Matthew 1

The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham:

·         Christ is the Greek word for ‘anointed.’ The Hebrew word is ‘Messiah.’ The three Old Testament offices that were anointed were prophet, priest, and King.

·         Jesus is first and foremost identified as the Son of David, because the promise of eternal sonship and divine rule was given to David in 2 Samuel 9. It’s confirmed by Jeremiah 23:5 and Ps 132:10-11

·         Jesus is secondarily identified as the son of Abraham, the one of old to whom the promise was given. Gen 12:3 has the promise to him, which was really about Christ as explained in Gal 3.

·         Just as Genesis begins largely with Genealogies, so too does Matthew, however, Matthew has a truncated list, and moves forward from Abraham to Christ, showing He is the fulfillment of all the waiting.

·         This list is trustworthy and true, having withstood the critical eye of the Jews for centuries, it stands resolute as proof that Jesus is the promised one.

2Abraham begot Isaac,

·         According to the promise given, Isaac was born, Gen 21:1-6

Isaac begot Jacob,

·         Gen 25:23-25 has the record, and goes on to tell the story of how Esau sells, scorns, then loses his birthright as the eldest because he cared nothing for God.

and Jacob begot Judah and his brothers.

·         Driven away into Haran lest he die (Gen 27:42-43), Jacob takes two wives, and has twelve children. The oldest, Reuben, sleeps with his fathers concubine Bilhah (Gen 35:22), trying to seize the blessing. Simon and Levi were out because they murdered a village in rage (Gen 34:25) then looted it for plunder. See also Gen 49:3-7)

·         Judah, fourth born, therefore inherits the blessing of the Messianic line. Gen 49:10

3Judah begot Perez and Zerah by Tamar,

·         While Joseph was in slavery, Judah went among the Canaanites and fathered sons, then took Tamar to marry the oldest, but the line was killed by their wickedness. Rather than lose his third son, (Gen 38:11) Judah instead casts her out, she dresses as a cult prostitute, and becomes pregnant by Judah instead. See Gen 38.

·         It’s this reason that God moves the people into Egypt, a xenophobic people who would not intermarry with others.

Perez begot Hezron,
Hezron begot Ram.
4Ram begot Amminadab,
Amminadab begot Nahshon,
Nahshon begot Salmon.
 

5Salmon begot Boaz by Rahab,

·         The narrative moves ahead over a big gap here, some 400 years and just says Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David to show the importance of the Bible books lining up with Christ.

·         Rahab was the same brothel mistress/ prostitute from Jericho.

Boaz begot Obed by Ruth,

·         Ruth was the book of the Bible that covers this time frame. She was a stranger from Moab.

Obed begot Jesse,
 

6and Jesse begot David the king.

·         David stands as an important division in the Scriptures, alongside Abraham as central pillars in the promise of Christ. We are now in 1 & 2 Samuel

David the king begot Solomon by her [B]who had been the wife of Uriah.

·         Bathsheeba is not even named, but belonging to Uriah even after his death is so called. This story is in 2 Samuel 11.

·         Solomon was to come from this line, from adultery between David and this woman.

7Solomon begot Rehoboam,

·         1 & 2 Kings and Chronicles

Rehoboam begot Abijah,
and Abijah begot Asa.
 

8Asa begot Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat begot Joram,
Joram begot Uzziah.

·         Matthew skips the kings Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah.

·         Ahaziah was son to the dreadfully evil Athaliah, he walked in her ways and renounced God for idols.

·         Joash was the boy hidden in the temple until he was proclaimed, (2 Kings 11) but his heart was evil, for when the priest who saved him died, he turned to idols. As a result his servants killed him.

·         Amaziah was the king who conquered the Edomites, then took their gods and began to worship them. 2 Chron 25:14. Perhaps it is for these reasons that they are omitted.

9Uzziah begot Jotham,
 Jotham begot Ahaz,
Ahaz begot Hezekiah.
 

10Hezekiah begot Manasseh,

·         This is more marvelous than the prostitutes, Manasseh was the most horrid and dreadful king Israel had, and yet he was shown grace to be in this line.

Manasseh begot Amon,
Amon begot Josiah.
 

