Matt Postiff's Blog RSS Feed

In preparation for my sermon on 1 Timothy 1:18-20, I ran across this good paragraph by Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, p. 69.

The concluding clause 'that they may learn not to blaspheme' shows clearly that the purpose [of the disciplinary process] was remedial and not punitive. However stringent the process the motive was mercy, and whenever ecclesiastical discpline has departed from this purpose of restoration, its harshness has proved a barrier to progress. But this is no reason for dispensing with discipline entirely, a failing which frequently characterizes our modern churches.

The question is basically this: does Acts 3-4 constitute a second offer of the kingdom, after Jesus' first offer during His public ministry? Alva McClain in his excellent work The Greatness of the Kingdom promotes the reoffer view (pages 403-406).

I am not convinced that Acts 3-4 constitute a second offer of the kingdom. I will state my objections to the re-offer view, then address some supporting arguments for the re-offer view. Before doing that, however, I will note that this is a tertiary if not a quaternary theological issue. For this debate to even make sense, you first have to be a Christian, and a dispensationalist as well. We should not be fighting over this issue :-)

First, my objections.

1. It is does not seem clear when reading the text of Acts 3 and 4 that an offer of the kingdom is being given. In other words, the audience hearing Peter preach would probably not connect what he is saying with an immediate coming of the kingdom. I grant that the audience and disciples believed a kingdom would be coming in the future (Acts 1:6) but Jesus had quelled at least the disciples' high hopes (1:7) and focused them on the Great Commission (1:8). Instead of the Israelite conversion meaning immediacy of the kingdom, I would argue that the Israelite conversion was necessary to the kingdom. This necessity must be added to the necessity of at least some of the other people groups (1:8) being converted as well.

Now, I do grant that "repent and be converted so that times of refreshing may come" sounds a lot like "repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." So, I can be sympathetic to the re-offer view. There is at least one major difference--the king is absent.

2. The recipients of the offer are not the "right" recipients in Acts 3, where the main support for the re-offer view is drawn. They are the hoi polloi (OK, the ho laos). Apparently the national leaders have to be involved in accepting the offer, and they are not involved until Acts 4. McClain counters that "men of Israel" means "the nation." It seems to me to be a general address that means "men who belong to Israel" not "listen up you whole nation of Israel."

3. We are agreed that Jesus did offer the kingdom to the nation in his first advent. They rejected it. There were several points of rejection along the way, with Matthew 12 being a major one and John 19:15 being another. The national religious leaders were intransigent (unwilling to change their views). This stubbornness was key in Jesus' declaration about the unpardonable sin. Technically that sin had to do with their attribution of Jesus' miraculous power to the Devil, but in reality it constituted a rejection of the king entirely. They were confirmed in a pattern of rejection. It could be that God gives them another offer of the kingdom...but given that they were (in the main) in this stubborn state, it seems more likely that the whole idea of offering the kingdom was dropped at this point. The kingdom will have to be imposed rather than willingly accepted (the Tribulation prompts their acceptance of it). We could get into the whole idea of God "giving over" the leaders to their sinfulness and whether they had a "second chance." I am a generous "second chancer" as long as the person is alive and breathing...but the fact is that they had rejected the offer before, and we see clearly that they continued in that same rejection through the book of Acts and geographically throughout the Roman empire in the synagogues.

4. Jesus declared that the kingdom would be taken from the present nation and it would be given to a nation bearing the fruits of it (Matthew 21:43). That second 'nation' is not another Gentile country, but rather a later rendition of the Jewish nation. The people in Acts 3-4 were the very same nation that crucified Christ (just a couple of months previously). It doesn't seem that a re-offer to the same people is in order after that promise from the Lord.

5. The phrase "so that times of refreshing may come" does not require an fulfillment that follows /immediately/ on the heels of their repentance. It certainly could, but it is not required.

6. The audience in Acts 3 is quite positively responsive. We could not say that everyone responded, but by Acts 4:4, the number of men who had responded positively was 5,000. With women and young people this number may have topped 15,000 people. That is a pretty good response, yet that apparently was not good enough for the kingdom to come.

7. The re-offer view does not give proper place to the church, which was predicted by Christ in Matthew 16 and 18. What I am thinking here is that with a re-offer just days after the ascension, that leaves very little time for the church age and the fulfillment of the Great Commission. It also does not do justice to the parable of Luke 19:11-27 where the nobleman goes on a long journey to a far country. The implication is that there is some time lapse between the first and second advents.

Some additional thoughts, not as well formed:

8. The re-offer view seems to suggest a continuance of the offer throughout the book of Acts. While the kingdom was waning and the church was waxing, the offer was dying off too. Were there three, four, five, ... offers of the kingdom? Was the offer valid until Acts 28? Can we call the "re-offer" view the "continuing offers" view?

