The Weekend Word

You may also like...

103 Responses

  1. Jean says:

    “Here is the BIG question – Do we need a priest today to go to God? Yes, Jesus is that High Priest.”

    Could we approach the Father with our own righteousness? No.

    Is there another source of righteousness outside of Jesus? No.

    Is there another God? No

    Yes, we need Jesus as our High Priest. Thanks be to God!

  2. If you ever get stumped on the question why Jesus had to become a man v 15 is as good of an answer as any.

  3. “Good Friday was the last Day of Atonement.”

    I don’t know how many here agree with this, but it makes you wonder how there are going to be future temple ‘Days of Atonement’ in the last days temple scenario of many.

    People need to stand up and say “Nonsense!” when the talk arises of red heifers, temple instruments and the biggie – a future temple.

  4. Jean says:

    The Temple was rebuilt…in 3 daye.

  5. Em says:

    #3- even tho i don’t focus on and therefore am not clear on all these “end times” details (i think that Russia moving into Syria could be significant)… my understanding was that those who look for a rebuilt temple etc. are not seeing such as having any ritual validity with God, but rather they are looking for such events that signify we are nearing the end …
    course, those of us looking forward to the thousand year reign of Christ can’t call any of this “the end.”

    why couldn’t the Jews just use another tabernacle for their sacrifices? and how very tragic it is that they are holding on to the need to fulfill this requirement?..

    just sayin

  6. Let’s hear some opinions on the impeccability of Jesus … could Jesus have sinned when tempted?

  7. Jean says:

    MLD,

    If Jesus was incapable of sinning, then (1) by definition he wasn’t tempted, and (2) contrary to 4:15, He would not be able to sympathize with our weakness.

    I understand that it’s difficult to process how a Holy God could act contrary to His nature, but there may be some aspects of the incarnation that are paradoxical to us.

  8. Goose says:

    MLD @ #3 states…

    “People need to stand up and say “Nonsense!” when the talk arises of red heifers, temple instruments and the biggie – a future temple.”

    MLD, how does Ezekiel 40 – 48 play into the “future temple” scenario as you see it, if at all?

    Thanks.

  9. Goose,
    Ez 40-48 is describing heaven to the people in a concept they could understand. Where did God live in the minds of those folks? … the temple. So the prophet is trying to describe to them this heavenly scene.

    Surely we don’t expect God to move back into a literal temple do we? … do we?

  10. Jean, if someone came to me and “tempted” me with an anchovies pizza, I would not “sin” … no way that stuff is passing my lips.

    Perhaps this is what “sin” is to Jesus – he is not interested and therefore, although he could sin, it is not a strong enough lure.

    It’s a tough issue.

  11. Erunner says:

    MLD, do you recall the idea an author floated when possibly Mary Magdalene hugged Jesus and He told her not to because of the sexual temptation she presented? I recall that portion of the book (possibly Jesus Style) created quite a stir.

  12. E – I don’t remember hearing that usless it was something like “The Last Temptation of Christ.”

    I only know Kershaw! 😉

  13. Scott says:

    The promotion of a physical future rebuilt temple with priests offering the literal blood of bulls as a “memorial offering” in said temple, while Jesus sits in front of them accepting said offerings, is in my opinion, one of the most egregious teachings I’ve heard in evangelicalism.

    Jon Courson was the first one I ever heard teach that, and I had been a believer for at least twenty years when I heard him utter that non-sense on the radio.

    Haven’t listened (seriously) with any frequency to him since…

  14. Scott,
    “when I heard him utter that non-sense on the radio.”

    I don’t know if your wording is strange or I can’t figure it out – Are you saying that you disagree with Courson and you think Jesus will sit on the throne and receive these Jewish sacrifices?

  15. Paul A. Lytton says:

    MLD, Your #10 comparing Jesus’ ability to sin but chose not to, due to disliking it; with your ability to eat pizza with anchovies was probably the best (and most rather unique) metaphor I have ever heard to explain it simply.

  16. Steve Wright says:

    If I promise to take my child to get ice cream. Then I promise and deliver to take them to Disneyland for a week, I am still a promise-breaker if I don’t come through on the ice cream. It does not matter that Disneyland is a much better destination than the ice cream parlor.

