at $49.99. Well, when I got ready to write this entry and find an image of the Bible, you wouldn’t believe that the MSRP for this Bible (the exact one I just purchased) is $49.99. That means the bookstore marked it up $30 above MSRP and were touting it as a “sale” when selling it at MSRP, when that should be its regular price. That just bugged me a bit, and these stores wonder why they’re losing out to online retailers and chain bookstores. If I wasn’t in the buying mood and wanted to do some comparison shopping, I would have been appalled at seeing the marked up value. Either way, $70 for a Bible & cover isn’t bad when you compare it to the $160 I was looking to spend on that other Bible.

That aside, I’m happy with my purchase and I look forward to using it. And being a centennial edition makes me feel good, especially given my pastor’s recent emphasis on remembering our doctrinal heritage. It’s good to know that this Bible will always be a reminder of Dr. Scofield’s original 1909 edition of the Scofield reference Bible. Now, to dig back into my 1 Thessalonians study…

Over the past few weeks and months I’ve noticed quite a bit of discussion and controversy over the doctrines of grace (i.e. Calvinism) versus practically everything else. There have been countless discussions & debates on message boards and forums, as well as a number of bloggers who have chosen to write about the subject, I guess with myself included now that I’m writing this. It’s been a topic on my mind of late because it has hit particularly close to home, or sorts.

A few weeks ago, in December sometime, a friend of mine was having a discussion after church with one of the ordained pastors over this very topic. Since it was getting late, they agreed to discuss it over email, which I happened to be CC’ed on, and got to watch the entire discourse. Well, around the same time one of the TM forum members was posting a topic discussing Calvinism versus Arminianism, a carryover from a debate he had had elsewhere. So, it has been pretty close to home, so I figured I’d briefly share some thoughts concerning the subject (hoping to not start a debate in the process).

In gauging the discussions that I’ve seen online, it seems that one of the major hot button issues is the sovereignty of God. From the Reformed (Calvinist) side of things, there is a major push that God is completely in control of the salvific experience, to the point of choosing some for salvation and dooming others to hell, with them having no say in the matter. On the other hand, the opposing view tries to take God’s sovereignty completely out of the picture, saying that salvation is all about man’s free will and that God’s sovereignty doesn’t play much part at all. The more I study it, I have a hard time believing that either side is balanced in its view. On both sides, each is able to find Bible passages that fit into their view, but from what I’ve seen, neither handles the other’s passages very well.

As I grew up in church, this was never much of a discussion. We were taught to get saved, live like a Christian, that we couldn’t lose our salvation, and that was the extent of it; there really wasn’t a depth to theology and studying the Bible. So, when I left my church back in North Carolina, one of the first things I studied was the doctrine of salvation. I almost immediately rejected Arminianism because I knew that I didn’t agree with their beliefs. So, that left Calvinism for me to study. I bought several books on the subject and read them cover to cover, and I even discussed the subject with many who held to these doctrines. All of that went well, but there were passages that I was never able to adequately resolve in studying that point of view. The idea of Limited Atonement was one of them because it ignored the plain reading of texts like John 3:16 and 1 Timothy 2:3-6 to name a couple. It was things like that, as well as passages showing man’s role in salvation that led me to believe that there had to be something more biblically balanced than what the doctrines of grace teach.

The more I studied things, I couldn’t help but notice a difference between total depravity and total inability. In just about everything I studied from the Calvinist side of things, everything was taken to the point that man is unable to respond to the grace of God, unable to do anything related to the gospel unless God first makes it happen, including man’s belief in the gospel. Hence total inability, there is absolutely nothing that man can do to save himself. Though, this is not the same as total depravity which is the fact that man’s nature and faculties are corrupted by the sin nature. As a result, there’s nothing we can do to earn or deserve eternal life on our own merit. With that, God does indeed draw all men (John 12:32; Titus 2:11), and man is able to receive and respond to the grace of God (Matthew 23:37; John 5:24-25; Ephesians 2:8-9). The main difference is that man is a free moral agent that is vested with the responsibility to respond to God’s grace when it is presented to Him (John 1:1-9; 3:16-17). Even though man is depraved, he can still respond to God’s grace and come to Christ and is called to do so (Revelation 22:17). This is a very important distinction to make because Reformed theology hinges on this point. If man is completely unable to do anything, then of course God is forced to do everything concerning salvation, therefore you end up with the extreme view of God’s sovereignty.

