Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Posts Tagged ‘sanctification’

Fathers Who Shoot Straight

Posted by Job on October 12, 2014

Posted in Christianity, devotional | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

How To Cultivate Contentment In The Home

Posted by Job on October 12, 2014

Posted in Christianity, devotional | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

The Crucifixion Of King Self

Posted by Job on October 12, 2014

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Jesus Christ DID Denounce Homosexuality!

Posted by Job on January 3, 2011

From brother W.B. Moore.

Christ DID speak out against homosexuality

What I have to say is to people who claim to be Christians.

Jesus spoke out against sexual immorality.
Matthew 15:18-20

18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man unclean. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what make a man unclean; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him unclean.

Mark 7:20-23

20 He went on: “What comes out of a man is what makes him unclean. 21 For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and make a man unclean.

We have to realize that sexual immorality is a category of sin that includes all sexual sin.

1 Corinthians 5:1

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife.

Paul had to deal with one specific instance of sexual immorality: a man having sex with the wife of his father. This is identified as a sin in the Old Testament, specifically Leviticus 18:8, Leviticus 20:11, Deuteronomy 22:30, and Deuteronomy 27:20. Paul did not further address specific examples of sexual immorality in this passage. However, it is clear that it was a category of sin that dealt with sex that God had prohibited.

Christ said the entire category of sin known as sexual immorality was evil.

Now, sexual immorality would refer to what God had defined as wrong already by the time of when Christ said this; this would come from the Old Testament. As Christians today, we use both the Old and New Testaments to see Who God is, what God has done, how God feels about issues in life, and what He expects of and for us.

The word translated as sexual immorality is Porneia. This word means
1. illicit sexual intercourse

A. adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
B. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
C. sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11

Romans 1 says even the desire of a man for a man or a woman for a woman is sin. The act of sex between two people of the same gender is also sin.

The term translated in Romans 1 as ‘lust’ is epiqumia in Greek. It means desire, craving, longing, desire for what is forbidden, lust.

It is even the mere desire for same gender sex that is wrong in God’s eyes.

Paul said we must turn away from wickedness if we confess Christ as Lord:

2 Timothy 2:19

Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.

Paul also said God will punish men for sin.

1 Thes 4:3-8

3 It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, 5 not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; 6 and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. 7 For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. 8 Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.

It does not matter how you feel about it. It does not matter how you justify it. God said if you do not change and turn to God, then you are not saved. If you claim you have repented and turned to God, then you need to live like it.

Posted in Bible, Christianity, false doctrine, false teaching, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 13 Comments »

How Grace Deals With Sin By Dr. Iain Campbell

Posted by Job on January 1, 2011

Original sermon here.

Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan Today!

Posted in Bible, Christianity, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Predestination Is In The Bible. Predestined Foreknowledge Is Not!

Posted by Job on December 31, 2010

Many Christians acknowledge the clear Biblical evidence concerning predestination. However, in order to preserve their belief that God must humble Himself, bow before, and submit to man’s free will decisions, they have incorporated this Biblical evidence into a doctrine called “predestined foreknowledge.” It basically allows free will to coexist with the rest of Calvinism (as opposed to pure Wesleyanism, which rejects Calvinism completely) and is largely the position of most evangelical and fundamentalist churches. However, this position still falls short of making the best use of the Bible’s evidence.

The “predestined foreknowledge” doctrine is based on Romans 8:29, which reads “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.” Unfortunately the piece below, which otherwise addresses all the other issues adequately, does not properly deal with this verse, instead choosing to deal with other verses that more explicitly teach the predestination doctrine.

Instead, the problem is a translation issue. The word translated “foreknow”, proginōskō, should actually be translated as foreordain. As a matter of fact, proginōskō is translated as foreordain in 1 Peter 1:20. And of course, this text, by the Palestinian Jew Peter as opposed to the more Hellenized diaspora Jew Paul,  says “Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you”. So, Romans 8:29 should read “”For whom he did foreordain, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.” And that allows Romans 8:29 to be interpreted with 1 Peter  1:13-25. Not surprisingly, if you do that, they confirm each other in one coherent, unified doctrinal statement which relates election, predestination and salvation to sanctification, perfection and glorification in Christ Jesus.