    If I made the promise about the ice cream, KNOWING I had no intention to keep it because I really had Disneyland coming….I would still be telling a lie.

    If you can find me one premillennial theologian who starts his work in chapter one explaining the Ezekiel sacrifices, I will root for Texas against my Sooners next Saturday. Premillennial eschatology is a complicated, detailed, Scriptural based theology held by millions and more than a few smart people out there….It also is not a monolithic belief and there is more than one view among premillennials as to some of the finer points (i.e. sacrifices)

    In a nutshell…I’m happy with a theology that explains all the Bible verses…(ALL of them)…and does not end up with God being a liar. Even if it is belittled by the critics 🙂

  17. Scott says:

    MLD, #14, no, I heard Courson teach that there will be a future physical temple where there will be literal priests, sacrificing literal bulls and offering their blood (memorially) while Jesus sits on a throne set up in this same temple.

    I called it non-sense.

    Not sure why you couldn’t understand what I meant 😉

  18. Steve Wright says:

    For 2000 years literal priests have offered the literal blood of Jesus to be drunk as a memorial offering while Jesus sits on a throne in a heavenly temple and nobody bats an eye.

    Scott, rather than listen to a semon, I would suggest reading some of the Dallas Seminary guys that have written on this subject and seeing the Biblical references, the various beliefs held within the premillennial view and arguments pro and con in favor of each.

  19. Scott, Sorry – I thought your first paragraph was a quote from Courson and then you disagreed with that quote. I get it now.

  20. Steve, I hope your #16 was directed at Goose. I didn’t bring up Ezekiel.

  21. Scott says:

    Steve, thanks for the suggestion. However, I’ll take a pass 😉

  22. “For 2000 years literal priests have offered the literal blood of Jesus to be drunk as a memorial offering while Jesus sits on a throne in a heavenly temple and nobody bats an eye.”

    You may have insight on this that I don’t have. I don’t know of anyone who takes the real presence of Jesus in the communion to be “memorial” as you state. I do know of all who take the practice as efficacious to forgive sin.

    Also, it is being done at the command of Christ. I see no commands of Christ to bring him new sacrifices of bulls and goats.

  23. To me, any talk of a new physical temple and talk of any kind of sacrificial system. “memorial” or otherwise is an outright denial of the book we are studying.

  24. Josh the Baptist says:

    Always fascinating where these conversations go…

  25. Jean says:

    “Surely we don’t expect God to move back into a literal temple do we? … do we?”

    Christians are literal dwelling places for God, so yes we do. It’s got a cornerstone, foundation and a whole lot of other living stones building it up.

    It has a priesthood too, “to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.”

    “In speaking of a new covenant, [Jesus] makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”

    “When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), 9 then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. 10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

    Is it not a rejection of Jesus as the Christ and Scripture to look forward to the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple as the fulfillment of canonical prophesy?

  26. Steve Wright says:

    I don’t know of anyone who takes the real presence of Jesus in the communion to be “memorial” as you state. I do know of all who take the practice as efficacious to forgive sin.
    ——————————————————
    I did not mean memorial in the broad sense of the memorial view.

    So are you affirming that Jesus must be sacrificed and shed his blood repeatedly for sins to be forgiven. A perpetual sacrifice.

    Talk about a total denial of the book of Hebrews! Boy howdy.

  27. Steve Wright says:

    But like I said, if you’re cool with God making promises He had no intention to keep, then go for it…

    Because THAT is the purpose of the millennium kingdom as I believe most premill theologians will attest. God keeping and fulfilling His unconditional promises.

  28. Josh – it sprouts from the text. What was the purpose of the High Priest? What is the purpose of Jesus as High Priest?

    Is the Day of atonement still valid? Are blood sacrifices still to be made? If not, why a new temple – why more blood sacrifices?

  29. Jean, I know where God resides – that’s why I said ““Surely we don’t expect God to move back into a literal temple do we? … do we?”

    Move BACK INTO being key. That we would expect God to move ou of the believer and back into a building.

