Salt and Light
The simple and short answer is: we are to be salt and light. Quoted now is Matthew 5:13-16:
"You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored?
It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet.
"You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp
and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way,
let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your
Father who is in heaven."
These words are from Jesus and were spoken to His disciples. Here we have clear direction for you work and ministries--we are to be salt and light.
Salt and light. There is far more here than is possible to explore in a brief article. Frankly, I am not sure of all that it was meant to convey, but there are a few remarks that might safely be made.
One, it is possible for salt to become useless and possible that light may be covered up and so become useless as well. How this might happen is not made clear, but the "if" in verse 13 indicates that is possible for salt to in fact become useless.
Two, salt is good and has a purpose. Light is good and has a purpose. The ultimate purpose would be to give glory to our Father in heaven.
Three, our work is to let our light shine, and that light would be Christ in us and His Gospel. That others might hear and believe is how God is glorified.
In the Western democracies the Gospel has flourished beyond any reasonable expectation. Now that place is challenged and no doubt altered signficantly. Viewing the progress of things like the acceptance of homosexuality and the mainstreaming of occult practices, aided by the legal system and not by moral persuasion, it is no time to be intimidated into silence or angry confrontation, but by letting our light shine and remaining good and salty.
We wrestle not against flesh and blood; it is a spiritual battle and our weapons are spiritual and powerful to take down strongholds. Whatever takes place politically and culturally, it is only temporary at best. The destructiveness of error, at some point, becomes apparent even to those who have promoted the error.
The outcome belongs to God; we are to be obedience servants and be the salt and light we are called to be.
One thing leads to another
Soon we legalize same-sex marriage. I say "we" since it is "we the people." Isn't that right? We are indeed citizens and our representatives make the laws. So it is we.
We have no alternative but to sanction same-sex marriage as the Scripture is not the law of the land. If it were we would not have it. Unhappily the U.S. Constitution, as much as we revere it, provides no help, especially in the way it has been interpreted as of late. Probably, and of course I am no constitutional lawyer, equal protection under the law must not yield to moral religious notions. Let me also disavow being a theocrat--i can wait for that--marantha.
If then same-sex marriage, why not polygamy, many wives, or better yet, polygny, plural marriage? Where can a line be drawn? If you have no line, no landmark, must not the other be acceptable as well. The law must be upheld. Well, this is what many will think. Think of the glory--the weak sexual slaves of the powerful. It always comes to this when anything goes and the law is on your side.
But not all will think this way. Perhaps a spiritual civil war will erupt at some point, sooner probably than later, a battle fought in hearts and minds and not on battle fields, hopefully. There is a host of people who are not intimidated by the charge of narrow minded religious Bible thumping bigot. There are those who will not approve of sinful behavior, those acts that the creator God has plainly defined as wrong, bad, and sinful. There are those who have crucified the flesh and its lust for more pleasure and have experienced inspiring grace and forgiveness--and who do not wish to go back to the vomit.
There is a continental divide, in Arizonia I think, maybe that is wrong, but there is also a moral divide, which is shared by others than Christians. Positions will be taken but the law will favor those who want to abandon any healthy restrain on our powerful and deceiving sexuality. God gave us sex but we are corrupt, to the point of being dead in our trespasses and sins with our minds being on evil continually. Indeed we will agree with the Hebrew prophet who said that the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. He then asked, "Who can understand it?" (see Jeremiah 17:9)
From a view above the earthly plain is seen a future judgment dispensed by a holy God who knows all things, before whom nothing is hidden. He will judge rightly, according to His Law. Those who have approved evil will stand naked before Him and be judged and sentenced. And all for approving sexual license. Same sex marriage must led to many wives or husbands or whatever works. The one will lead to the other.
Taking it seriously
I thought what I would do is offer debate on theological issues. I thought I will post an essay that I have recently written for a book I am nearly finished with and let people have at it. Not that everyone will be satisfied with my timeliness or my views, but I sincerely would like to engage in conversation. So, what do you make of this:
Replacement Theology
Christians generally hold one of two points of view regarding who are the people of God, and these views are in complete opposition to one another. The one view is that Israel, as the people of God, whether a nation or a distinct people group based on unknown criteria, is a permanent part of God’s plan. This doctrine is an integral aspect of Dispensational Theology, a theological system that is largely Arminian-based.
