How does rejecting the future tense lead to the belief that The Kingdom is Now?

How does rejecting that the Church was future from the time of Matthew 16 lead some to believe the kingdom is now?

In the sermon preached April 27, 2014, found here ( SERMON ) we were elaborating on the fact that Jesus said, He WILL build His church. Not he will continue to build, or he had already built, but  WILL BUILD -- Future tense.

In connection, I mentioned that entire denominations are built upon the theology and practices that come from rejecting the future tense of this phrase. The first I briefly dealt with in the latest blog entry.

Question number 1: Do you baptize infants?

The second question deals with eschatology, the study of the end times. Specifically it deals with one’s stance on the Kingdom and various associated issues.

Question number 2: Is this the Kingdom?

The text of the Scripture is very clear about the nature of the Kingdom. All Bible teachers regardless of denominational affiliation, hermeneutical system (rules to interpreting), and theological position on this issue, will acknowledge that the Kingdom of the Messiah as presented in the Word of God:

1. Will be established at the repentance of Israel.
2. Will be earthly.
3. Will be preceded and established by the Messiah.
4. Will have the Messiah as King.
5. Will be preceded by the Messiah’s return.
6. Will have a very Jewish quality (it is their kingdom).
7. Will involve Israel’s reception of the New Covenant and Promised Land.

These and other qualities are readily accepted as the teaching of the Scriptures; however, there are many from various denominations with various hermeneutical systems, who will redefine various aspects of the Scriptures teachings. They “spiritualize” or “theologize” or “look for higher meanings” certain passages to deny either the earthly nature (amill), the messiah’s preceding and his reign in the kingdom in an earthly throne (Postmill), or the ethnic jewish recipient and quality of the Kingdom of the Messiah (amil, postmil, and historic premill).

For the purpose of this blog, we will deal with primarily the Amillennial position and to a lesser extent, some Postmill.. The Amillennialist denies the earthly nature of the kingdom, as well as the involvement of the ethnic people of Israel in that Kingdom. The Postmillennialist also denies the ethnic people of Israel’s claim upon the kingdom, and some deny the earthly nature of the kingdom at least in part.

While there is a sort of inference driven, spiritualization based logic in the position that “THIS is the Kingdom promised,” this position again stems from a denial of the Future Tense in Matthew 16:18.

Denying that the Church was something new that would be begun yet future (”I will build My church”),  most say the church began in Abraham, while others will say Adam or Israel. The New Testament Church, in their theological perspective is the “True” or “Spiritual Israel.” In this understanding, the church is nothing more than a continuation of what God had already done. the church has replaced the ethnic body of Israel. The church is the “Israel” of the New Testament and they are the “Church” of the Old Testament.

I’d like to summarize their position as best as I can in as short a time as I can. My understanding of this comes from various readings, and discussions with scholars and pastors on both sides, and so you must forgive a lack of specific references in this blog. This is not meant to be scholarly, only informative.

{If you would like further books for reading on this area, please email me at church@central-bible.org and I’ll be glad to pass on a title or two for further consideration.}

Here is the logic:

1. The church began in Abraham. We are only a continuation of what God has done since the Patriarchs through the nation of Israel. We are the True/Spiritual Israel.

2. The teachings from all the prophets, as well as the Law of Moses, even through Peter’s sermon to the nation of Israel in Acts 3, all teach the same thing: If Israel will repent, having experience God’s Discipline in Captivity, they will be restored completely into the Kingdom.  (Deut 30:1-3; Jeremiah 31:27-37; Hosea 3:4-5; Acts 3:19-21; and many more)

The apostles, and also the first converts in Acts 2 were Israelites.

4. The New Testament is clear: There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither circumcision, nor lack of circumcision is of any importance, only circumcision of the heart matters, that is, faith in Christ. Ethnicity matters not, we are all God’s people by grace through faith.

5. Israel is God’s People --> We are God’s People --> We are Israel. (The spiritual Israel. Israel is the Church of the Old Testament)

6. I am Israel. And I have repented. (Upon repentance comes the Kingdom) -- The Kingdom must be now!

******But wait, this looks nothing like what was promised. Earthly. Jesus reigning from Jerusalem. Promised Land. etc. ******

7. This is the Kingdom. Those things must be spiritualized, because they must be fulfilled now that we (the spiritual Israel) have repented. So they are fulfilled spiritually in the church, in my heart, etc. 