  30. Steve, “So are you affirming that Jesus must be sacrificed and shed his blood repeatedly for sins to be forgiven. A perpetual sacrifice.”

    Have I ever mentioned that view as valid? Spend a little time in a comparative religions class and you may find that to be an exclusively Roman Catholic view.

  31. Josh the Baptist says:

    Nah, we read our agendas back into the text. We know that we disagree on baptism, communion, and eschatology, so each passage is an opportunity to prove our point. I do not believe that is the purpose of the book of Hebrews.

  32. Steve, “But like I said, if you’re cool with God making promises He had no intention to keep, then go for it…”

    You and your premil associates have misunderstood the promises themselves, their purpose and how they were to be fulfilled – in Christ.

  33. Josh the Baptist says:

    Steve, would i be right in assuming that you are a big fan of Walvoord’s commentary on Daniel?

  34. Steve Wright says:

    Yes, Josh. I read that as part of my commentary reading when I taught through the book. That being said, I don’t remember that he said a whole lot that would be revolutionary from the traditional dispensational view of the book. Which is a large purpose to even bothering to post. When I see some random guy quoted (and usually mocked) around here that was heard on radio or seen on TV, half of the argument seems to be “Look this fool is teaching this – thus the doctrine is held by fools”

    Thinking people who have wrestled with the Scriptures who know the original languages, have their PhDs etc have come to the conclusions I embrace.

    The Body of Christ can agree to disagree on eschatology, but I agree with your sentiment @31 there. Doctrinal hobby horses.

  35. Steve Wright says:

    You and your premil associates have misunderstood the promises themselves, their purpose and how they were to be fulfilled – in Christ.
    ——————————————-
    Not at all. What a woefully ignorant thing to say, like your constant insistence that we teach two paths to heaven with the Jews getting their own way…that we teach Israel as the focus of the Bible instead of Jesus and whatever other nonsense you spout about a teaching you have rejected, now mock, and yet clearly do not properly understand.

  36. Josh the Baptist says:

    (I figured since we abandoned talking about the text, I’d just go alon with things I’m interested in.)

    I like Walvoord’s commentary very much. If I were to critique it at all, I think he spends a bit too much time defending the book against liberals, etc. His arguments are quite strong.

  37. Josh, we did not abandon the text. I tried to move the conversation along to impeccability, which is the next be discussion in the text – Jesus being tempted as are we.

    Goose, Scott and Steve brought it back to the temple stuff.

  38. Josh the Baptist says:

    You ever read Walvoord?

  39. Steve Wright says:

    Josh, one benefit of seminary for me was a reminder I might tone it down a little when disagreeing with scholars. I wrote my Masters Thesis, taking a position that is opposed by Walvoord and the rest of the Dallas Seminary crew and in more than a few places when I had to defend my position I was challenged on my tone in expressing my disagreement in this formal paper.

    To be clear, it was not the logical fallacy of appealing to the expert (as if they can never be wrong) but just my professors gently reminding me that these guys did not just come to their doctrinal beliefs by pulling them out of a cracker jack box My revised word is better after that input.

    There is a reason dispensational theology begins with the discussion of how to interpret prophecy (and the Bible as a whole) and much time is spent discussing the differences and examples of how figurative language is used (and when) and when it is not. There is a reason this is the starting point for disagreement with amill folks on eschatology, and thus it is foolish to jump into arguing the minutia of details when the initial starting point makes all the difference.

    I affirm what is known as not just literal interpretation, but literal, historical, grammatical interpretation because all three, equally, are important.

    Others don’t

    So they interpret differently, even as we all still hold to the Bible being God’s word to mankind,

  40. Josh the Baptist says:

    MLD always…ALWAYS plays innocent on these things, yet he introduced the temple in comment # 3. HAHA!

  41. Steve,
    I guess we read different people. I read (past tense) Schofield and Chafer – both who affirmed that the kingdom was first offered to the Jews, and if they would have accepted, there would be no cross and no church. Both also affirm that because of their failure to accept, Jesus had to go to the cross.

    From this, Dallas Theological Seminary was born.