 11Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers about the time they were carried away to Babylon.

·         The list here ends with an interesting twist. The genealogy skips a generation, but includes Jeconiah who was cursed that his descendents would not sit on the throne (Jer 22:30). That’s why this list is a legal right to rule, and Jesus was not of the line except by adoption.

12And after they were brought to Babylon,
Jeconiah begot Shealtiel,
Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel.

·         Zerubbabel was the same guy who led Israel out of captivity in Babylon that we have been studying in Ezra. He was also adopted by his uncle Shealtiel (1 Cor 3:17-19) to rule, because his birth father was Pedaiah.

13Zerubbabel begot Abiud,
Abiud begot Eliakim,
Eliakim begot Azor.
 

14Azor begot Zadok,
Zadok begot Achim,
Achim begot Eliud.
 

15Eliud begot Eleazar,
Eleazar begot Matthan,
Matthan begot Jacob.
 

16And Jacob begot Joseph
the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.

·         Matthew did not use “begot”, which is very telling. Christ was born of the woman only, just as God said to Eve in the garden so long ago.

·         This finishes the legal claim to the throne of David, and the promise to Abraham

17So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations.

·         It’s likely this grouping is to help remember the genealogy

18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

·         Betrothal is akin to our ‘engagement’ where they were pledged to be faithful to each other, as if they were married, and it took a divorce to annul it, yet they did not consummate the marriage.

19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. 20But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

·         The law permitted divorce, and Joseph was going to do it quietly, not calling for a death penalty. See Deut 21:23-24. That means that he was not going to specify a cause when drawing up the bill of divorce

·         He actually fell asleep thinking what he should do.

21And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”

·         This looks forward to the cross, but it also looks back to the OT imagery of a priest.

·         See Isaiah 53:11 “He will bear their sins”

22So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: 23“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”

·         The quote comes from Is 7:14. In context King Ahaz (Same one as father of Hezekiah seen in the genealogies here) was being attacked by Israel and Syria. He asks for no sign that he would be delivered from his enemies and God in response tells him that prophecy.

·         Matthew underscores the name Immanuel in a big way, meaning that God with us is not just going to be with the nation, but that it was a literal fulfillment in Christ.

24Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25and [J]did not know her till she had brought forth her [K]firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.

·         So Jesus had other brothers and sisters, and Mary is not a perpetual virgin, and Jesus was raised by a loving a devout set of parents.

On 2 Cor 5:14

The Context:

Paul's thought starts in v11: we try to persuade men. What men you might ask? Answer: all men, for we all will be judged by Christ v10)

The Verse:

For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died

For a long time I found this difficult, not understanding what it could possibly mean that all died. In an attempt to get help I turned to the J. Mac study bible and read:

One died for all - This expresses the truth of Chris’s substitutionary death. The preposition “for” indicates He died “in behalf of.” Or “in the place of” all (Cf Is 53:4-12, Gal 3:13, Heb 9:11-14). This truth is at the heart of the doctrine of salvation. God’s wrath against sin required death; Jesus took that wrath and died in the sinner’s place. Thus He took away God’s wrath and satisfied God’s justice as a perfect sacrifice.
Then all died - Everyone who died in Christ receives the benefits of His substitutionary death. With this short phrase, Paul defined the extent of the atonement and limited its application. The statement logically completes the meaning of the preceding phrase, in effect saying, “Christ died for all who died in Him,” or “One died for all, therefore all died.” Paul was overwhelmed with gratitude that Christ loved him and was so gracious as to make him a part of the “all” who died in Him.

"One died for all, then all died." That means "Christ died for all who died in Him."
I'll be charitable and just say that's obviously not even close to being right. In fact it doesn't even seem to be talking about the same verse as far as I can tell. However, even someone with a little more sense on this issue, from a different background altogether, David Guzik, does no better. Here is what he says about it.

If one died for all, then all died: How did Jesus die for all? In the sense that His death is able to save all who will come to Him and is a demonstration of God's love to all; but not in the sense that all are saved because Jesus died (which is the false doctrine of universalism). However, it is probable that in this context Paul means "all the saved" when he says all. There is no doubt that there is a sense in which Jesus died for the whole world: And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world (1 John 2:2). But the all Paul mentions here is probably "all the saved," because he also writes then all died. It can only be said that those who join themselves to Jesus by faith have spiritually died and risen again with Him (Romans 6:1-6).