9. With an offer in Acts 3, I wonder about the applicability of that passage to the modern era. Can I preach Acts 3 like I did on Sunday evening, or shall I explain that some of it does not apply today?

10. Finally, for now, another issue is John 3. Jesus opened the door to the kingdom for those who were born again. We have that same hope today...just not /immediately/ upon receipt of the initial gifts that come with salvation.

Now I address some of the arguments for the re-offer view.

1. Theological argument. I appreciate the construction of theological cases for or against certain propositions, but this one is not convincing to me vis-a-vis the Biblical text. For instance, the assertion that "miracles are always associated with the kingdom" has a measure of truth to it, but I just cannot find a proposition in special revelation that supports it that strongly.

2. Waning of miracles. The gradual phasing out of miracles supposedly relates to the decline of the kingdom in Acts, since miracles and the kingdom are closely connected. It just seems to me that the kingdom was put on hold at the crucifixion, the Great Commission was active, the canon was being established, and the waning of miracles corresponded to the establishment of the canon rather than the decline of the kingdom. This has to do with the authenticating function of the miracles for the messengers of God (cf. Hebrews 2:4 and surrounding context). The fact that Paul could not heal Trophimus or Epaphroditus, or even himself, shows us nothing about the re-offer of the kingdom. It simply says that God was not pleased to extend the miracle of healing to every case of sickness. In fact, we know God had good reasons for not healing Paul; and He possibly healed Epaphroditus through normal means rather than miraculous ones.

3. Some of McClain's arguments are pretty persuasive, I admit. However, I do not think that the regal character of the Abrahamic covenant is very clear (p. 405 bottom). Neither is the prediction of the reoffer of the kingdom in Matthew 22:1-7 (p. 406 middle). The latter seems pretty remote. Neither is his argument about waning miracles in Acts (see above, and p. 409). Finally, I am not convinced by his statement that the gospel miracles would be sufficient proof for all time (p. 410 bottom), for the very reason that the apostles could plausibly use some further divine authentication now that Jesus was absent, to authenticate the new and different nature of their ministry. His argument fails to account for the miracles done around the Mediterranean by Paul.

As I complete my thinking on the subject for the moment, I caution myself that any single unifying theme has its limitations. Whether it is covenant, or kingdom, the interpreter can fall into danger if he or she interprets everything in light of that one theme, and may end up finding things that are not really there.

I noted this paragraph from F. F. Bruce when I was studying Hebrews 13:17:

There would always be a tendency throughout the churches for visitors who came purveying new and esoteric doctrines to be regarded as much more attractive and interesting personalities than the rather humdrum local leaders, who never taught anything new, but were content with the conservative line of aposolitic tradition. Nevertheless it was those local leaders, and not the purveyors of strange teaching, who had a real concern for the welfare of the church and a sense of their accountability to God in this respect. If the discharge of their responsibility and the ultimate rendering of their account were made a burden to them, the resultant disadvantage would fall on those who were led as well as on the leaders.

F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Revised in NICNT. Eerdmans, 1990, pp. 385-6.

Sometimes when I run into a topic for the third time or so, I have to write a post to "get it out of my system." Here's one such post.

Should a church member give on a credit card? The Wall Street Journal Sunday edition (May 6, 2012) has a story entitled "Trust in the Lord...But Check Out the Church" by Veronica Dagher. A portion of it was: "While the couple was very committed to their church, they were also putting themselves in financial jeopardy by racking up debt by tithing on a credit card they weren't able to pay in full every month..."

I would advise this couple to immediately stop giving on their credit card. In fact, I would discourage anyone from giving to their church on a credit card. I might be persuaded about giving on a debit card because that draws from money the couple already has, but the transaction fees are an unnecessary waste of donated funds for the minor increase in convenience. A better method is to give using personal check, cash, or an automated bill-pay through your bank.

Some object to credit-card giving because it feels impersonal or the church gets charged a transaction fee (see Is it OK to Tithe With a Credit Card?). I object because giving on borrowed funds is not Biblical.

The principle that underlies my advice is this: "For if there is first a willing mind, it is accepted according to what one has, and not according to what he does not have" (2 Corinthians 8:12 NKJ).

In other words, giving should come from money that you already have. God happily accepts giving of that sort. Verse 11 reiterates the encouragement to give according to the means that you have. Giving should not come from prospective money that you have not yet earned, because you have no way of knowing if you will actually earn it. James 4:15 reminds us that the future is in the hands of God and we have to conduct ourselves accordingly.

This is the main reason that I do not support the "faith-promise" method of missionary support. I suppose the "if" clause that is inherent in the faith-promise is the escape hatch, but we simply do not know what we will earn. Instead, we encourage people to work, earn a living, and from what they take in each pay period, carefully think through what they should give. Planning ahead is fine, as is planning a certain percentage of your income to give.