    And speaking of promises to the Jews, again, I read from different sources. I read from the NT. I find the promises that Jesus owes the Jews to be found at the end of Matt 11. — the Woes to you …

    And one last thing about the Ezekiel temple, and I admit I haven’t studied this for a long time, but if I remember right, there is no command to build this temple and their is no promise to it’s future physical presence. Like John in Revelation, Ezekiel is only to describe what he sees as a present reality..

  42. Josh – my question at #3 was more about the day of atonement – which was the purpose of the temple. New temple, must imply the re institution of the day of atonement. You know it’s taught out there – Scott brought up Courson, I know Chuck and Greg taught it at one time – Hagee teaches it. So it is something that needs to be dealt with when discussing Jesus’ role as our high priest.

    Someone else then asked about Ezekiel’s temple.

    So Josh – what do you think of the impeccability of Jesus?

  43. “You ever read Walvoord?”

    If that was to me yes. I have about a half dozen of his books – not including his 3 versions of the Road to Armageddon , I have Lightner, Zane – Ryrie etc. .

    They were must reads in the early 90s

  44. Josh the Baptist says:

    Good, because I do think he’s the standard when it come to dispensational argumentation. If you are gonna fight against it, you need to know what “it” is.

  45. Josh the Baptist says:

    Some of your caricatures make me think you only watch Jack Van Impe and read Chick tracts. 🙂

  46. Steve Wright says:

    Josh, you left out Hagee too… 🙂 (quoted often by our friend here)

  47. Em says:

    well, i have a tangental question – reading Exodus 30 this morning – the instructions regarding the holy oil, its compounding and its use… it sounds like that was to be made up one time only? forget the heifer, do they have any of that oil?

  48. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    I read, studied and taught the DTS guys for many years. How often and for how long did you guys study and teach from the amil view? I have Schofield and Ryrie study Bible – the Ryrie was my only Bible for 18 yrs.
    I think I can speak to you position much better than you can speak to mine.

    Look, as I mentioned Walvoord has 3 versions of his Armageddon book – a different bad guy each time. Even he is not settled.

    I can read to you Hal Lindsey and Tommie Ice – both prominent modern day DTS graduates.

    Still no opinions on impeccability – I guess you guess really don’t want to move on.

  49. Josh the Baptist says:

    Impeccability is probably one of those matters that is outside of the human ability to understand. Like you said, what we KNOW is that Jesus did not sin. We know that he was tempted. The question of “Could he” seems rhetorical…because He didn’t. Kind of one of those foreknowledge vs. predestination ideas.

  50. Steve Wright says:

    I think I can speak to you position much better than you can speak to mine.
    ———————————————————-
    Three points.

    1) Neither Josh or I make it our focus on this blog to rip amill eschatology. In fact, I never bring it up even in passing except as a connection to one of your criticisms of my doctrinal beliefs.

    2) Yeah you studied it, and you have come to reject it.

    3) There is a huge difference between being a “Dallas Graduate” whose financial survival is focused on eschatology, published by Harvest House etc. and being a PhD scholar who teaches in world class accredited seminary, is published by traditional Christian publishers, and who focuses on the totality of the word of God – and not just one aspect of it.

  51. Josh the Baptist says:

    2 – I hope you have read some of Walvoord’s scholarly work, and not just a 196 page popular booklet.

    3 – I don’t interact much with amillennial scholars, but I also don’t condemn them. If I started talking about Amillennials the way that you talk about dispies, honesty would force me to read and understand the position.

  52. Josh the Baptist says:

    Ah, I see Steve and I were thinking the same…again 🙂

  53. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Josh and Steve,
    If you go back and read the thread, you will see that I never mention Dispensationalists until you recently brought Walvoord and DTS into the discussion. My discussion was about any and all “rapture theology” people who hold to a new temple / sacrificail system view.

    The first attack was leveled by Steve, when he said his view covered and answered ALL the scriptures — as if other views don’t. It was Steve who also tossed out the view that we re sacrifice Christ even thought this was rebuked by the reformers 500 yrs ago.

  54. Josh the Baptist says:

    I answered the impeccability question. What do you think?

  55. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Josh – I answered at #10

  56. Josh the Baptist says:

    Oh. So we agree on that one, basically.

  57. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Yes, let’s agree on more – let’s move to v.16

  58. Josh the Baptist says:

    The Throne of Grace would be the one that Jesus sits upon, at the right hand of the Father.

    Agreed that our time of need is always.

  59. Steve Wright says:

    A final point by me on this discussion. I refer to Dr. Unger. Dr. Unger was a scholar. And a dispensationalist. He did not publish dozens of little works focused solely on eschatology and the latest “signs of the times” to encourage newsletter subscriptions. However, when choosing to write on such things, as with all things, he does so in a scholarly fashion. (Can anyone imagine Lindsey or LaHaye writing and compiling something like the Unger Bible Dictionary??)

    I link to an example here. http://arielcanada.com/en/pdf/DTS/MerrillFUngerEzekielsVisionofIsraelsRestorationPart1.pdf

    I don’t expect anyone to actually carefully read all 21 pages (God knows) but just as an example of what I reference. We see pages of interaction with the opposing view, and the arguments expressed as to why these views (in the opinion of Unger) are wrong. Then a developed multi-page explanation of WHAT, WHY, HOW the view is to be understood. One can choose to disagree with Unger, but at minimum should offer detailed reasons, citing references to Unger’s own words and then one’s own Biblical references (citing the Hebrew would be nice).

    Or….one could admit there are scholars that disagree with amill who are brothers in Christ and leave it at that.

    As I have said before, going through the Old Testament prophets, verse by verse and being forced to teach those passages publicly after finding out what they are saying is the strongest argument I have found for the views I hold. A book like Jeremiah has too much specificity to be dismissed by saying it all refers to the return from Babylon – not if words have any meaning and if the Bible is actually true.

    MLD, my issue is almost on a weekly basis you open a conversation saying “I was listening to Pastor’s Perspective, listening to Pastor X on KWVE, watching Pastor Y on television” and then you offer something they said and ridicule it. Those reading have no context of the remarks, no idea the message, but we are all exposed BY NAME to a Christian brother and servant of the Lord who is then mocked and used as the jumping off point to mock the entire doctrine that so many of us, (and so many scholars) actually hold to.

    (Of course, as I noted last week, when you lift your own message material from a dispy, no mention is cited 🙂 )

    If you went through an article like this one by Unger and offerered a detailed refutation, that would be one thing. That’s what theology among brothers is all about.

  60. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Steve, you are funny like Eddie Murphy. If I am not talking about your view, then Mazel tov! But I am speaking about those who do speak in this manner – and their are plenty of them.
    As I said, I did not identify the position as dispensational – I usually identify as the American Rapture Theology crowd.

    I don’t understand your beef – if I say I was listening to someone who expounded the new temple / sacrificial system and I say that I think it is wrong what’s wrong with that? If I say I thing Hal Lindsey, Tommie Ice and Tim LaHaye are wrong, what is wrong with that? If I say (as I did) that the last day of atonement was on Good Friday and these guys have new sacrifices going on, what is wrong with me pointing out they are wrong and not similar to what these folks in Hebrews were doing – leaving the superior, leaving what is final and going back to a now defunct system?

    Help me here.Go back and read my #3 and tell me where you disagree. Is it that you don’t agree that Good Friday ended days of atonement… for the whole world.

    What is Jesus’ role as our HP?

  61. Steve Wright says:

    MLD – I just chimed in when you and others were mocking the idea of sacrifices in the millennium. I’m done now.

    Josh- One thing about the Daniel study. I read Walvoord but alongside I also read Edward Young’s commentary in the Banner of Truth series, the Reformed scholar from Westminster, and I read a 3rd guy whose name escapes me who was of the more liberal persuasion when it comes to the Bible.

    I did something similar with Jeremiah as well. I think that is helpful in preparation rather than just reading Walvoord (who I know I already largely agree with) and 2-3 Walvoord disciples…

  62. Josh the Baptist says:

    I’m in a class on Daniel. Walvoord is the primary text. I’ve also been reading Max Anders, Duguid (Reformed Commentary Series), A.R. Millard, John Phillips, and John Macarthur. So far. I’ve got a few more that I haven’t referenced yet.