What do I think now? Look again at the verse. For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died. The answer is that the last three words are the logical deduction flowing from the premise 'Christ died for all.' In other words, Christ dying for all is fundamental, it's a given. It's assumed, and from that Paul concludes that if Christ needed to die for all, then all are dead and in need of saving. That, and that alone, fits the context of us being ambassadors, calling everyone, pleading them to repent, for the judgment is coming.

And of course as soon as I figured that out on my own having scaled the snowy summit, overcoming the obstacles of bad guidance, fighting the pressures alone, ready to glory in my accomplishment, I find what Barnes wrote about it and realize I'm holding a view that the older thinkers would think is stupid not to hold. Behold:

That Paul assumes this as a matter that was well known, indisputable, and universally admitted, that Christ died for all. He did not deem it necessary to enter into the argument to prove it, nor even to state it formally. It was so well known, and so universally admitted, that he made it a first principle - an elementary position - a maxim on which to base another important doctrine - to wit, that all were dead. It was a point which he assumed that no one would call in question; a doctrine which might be laid down as the basis of an argument, like one of the first principles or maxims in science.

So there it is, the end of limited atonement, without even involving verse 15.

Unlimited Atonement, Personal Style

So Sunday night I wake up to my daughter screaming bloody murder and holding her legs. I get upstairs to find she's covered (over 50% of her body) in a terrible rash, and breaking out into hives, big ones, huge in fact.
Now we had no idea what could have brought this on, since everything she ate she had eaten before, and the clothes were not new. (I'll save you the suspense, it was a surprise food allergy to gluten free muffin mix).
Since it was visibly growing, we didn't think it was food allergies, and she was screaming in pain uncontrollably after the Tylenol, we decided she should be seen by a doctor (which meant the stupid ER.)
Benadryl was the answer. I got a big bottle of it and took her home, at which point it was 11:30 at night and she was exhausted. And fighting.

Here is where I come to my point. She was tired, fighting, sick, and beyond reason. I had gone out to acquire the medicine, and when I came back she didn't want to have anything to do with it.
So I coaxed her with words, held her mouth, and poured it in. That's the effectual call right there. God is going to make sure the medicine He procured gets swallowed.

But what if I had the neighbor kid come to the door? Let's say for a moment his parents saw me, and sent him over to get some because he was suffering from the exact same thing and needed the exact same medicine. Would I give it to him if he asked? Of course! Would I hold him down and make him take it? Absolutely not, he's not my kid.
That there is the difference between the elect and the non-elect. It's not a matter of the medicine not being there, it's a matter of them not being made to take it. I have a fondness for the neighbors kid, and would not withhold anything from them, but I have a determination to see my own take what I got for them.

And that is how I learned the personal side of the Lombardian formula.

AWANA Trek (new book) Lesson 1.1

LESSON x1.1 – John 1

Jesus is God, and God is Trinity

·         John’s point in writing this gospel is, in the words of John 20:31 “These are written that you might believe that Jesus I the Christ, the son of God, and that believing you might have life through His name.”

·         Your new AWANA book wants to focus on the idea of Jesus being the uncaused first cause, the creator of all. It’s steeped in apologetic tradition, and I think that’s good. But we are going to take the text as it comes to us. So that means we will also discuss the importance of the trinity.

·         For that reason we start with part of the Athanasian Creed, “…We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal…”

·         It goes on: “We believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood by God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.”

·         And with that affirmed we are ready to read our text tonight.

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

·         The first thing John does is confess Jesus is God.

·         In the beginning is also found in Genesis 1:1 which we will look at next week, and John is making it an explicit parallel here.

·         God does not age, sleep, tire, or feel pain. He is immortal, He cannot sin, He cannot die. He knows all, He sees all, He is not made up of matter or energy. He is outside of time, having created time. He cannot change since He is already perfect, for if He were to change it could only be for the worse.

2He was in the beginning with God.