One more thing, while I'm on the subject of giving. The tithe may be an appropriate level of giving. However, the tithe is not mandated for the New Testament Christian. For those that are destitute, 10% may be too much to give if they cannot meet their basic needs. That doesn't let anyone off the hook, because just about everyone can give something (maybe money, maybe time, or something else). But for those who are wealthy, giving a tithe would be sinfully stingy.

Whether a lot or a little, just don't give on a credit card!

A common argument for keeping abortion legal is that if it were made illegal, many pregnant mothers would die from clandestine abortions, otherwise known as "coat hanger" or "back alley" abortions.

A new study of the maternal mortality ratio in Chile disproves this unproven propagandist assertion. Dr. Elard Koch and colleagues have written a study entitled Women's Education Level, Maternal Health Facilities, Abortion Legislation and Maternal Deaths: A Natural Experiment in Chile from 1957 to 2007.

Chile has outlawed basically all abortions since 1989. Yet, Koch concludes his article with these telling sentences: "Finally, prohibition of abortion in Chile did not influence the downward trend in the maternal mortality ratio. Thus, the legal status of abortion does not appear to be related to overall rates of maternal mortality."

Translation: if you make abortion illegal, you are not therefore necessarily going to raise the number of mothers who die from clandestine abortions.

I'm thankful for evidence-based medicine concluding, in this case, the same thing we know intuitively. Making abortion illegal will not cause mothers to flock to back alleys to potentially harm themselves. Their self interest will help them be more responsible about their sexual activity, and also encourage them to give birth to children they have conceived. Making abortion illegal has the added benefit of protecting another segment of the population: the unborn!

For further reading, check out the following:

• Chilean Study Proves that Outlawing Abortion Does Not Lead to “Coat-hanger Deaths”
• A ground-breaking abortion study from Chile, an interview with Dr. Koch

Last month, Lou Martuneac re-posted an article by Charlie Bing entitled The Christian and Apostasy (original available here). He then briefly pulled the post, wrote a clarifying post, and put the original back into place.

The clarification that he wrote was helpful, but it leaves something to be desired. Primarily, the lay reader has to wonder how Bing's view is any different than the crossless gospel that Martuneac has inveighed against for years (and rightly so). If there is substantially no difference, then why doesn't Martuneac call the spade a spade?

The paragraph that caused Martuneac the most consternation was Bing's conclusion:

As Christians we can depart from the faith, deny the faith, or stop believing in Christ as our Savior. But since the security of our salvation depends on God’s faithfulness, not our own, we can never lose eternal life. A Christian may leave the faith, but God never leaves the Christian. Apostasy from the faith does not forfeit salvation, though it will forfeit future rewards.

Let me ask a question of Bing: Is that really what you mean? Is there really such a thing as a Christian person who denies the faith, who ceases believing, or, as you suggest of the widows in 1 Timothy 5:14-15, who follows Satan? How can a believer not believe? How can a person who follows Christ stop following and instead follow Satan? Are these short, temporary lapses, like Peter's denial, or are you suggesting that a believer can permanently cease believing?

In the absence of any other qualifying statements, it seems as if Bing really does believe what he wrote in that conclusion. Given that assumption, I have to conclude that Bing is in serious conflict with God's Word. Nowhere in Scripture are such boldface statements supporting apostasy ever made. Bing's theological system may indeed demand such conclusions, but the Scripture never clearly teaches that "true Christians can leave the faith." If anything, it rather clearly teaches that "true Christians never leave the faith" (Hebrews 3:14).

Bing's article goes wrong in its interpretation of the texts listed in the first section:

• Peter denied the Lord. Luke 22:34, 54-62
• God’s chosen nation, Israel, stopped believing. Rom. 3:1-3; 10:16-21.
• The apostle Paul predicts apostasy in later times. 1 Tim. 4:1-3
• The warning of First Timothy 4:16 implies a Christian can depart from the faith.
• There were widows in the church who “turned aside to follow Satan.” 1 Tim. 5:14-15
• The apostle Paul describes false teachers who strayed from the faith. 1 Tim. 6:20-21
• Those who deserted the apostle Paul and opposed him (2 Tim. 1:15; 4:9-10, 14-16) are to be gently instructed so that they can escape the snares of Satan. 2 Tim. 2:24-26.
• Hymenaeus and Philetus strayed from the truth. 2 Tim. 2:17-18 -Those in error can overthrow the faith of others. 2 Tim. 2:18
• The book of Hebrews addresses those who were in danger of leaving the faith. Heb. 2:1-3; 3:12; 6:4-6; 10:26-39; 12:25

His interpretation of these texts is in the following sentence: "It is clear from the passages listed above that those who apostasize are true Christians..." He has missed the mark quite badly in so saying. Of all the examples he cites, Peter and Timothy are the only "clear" cases of Christians.