The bottom line: Romans 8:29, especially when it is interpreted with 1 Peter 1:13-25 and being consistent with the translation of the same word (totally appropriate as they are used in the same context), clearly declares that God predestinates based on His choice, and not on His foreknowledge of our choice. Before you say “no fair, why can’t I just interpret proginōskō to be “foreknew” in 1 Peter 1:20″? Simple, because saying that God foreknew about the blood of Jesus Christ from the foundation of the world makes no sense whatsoever. God the Father didn’t just know that Jesus Christ would die for our sins. God PLANNED for Jesus Christ to die for our sins. How do we know this? The words of Jesus Christ Himself. John 3:16 – a favorite of free will Christians – does not say that for God so loved the world that He knew in advance that His only Son would come. Instead, John 3:16 says that for God so loved the world that He gave, He sent, His only Son. Jesus Christ bore witness in the gospels that it was God the Father’s plan, that it was God the Father who sent Him, and that He was being obedient to what God the Father ordained in advanced, not to what God knew would happen in advance and adjusted or adapted to. That is why even though “foreknew” is the preferred translation of proginosko (which is why the translators chose it for Romans 8:29), they had to use foreordain in 1 Peter 1:20 because there was no other viable option. For instance, the New Living Translation gives 1 Peter 1:20 to be “God chose Him as your ransom long before the world began, but he has now revealed him to you in these last days”, meaning that they translated proginosko in that passage to mean “God chose Jesus Christ by foreordaining Him.” And that fits John 15:16, where Jesus Christ says to the church (through His apostles): “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and [that] your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.”

Now that Romans 8:29 has been dealt with

Please read:

How are predestination and election connected with foreknowledge?

Then

Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan Today!

Posted in Bible, Christianity, evangelism, false doctrine, false teaching, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 23 Comments »

Matthew 3:13-15 And The Importance Of Righteous Living Through Jesus Christ

Posted by Job on January 26, 2010

The issue of Jesus Christ’s baptism at times provokes some debate. For example, why was Jesus Christ, God in the flesh with all that entails, baptized in the first place? Many good theories are proposed, among them the idea that Jesus Christ was announcing to the world His identity and the beginning of His earthly ministry. However, the simple explanation given in Matthew 3:15 by Jesus Christ Himself: “And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer [it to be so] now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.” This means that Jesus Christ regarded participating in John’s baptism to be a good act, and it was His duty to do everything that is good. And please note that Jesus Christ did not only put this requirement upon Himself. This is not something to be performed by Jesus Christ on our behalf as our substitute, as was Jesus Christ’s death on the cross. Instead, when Jesus Christ stated “it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness”, He was including John the Baptist and every other believer. Therefore, there is no such thing as a partial Christian or a mostly Christian. Instead, to be a Christian, one must do all that God instructs and requires us, what is called “the whole counsel of God” (see Acts 20).

But what is particularly interesting about the baptism of Jesus Christ as it is recorded by Matthew is that John the Baptist initially refused to baptize Jesus Christ! It was not because John the Baptist regarded Jesus Christ as some grotesque, unworthy sinner, or that He was coming insincerely out of curiosity or as some show of false piety. Quite the contrary, the grotesque unworthy sinners were precisely whom John the Baptist (and Jesus Christ after Him) were calling to repentance, and John the Baptist did not address Jesus Christ after the manner of the Pharisees and Sadducees who came (o generation of vipers, and demanding that their repentance be sincere). Instead, John the Baptist objected to baptizing Jesus Christ because he saw himself as unworthy to baptize Jesus Christ! Instead, John the Baptist stated that Jesus Christ should be baptizing HIM!