·         Just so there is no doubt, John says it again, in the beginning there was only God, and there was only one God.

·         God is trinity. Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.

3All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

o   This is the logical syllogism:
P1: a thing cannot make itself.
P2: Jesus made everything, (John 1:3).
C: Jesus is not a created being, therefore had no beginning, and is eternally existent.

·         Remember that the testimony of the Old Testament is that God made everything by Himself “Who alone spreadeth out the heavens” (Job 9:8) or Isaiah 44:24b “I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;”

·         The testimony of the New Testament here is that Jesus makes everything.

·         Jesus must therefore be God, the unmade maker; the uncaused first cause.

4In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

·         John likes to use these big words to describe Jesus. Light. Life. Word.

·         It says men, it means every single person.

5And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

·         Or, overcome as your ESV has.

·         The reason the darkness has not overcome is obvious, even a little light overwhelms a dark room. Darkness can only win by keeping the light away, not by overcoming it.

·         The reason the darkness has not comprehended it is more important. The mind of sinful man is dead in their trespasses, being blind to the truth.

·         The light shines in the darkness meaning it always has, and does still shine. The proof of Jesus is everywhere, but the mind in darkness refuses to accept it. It pushes out the truth and is closed.

6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

·         How was everyone to know when the messiah, the savior would actually come? God sent John to tell them that He was here.

·         All four gospels mention John the Baptist.

7This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe.

·         John knew Jesus because he saw the Holy Spirit descend upon Him like a dove, and the Father say “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

·         He then announced to everyone that Jesus was the spotless lamb of God who had come to take away the sin of the world. It was Jesus whom they must respect and bow before.

·         All thorough Him, (that is, Jesus) might believe and be saved. If you don’t believe in Him you cannot be saved.

8He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

·         Just so you are not in any doubt reader, John was just a man, he was not the true light, the true bread, the true sacrifice.

·         He was not that light… he was just a witness.

9That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.

·         The first half of this verse (That was the true light which gives light to every man) you should think of as parenthesis regarding the nature of Jesus. The second half is speaking to what John was doing in announcing His (coming into the world).

·         Which gives light to every man… All good things come from Jesus. Life, light, enjoyment of things, whether a man is pagan or believer, Jew or Gentile. Here Jesus is shown to be the source for all blessings, the cause of it, whether people like it or not.

10He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.

·         He was in the world… because He came and walked around in it, slept on the earth, took on flesh.

·         And the world was made through Him… He made it all in other words. God the Father planned it, God the Son executed the will and created it, God the Spirit upholds it.

·         And the world did not know Him… because it did not want to know Him. The Gentiles refused to accept God, therefore they did not know Him when He came.

11He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.

·         His own being the Jews. Jesus, who is God, the Son of the Father, was born as a Jew, among Jews.

·         His own did not receive Him… but despised and rejected Him. Remember that it was the Jews, working together with the Romans who crucified Jesus.

·         So now, as Paul says in 1 Cor 1:22, “the Jews demand a signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles.” Both groups have rejected Him.

12But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:

·         But there are some who believe that Jesus is God. Who receive Him into their hearts, and to those true believers He gave the gift of adoption.

·         True believers are children of God. Heirs of all God has, joint heirs with Christ.

·         As many as received Him… are those who believe in His name.

13who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

·         When I wanted to have a child, I made the decision to, and after awhile our child was born.

·         When you made a decision for Christ, you were adopted, and justified. But what caused you to make this decision?

·         It was God who regenerated you, caused you to be born again. God acted creatively upon you to put the machinery of your heart right. The same God that creature the universe, created in you a new heart. It was He who caused you, but nothing, except His love, caused Him.

14And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

·         Jesus put on humanity. Imagine the president putting on a butler suit and becoming a servant to you tonight. He would not cease to be the president, but he would add to his office humility and servitude. In a way, Christ did that.

·         We beheld Him… therefore the apostles are eye witnesses to His glory.

15John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’ ”

·         He was before me… John is saying that Jesus is greater than all, for He was here before anything else was.

16And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. 17For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

·         Christ saves us from the curse of the law and rule keeping.

18No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

·         The God that could not feel pain put on suffering. The one who could not die, put on mortality. The God that could not changed, grew. The uncaused maker of the universe was born in a manger.

·         This is the God we worship. In trinity, in unity, in power, in might, in grace, in truth, He is boundless.

What does Galatians 3:20 mean?

Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

 

In context, Paul is arguing the inferiority of the law, and the superiority of grace. Justification is by grace alone, not by grace plus works, because the law is inferior, it only condemns, it does not provide enough to live off. (10-12)

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.”

Paul then argues the promise aspect of the Covenant was superior to the law because the promise includes the Gentiles. (13-14).

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

Now a clever Judiazer might come along and argue that the promise was superseded by the law, since the law came later. Paul cuts this off. (15-19)

To give a human example, brothers even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by a mediator.

So given the context of what has come before, in verse 20 Paul must be saying something to the effect of the law is inferior to the promise. Unfortunately that doesn't narrow it down much.

Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

 

Possible Meaning One

Hypothetical antagonistic Judiazer is back to argue that the law did indeed amend the promise to Abraham. "Ah yes," he would say "the mediator is present during the giving of the law, which means both parties are present, therefore the agreement is open for modification. The law is indeed superior to the promise."
Verse 20 is Paul cutting that argument down by affirming their premise "Yes a mediator is not a mediator of one, both parties are present" but denying their conclusion "but remember God is one with His son so He wouldn't negotiate against the will of the Father. The law remains inferior to the promise."

What I like about this argument: Paul has been anticipating the judiazer arguing, v19 for example, "What was the purpose of the law" v17 "And this I say," and it would make sense he keeps this going.

Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

Possible Meaning Two

Moses is the mediator spoken of here as in verse 19, and this is yet another argument stacked up to prove the inferiority of the law. In this case the law is weak because it requires another party on which to depend, a mediator, because a mediator is not a mediator of just one, while the promise does not need anyone else, because God is one. Therefore, because the promise stands alone and the law doesn't, the law is inferior.

What I like about this argument: It ties back strongly into v18 "God gave it to Abraham by a promise."   

Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

Possible Meaning Three

Lock's view is that the Gentiles are chiefly what Paul has in mind. On Sinai Moses mediated the relationship between God and Israel, but the Gentiles, who were included in the promise to Abraham, are left out.
Therefore "a mediator is not a mediator of one" is a denial that Moses is a mediator with legal standing to re-write the agreement, because he only stands for one party, Israel, and not both parties. Moses therefore cannot really be a mediator, even though God is there, so he’s the one that counts for His side. Therefore, the law cannot supersede the promise, because Moses has no standing, even though God is present.

What I like about this argument: It lines up very nicely with the larger context of justification by faith, and the Gentiles being Abrahams sons in v14. It also lines up very well with Romans 3:29-30 "Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.”

Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

Possible Meaning Four

Hypothetical Judiazer is at it again, "If Christ is the mediator for humanity against God, then how can He be God?" In saying verse twenty Paul merely affirms the Trinitarian view that Jesus is both a mediator, and yet at the same time God.

What I like about this argument: It's simple.

Anything I missed?

The law cannot save

We all know that the law is useless to save since its purpose was to punish error and reveal hidden wickedness, but today I realized it's fundamentally incapable of justifying.

Justification means to count as not sinful, or pardon, when God looks at us and treats us as if we had been perfectly righteous. It's a legal declaration, it ends the trial, case closed.
In other words, it's the pronouncement of the judge.

The law can therefore never justify us because it's not a pronouncement from the judge. In the courtroom it would be the attending witnesses and the evidence table. It does not make a final verdict because God the righteous judge does that, the witness just brings forward proof of the record. It does not make anything new, it does not change things moving forward, it just provides evidence of what already happened.

And for that reason justification, when God declares something to be true, can never be by the law. Therefore justification must be by another means, in this case, by faith alone.

AWANA TREK UPDATE

I got my grubby hands on a copy of the new 4 week prototype junior high curriculum... and so far couldn't be happier. It looks like I wrote it.
The memorization verses are back to the KJV, which is excellent for memory since it's in iambic pentameter, and the distinctiveness and brevity in many things really helps.

The lessons are chunks of Scripture, making it easy even for novice leaders to work through, just open your Bible, go verse by verse through it, and show them what it means.
I have more 'training' to do, which I suspect will be a waste of time, but I am encouraged that this is shaping up to be a truly excellent bit of theology coming down the pike.

The mystery of predestination

I have heard it described as a clock, God's sovereignty turns one gear, and our gear, free moral agency, turns the opposite way. So while they look like they are doing opposite things, they are really part of a complex, unified, whole.

You know what's a better analogy? Dancing.
When the man steps forward with his right foot, the woman steps back with her left. If the mechanical motions are broken down it becomes evident that, like the gears of the clock, the two are doing exactly opposite things. But when the big picture is considered it's obvious they are moving together, working as a unified whole.

Predestination

He's the leader, he sets the rhythm, the pace. He decides where and how she moves. But his object is to be invisible, to stay out of the picture, in order to make her look good. His whole goal in leading this waltz is to show case her gracefulness.
She on the other hand is free within his guided limits to spin, or twist, or bend to her liking. It's afer all, her dance as much as it is his, and her joy lies in taking his direction and making it her own. Is she free? Yes. Is she leading? No.

The beauty of this is evident. His invisible leading, her flamboyant following. His plan, her embellishment. You can feel the music of it, the beat of it, how utterly alive it is. It's a real thing, this wonderful paradox. It's a dance.

You stopped too early.

What do the New Perspectives on Paul and the Dispensationalists have in common with Theological Liberals and Licentious "Christians?" They all stop reading too soon.

Licentious "Christianity"
I'll pick on the soft target of the gay movement, because they have the Queen James Bible in their corner. For this group, their lusts are ultimately sovereign, their passions guide their understanding of the Scriptures. When a passage comes along that they don't like, they re-write it. I'm not sure much more needs to be said, other than they are fundamentally unserious about obeying Scripture.
What they don't read: Anything they don't like.

Liberalism
A god without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom through ministrations of Christ without a cross. People like this, in other words, who argue that our chief problem is a lack of environmental stewardship, Christianity is not about individual salvation from sin, or about getting to heaven. To them, Christianity is about bringing heaven to earth. They love the gospels, or the words of Jesus, but don't care much for the epistles, because those are strongly focused on sin, repentance, the meaning of the atonement, and the coming salvation offered by the Lord Jesus Christ.
What they don't read: the epistles.

New Perspectives on Paul
A complex and wearying school of thought that says Paul was really concerned about who was in or out of the Covenant, and not concerned about personal salvation. The argument is that the Jews all believed in Salvation by grace, and it's Martin Luther who ruined our understanding of them.
This is more like sophisticated liberalism, or liberalism with a bit of faith mixed back in. It's a problem that only infects Covenanters, just as hyper-Calvinism only afflicts Calvinists, and I have trouble figuring out why people would stand by it when it's obvious the people who believe this have not read the sermons in the book of Acts.
In those sermons the gospel is always presented as salvation from personal sin, through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, not by works, but by faith. The Apostles understanding of Jesus work and message should be the same one we have, which is where the NPP goes wrong. Besides, the calling of men to repentance makes sense only in light of the gospel being about personal salvation, and makes no real sense if it's about a debate of who is in the covenant.
What they don't read: the sermons in acts.

Dispensationalism
The most harmless of the four. The key mistake here is that the OT prophecies are stand-alone events that are fully explainable in themselves. I'll just take you to this here article to show what I mean. Their argument is essentially, "If the Bible is clear, then the OT prophecies must themselves be clear. On the other hand, if there is a hidden element of mystery, then the Bible is not straightforward."
The problem here is their inability to address 1 Peter 1:10-12:

Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.

Which sort of settles the score. The writers of the OT were wrestling with revelation, trying to figure out what it was they were writing. They were inspired and would write, but they didn't really understand all that it was meant. When they asked God why this was so, He told them they were serving someone else, not their contemporaries. That leaves a little mystery in their prophecy, because the fullness is in Christ, not in the prophecy itself. Even the angels who brought this word from God to the prophets didn't understand it.
But you are in Christ, so you do.
What they don't read: that verse.