Unbelieving Israel to whom he refers did not consist of saved people. The end-times apostates are non-Christians. Widow-followers of Satan are not clearly "true Christians." False teachers are not clearly Christians. Those who turned away from apostolic teaching are not clearly Christians. Those with shipwrecked faith and those with heretical teaching such as Hymenaeus and Philetus are not "clearly" Christians. Those addressed in Hebrews were not all clearly Christians, particularly because there were those who departed in contrast to those of whom the author was convinced of better things, and things that accompany salvation (6:9).

After making this mistake, Bing's article goes off in an entirely wrong direction. Little further analysis is needed. But what should we do who wish to adhere closely to God's revealed doctrine of salvation in the Bible? We ought to remind ourselves that apostasy is not okay. It is deadly, and we must heed the warnings of Scripture very carefully. Straying from something does not necessarily mean one really embraced it; rather, it can very well mean that the embrace was not a genuine one at all.

Just over a year ago, there was a lot of news on Rob Bell's book Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. In an opinion piece out at the time last April, Time Editor Bill Saporito suggested that the evangelical's business plan was threatened by Bell's thesis that denied the reality of Hell as it has been traditionally taught by evangelicals.

Saporito's article is a very crude, money-centered, and uninformed way of looking at the whole question. For instance, he writes, "Part of the deal, at least in practical application, is that you can't get spiritually right without monetarily supporting the church. Pay to play, in other words."

So which evangelical out there preaches that you have to pay in order to get to Heaven? Were someone to preach that way, they could not legitimately use the evangelical label. What of the relational aspect of Christianity? Where does Saporito consider God—doesn't He have something to say about all this?

To his credit, Saporito writes, "The adverse reaction to Bell's hell among some Evangelical leaders is based first on deeply held belief, not economic consequences." That's right. We don't care about the economic consequences. What is true is true, whether or not it is popular or economically viable.

I can say that our church, for one, is still in business. Bell has not prevailed against the true church. By God's grace, we shall continue to stand for the truth, Hell included.

Back on April 6 I wrote about our mass mailing to homes in our neighborhood. Here's a bit of an update.

As far as positive response, we had several visitors come out to the Easter worship service. One came back over the next couple of weeks for the teaching series on the resurrection that began on Easter. We also had someone from a neighboring community who saw our website and who was interested in the content of the series.

We have had almost as much negative response as we've had positive response. Our negative respondents consist mainly of atheists who do not want to receive our mailing, or who want to tell us how foolish we are to believe in the resurrection. We have corresponded with them to challenge their presuppositions, but that usually doesn't go very far.

Overall we have had better success with this mailing than with our previous two iterations.

Does anyone have a list of best practices for church mailings?

Some thoughts on the the gospel:

1. The bad news is that we are sinners;
2. the good news is that Jesus died for our sins;
3. the bad news is that the wages of sin is death;
4. the good news is that if we believe in Christ we will be forgiven all sins;
5. the bad news is that before we are saved, we are enemies of God;
6. the good news is that if we believe in Christ we are reconciled to God;
7. the good news is that we can have a right standing before God;
8. the bad news is that we are going to die;
9. the good news is that Jesus rose from the dead so we can too;
10. the good news is that the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ;
11. the bad news is that punishment for sins will happen in the lake of fire;
12. the good news is that Jesus is preparing a blessed place of rest for Christians in heaven;
13. the bad news is that sin is our master before we are saved;
14. the good news is that Jesus is our master after we are saved;
15. the good news is that there is such good news!

We normally have a Good Friday service at Fellowship Bible Church. Traditionally, we had it at noon. But work schedules are not as friendly to Good Friday as perhaps they used to be, so we shifted last year to a 7pm service. It seems to work well.

What I noticed this year (not that it was new, just new to me) is that there are lots of people who regard Good Friday (or Easter, or Christmas) as far more important than "normal days." I try to give latitude to those who esteem one day more highly than another (Romans 14:5-6). Personally, I bias toward the opposite end of the spectrum, like the one who considers every day alike.

But what we cannot do is to elevate Good Friday to a place higher than the ordinance of the Lord's Table. I made that point in the opening remarks of the Good Friday service, and I know it took at least one person off guard. The Good Friday service has become for some people a way, if not the most important way of remembering our Lord's death. Do you think things like "I really have to be at church on Good Friday." Do you think the same way about the first Sunday night of every month when your church gathers for the Lord's Table? Which is more important--the ordinance or the special day?

I simply reminded our church that there are only two ordinances--water baptism by immersion and the Lord's Table. The second one of those is the Lord's appointed way for us to remember His death until He comes. Holidays do not rise to the level of an ordinance!