Of course, looking back on this incident, we see this as a logical conclusion of John the Baptist, with Jesus Christ being God in the flesh. However, John the Baptist did not have the benefit of our hindsight! For the gospel of John, verses 1:29-34, states that John did not know that Jesus Christ was the Messiah until AFTER he baptized Him, for it was at that point that John saw the Holy Spirit descending upon Jesus Christ. We also surmise from Matthew 11:1-6 that John, upon his being cast into prison, seemed to doubt Jesus Christ’s identity as the Messiah and challenged Jesus Christ to prove Himself. So it is safe to propose that John the Baptist’s reasons for not wanting to baptize Jesus Christ had nothing to do with his having any idea that his younger cousin Jesus was in fact the Christ, and with that John the Baptist’s statement that he himself needed to be baptized by his cousin!

So then, what was the reason? It is the difference between the baptism of John and the baptism of Jesus Christ, which John himself stated was a greater baptism. The baptism of John was a sinner’s baptism. By contrast, the baptism of Jesus Christ is a BELIEVER’S baptism. Thus, the reason why John attempted to restrain Jesus Christ from being baptized was because John was performing a baptism for penitent sinners, a baptism for the righteous, AND HE HAD NEVER OBSERVED OR HEARD OF JESUS CHRIST SINNING AT ANY TIME! So why did John state that Jesus Christ should baptize him? BECAUSE HE KNEW THAT JESUS CHRIST’S RIGHTEOUSNESS EXCEEDED HIS OWN!

Of course, Jesus Christ’s submission to the baptism should not be taken as a denial of the doctrine that Jesus Christ was sinless (for Jesus Christ declared Himself to be sinless in a very direct and challenging manner in John 8:46) or that he was lesser than John the Baptist (for Jesus Christ publicly declared Himself to be greater in Matthew 11:11), but again according to His own words, Jesus Christ submitted to John’s baptism because it was His duty to do all that was righteous. Please recall: just as Jesus Christ did not need to be baptized for His own sake because of His sinlessness, He also did not need to go to the cross for His own sake for that same reason. So, just as Jesus Christ went to the cross for our sakes, it can be surmised that He was baptized for that reason also.

But let us not lose sight of the fact that John the Baptist initially attempted to prevent Jesus Christ from partcipating in his baptism – saying that it was a thing not suitable for Him (just as Simon Peter later claimed that Jesus Christ was not meant to be crucified in Matthew 16:21-23!) – because John the Baptist knew that there was something different about Jesus Christ. John knew that Jesus Christ was different, even from himself! And how did John know this? Again, not from revelation, for the revelation of Jesus Christ’s identity to John did not come until the baptism itself. And it wasn’t because of Jesus Christ’s station or position in life. Rather than being born in Herod’s palace as a member of his family (and Herod was the legally recognized king of the Jews by the Roman empire and the Jewish province), Jesus Christ was born in a manger. Rather than being in the religious or political elite, Jesus Christ was a member of the Jewish underclass, a common laborer with no formal religious training or position. Thus, Jesus Christ in terms of his human socioeconomic state was no different from John the Baptist himself, and also lower than some of the people (Pharisees and Saducees) that John stated were most in need of baptizing! Instead, John knew that there was something different, something special about his cousin, this Jesus of Nazareth, that separated Him from everyone else that he had baptized, and indeed from the Baptist himself!

What was it? From the context and evidence given, it had to have been the life that Jesus Christ lived. Before John the Baptist and before the world, Jesus Christ lived a righteous, exemplary life, blameless before God and man. THAT is why John the Baptist initially refused to baptize Jesus Christ. THAT is why John the Baptist stated that Jesus Christ should instead baptize him! And perhaps that is even why John the Baptist abandoned his refusal to baptize Jesus Christ upon Jesus Christ’s request! After all, this man is more righteous than me? What right do I have to deny his request? If I follow this man in his righteousness, I might become more righteous also! And so John the Baptist did what Jesus Christ requested of him, and as a result the identity of Jesus Christ to John and the world was confirmed by a visible manifestation of the Holy Spirit.