But man having a responsibility in salvific experience does not negate God’s sovereignty, not in any way. God was still sovereign when He allowed Satan to fall & rebel, was He not? That’s beside the point, so let’s continue. With total depravity in view, it’s obvious that man cannot merit eternal life, nor can he merit God’s grace. So, yes, election is totally an act of God’s grace (Ephesians 1:4-6), but man is still given a responsibility. Man’s response to God’s grace is to simply believe. The Bible teaches both God’s sovereignty in choosing men for salvation and man’s responsibility to believe. The Bible tells us that God desires for all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4) and that none should perish (2 Peter 3:9). Furthermore, the gospel is a whosoever message, stating that whoever believes in Jesus can have eternal life (John 3:16). Also, with the whole issue of predestination & foreknowledge, the Bible places foreknowledge before predestination (Romans 8:28-30). Nevertheless, those that go to hell go because they chose to reject God’s grace, not because of an inability to respond to it. You see, the problem with total inability is that it says that man is unable to do anything, including believe; yet, the imperative when the gospel is given is always "believe." In other words, the person has the choice whether to believe or deny the offer of salvation. If this were not the case, why would the god of this world be working to blind the minds of the unbelieving if they couldn’t believe anyway without the help of God (2 Corinthians 4:4)? Furthermore, in Paul’s speech at the Areopagus, he even states that God desires for man to seek after God, even to the point of groping Him out and finding Him (Acts 17:27); if we couldn’t seek God, then why are we told that it’s part of God’s reason for making us?

What makes this all the more reasonable is God’s common grace. God gives us everything we need in order to seek after Him, but it’s our choice whether we choose to do so. Passages like Matthew 5:45; Titus 2:11; and Romans 1 all give us a glimpse at the common grace of God, showing how He is impartial to all men. Although circumstances may be different, all receive an equal opportunity at receiving salvation. Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus Christ came to die for all men, not just a specific few; one passage to support this is 1 John 2:2, which is written to believers, and states that He didn’t just die for Christians only, but for the whole world. Other passages would include 1 Timothy 2:3-6 and Hebrews 2:9. The problem is that some choose
not to believe (John 5:40), but those that do believe are saved by grace through their faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8, 9) and are immediately made alive spiritually. Yes, Christ’s death was sufficient for all, but only efficient or effective for those who choose to take advantage of it.

From what I see in Scripture, I see God’s sovereignty in that He has executed a perfect plan from Alpha to Omega that includes sinful man and all of his decisions for good or bad, and I also see man’s responsibility to respond to the grace offered by God. Nowhere in Scripture do I see someone who is "made" to believe in Christ; instead, I always see people who are confronted with the truth and then choose to believe. All throughout the gospels we see examples of those who followed Jesus and witnessed His miracles and still chose to not believe in Him as Messiah, while there were others who believed wholeheartedly. The same holds true in Acts and the rest of Scripture. You have some who deny the truth while others accept it, but for each individual the choice was wholly theirs.

That’s what I believe and what I teach. I’m not here to debate it with anyone, although I will examine the Scriptures with my brethren. Indeed iron does sharpen iron, and we can all stand to learn from the Word of Truth, myself included. In terms of this discussion, I will keep comments moderated because, as I stated, this is not something I choose to debate, at least not at this time; I just wanted to share my observations on a prevalent topic. If you desire to debate the topic, there are many other avenues where that can take place and is better suited.

Grace and peace.

Over the past few days I’ve engulfed myself in the study of Paul’s first epistle to the Thessalonians (aka 1st Thessalonians). When I first started, a lot of my study was spent reading the epistle in full, and re-reading it over & over again so that I could have a good feel for the layout of the letter and what it’s all about. I’ve also been gathering a lot of background information on the period, the people, and so on. So far, I’ve gathered quite a bit of interesting information and it’s been a fruitful study. I’ve read outlines and overviews, developed my own outline (at least very basic & skeleton in form), and now I’m finally to the point of digging into the verse by verse study.

Tonight, I spent a few hours studying 1 Thessalonians 1:1 and I’m surprised at the wealth of information that I’ve found in preparing the detailed outline for the opening greeting. In all the work I put in tonight, I didn’t get any further than "Paul, Silvanus and Timothy." In studying this part of the verse I was able to put together a six point outline, with sub points underneath most of the main points. One of the more interesting points that I found is that 1st & 2nd Thessalonians are the only two Pauline epistles that don’t contain any kind of personal elaboration such as "Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus." And that’s just one of the things that I was able to discover in my studies. What’s more, what I’m finding in the rest of the verse is just as exciting. There’s even a text criticism issue at the end of the verse!

All of this really has me excited! When I first looked at this epistle, I thought it was a pretty simple book, especially the first three chapters; but, now that I’m studying it in-depth, it’s renewing my passion for studying the Word all over again. I wonder how I’ll get any work done, given that I spent three hours studying the names of the senders. Hopefully I’ll be able to get the first chapter outlined and finished by the end of the year so that I can get it to my pastor for review and to be ready to teach it at Austin Bible Church when my time comes. Plus, I need to be ready to teach it here come the beginning of the year.

I’m looking forward to diving back into this text tomorrow night! Until then, grace & peace!