The other view is that Israel, again either as a nation or a distinct people group based on unclear criteria, is replaced by the Church, the invisible Church,[1] and which becomes the people of God. Most, but not all, of those in the Reformed tradition adhere to Replacement Theology. My own position straddles these two views; perhaps it is better to say that I combine them.
Dispensationalism
Though my rendition of things might not adequately present dispensational thought, which is quite nuanced and complicated, I will attempt to paint it with a broad brush stroke. I would reiterate that others than those holding to a Dispensational Theology also reject replacement theology, including some in the Reformed Tradition.
The initial concept of Dispensationalism is that Israel means the nation or people group descended genetically from Abraham and that it figures into God’s plan until the end of the age when the kingdom will be fully inaugurated. This is despite the presence of the Church. The visible or invisible Church does not replace Israel in the ultimate intentions of God. The Church and Israel are seen as two completely separate entities that are treated by God very differently from one another.
The promises made to the patriarchs – Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob – will be fulfilled literally and exactly according to dispensationalists. These promises are based on covenants or agreements that God made with the patriarchs, which will be fulfilled regardless of any other consideration. A prime example of these promises, in fact the original promise, is found in Genesis 12:1-3:
Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
Whatever then happens to Israel during the course of its long history, and
completely independent of the establishment of the Church (see Matthew 16:13-20), God will deal with Israel apart from the Church.
Though there are variations held by dispensationalists, the general scenario looks like the following: There will be a rapture when believers are caught up into the air to be with Jesus. A seven year tribulation will follow, and many Jews will be converted, perhaps all of them. The temple in Jerusalem will be rebuilt, Satan will unleash a new holocaust, the temple will be besieged by Gentile nations under the control of Satan, then Jesus’ second advent will occur, and the kingdom of God on earth will be established to last one thousand years. Following the thousand year reign on earth, the permanent kingdom of God in heaven will ensue. The main point is that Israel as a nation will be saved, saved in a way that is markedly different from our own age’s ordinary means of conversion that is dependent upon the proclamation of the Gospel.
A Reformed view
Many who embrace a Reformed Theology[2] hold that the invisible Church replaces the nation of Israel as the people of God. The Church becomes the “Chosen People.” In addition, Israel is thought to no longer figure into any last day’s scenario as it does in Dispensationalism.
There are a number of passages that lend support to this argument. One is Romans 2:28-29, where Paul points out that belonging to God depends not on circumcision, which is the sign of God’s covenant with His people and is an outward and physical mark. Paul asserts that the covenant with God is inward and spiritual. Thus, a Gentile who has trusted in Christ as Lord, could be considered a “Jew.” The same point is made in Galatians 3:28-29:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
Again in Romans 9:6-8 we find the same concept:
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”[3] This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.
It appears as though the two points of view cannot be reconciled, logically anyway. However, there is a middle course. And this mid-position is based on what Paul says in Romans chapter 11.
A compromise position?
Is it possible to hold to a Replacement Theology and at the same time honor the promises made to Abraham and others for a prominent role for the nation of Israel, however Israel may be defined? My view is that there may well be a compromise position that does not abandon a Reformed theological stance nor commits to a traditional Dispensationalism. Here is my case.
First, I embrace the core tenet that the people of God are those whom He has chosen to salvation in Jesus Christ. Therefore, since the first advent of Christ, Israel as a nation, including all those who are truly Jews by genealogy, has not been the elect and called out people of God. Despite this, there has always been a remnant, those Jews who have been righteous in Christ according to the foreknowledge, predestination, and election work of God.
It is apparent, biblically speaking, that not all who were part of the nation of Israel actually belonged to the God of Israel. In the days of Elijah, for example, even when he thought he alone trusted in God, God told him He had seven thousand who honored Him[4] (see 1 Kings 19). That there was a remnant, meaning there were those who were faithful to the LORD in the midst of the larger nation, indicates that in God’s eyes Israel is something other than the actual tribal or genetic descendents known as a nation.
How then does Israel figure into God’s plan, and what will be its role, if any, in the last days? Paul answers, in my opinion, the question in Romans chapter eleven.
The English Standard Version of the Bible presents the heading for Romans 11 as “The Remnant of Israel,” thus describing in general the content or subject of that eleventh chapter according to the ESV editors. Paul asks in verse one, “Has God rejected his people?” His answer is, “By no means!” Paul then refers to his own conversion and goes on to speak of Elijah and the remnant in that day, as I noted above. The majority of Israel rejected the Messiah when He arrived the first time, which opened the door of faith for the inclusion of the Gentile peoples. But there was something more to come. Paul explained, “I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved” (Romans 11:25-26).
A “partial hardening” meant that only some Jews refused to believe. All through the Christian era Jewish people have become believers in their Messiah. And such will be the case until the complete number of elect Gentiles have been called and justified.
Some who hold to a Replacement Theology interpret Romans 11:25-26 to mean that the Israel of “all Israel will be saved” merely means that when all the Gentiles elected are called into salvation and all who belong to God are safe in Christ, then the end of history and the second advent of Jesus occurs. But, it seems that Israel is the nation itself, the unbelieving nation, and the term “Israel” is not the totality who those who belong to God or the Church.
Now, I am inserting my interpretation of the text quite strongly here. There are differences of opinion, let that be noted, but from my reforming perspective, my understanding of the passage makes sense. There will come a time, though when that occurs is not directly stated, when all the Gentiles who have been foreknown, predestined, and elected will have been called into the Body of Christ, the Church. Then something incredible and mysterious happens: “All Israel will be saved.”
Once again, it does seem that Paul has the people of the nation Israel in mind here, but since he does not define Israel in the immediately surrounding verses, it is useless to speculate too much about it. But however Israel is defined here, it is distinguished from Gentiles. It may be a remnant only or something else.
Is this saving a last great Pentecost? Is it a great awakening poured out on Israel? Could there be a final calling to the remnant of the seed of Abraham which would fulfill the covenant or agreement made to the patriarch way back in Genesis 12?
From my perspective I see nothing in Scripture that would clearly negate such an assumption. It is my prayer that there will be a remnant of Israel that will come to Christ. To God be the glory!
What about Jewish evangelism?
Do those in the Reformed tradition ignore mission and evangelism to Jewish people? A second question might be: Is it necessary to have a dispensational point of view to reach out to Jews with the Gospel?
The answer to both questions is, “NO.”
My favorite Bible verse is now and always has been Romans 1:16: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” Jesus’ ministry was to His own people first and foremost. Paul, the appointed apostle to the Gentiles, made it common practice to proclaim Jesus as Messiah to the Jew first. This is the biblical pattern – to the Jew first; and at no time in the history of the Church has this changed nor will it nor should it.
During the course of over four decades of ministry I have made it a point to proclaim Jesus as the Hope of Israel. Constantly and consistently I have joined my church in supporting Jewish outreach in a number of different ways. Though many expected my attitude to change, after moving to a reforming theological paradigm, my sense of mission and evangelism has not changed in any way. I was surprised to keep hearing it said that Calvinistic types were soft on evangelism and especially so in regard to Jews – a rather mystifying, not to mention false, accusation.
It is not necessary to hold to a dispensational theology to be actively engaged in Jewish evangelism. And I ask, Why would someone in the reforming tradition ignore evangelism of any kind to any group, since the whole point is that God calls us to Himself through the preaching of the Gospel?
What is abundantly clear to me is that I am a preacher of the Gospel, and I have never met a holder of Reformed doctrine who saw it any other way. Of course, one hears people say, “Well, since you Calvinists believe all questions of heaven and hell have been decided, then there is no real point to preaching Christ.” Perhaps there is a historical reason to say this, but I have definitely not found it to be true in practice.[5] In fact, I have found people who are in the reformed tradition and who hold to all the doctrines of election to be very much evangelistically minded and actively practicing it.
Faith comes from hearing the message of Jesus Christ preached, according to Paul as found in Romans 10:17. This goes for both Jews and Gentiles. Isn’t this a more solid ground for outreach to Jewish people than to consider, as many dispensationalists do, that Jews will be saved during a thousand year millennium by merely being Jewish, a supposed salvation apart from personal faith in Christ?
[1] The Invisible Church is known only to God and is composed of those who have been joined to it by the sovereign work of God in electing salvation. The visible Church is the human institution and is much broader and larger than the actual Church. “Many are called, but few are chosen” may be one way of looking at it.
[2] My understanding is that it is not essential to hold to Replacement theology in order to be Reformed, but others say the two positions are wed and cannot be broken. I am not one of these.
[3] Cited from Genesis 21:12.
[4] The prophets of Israel frequently referred to a remnant, or a smaller portion of the nation, who were accounted as righteous. (See, as only a few examples, Isaiah 1:9,10:20, 11:11, 37:32; Jeremiah 6:9, 31:7, 23; Joel 2:32; Micah 2:12,7:18, among many others.) This is not dissimilar to the difference between the visible church and the invisible Church.
[5] What is termed “hyper-Calvinism” describes a position of double predestination: God elects both to heaven and to hell. Many Calvinists see election as being a rescue of those who, due to their sinful rebellion, are condemned already. This position is still around, I suppose, but is largely discredited among contemporary Calvinists. Charles H. Spurgeon battled hyper-Calvinists in his day, and one of the most helpful books I have ever read is Iain Murray’s Spurgeon versus the Hyper-Calvinists, published by Banner of Truth Trust.
Healing, healing, healing...is it all about healing?
Healing, healing, healing—is it all about healing?
A significant part of Jesus’ ministry involved healing. The motive for Jesus’ healing ministry was compassion. “When he went ashore he saw a great crowd, and he had compassion on them and healed their sick” (Matthew 14:14). In John’s Gospel, healing, along with other miracles, were also signs confirming that Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah.
It would seem that an emphasis on healing has taken center stage in many American churches. Some even think that if a church does not have a healing ministry, even specific healing rooms, it is deficient and that there must be something wrong with that church. This does not apply to all Christian churches in the USA, since the healing focus is still largely among Pentecostal and charismatic churches, but healing ministries, along with prosperity teaching, seem to be spilling over into churches that are neither Pentecostal nor charismatically inclined.
Why is this so? The most obvious reason may be that healing draws large numbers of people. It certainly did so in the ministry of Jesus. Many passages from the Gospels could be quoted to verify this. However, simply because an emphasis on healing may attract crowds, that alone is not sufficient to justify a healing ministry. No, adhering to biblical precedent and faithfulness is foremost. Our work as Christians cannot be driven by seeming success in terms of ‘nickels and noses.’
Whatever we do must clearly conform to established biblical methodology. My point is that the current popularity of healing ministries is not grounded in Scripture.
Miracles, miracles, miracles
People will traverse the globe hoping to see a miracle. This has long been known, and it is not to be associated only with the past. Places like Lourdes in France have been internationally famous for centuries and provide millions of pilgrims with the hope of a cure. Today thousands flock to churches and ministries that focus on healing, often with nothing other than a desire to witness a miracle. Certainly, many either have a need for some sort of healing or have loved ones who do. This is understandable.
Why do people like me then caution against seeking the miracle of healing? Notice the word “caution” as it is not wrong to seek God for healing.
One reason is that abuses may easily occur under such circumstances. People are so eager to be healed that such will be claimed when, in fact, no healing took place. This can be dangerous. Based on what I have found, miracles are claimed without any verification that an actual healing corrected an actual injury.
Another reason is that healing ministries are vulnerable to what I call “mind bending.” Healings will be reported when none occurred, simply to support a healer and avoid the emotional conflict associated with cognitive dissonance. Few are able to protest in front of a congregation that is rooting for both the healer and the subject of the healing. Most will simply go along. Standing in the midst of hundreds of people, I would likely “bend” to the obvious will and need of those watching.
And then, not all healings are from the Spirit of God. Jesus warned, “False christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect (Matthew 24:24). “Signs and wonders” is a phrase often used in the New Testament and included physical healing (see John 4:48; Acts 4:30; Acts 8:4-13). This warning came toward the end of Jesus’ earthly ministry, and something akin to it came at the beginning. Consider what Jesus said in Matthew 7:21-23:
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty words in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’”
Paul spoke similarly in 2 Thessalonians 9. “The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders.” This depiction of the end of history and the working of Satan would likely involve healing, since we see the phrase “signs and wonders” used here in the very same manner we see it used to describe actual healing by God’s Spirit. Satan indeed is a counterfeiter.
A last reason to be cautious about the present, renewed, emphasis on healing is that it is a distraction from the central ministry of the Church. Jesus commanded His followers to preach the Gospel in what we call the “Great Commission.” He did not command us to go about healing (see Matthew 28:18-20 and Acts 1:8), although the longer ending of Mark 16:9-20 does contain these words: “they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover" (Mark 16:18). The longer endings of Mark are clearly later additions to the Gospel and not original, but most editions of the King James Version of the Bible do not reflect the lack of early manuscript evidence, so many who rely on that version believe the ending is authentic.
Those who challenge churches that focus on miracles and healing will do so on the basis that there is little or no Gospel proclamation involved. And those intent upon a healing emphasis have dismissed the criticism by insisting that the Gospel is indeed preached along with the healing work. However, after reading the literature, attending meetings, and surveying the many blogs covering the healing efforts, I would deny that the presentation of the Gospel is anything more than a casual mention, and even then it is, in my opinion, not the purpose of the minister to preach salvation.
The primacy of preaching Jesus, His person and His work, is what marks an authentic Christian ministry. One may be healed and yet be unconverted. Witnessing a miracle, or being healed, is not the same as being born again. However many times someone might be healed, he or she will one day die. Then there is the judgment, and heaven or hell will be the final outcome. Healing is of significance, but, as Paul understood, it is at best secondary: “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2).
The hunger for miracles
Miracles are addictive—seeing one is not enough. The miracle work of Jesus produced some untoward attention as well. In John 2:23-25 are these very revealing words:
Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing. But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.
Though many “believed,” it is apparent that the believing was not of a saving nature. Saving faith is trust in Jesus alone for salvation and not a cognitive acknowledgment that Jesus is a miracle worker. Thus Jesus, knowing the great desire humans had to witness the supernatural, refused to be caught up in the inordinate excitement.
Ah, to be a miracle worker
During the Jesus People Movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s, many of us did witness miracles, and healing was included in that mix of signs and wonders. For a period of several years I prayed for people to be healed, accompanied by anointing with oil and laying on of hands. The problem for me with the healing ministry was the notoriety it brought. It was overly intoxicating, but it was also short-lived. We watched the healings and other miracles wane, even cease, as the Jesus People Movement ebbed away. The experience of seeing these miracles disappear caused many of us to question ongoing charismatic claims, but I now think that one could even be a cessationist—believing that the charismatic gifts did not survive the apostolic period—and yet believe in healing. (I identified at that time as a charismatic, but I no longer would be considered such in the sense that the word is used today.)
Let it be noted that I am one who is very aware of the power of the devil to imitate miracles and produce counterfeit healings. In addition, I am aware of the power of suggestion, the placebo effect, and the fact that nearly 50% of all doctor’s visits have to do with psychosomatic complaints rather than true disease. Even still, I will attest to being a witness to real miracles, including healing.
My concern here is that we do not throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water, that we keep what is biblically faithful and reject what which is not. My view of it is that the instruction of James 5:13-15 is normative for the Church in all ages:
Is anyone among you suffering: Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful: Let him sing praise. Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.
Some have argued that the letter of James is sub-Christian, a “right strawy epistle” as Martin Luther thought. However, even after considering the historical context lying behind the letter of James, my view of it is that it is not error that we have the small letter included in our canon of inspired Scripture.
Could it be that many biblically-oriented Christians have ignored anything to do with healing, de-emphasized it at least, because it has been hijacked and abused by the wealth and health preachers?
Must we be charismatic faith healers?
When requested, I will yet pray for people to be healed, basing my action on James 5 and the general compassion-based ministry of Jesus. Very few, if any, are healed in these current times. In fact, I rarely even speak of healing. But it is often in the back of my mind that dear people in the congregation are ill and need attention.
Is there a format for healing ministry? Must one anoint with oil and lay hands on the person to be healed? Whose faith is operative, the person who needs healing or the one(s) doing the praying for healing? These questions are difficult to answer. Jesus used no set pattern in healing. Sometimes He healed from a distance, sometimes He simply commanded it, and sometimes He touched, spit, made clay, and so on. If we think certain procedures must be carried out, like oil anointing or hands laid on, we are coming dangerously close to magical thinking. This occult-oriented notion must be strictly avoided. Regarding whose faith is operative or how much is needed, we simply have the words, “the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick” (James 5:15). There is a mystery here, but the one who is prayed to is the One who heals. That much is certain.
Whether or not people are obviously, verifiably healed must not motivate my decision to pray for them to be healed. In the same manner, I will proclaim the grace and mercy of God in salvation, whether people are converted in front of me or not.