And Christian, this is the important of being righteous. This is the importance of being blameless, Christian. This is the importance of being holy, Christian. Of course, we cannot achieve Jesus Christ’s standard of perfection, for we are not God. However, let us not in our desire to avoid what is commonly termed legalism, Phariseeism, self-righteousness, holier than thou, etc. cause us to veer into antinomianism and worldliness. Instead, just as there was a difference in Jesus Christ such that not only John the Baptist but Jesus Christ’s false accusers (note that none of them took him up on His challenge in John 8:46!) and the very people who sent Him to the cross (i.e. Judas Iscariot the betrayer and Pontius Pilate), there needs to be a difference in Christians so that we are easily, readily distinguishable from those who are not Christians.

Now this is where the “legalism” or “Phariseeism” becomes relevant. It is not supposed to be a difference that is outward. It is not supposed to be a superficial difference, a difference “of the flesh.” For the Judaizers, the difference of the flesh was the circumcision and the law of Moses. Perhaps a more contemporary issue is a certain artificial or affected attitude or behavior, maybe of rote adherence to rules, affiliations, religiosities, or standards of men of how Christians ought to conduct themselves. That is legalism. Instead, this difference should be inward, a change of the heart that comes from being born again of water and of Spirit. As those who are born again of water and of Spirit love Jesus Christ by keeping His commandments (John 14:21) as they are contained within scripture and taught to us by those who precede us in the faith (pastors, evangelists, teachers, prophets, deacons, Godly parents etc.) that produces a sincere – not affected or legalistic and self serving – change in behavior.

When this change of heart and behavior that comes by virtue of living faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ comes about, that is how we become living stones, living witnesses, living examples that reveal Jesus Christ and His gospel to others. Of course, such living witnesses must also verbally share the gospel, for how can the lost sheep hear the gospel without a preacher (Romans 10:14)? However, if you are a living witness of Jesus Christ through your sincere and consistent (save the fact that all sin 1 John 1:7-9) then the living witness of Jesus Christ to the lost makes your verbal witness of Jesus Christ all the more effective, all the more powerful.

There is also the effect on the found. We are not to be islands, lone wolves in the faith. Instead, we are to assemble together and strengthen each other with joyful fellowship, praying for one another, provoking one another to good works, and confessing our sins to one another so that the brothers and sisters may pray for us and we be healed. If we Christians give ourselves over to lukewarm worldliness and carnality, how can such a thing happen? And what examples are we setting for those who follow after us in the faith? Shall the old women teach the young women to be silly and vain? Shall the elder men teach the young men to be brutish and greedy? God forbid! Such behavior causes little ones to stumble, and we know from Jesus Christ Himself that whoever does that to one of His little ones (whether children or those new in faith), it would be better for them were a millstone tied around their necks and they be cast into the sea!

So, this day I encourage you. Follow the example of Jesus Christ by seeking to fulfill all righteousness. Some say that the secret of doing this is more about the “do’s” than the “don’ts”. Others say that while the “do’s” are vital, the “don’ts” cannot be neglected. Of such things, I am not qualified to be the arbiter. However, I can say that if you seek the Lord in this matter through prayer, Bible study, and good works of obedience to His Word that the Holy Spirit will take you where He wants you to go! For it is a core principle of Christian living that it is not what you can do, but what God Himself does for and through you. You are not righteous in and of yourself, but instead you are made righteous through your identification with the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, your being part of Jesus Christ’s own Body, your being washed clean with His blood, your being cleansed and healed by and with His stripes, and your being indwelled by Jesus Christ’s Spirit. Your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and if you sincerely rely and trust completely on God, then God will make sure that the temple of His Spirit is undefiled!

Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan

Posted in Bible, Christianity, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Five Views On Christian Sanctification: Which Is Yours?