  63. Josh the Baptist says:

    Millard is from the F.F. Bruce INternational Commentary.

  64. Josh the Baptist says:

    When I’m teaching, I don’t offer a lot of opposing viewpoints, unless I’m pretty sure it is something the class will have to encounter at some point. I stick closer to a couple of pastoral commentaries like Phillips and Wiersbe for the most part.

  65. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Are any of these guys from an amil view
    Here is a suggestion

    https://www.cph.org/p-694-daniel-concordia-commentary.aspx

  66. Josh the Baptist says:

    Duguid is, for sure.

  67. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    A challenge to Steve – when you say “MLD – I just chimed in when you and others were mocking the idea of sacrifices in the millennium. I’m done now.”

    I have made 24 comments up to this point – 15 of which were on this topic of sacrifices in the millennium. Would you point out the ones that I mock. I think I have been clear that I think the teaching of such practice is wrong, and in light of the book study in Hebrews we must point that out – but I do not see a single mock

    You accused me of re sacrificing Christ weekly and Josh said my reading habits are limited to Chick tracts – but I have not belittled anyone – even as I have tried to turn the topic away, back to impeccability and the throne of grace with no luck.

  68. Steve Wright says:

    Challenge accepted.

    You wrote “Have I ever mentioned that view as valid? Spend a little time in a comparative religions class and you may find that to be an exclusively Roman Catholic view.”

    What I wrote earlier stated literal priests. In response to how foolish the idea supposedly was that priests would offer blood sacrifices in the millennium after the cross. Now, I am sure you did not mean to mock me with the crack about spending time in class, since you know my background, formal education etc. and I am sure even you know that I realize Lutherans do not have priests (and no, not talking about the priesthood of all believers) But to be clear, I did not “accuse” YOU of anything. You said those who see the real presence do not see a memorial in view. I’ll let you sort out the distinctions and how much you do or don’t want to align with the Catholics in your haste to oppose memorialists on blogs and move on…The key point was that it was expressed as lunacy that priests would offer blood sacrifices after the cross and yet in point of fact that happens every day in Christian churches around the world.

    You keep dodging post #3 – your second offering to the thread. You quote YOURSELF from the notes, then use it to jump off and start talking what is your description of nonsense – a direct shot on premill eschatology. You do so in a way that (when goose asked you a question in specific followup to that post #3) betrays your ignorance once more to dispensationalism and what we think is going to happen prophetically and what it does and does not mean. Which opened the door for the discussion of the millennial temple (a totally different thing)

    Now if you got your feelings hurt when I said the thing about all the verses, I think I was clear in this thread that going through Jeremiah and other like books verse by verse, taking the words to mean what words mean enforced my beliefs (citing specifically the words about regathering into the land from all nations, never being uprooted again etc to not possibly have a total fulfillment with Babylon)…and I said that you and I differ on how to interpret the BIble as a starting point, which we do, and yet both hold to the truth of the word.

    Truly my final word on this this week.

    1) Let’s recognize that blogs are easy to misunderstand or to not be as clear as we could/should. In other words the speaker and the hearer both have challenges.

    2) But at the same time, let’s own our words when they are clear and stop the whole “I didn’t bring it up, I didn’t mock anyone” stuff

    3) Let’s read carefully to see what in fact the other did write or did not write lest we err as in point one.

  69. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Steve, fair enough.

  70. Josh the Baptist says:

    I’m not done yet. I’m bringing it strong…

    Just kidding.

    MLD, I was joking about the Chick tracts, not making the point that those are you read, but that is the view you present when arguing against dispensationalism. It would be kinda like if I argued against you by only quoting ECLA goofballs. Hey, they are Lutherans, too!

    Anywho, I like Chick tracts. Kinda bizarre, absurd, pop art.

  71. Jean says:

    I’m not done either…

    MLD wrote: “Yes, let’s agree on more – let’s move to v.16”

    OK, Verse 16:

    “Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.”

    Christians draw near to the throne of grace because our High Priest has “passed through the heavens” and as Paul wrote in Ephesians: “God…raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus”. God draws us near in Christ, and with that intimacy we can pray with “confidence” (i.e., boldness) “in time of need” (i.e., during persecution, illness, loss of a loved one, financial setback, etc.). We can pray the Psalms with boldness in our times of need, such as Psalm eighty-eight.

