Some Trinity non-negotiables

Talking about the Trinity is dangerous. It’s so easy to focus too much on one aspect or too little on another. At any one point, there’s the potential to make a short movement to heresy. AND on top of that.....it’s hard to understand and much harder to teach. I understand why most avoid it or do little more than reference the triune character of God in baptisms or the Lord’s Supper or a wedding. However difficult and dangerous it may be, what I fear is that it is more dangerous to NOT talk about it. As we saw Sunday, the perichoretic nature of our God provides an ultimate reality for the nature of God’s people. We can’t know how and what to be apart from learning what He is!

In rock climbing, there’s a tool used called a piton.......it’s driven in the face of a cliff and provides anchor points on the journey upward. I want to nail some pitons in the wall regarding the nature of the triune God. These are from Robert Letham’s book The Holy Trinity. He does a good job of presenting the history on this issue.....it’s a reliable work and one worth reading if you have the stomach for it. Here are the pitons:

• God is One being in three Persons.......He is three Persons in One being. Focusing too much on the distinctive persons, you’re in danger of becoming tri-theistic (believing in 3 gods). Focusing too much on the oneness and you’re in danger of being a modalist (believing God morphs Father into Son and Son into Spirit). We have to keep both of these realities in clear view and we can’t rest on our minds to understand. Remember what Hilary of Poitiers said.... “what we can’t understand, God can be.” Nice, huh?
• The three Persons are homoousios. This weird word means they are of the same essence. It means that each person of the trinity is the whole of God. The three together aren’t more God than any given One Person of the trinity. There aren’t degrees of Godness or deity in the distinct Persons. They are to all three be worshipped.
• The three Persons mutually indwell one another in a dynamic communion. This is perichoresis.......mutually indwelling each other......reflecting each other.....revealing and explaining each other. When you look at the Father, you see the Son....and the Son reflects the Father.....and the Spirit reflects both Father and Son. This is a dynamic dance where the three together move distinctly in a union.
• The three Persons are irreducibly different from one another. While being completely One, they are distinct and different. The Son is forever united to humankind.....bearing the scars of His work here for eternity. The Father and the Spirit don’t have scars....or human hands for that matter. The three are different from each other yet indivisible and One.
• There is order among the Persons. There is order in God, but not a heirarchy or rank as we would imagine it. The best way to understand salvation in God’s order is that it comes from the Father through the Son by the Holy Spirit. Our response to His work in our hearts is by the Holy Spirit through the Son to the Father. They serve different roles.......the Father sends the Son and the Son never sends the Father. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but never the other way around.
• A doctrine of the trinity that is faithful to the Bible from which it emerges must give equivalent expression to each of the above parameters. The three persons are: irreducibly different and they are one identical being. There is order among them and they mutually indwell each other, are equal in status an are one being. They mutually indwell one another and they are irreducibly different.

We need pitons.......anchors that keep us from getting off track.........especially in this dangerous work of trying to explain the nature of our God.

Enjoy Him this week.........Father, Son and Spirit.

Ben McGraw
Teaching Pastor
Crosspoint Fellowship

Why don’t we recognize infant baptism?

Let me begin answering this question with the clear statement that we DO recognize infant baptism. While we DON’T recognize it as believer’s confessional baptism, we DO recognize it as something......something very meaningful. I can’t say I’ve always felt this way. In fact, for years I thought the notion of sprinkling infants was ridiculous.......that’s because I didn’t understand it. After walking with a Presbyterian brother, Greg Fields, I’ve come to have GREAT appreciation for what it is and what it represents. Those who sprinkle infants, called paedo-baptists, consider the infant baptism as the New Covenant version of circumcision. They have a great reason to consider this valid. Look at Colossians 2:11-12 “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.” If you’re paying attention, you’ll see that Paul seems to replace Old Covenant circumcision (physical) with circumcision of the heart (spiritual) and the ordinance of baptism. It indeed appears to be a sort of replacement as the covenant symbol.

So the question is now refined from “what is it” to “when is it to be done?” Proper paedo-baptists (who know what and why they’re doing it) consider the infant born into a believing family to be “ready” for this rite by nature of their relationship to their believing family and covenant people. It makes complete sense if you see a direct connection between circumcision and baptism. As circumcision marked the entrance into the covenant people Israel, baptism marks the entrance into the covenant people, the New Israel. They didn’t wait for the little Jewish boy to declare His allegiance to God and to His people before they circumcised him. So the paedo-baptist isn’t waiting until kids are able to declare or confess their faith before baptizing. Really if you look at it with an open mind, IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

While we don’t recognize paedo-baptism as fulfilling the commission to baptize all peoples, we really do recognize it as something important. In fact, examining the practice it has helped us understand what it means for a child to be born into the people of God. It’s added a whole new meaning to our baby dedications. They’re no longer a few minutes of cute babies and funny videos. Now we present infants and toddlers to the covenant people as ours to raise and teach and minister to and walk with for the glory of God. We consider them to be part of the covenant people until they prove otherwise (as in Hebrews 6:4-8). YET we wait until they can actually acknowledge and confess their faith in Christ BEFORE we baptize them. Here are a few passages to consider:

• Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
• Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
• Acts 2:41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
• Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
• Acts 9:18 And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized

These are just a few passages that show some things that go along with baptism.....belief.....repentance......receiving the word.......spiritual sight. We are confessional Baptists because we believe one must believe, confess, repent and “see” in order to be baptized. We believe baptism is RESTRICTED to those who can/do these things by the sovereign work of God in their hearts. While we recognize infant baptism as a VERY meaningful presentation to the covenant people, we do not recognize it as fulfilling this believing, repenting, receiving, “seeing” sort of baptism.

There are other passages to consider when gnawing on this question. Consider these:

• Acts 16:15 And after she (Lydia) was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.
• Acts 18:8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.

The peado-baptist might suggest these are examples of whole households (infants included) being baptized into the covenant people.....or they may be examples of families with members who believed, repented, received the word and “saw” the truth of the gospel and were baptized.

Wherever you might land as you read this, I want to clearly communicate GREAT respect for our paedo-baptist brothers/sisters. They embrace the FULL counsel of God’s word and the FULL sweep of His covenant work among His covenant people. I hope we are doing the same as we present children to the covenant people in dedication and baptize them by immersion when they believe, repent, receive the word and “see” Christ as Savior and Lord. While we require confessional baptism by immersion for membership, WE DO NOT want to EVER communicate that your infant baptism meant nothing. Our high view of confessional baptism does NOT negate the importance of that event in your early life.......we believe it builds on that important covenant ceremony.

Ben McGraw
Teaching Pastor
Crosspoint Fellowship

Baptism

The question...I see and believe baptism as a symbol of our salvation and not as something that saves us but I'm wondering what to do with Acts 2:38?  I have heard this verse taught as pointing to baptism as a saving event.

Acts 2:38-39
"And Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39  For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord God calls to himself"

It just seems like it's some pretty serious "grammatical gymnastics" to assume that Peter is highlighting baptism as an agent in the forgiveness of sins. I guess this is how some folks might translate this passage (?)

 Baptism, in so many other passages, is our identification (or profession) with the people of God (Rom 6:3, Matthew 28:18-19, 1 Corinthians 12:13 and Ephesians 4 1-6).  Peter's emphasis is on God's calling (v39) and our repentance (v38).  Baptism is a step of obedience that flows from our repentant hearts.  The question I would ask is this...Why would Peter place the emphasis on God's calling people to himself and then take that power away from God by assuming that our baptism was what saved us?  The two don't reconcile.  Peter either believes that God calls us to repentance and saves people in Himself or he believes that their obedience in baptism saves them.  It can't be both.

The other verse that can look like its is pointing to baptism as a saving agent is Acts 22:16..."And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name"
It's important to know the context of this verse.  This is a man named Ananias talking to Paul (now a convert who used to be named Saul).  So Paul is already a convert when he tells him to be baptized.  And it's pretty apparent, based on the wealth of other Scriptures from Paul that this is the new SIGN of the covenant.  A SIGN of his sins being washed away.

Paul offers some great insight in Galatians 3:25-27... But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,  26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.  27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.   We are in Christ THROUGH FAITH (v26). Our Baptism is our IDENTITY – like you "put on" a uniform to signify allegiance to a team.  We have "put on" our baptism to signify our allegiance to the ONE that HAS SAVED, IS SAVING, and WILL SAVE US.

Paul goes on in chapter 5 of Galatians to warn the church not to attempt to add anything to their faith in Christ in hopes of salvation, because it will give opportunity for their flesh.  Paul is so adamant that they understand and believe in Christ and His cross alone for their salvation that he wishes that those who are teaching that the people needed Christ PLUS circumcision would "emasculate" themselves.  This is pretty strong language that doesn't reconcile with ANYTHING (circumcision,baptism, rule keeping, positional leadership, etc.) improving our salvation EXCEPT being found in Christ alone through faith.  In fact Paul says that when anyone attempts to add anything to Christ alone, they actually "have been severed from Christ", "fallen from grace", and Christ is "of no benefit to you."

Brad Cardwell

Children and Salvation

What do we hope for in our children regarding salvation?  Should we be looking for a conversion experience and be ready with the “sinner’s prayer?”  A burdened father asked me this question regarding his son.  He, like me, comes from a background of altar calls and sinner’s prayers.  He, like me, believes the altar call to be unsavory and unbiblical.  But he, like me, wants to do right by his kids.....to know how to pray.....to know how to shepherd them to salvation.  

    First of all, we should hope/pray for the souls of our little ones.  We can’t assume that they are somehow reconciled with the Living God just because they’re young.  David wrote “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” (Psalm 51:5)  Paul wrote “None is righteous, no not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.  All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good. Not even one.”  (Romans 3:10-12).  He also wrote “all have sinned and all fall short of the glory of God.”  (Romans 3:23)  I believe those passages and gobs of others indicate that we’re born crossways with our Creator.  We’re guilty at least by our relationship to our Federal Daddy, Adam.  Romans 5:18 says “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.”  Romans 5:19 says “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.”  Just by our relationship to Adam, we’re part of a guilty humanity and we need to be “transferred” to a new humanity.  (Col 1:13)  So we should be burdened for the souls of our little ones.  They, like us, need to be rescued (Exodus 12), reborn (John 3), adopted (Ephesians 1:5) into this righteous family by God’s sovereign work.  Just like we can’t achieve this for ourselves by merit, you can’t achieve it for your children by your merit or even your parenting.  It’s God’s work......so our primary efforts should be in God’s direction......so we should pray for the souls of our little ones.   

    Then in response to our prayer time with God (seeking His face and heart for the souls of our children), we do what we can to cultivate and sow into the soil of their little hearts.  We are to “bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”  (Eph 6:4)  We are to have God’s words on our hearts as parents and are to “teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up.” (Deut 6:7)  Burdened parents should saturate themselves with God’s words and then their homes with God’s words.  The true teachings of God as Creator, of man as sinner, of Christ as Savior become robust seed on the cultivated heart and should the Lord will it, will germinate, take root and bear fruit.

    Now, If you’ve been paying attention, you’ll appreciate that what I’ve shared regarding our children takes time.  Praying, diligent teaching, cultivating, sowing, saturating all sound like they’re p r o t r a c t e d events......ordinary moments factored over time......maybe years.........any of which in themselves seem as insignificant as a tiny seed in a big fertile field.  So the parent is a burdened gardener with a few years to pray/sow/cultivate before our kids leave to start their own families.  So should we be burdened for a conversion event and the sinner’s prayer moment?  If our burden is an event and an experience and a recitation of a prayer then we may be guilty of focusing too much on that “experience” so that we miss the bulbs we’ve planted that bloom here and there.  The gardener looks for and celebrates even the tiniest green sprout.  The parent should enjoy little expressions of faith.  We should celebrate the child that sings “Jesus loves me” as a three year old.  Their song isn’t somehow disqualified because they’ve not had a conversion “event.”  We should celebrate those tiny seedling expressions but as confessional Baptists we should hope for a time when they can articulate and express their faith in Christ as Savior and Lord.  While we should not be too focused on an event, we should hope for a day when, like Cami expressed on Sunday, they can say “I’m a sinner in need of a Savior.....and Jesus is that Savior and my King” and you can have some sense that they understand what they’re saying.  

    Romans 10:9-10 so beautifully captures what I’m describing. (A disclaimer – if you’re lazy you won’t get this....if you read it and re-read it and engage it, you’ll get it and treasure it).  Romans 9 reads “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”  The verb tense for confess and believe in this passage are what’s called aorist tense.  It’s a Greek tense that’s sort of like past tense but it contains the event to a point in time.  So this confess and believe may point to a moment or day or period in your life or the life of your child when they first believe and confess the Lordship of Christ.  Then the next verse captures the ongoing expression that’s characteristic of salvation.  Verse 10 reads “for with the heart one believes......and with the mouth one confesses.”  These are both present tense......not past tense “believed” and “confessed.”   They reflect the ongoing, living faith of the true believer.  They point to the dailyness of the faith of a Christian parent who’s enjoying the gospel/truth/word as we sit in our houses, as we walk by the way, as we lie down and as we rise up.  Maybe in connection to the altar call backgrounds many of us share, we’ve erred in making the “event” too important and diminished the importance of the dailyness......of the sowing.....of the praying.....of the diligent teaching....of the saturating.  It seems from Romans 10 that a confessional recognition is important and a daily response of confession and belief equally important.  

    It’s appropriate to hope for a period in the life of our little one when confession and belief begin.  A better dream and prayer would be for a life transformed, a little soul surrendered, a worshipper reborn in a home where the gospel is discussed and enjoyed over time.   

Ben McGraw

Why we don't do altar calls

I realize a relatively young church in this community that says “we’re not doing it” may seem like we’re being rebellious and trendy. Actually, what few who fight for the practice realize is that it’s not good ole fashioned evangelism but rather new-fangled man-centered gospel-diminishing malarky. Here are a few thoughts to explain.


1. There are NO pictures of altar calls in our bibles....the practice has ZERO scriptural reference.
2. There are NO pictures of altar calls in the Christian faith until the last 170 years. Charles Finney didn’t start the practice, but he is largely responsible for perfecting it during the 2nd great awakening in the 1800’s. Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, George Whitfield and Jonathon Edwards would have no idea what you were talking about were you to ask them about altar calls. Nor would Peter or Paul or any of the other apostles.
3. It has contributed to a new vocabulary of belief and faith that is also unbiblical.....like “making a decision for Christ” or “asking Jesus into your heart” or “giving your heart to Jesus.”
4. It’s manipulative, especially toward the hurting or the young. This is why we’re so cautious about camps for children. We don’t want to send our children or youth to a camp where altar calls are practiced for fear that they may leave thinking they squared-up with God because they walked an aisle when in fact all they may have done is had an emotional experience.
5. It leads to people mistaking a walk down an aisle for “walking in a manner worthily” or “walking in good works prepared in advance” or “abiding in Christ”.
6. It’s associated with a VERY high rate of apostasy......for people who simply had an emotional experience will not bear the fruit of one who has over time recognized their wretchedness before a Holy God and repented, placing faith/trust/hope in the finished work of Christ alone. THIS understanding takes time to develop in the garden of the heart.
7. It’s associated with a numerical emphasis that counts “decisions” in an effort to quantify “soul-winning” results.
8. The altar call IS NOT the mark of an evangelistic church as some might suggest. In addition, the absence of this practice in a church IS NOT the mark of a church that is unburdened for the lost and uncaring about the souls of men. Burden and engagement are born and lived out in relationships. The evangelistic church seeks relationships and ultimately disciples....not simply “decisions.”
9. The appeal to “come forward” supersedes or completely replaces an appeal to repent and believe.
10. It redefines the mark of an evangelist as one who can best get ‘em down the aisle rather than one who is gifted by the Holy Spirit to expose the truth of the gospel in a life-altering way.
11. Most of those professing to be Christians in our community, when asked how they know they’re Christians, will point back to a time when they walked an aisle and made a “decision.” Biblically, assurance does not come from a “decision” or a trip down an aisle. Looking back to recent sermons, consider John 8:31 where Jesus tells those who have “believed” if they’re true, then they’ll “abide in my word.” Or even more recent, Romans 8:13 “if you live according to the flesh, you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” These are just a couple of recent samples from the gobs of scripture that point to an engaging dailyness of faith and mortification of sin that are characteristic of true believers......THAT’S where assurance comes from.
12. It confuses people regarding sacred space......the front of a sanctuary where the altar call leads is no more holy than your living room where you read your bible with your family or your bedroom where you snooze. Our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit now........not some special area in our church buildings.
13. It inappropriately takes the place of baptism as the public profession of faith. BAPTISM is the biblical public expression of our faith and is how we are identified with the people of God.
14. It limits evangelistic calls to the 11:50-12:05 holy minutes on Sunday mornings....at the lips of the beckoning preacher.....with the backdrop of verse after verse of Just as I Am........rather than the beckoning, witnessing work of the people of God EVERY day in EVERY place as a sweet aroma enjoying Christ out loud.
15. It’s filled the membership rolls of churches with unregenerate who think they’re reconciled with the Living God because they walked an aisle.


I must confess, I’m pretty disgusted with the practice.......even as one....maybe especially as one who once called for “decisions” myself. I repent from that man-centered effort to harvest new believers and I trust that God will be glorified and His sheep will be found in the daily and weekly outloud enjoyment of Christ by the People of God.


Ben McGraw

Evolution and Genesis

How do you feel evolution and the current age of the earth (9.6 Billion years) alter how one should read Genesis?

There are lots of different things to deal with in this question. I’ll try and reckon with a few of them. Here’s where I plan on going.....

• Evolution as theory, not law.
• Methods for estimating the age of the earth.
• Relationship between science and scripture.

First, I feel it necessary to put evolution in perspective. Evolution is a theory. A theory is developed from the analysis of facts.......but it is not to be treated as conclusive. A Law on the other hand is based on factual replicated and reproduced outcomes. Theories are developed from laws.......not the other way around. Here’s an example of a Law: The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. Entropy is the measure of disorder in a system. In Ben’s redneck non-scientific terms, the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that, left to it’s own device, a system will go from a higher state of order to a lower state of order. Consider your desk or your car or your kitchen as an example. If energy isn’t introduced into the system (ie washing dishes or straightening your desk or throwing away sonic napkins) then your desk, car or kitchen will only get messier! It will not evolve into a more refined organized state! It takes energy to maintain it or improve the system. Evolutionists ignore this LAW and suggest that life has evolved into a more refined (fit) organized state on it’s own. They believe that life is more refined and fit than it’s ever been.....and it will grow more refined and fit through natural selection and mutation. Somehow we think we’re smarter and more capable now than we were ages ago. I would suggest that all you have to do is read some of the ancients or consider the pyramids to see that man wasn’t a uni-browed doofus in ancient times. In fact, I feel like the doofus reading the ancients or marveling at how the pyramids were built without Caterpillar!?!? When someone tries to handle evolution like it’s conclusive or factual, just lovingly and gently and respectfully put it into perspective, it’s a theory.