Posted by Job on October 29, 2009

Five Views on Sanctification: An In-Depth Analysis

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

A Very Nice Testimony

Posted by Job on September 19, 2009

It opens:

I want to tell you about how the Lord is restoring my life.

Posted in Bible, Christianity, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

What is the meaning of holiness and sanctification?

Posted by Job on September 19, 2009

The book of Hebrews has information for us according to this link.

What is the meaning of holiness and sanctification in the book of Hebrews?

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

God’s Grace in all its Truth!

Posted by Job on September 29, 2008

Please read links below.

1. God’s Grace in all its Truth…

2. Lunch with Jesus Christ …

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Faith Alone’s We Believe In Sanctification Series

Posted by Job on August 24, 2008

“We know that the Roman Catholics teach that we are saved by faith plus works. Lordship Salvation teaches that we are saved by faith that works. But do not both definitions include works as a condition necessary for faith to be valid, for faith to be effectual? Either way, works are a necessary condition of eternal salvation.

But I have a problem with that. It confuses justification with sanctification. Justification as the forensic legal declaration that we are righteous in our position before God, is confused with sanctification, the outworking of that righteousness in everyday practical living. Now we know that justification and sanctification are related. But we also must keep them distinct lest we confuse the Gospel itself and undo the Reformation. If we make works a necessary condition of salvation, we contradict the words of Rom 4:4-5, “Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.” The apostle Paul is teaching us that faith does not mix with works in any way. Just as you cannot mix oil with water, faith is opposed to works for salvation.”  taken from http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1999i/J22-99b.htm

Series below:

http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1992b/Mackintosh.htm

http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1992b/Farstad.htm

http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1993i/Wilkin.htm

http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1994i/Wilkin.html

http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1994ii/Wilkin.html

http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1995i/Farstad.html

http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1996i/Hart.html

http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1996ii/Hart.html

Posted in Bible, Christianity, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Calvin On Sanctification: A Brief

Posted by Job on August 24, 2008

A curious fact about Martin Luther is that for all the attention that he gave to salvation, he is regarded as having paid very little to sanctification by comparison. Calvin, on the other hand, is regarded to having given sanctification a fair amount of treatment. So, here are a couple of weblog entries by Christians that discuss Calvin’s views on sanctification. May this information edify and benefit you.

Calvin on Regeneration and Sanctification

I’m about 800 pages into Calvin’s Institutes (which is why I haven’t been blogging much lately). Previously, I’d read a bunch of it here and there, but most of my understanding of Calvin had been mediated through later Reformed writers. Consequently, I had wrongly assumed that Calvin was consistent with the contemporary evangelical/Reformed distinction between regeneration and sanctification (regeneration denoting the initial moment of renewal, and sanctification denoting the subsequent process of renewal). Not so. Calvin addresses the topic of repentance under the rubric of regeneration, talking of them as though they are virtual synonyms. Further, he does not see regeneration/repentance as limited to the beginning of the Christian life, but rather extends this work of God to the duration of earthly life. He writes,

Therefore, in a word, I interpret repentance as regeneration, whose sole end is to restore in us the image of God . . . And indeed this restoration does not take place in one moment or one day or one year; but through continual and even slow advances God wipes out in his elect the corruption of the flesh . . . In order to reach this goal, God assigns to them a race of repentance, which they are to run throughout their lives(601-02).

I like Calvin on this, and find him more consistent with Pauline/NT semantics. While the theological labels of regeneration and sanctification have (I suppose) been useful in delineating between the initial and subsequent work of God in the believer’s life, they have allowed for certain traditions to bifurcate regeneration and sanctification and then argue that salvation consists surely of the former but not necessarily the latter. This is common in Free Grace theology, and I’m sure one can find variations of it in most traditions. But Calvin’s doctrine of regeneration does not allow for this. For Calvin, to be regenerated is to be renewed into the image of God throughout the duration of one’s life–to run a lifelong race of repentance. No lasting fruit, no connection to the root.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , | 9 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: