Posts

Showing posts from 2010

James and the Gift of Healing

Recently, Tim Challies posted on Daniel Doriani’s commentary on James. I found it incredibly intriguing, and it was well worth the read. I wrestled with it for days. While I don’t want to dive into the deep end with regard to the continuationist vs. cessationist debate, I would like to examine further healing and the book of James. In his post, Challies shares the following quote from Doriani’s commentary: Sick men and women call the elders as a group. They do not call those with a gift for healing; rather they call all to pray for healing. James says the prayers of a righteous man are effective. Since the first qualification for an elder is holiness—not social standing or theological acumen—the prayers of elders are effective. The elders pray for healing , not for miracles. It doesn’t matter if a healing is quiet or splashy, True healings garner all the attention they need. The reference from the book James is: Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the e

Grandiloquence and Application: John Owen, a Master of Both

I am currently reading some of John Owen’s commentary on Hebrews.  I absolutely love John Owen.  He was a great theologian, but he was mindful of the every-day battles. In one place , he writes: FIRST, The illative, “wherefore,” as was first observed, denotes both the deduction of the ensuing exhortation from the preceding discourse, and the application of it unto the particular duty which he enters upon, verse 12. WOW!  That is some academic stuff!  However, only a few sentences later, we read from his pen and his heart: Divine knowledge is like a practical science; the end of all whose principles and theorems is in their practice; take that away and it is of no use. It is our wisdom and understanding how to live unto God; to that purpose are all the principles, truths, and doctrines of it to be improved.If this be not done in the teaching and learning of it, we fight uncertainly, as men beating the air. That is a gem!!!  That is something you can take with you.  Te

Is the Lord Just a God of the Hills?

One of the arguments used by some atheists is:  Can God, an omnipotent being, create a stone so large that he cannot lift it? They argue that if he is omnipotent, then he will be able to do it.  However, if he does create such a stone, then his omnipotence fails when he is unable to lift it.  Clever, eh?  Well, there is a problem with this argument.  It is logically absurd.  Omnipotence is not thrown into question when we say that God cannot make a crayon so red that it is blue.  By definition, this is absurd.  In the end, the atheist is asking if, in God’s omnipotence, he can make himself not omnipotent.  What looked clever becomes absurd because “omnipotence” actually has a meaning. Syrian king Ben-hadad made some demands of Ahab, the king of Israel (1 Kings 20).  When Ahab denied Ben-hadad his demands, the countries went to war.  We read, “And the servants of the king of Syria said to him, ‘Their gods are gods of the hills, and so they were stronger than we.  But let us fi

The Lord’s Supper (part 4)

A few points about the Lord’s supper: The problem at Corinth with regard to the Lord’s supper was probably that one group ate before the other group (cf. 1 Cor. 11:21-22). However, the root problem was that of division. Moreover, Paul was not a moralist. In approaching the solution, he did not want people merely to change their behavior. He wanted the divisions to dissolve because of a deeper understanding of the work of Christ. Communing with each other is not about getting a full belly. You can do that on your own (1 Cor. 11:34). In communion, we are to serve each other as Christ has served us. (1 Cor. 11:33, cf. John 13) In communion, we remember who we are in relation to each other. (1 Cor. 11:28-29) The Lord’s supper is not about the bread and wine. The bread and wine serve as a vivid reminder, an object lesson, directing our affections to God and to each other because of what Christ has accomplished. T

The Lord’s Supper (part 3)

In part 1 and part 2 of this series, we saw that the church at Corinth was divided when it came together to observe the Lord’s supper. The very nature of the Lord’s supper as a remembrance of the sacrificial work of Christ is opposed to such division. In this post, we examine Paul’s warning for the church: Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another-- if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home--so that when yo

The Lord’s Supper (part 2)

In the last post , we saw that the Corinthian church was coming together to eat the Lord’s upper with divisions among them. Because of this, they’re not actually partaking of the Lord’s supper. Their eating of the Lord’s supper is actually mocking Christ’s work. The work of Christ on the on the cross is about reconciliation. Think of it this way: How great is the divide between Jew and Gentile or a math nerd and police officer? Then how vast is the chasm between the sinner and God? If Christ cannot bring the Jew and Gentile together or the math nerd and police officer together, he cannot bridge the greater trench between the sinner and God. For there to be a division in the church of God slanders the work of Christ. He has bridged the smaller gaps and the largest chasm! Paul writes to them: For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my bod

The Lord’s Supper (part 1)

Whatever was going on in Corinth during the Lord’s supper deserved a harsh apostolic rebuke. Paul begins his analysis of this specific situation with a stern reality check: But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. (1Co 11:17-22) Paul will not commend them. He won’t even consider commending them. For Paul, just say

Job's True Friend

I'm currently reading through the book of Job. One thing that stands out is that Job's friends always are speaking to Job whereas Job addresses both his friends and God. Here, there was no need for someone to speak on behalf of God, prosecuting Job. A wise man of God wouldn't speak of Job's alleged sin in general terms. In fact, Job's friends cannot speak about his sin because Job is blamelesss (at least at the beginning of the book). What Job really needed was someone to come alongside of him, praying with him. Job's friends shouldn't have spoken on behalf of God to Job. They should have spoken to God on behalf of Job (cf. Job 9:33 ). Praise God for Christ Jesus who is the true friend who will speak to God for us in our trials: Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died--more than that, who was raised--who is at the right hand of God, who is interceding for