Second, there are various methods for dating the earth. One commonly used method is carbon dating. Carbon dating determines the age of a rock for example by how much carbon (carbon-14 to be precise) ISN’T present. It’s based on observation of a rate in which carbon 14 is emitted from objects like rocks or bones. To help you understand how this works......consider watching a candle melt for an hour and determining that all candles melt at a rate of an inch per hour. Taking that new “knowledge” of candle-melting you then try and determine the original length of a candle by how long it is presently....as you observe it. This is extrapolation at it’s best and it’s terribly inaccurate. We have no way of knowing what the candle was exposed to before we showed up! It could have been in a wind storm or dunked in the bath tub. Carbon date is based on pure inference. In fact, the newly formed rocks from Mount Saint Helens (erupted in 1980) were estimated with this method to be thousands of years old?!?! The problem with this method is that we don’t know what environmental rigors these rocks or bones were exposed to in past ages. I must admit, I’m not quite clueless on these dating methods, but I know enough to know that they’re not as solid as people make them out to be. The BEST approach to the dating “problem” or supposed age of the earth issue is this.......that the earth COULD NOT have been created without the appearance of age! Even if you don’t believe it, just imagine for a moment that God actually made Adam on Friday and imagine that you see him hanging out in the garden on Saturday....eating some berries and petting a lion. Based on every measure we know, we’d look at Adam and think he’s say, 20 years old? He’s got a beard! Can’t be 1 day old, right? Not based on our limited measuring system....ever seen a 1-day-old with a beard? He’s 6 feet tall!! Can’t be a day old, right? He’s got chest hair! Any one-day-olds have chest hair? Using every measure of observation we know, we look at this dude Adam and say “dude! You’re 20!!” All the while the reality is he’s only 1 day old!! Imagine cutting down a tree in this newly created garden.....it would likely have rings suggesting seasons and growth and history and age......that really wasn’t there because it had just been created!! Imagine using carbon dating or some other dating method to date a rock and finding that it’s supposedly millions of years old.......but it’s not.....because it was just made! You couldn’t make a man or a tree or a rock without the appearance of age and history! This changes EVERYTHING and helps reconcile these dating methods with what our bible seems to show.....that the earth is actually 6-10k years old.

Third, how are we to handle new scientific findings or theories or even laws as we read our bibles? We are to look at those theories or findings through the lens of scripture, not the other way around. It’s our bible that’s timeless and complete for every good work. It’s our bible that’s true, every jot and tittle. It’s our bible that’s flawless and without error, so every new finding or theory or law should be examined through the lens of what we KNOW to be true, the Living Word of God. If you look at your bible through the lens of a scientific finding or theory, then realize you’re placing that theory or finding ABOVE the Living Word of God. You’re considering the finding (gleaned by faulty man) as superior or more authoritative than the Living timeless true Word of God (breathed out by God). So my encouragement is to not let ANYTHING alter the way you read Genesis. Instead, reading Genesis should ALTER the way you read the world. I hope this is helpful in some way.......it’s light treatment of some pretty heavy stuff. There are books on these sort of topics that will help you........ultimately though, it’s a marginal issue compared to the central issues of worship and wonder. There’s nothing wrong with a visit to the margins, but know that worshippers won’t live there.

Ben McGraw

1 Timothy 4:10

Someone had a question about what this passage says/means.....here it is:

1Tim. 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

You could understand how a passage like this would be troubling......for it seems to place God as Savior of ALL people......and those who are believing will be REALLY saved.  First of all, “all people” could fairly be translated “humanity” or “all mankind” or “the human race.”  And the word “especially” in the original language is the word malista and is better translated “in other words”, “I mean” or “to be precise.”  These translations would change the meaning to point to a precise work of salvation of the believing that impacts all humanity......here’s the passage again....

1Tim. 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, in other words of those who believe.
1Tim. 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, I mean of those who believe.
1Tim. 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, to be precise of those who believe.

This would be like saying God was the Savior of the world (including human-kind/animal-kind) during the flood by saving Noah’s family and two of every kind of critter.  The WHOLE world benefitted from that remnant-saving work.

It’s like God the Savior saving the world by choosing an unlikely people like Israel to be His people and through them to bring the Messiah....the ONLY One who can save humanity.  

It’s like God the Savior saving the world by gathering His lost sheep from every tribe, tongue, socio-economic group, culture and age as a new believing remnant called the New Israel.  

This passage is also a GREAT picture of means........Paul was speaking of he and Timothy as the “workers” and “strivers” who work and strive together training in Godliness while all the while having their hope SET on the Living God as the Savior.  They’re working and striving not as “earners” of salvation but as “debtors” responding to salvation.  Good picture of the righteous motive of godliness.  

Ben McGraw

Translation Difference - KJV ESV NASB NIV

Here’s the question.....

Pastor Ben,

During Sunday’s sermon one of the verses you taught from was Romans 8:1.  In the NIV and NASB translations it reads, “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”  In the King James version there is more to the verse, it reads, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”   Do you know why this additional wording was left off of the later translations?  It seems to change the meaning of the verse.

My response......

GREAT observation.........the King James Version and Young’s Literal Translation (and probably some others) use the Greek Textus Receptus version or other less robust greek versions for translation rather than the better versions used for translation in the NASB, ESV and NIV.   It’s a GREAT practice of reading other versions for study and I encourage you to keep using the KJV as one of those.  God has used and will continue to use the unique and literal wording of the KJV to speak to our hearts and to open our eyes.   When you see differences between the versions, of the ones out today, I would and do place the most trust on the ESV, NASB and NIV in that order.....while enjoying the beautiful imagery of the KJV and one of my favorites, the Young’s Literal Translation.  

A good study bible, like the new ESV study bible, will sometimes address some of these textual variant issues.  

Ben McGraw

Decaying Grace?

Here’s a question from a recent message.....

Hey Pastor Ben, just a question...not last week, but Sunday before, my sister heard you say, "decaying Grace".  Raised in the "Grace filled" Lutheran church, we are sooooooo sensitive about our "gift"...our precious "hope" and "grace" that we have been promised by scripture.  Without this "grace" we would not have a chance!!!  

My response

GREAT question.....she was listening!!  :)  

Here’s a quote from John Owen, the Puritan pastor.... “Christ is the head from whence the new man must have influences of life and strength, or it will decay every day.”  

Then John Piper..... “Oh, that our people would feel the urgency of daily supplies of grace because ‘grace decays.’  Do they know this?  Is it a category in their mind – that grace decays?  How many try to live their lives on automatic pilot with no sense of urgency that means of grace are given so that the riches of Christ may daily be obtained with fresh supplies of grace.”  

The concept here is like that of manna......it’s a daily gathering and feasting that nourishes for today..........and yesterday’s gathering spoils and just won’t do.  Christ is a daily meal and those who are His will enjoy Him daily.

• John 6:54 – whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood will have eternal life.  (present tense verbs)
• John 8 – true disciples abide in His word
• John 15 – abiding in the true vine  

This isn’t to be confused with a possibility that we’re in and out of salvation today or tomorrow like an he loves me.....he loves me not flower. ......eternal life is a FREE gift and thankfully His saving grace does not decay or fade.......but many leaning on quippy sayings like “once saved, always saved” don’t see that salvation is better viewed as we are BEING saved.  Those who are truly His are feeding, drinking, abiding, dwelling, believing, gnawing, raging, reveling, worshipping........it’s just who we are........and that feeding, drinking, abiding, dwelling one isn’t surviving on yesterday’s manna (grace), but is gathering some new and fresh mercy today.  

I HATE quippy sayings that aren’t in our bibles.  They neuter the chest-hair, robust, toothy gospel that should make us tremble at our own frailties and marvel at the expanse of His love and the depth of His grace.  

Feeding with you......

Ben McGraw