Depending on what parts you spiritualize and to what extent, you will end up as an Amillennialist, denying the Millennial Kingdom all together, or a Post-Millennialist, denying Christ’s earthly reign in the Kingdom, or any shade of difference in between.

(When you spiritualize, you loose objectivity and loose consistency, therefore, you loose unity in beliefs unless you revert to tradition instead of Scripture as your final authority.--You must deny the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura)

There is a certain logic to these positions if the church is only a continuation of the Old Testament People of God, Israel, but Jesus said, “I WILL build” not “I will CONTINUE to build.” The church is an entity that had not yet been begun. In the church, we do not have Israel’s repentance, that is still yet future, and so we do not see the establishing of the Kingdom. That will happen at some point yet future as well (cf. Matthew 25:31; Romans 11; etc.).

How does rejecting the future tense lead to infant baptism?

How does rejecting that the Church was future from the time of Matthew 16 lead some to baptize infants?

In the sermon preached April 27, 2014, found here ( SERMON ) we were elaborating on the fact that Jesus said, He WILL build His church. Not he will continue to build, or he had already built, but  WILL BUILD -- Future tense.

In connection, I mentioned that entire denominations are built upon the theology and practices that come from rejecting the future tense of this phrase. I also asked two questions, each I hope to deal with in two separate blog entries for your consideration.

Question number 1: Do you baptize infants?

We don’t baptize our infants at CBC, but those who do practice infant or Paedo-Baptism have a logical consistency, flawed though I find it, stemming from the fact that they consider the church to have begun early in the Old Testament.

Most will say the church began in Abraham, while others will say Adam or Israel. The New Testament Church, in their theological perspective is the True or Spiritual Israel. We are nothing more than a continuation of what God had already done. We have replaced the ethnic body of Israel. We are the “Israel” of the New Testament and they are the “Church” of the Old Testament.

I’d like to summarize their position as best as I can in as short a time as I can. My understanding of this comes from various readings, and discussions with scholars and pastors on both sides, and so you must forgive a lack of specific references in this blog. This is not meant to be scholarly, only informative.

Here is the logic:

1. The church began in Abraham. We are only a continuation of what God has done since the Patriarchs through the nation of Israel. We are the True/Spiritual Israel.

2. The sign of the covenant since Abraham was given to infants, days after their birth, because they were born into the “covenant family.” Specifically, it was only given to males, in that the sign of the covenant was circumcision on the eighth day.

3. The New Testament is clear, neither circumcision, nor lack of circumcision is of any importance, only circumcision of the heart matters, that is, faith in Christ.

4. Furthermore, the New Testament is clear that we are neither Male nor female, etc. And so the sign of being in the covenant family can be given to both males and females.

5. In the New Testament the sign of belonging in and even the means of entering into the “covenant” or “covenant family” is no longer circumcision, but baptism.

6. Since I am the new Israel, my children are born into the Spiritual Covenant Family and so like those in Abraham’s line who have come before, I need to give them the sign of the covenant from infancy.

7. Therefore, I baptize infants.

The problem with this is Jesus said, I WILL build my church. The Church is not a continuation from the Old Testament, but a new entity within the plan of God. One doesn’t enter the covenant family by birth, but by new birth, by grace through faith in Christ. So we are to give the sign of the covenant to those who have become a part of the covenant family when they come to Christ through faith in the finished work of the cross.

The paedo-baptist have a certain logic that is consistent, but it doesn’t hold up to the Scriptures.

Did Peter have the Holy Spirit Before Pentecost?

DKB writes:

Pastor Nic, I have a question for you from your teaching yesterday...When Jesus asked Peter who he thought Jesus was and Peter answered and Jesus said he was blessed "because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you but My father who is in heaven"....does this mean the Holy Spirit was in Peter? I am confused if your answer is yes because I thought the Holy Spirit did not come down until they were in the upper room. My notes say it was because of "divine illumination" is this the same as the Holy Spirit?


DKB, as always, another thought provoking question. Thank you for thinking through the sermon long after it has been preached.

The sermon in reference here is from Matthew 16:13-17 “The Heavenly Confession” given 4-6-2014 which can be found on our sermon audio page, www.sermonaudio.com/Centralbible

The question you ask concerns the ministry of the Holy Spirit: Was Peter indwelled by the Holy Spirit of God? What ministry if any did the third person of the Trinity have prior to Pentecost (the upper room?) Is “divine illumination” the same as the Holy Spirit? You ask three questions, I give three answers, each concerning the third person of the Godhead.

Question 1: Was Peter indwelled by the Holy Spirit of God?

When you asked, “Does this mean the Holy Spirit was in Peter?” I interpret your question as, Does Peter at this point have the Holy Spirit like we have the Holy Spirit, living and dwelling inside of us, ministering to and through us? This question is better answered by first dealing with your implied question, question 2.

Question 2: What ministry if any did the third person of the Trinity have prior to Pentecost (the upper room?)

The Holy Spirit of God has been active for eternity as the eternal third person of the Trinity. In creation we see the Spirit hovering over the face of the earth (Gen 1:2). Perhaps we even see the Spirit as part of the divine architect of mankind, “let US make man in OUR image...” (Gen 1:26). Your question, however,  concerns the Spirit’s interaction with the people of God.

The Spirit’s work in God’s people is singularly interesting. He come and he goes. One notable example: Saul was anointed King in 1 Samuel 10, and prophesied when the Spirit cam upon him (vv. 9-11). Then six chapters later, at Saul’s disobedience, the Spirit left him (1 Sam. 16:14).

This is a pattern we see often. The Holy Spirit comes upon a specific individual for a specific purpose and at its conclusion leaves the person. This is the case with the prophets, judges, and kings. This is the norm in the dispensations, or if you are uncomfortable with that term, with the ages preceding the church age--the age/dispensation of the mystery, the age/dispensation of grace.

When we reach the New Testament and in particular the gospels we find that Jesus prophesied that the Spirit would come in a special way upon his ascension to the Father (cf. John 7:37-39, John 14:16-17; John 16:13; Acts 1:8; etc). The testimony of the Spirit’s coming is found in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost in the upper room, as you noted. In this dispensation, the Spirit dwells with us (Romans 8:11), is given as an inheritance and seals us in Christ (Eph 1:13-14). But Peter does not yet live in this dispensation. He is under the ministry of the age of Law, and the working of the Holy Spirit prior to Pentecost.

So I return to question 1: Question 1: Was Peter indwelled by the Holy Spirit of God?

The disciples did receive the Holy Spirit in a “partial?” way prior to Pentecost, seen in John 20:22

John 20:22 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”

But that occurs after his resurrection, not here in our context (Matthew 16:13-17).

Is the Spirit dwelling in Peter at this point? No, the Spirit doesn’t indwell or seal believers until after Pentecost. Is the Spirit at work here in Matthew 16? Yes, he is always at work, God is always at work in and through all things. Is the Spirit moving upon Peter in order to reveal to His truth? Yes, I believe so, even though it is not explicit in context, because the Holy Spirit of God plays a major role as Teacher (Jn 16:13; 1 Jn 2:20).

Question 3: Is “divine illumination” the same as the Holy Spirit?

Divine illumination is the process in which God opens the mind to be able to understand spiritual matters. The Father revealed the truth of who Jesus is to Peter. Either He did so directly, or he did so through the work of the Holy Spirit, but either way you could say the Father revealed these things to him. In our age, the Holy Spirit of God is the revealer of truth--which leads me to believe that the Spirit opened Peter’s mind as well. When he does so, to Peter or in this age, we are given “illumination.” The light of the truth is being made known. In your notes and in the sermon I called it “divine illumination” to emphasize once again, the source of Peter’s knowledge. And so, the Spirit isn’t the same thing as divine illumination, but the Spirit gives divine illumination so that the formerly dead and natural man can then accept and understand the things of the Spirit of God, spiritual truths (1 Corinthians 2:12-15).

Are All Sins Equal Before God?

DKB asked the following question:

Pastor Nic, I have a question....is all sin equal? Is telling a lie (in God's eyes) the same as murder? I have been reading and researching this. I know any sin keeps us from God, I fully understand this. Is it my sinful nature to want to "judge" others who sin and not my own because I want mine to be less?


You ask a packed question, DKB. I think I need to break down my answer into multiple parts.
1. Is all sin equal? (Is a lie the same as murder?)
2. I know any sin keeps us from God.
3. Is it my sinful nature to want to judge others who sin and not my own because I want mine to be less?

These I’ll take in opposite order than your asking.

3. Is it my sinful nature to want to judge others not my own because I want mine to be less?

It is always easier to see another persons sins than our own. We are conveniently blinded to our own attitudes, actions, and unrighteousness, but we see other’s sinfulness in hypercolored, LED visuals! Yes, I believe this is a part of our sinful nature. We see ourselves often times as better than we really are.

I like what the apostle Paul had to say about judging even himself in 1 Corinthians 4:3-5 “to me it is a small thing that I may be examined by you, or by any human court; in fact, I do not even examine myself. For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord. Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise will come to him from God.”

For the sake of comprehensiveness, I need to add also, that this doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t judge the sin of others, in particular of those in the church. 1 Corinthians 5, is about the need of the church to judge the immoral brother in their body. It concludes in verses 12 and 13, about judgment of those inside and outside the church, “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.”

2. I know any sin keeps us from God.

Yes, any and all sin keeps us from God. In fact, it is our sin nature that causes sin and that keeps us from God. “We sin because we are sinners” (by nature), not “we are sinners because we sin.” So it is our nature, displayed in our actions, which keep us from the holiness of God in relationship, heaven, etc. With that in mind, any sin, all sin, equally makes us worthy of eternal hell, wrath, punishment. It isn’t a matter of quantity, but one of quality. Our sin is held in contrast to God’s holiness. Any speck defiles the purity of Him. That’s why the grace of God, and the atonement of Christ and the work of the Spirit are so incredible. That’s why God must be merciful for us to have salvation. Romans 9:15 “For He says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’” and again in Romans 9:18, “So then He has mercy on whom He desires and He hardens whom He desires.”

{But with this understood, we can move on to your primary question}

1. Is all sin equal? (Is a lie the same as murder?)

I’ll ask you to consider Jesus’s words in Matthew 11:20-24, especially verses 22 and 24. Here’s the passage.

20 Then He began to denounce the cities in which most of His miracles were done, because they did not repent. 21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. 24 Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you.”

There seems to be a scale of judgment and punishment in this text, so not all sin is the same, but take note of the reason for the more/less tolerable nature of the judgment. It isn’t the type of sin committed, but the response to the degree of revelation of the gospel, or person of Jesus Christ.

Is there scaling punishment upon sinners? The answer seems to be “yes.” Is it based on the sins committed? The answer seems to be “no.”

Since you brought up “murder,” I’ll use it to illustrate another point. Remember, Jesus said in Matthew 5:21-22, in the sermon on the mount, “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘ You shall not commit murder’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court...” The action of killing someone in the act of murder was equated, by Jesus Christ, to the inward attitude/emotion of anger towards a brother.

There may be other passages, that would help us understand the issue, but these were my initial thoughts to answer your question.


Conclusion: We want to be real careful on this issue. We need to hold Christians accountable for their sin, not because we are better, but because we expect better and because we want them to hold us equally accountable. While at the same time, we allow God to be the judge of the non-believer, recognizing that “but for the grace of God” I would be as bad or probably worse than the worst unbelieving sinner out there.  Thank you God for your mercy! Thank you God for your deliverance! Thank you God for the transformation you are working in me!



.......................................REVISITED.............................

I woke up this morning thinking about this question and answer.


One final verse should be considered. The context is the woman pouring perfume on the feet of Christ. While the disciples objected, Jesus explained her act of worship and devotion.


Luke 7:47
For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.”


This doesn’t clearly point to one sin being worse than another, but suggests either severity or amount.

I suspect that it is not amount in the question, but severity. If the “much” is amount, then we all would “love” equally, because our every thought, breath, action, even our righteous deeds are offensive to a holy God, apart from the forgiveness, grace and redemption found in Christ. So we all have innumerable amounts of sin(s). The distinction between one and another is the severity of sin.

So we’ve seen a passage about degrees of punishment based on the amount of revelation and we’ve seen a passage about degrees of love and forgiveness based on what seems to be the severity of sin. What we don’t see is a degree of judgement based on the severity of sin, giving a clear teaching on whether or not one sin is worse than another.


But remember chapter 5 of 1 Corinthians? Remove the immoral brother? That man was having a quasi-incestuous relationship with his father’s wife. Paul didn’t say remove the brother with pride issues. Paul didn’t say, remove the man who had a problem with lust or anger. One sin was worth removing the person from fellowship in the church, while another was a sin dealt with by the individual.

One sin was considered more severe than the other.

We need to guard ourselves, however, from being the judge and jury of another person. We judge within the church, but not outside. All sins are offenses to God. We would all be guilty of the worst sins apart from God’s grace. As we have been forgiven, so we forgive. And many other principles from the Word of God that we need to keep in mind on the issue. 

Grace and Peace,
Nicholas

A Verse by Verse Breakdown of Ephesians 2:1-10

I was asked the other day if I would email a verse by verse explanation of Ephesians 2. The primary concern was verse 8, but I gave the context working up to and through the context of 8. The question was for a clarification of a brief explanation in our Sunday Night Class "What is the Gospel?" -Session #1, which is available through Word and Truth Media and from our church sermonaudio page linked below.

Here is my response. 

I think it would be easiest to do this by having the Scripture and then commenting below, so that you see exactly where my comments are coming from as I do my best simply to state what the text is stating...

2 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

This speaks of the former state of these believers, the Ephesian Church, and speaks in contrast to those who are currently unbelievers. Their state (unbelievers) because of the sin of Adam bringing about their "deadness." They walk according to Satanic ways (prince of the power of the air), because they are "sons of disobedience." Scripture's use of the Phrase "son of" was understood and is understood as the embodiment of the character and attributes of that which you are the "son of." E.g. James and John are "sons of thunder," embodying thunder like characteristics. Judas the "son of perdition," - embodiment of sin. Barnabus, the "son of encouragement" to describe his personality and of course Jesus is Son of God, Son of Man, Son of David, Embodying the character and attributes of Deity, perfect humanity (he is the second adam), and David, the Messianic, Davidic, King. 

The text goes on to say what our practices were, and even our nature was, when we were without salvation. "lust of flesh...desires of flesh and mind...by nature children of wrath." --traits carried by all born in sin.

4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),

In contrast to who we were is placed God and his attributes and his actions towards us. While we were dead (this is speaking of our spiritual deadness and inability to move towards God because of our nature)...While we were dead, GOD "made us alive together with Christ." Spiritually we were dead. spiritually dead men don't do anything in the realm of spiritual life, because they are dead. Think of a corpse in a casket at a funeral. The corpse can do nothing in the realm of the spiritual living. Dead men don't make choices and they certainly don't make good ones (as confirmed with all the other passages about inability we covered Sunday). Instead, God “made us alive together with Christ.” It was a work of God alone, the dead play no part in giving life to itself. 
Verse 5 interjects with  a phrase which will be used again below with expansion. "by grace you have been saved" -- grace, as you know, is a free gift, an undeserved gift, an unearned gift, an unmerited favor - gift.

6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

Keeping comments minimal hear, because they aren't the focus of what I taught, nor what you are interested in. Paul speaks now of our current spiritual reality. We are raised, seated with Him, he will show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness towards us. Speaking of the testament to how good He was to us who were "children of wrath." And the ultimate show of that will be in the completion of our salvation in glorification at the rapture. We will have been brought from embodying (son of) the character and attributes of wrath, to being the embodiment of the character and attributes of righteousness (children of righteousness).

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Here again is our Phrase. "For by grace you have been saved" --again an unmerited, undeserved, free gift, but this time an additional phrase is added "through faith." Here is where the natural response would be, "oh, I had to do something. I had to have faith." Even though that seems contradictory to the "unmerited, undeserved, free gift," idea of grace. And so Paul clarified after the semi-colon. In fact he clarified three times and then gave the logical result of the proper understanding. Here it is...1. "and that not of yourself, 2. it is the gift of God, 3. not as a result of works, and the result "so that no one may boast.

1. and that not of yourself -- "that" is in the neuter gender in greek. typically a demonstrative, "that," will be in agreement in gender with the referent if anything but the closest possible referent is meant. Here the neuter of "that," doesn't match anything in the context and so it is a referent to either the whole act of salvation including grace and faith that brings about salvation that isn't of yourself (which would be true), or "faith," the closest referent, which is the most exegetically sound option since these phrases are used to clarify the addition “through faith” to a phrase already used in the verses above. And so "faith" "is not of yourselves". This again is clarified in the second phrase.

2. "it is the gift of God" --the problem as you will recall is that when Pual added "through faith," the immediate reaction is "oh, I do have a part to play before I can receive grace, namely, I have to have faith." Here he clarifies, that "faith" was a gift. Something God gave. I might add, an unearned, unmerited, undeserved, free gift of God. We were dead spiritually and children of wrath, following our nature as sons of disobedience, how could we have earned the gift, plus Paul in Romans says, grace that is earned is no longer grace, it is wages. A gift that is earned is no longer a gift, it is a paycheck. But he goes on with one more clarification.

3. not as a result of works" -- literally "ouk ex ergon" - "not from works" - again just to recall the argument. "through faith" made the reader say, "oh I have a part i need to play first, in order to receive salvation. I must have faith to receive grace." then the clarifications: no the faith is not of yourself. the faith is a gift from God. and here, the faith is not from works. In other words, it isn't something that we do in order to merit, or deserve, or earn the application of grace. That would effectively nullify grace (unearned, unmerited, undeserved). Grace earned is wages (Rom 4:4). And also it would be an impossibility to have that faith in the state of our deadness, and wrathfulness, etc. or as Romans 8 said, while of the mind of the flesh and unable to do the things of the spirit of God, unable to please God, at enmity with God, as you will recall from our study Sunday. And so the faith is “not from works,” not something we do of our own accord to play a part before being able to receive 1. grace, 2. salvation.

Then finally the result of this line of thinking.

"so that no one may boast" -- if the faith was of yourself, not a gift of God, and was a work that we did in order to receive salvation (I won't say grace at this point, because it no longer would be unmerited favor), then we would be able to boast. e.g. I'm saved, because I had faith. that guy isn't saved, because he wasn't sensitive enough, smart enough, spiritually minded enough, etc. But if even the faith necessary to call on the name of the Lord is something that is given to us, then we are left with no room to boast. e.g. Why are you saved and not that guy? I have no idea. God chose to give me grace and faith to respond when I didn't deserve it, to the praise of His glory ALONE!

10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Then to cap it all off, Paul writes an explanatory sentence, starting with the explanatory “gar” in Greek. When we see that “gar,” we expect the summary. And that is what we get. “We are His workmanship.” All that we are and all that we have become as “Saved ones” is something He has done, not by our works, the faith was not of ourselves, it was His gift, leaving us no room to boast except in the Lord as 1 Cor 1. says “let he who boasts boast in the Lord.” He, in his workmanship, made us who we are, created in Christ Jesus for good works. He made us who we are, gave us faith by his grace, brought us into salvation so that we can be created anew. We were dead, children of wrath, following after our lusts, sons of disobedience, etc, but he made us new to do good works, which he prepared before hand so that we would walk in them, not in the sins of our former lives.


And of course I won’t go into how this pairs right with the other passages we covered. No one can come unless drawn, granted by the father in John 6. The mind of the flesh can’t do that which pleases God, can’t obey the law of God, is unable, in Rom. 8. The natural man does not comprehend the things of the spirit, only the one who is given the spirit can understand spiritual things (1 Cor 2.), etc. But all that is available to review on the handout, or if you would like to hear it again it is on our sermonaudiopage. www.sermonaudio.com/Centralbible  


If All Die Because All Sinned, What About Enoch?

I'm trying something new. The last time I used this blog was in 2010. I have found that though I would like to write more, time doesn't allow, however, with my emails this morning came an idea. I will attempt to use this blog as a forum to post questions and answers that I receive, at least as I have time to do so...

This will serve at least two goals. One I will be able to supply the answer to the questions received via email to a multitude of people (at least potentially) without adding much additional work, and two, I will have used this blog rather than it staying idle. And so here we go.

 This morning I received the following question:  

Hey Nick! 
So I have been thinking about the sermon Sunday night and I started thinking about something and wanted to see if maybe you could clear things up for me? 

So, the bible says that the wages of sin is death and that because of the fall of man and the curse with Adam and Eve disobeying, every man is born a sinner and therefore must die because that is our payment for being a sinner. So I was curious about Enoch. In Genesis 5 it goes in to saying how Enoch was no more because God took him away. So I was curious about if that means that Enoch did not sin, because he didn't die, and he didn't have to pay the price for sin. It says in Hebrews 11 that Enoch is "known as the person who pleased God, and that it is impossible to please God without faith and if anyone wants to come to Him he must believe that God exists and that He rewards those who seek Him" So obviously Enoch was rewarded for his immense amount of trust and faith in God in such a difficult time to be following God, but how did he get to skip out on the payment for being born a sinner? I know that Jesus was the only person born with out sin, so it really just kind of confuses me. So I was wondering if you could possibly clear this up in any way! 

 Thanks!!

And here is my reply.

 Hey ______, I love getting questions like these because it shows that you are really thinking through the issues directly and its correspondence to the rest of Scripture (thinking canonically). Of course I can't give you a definite answer to the question, but only a proposed probability/hypothesis. The story of Enoch is allusive but also Elijah (chariot of fire--no death)... And yet as you say the wages of sin is death... and furthermore, Hebrews sin it is appointed for a man to die once and then comes the judgment. 

 Here's my proposed solution. There are two witnesses in Revelation 11. There have been several allegorical interpretations of the two witnesses, but I take them to be two people. From the people camp most throw out Elijah, Enoch and Moses as possibilities (moses because of a miracle resembling one of the plagues in Egypt). 

 Since you see where I am headed, I say the two are Enoch and Elijah! Both men would be powerful witnesses to the Israelites and the world during the tribulation, they would be able to do signs similar to those that are recorded for Elijah, then they will be killed (thus having fulfilled their requirement) and after resurrected and raptured as a special act of grace for two who didn't belong to that time to begin with, but who were sent to fulfill a mission for the Lord. 

Of course this is just a theory, but it sure does wrap a nice bow around it. By the way, there are some prominent early church fathers who agreed with this, Tertulian, Irenaeus, and Hyppolytus of Rome to name a few. 

 So any way... hope that helps.. I've included Revelation 11:1-14 below, just to perhaps save you a bit of time in looking it up. Hope you enjoyed the study. Glad you are feeling better.


 11 Then there was given me a measuring rod like a staff;and someone said, “Get up and measure the temple of God and the altar, and those who worship in it. 2 Leave out the court which is outside the temple and do not measure it, for it has been given to the nations; and they will tread under foot the holy city for forty-two months. 3 And I will grant authority to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for twelve hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth.” 4 These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth. 5 And if anyone wants to harm them, fire flows out of their mouth and devours their enemies; so if anyone wants to harm them, he must be killed in this way. 6 These have the power to shut up the sky, so that rain will not fall during the days of their prophesying; and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to strike the earth with every plague, as often as they desire. 7 When they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up out of the abyss will make war with them, and overcome them and kill them. 8 And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which mystically is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. 9 Those from the peoples and tribes and tongues and nations will look at their dead bodies for three and a half days, and will not permit their dead bodies to be laid in a tomb. 10 And those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them and celebrate; and they will send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth. 11 But after the three and a half days, the breath of life from God came into them, and they stood on their feet; and great fear fell upon those who were watching them. 12 And they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, “Come up here.” Then they went up into heaven in the cloud, and their enemies watched them. 13 And in that hour there was a great earthquake, and a tenth of the city fell; seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake, and the rest were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven.

 Nicholas Paul LeBlanc Pastor, Central Bible Church

Church Planting in 2010

We've left the otts. How in the world do you spell "ott"? The single digit numbers in the new decade? It doesn't matter. Anyway, we've started the new year 2010. This year is guaranteed to be a chaotic year in the life of Central Bible Church. Last night I communicated a core concept of church planting ministry. This core concept is this: For 1.5 years CBC has been operating under the guise that I am the church planter and the 10-30 people who come each week, are attending the church plant, Central Bible Church. This is all backwards. I've learned a great truth this past year through reading and through thinking through the church planter ministry. Here's the sum total of all that I've learned in my short 1.5 years in Central... I'm not the church planter with people attending my church plant, but instead those who feel called to Central Bible Church, those who have been led of the Lord to be a part of this ministry, those who feel a calling of God to be a part of a church that is committed to seeing people transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the person of Jesus Christ for the glory of God, those who are a part of our fellowship are the church planters. They are called to the church planting ministry. If this church is planted successfully, if we beat the 80% (or whatever it is) failure rating of church plants, it is because the people have planted the church successfully through the Lord's power and will. My job, what I have been called to is to lead, to preach, to teach, to guide, to instruct this group of church planters which the Lord has led to be a part of this ministry.

I am convinced that God wants us to do something bigger than ourselves. I am convinced that God wants us to make disciples. I am convinced that we will do great things in the city of Central if we work, sacrifice, and rely upon the Lord to continue to move in and through CBC in 2010. Won't you join us and see God use you and move!