    The Levitical high priest can only “deal compassionately” with those (i.e., us) “who are ignorant and erring”. By contrast, Jesus is capable of “sympathizing” with “our weakness” because he “has been tempted in every way just as we are, yet without sin.”

    I don’t buy MLD’s anchovy analogy. If MLD hates anchovies, then he wouldn’t be tempted by the offer of an anchovy pizza. I would suggest that we accept the written Word in this matter at face value. It clearly says Jesus was tempted in every way just as we are, yet without sin. Imagine Adam before the fall. He was without sin, yet Adam succumbed to temptation. Jesus was also born without sin, yet He was born of corrupted flesh. Jesus repeatedly encountered but did not succumb to temptation. However, in the garden of Gethsemane Jesus was sincerely tempted to avoid the cross. He didn’t succumb to that temptation, but the pathos of that scene is unmistakable. That a sympathetic High Priest makes. One can imagine the martyrs of the Church in every age praying “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.”

    So, so far our confession includes (1) Jesus is the Son of god, and (2) Jesus is our High Priest.

  72. Josh – I don’t argue against dispensationalism. Steve has made it very clear that dispensationalist don’t believe the things that I say “nonsense” to.

    I rail against those who espouse American Rapture Theology as I said above. I don’t know why some find that offensive. When people here go on against the word faith people or the Benny Hinn type healers etc no one stands or is offended – we discuss it.

    But mention that you find the whole future temple / sacrificial system as odd as the word faith movement and that brings out the opposition – especially in light of the book of Hebrews.

    btw, I was not offended by the Chick tracts comment – that’s what we do here. 😉

  73. “If MLD hates anchovies, then he wouldn’t be tempted by the offer of an anchovy pizza.”

    If Jesus hates sin, he wouldn’t be tempted by the offer of sin. 😉

  74. Jean says:

    “If Jesus hates sin, he wouldn’t be tempted by the offer of sin.”

    I hate sin too. I’m tempted all the time.

  75. v.16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

    Is that not the ultimate description of being at the altar rail – approaching the presence of the body and blood of our lord and savior to receive what is promised in the communion – to find mercy and peace in our time of need.

  76. Jean, so which is your position then – check the box
    1.) Jesus is capable of sinning but overcame all temptation
    2.) Jesus is incapable of sin.

    Mine is #1, but I don’t think he reacted to all temptations as we do.

  77. Jean says:

    MLD, My comments were clear that my position is #1. This position is based on a plain reading of the text, as I explained above. However, I will add in addition that a Jesus incapable of sinning would also distort the doctrine of the incarnation.

  78. Jean, recognizing that this topic is all head games, I would like to ask;
    Are we sinners because we sin or do we sin because we sinners? Think about that in light of the incarnation – where would Jesus be?

  79. Jean says:

    MLD, the mystery of the incarnation is that Jesus had the innocence of Adam before his sin, yet Jesus was incarnate of corrupted flesh. That’s my answer to your #78. 🙂

  80. Em says:

    is it possible that Jesus lived his whole earthly life in the state of affairs that a born-again person enters late into? the difference being that Jesus from the day of his physical birth was in fellowship with the Father and therefore, His Spirit was able to control His flesh by choice? for us who come late to a redeemed state (not quite what Adam knew at his creation) are bent in the direction of the flesh? it’s a catch phrase, but it is true: able to sin and able not to sin

    one of the reasons that i, obviously cannot accept that a baby can be baptized into a spirit controlled life from birth is that we are born body and soul … somewhere down the line we must chose whom our souls will serve – our dying bodies/flesh or a redeeming God, who offers us a spirit birth – Jesus was God in human flesh, not human flesh searching for God… there was that moment on the cross when He became sin for us… unfathomable and unspeakable moment that rocked heaven and earth…

    just pondering over here as pondering the KP Yohannans of the world make me non-functional spiritually

  81. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    em, I think you need to reevaluate 2 things about babies being baptized.
    1.) they are spiritually alive from birth – look at John the Baptist in Luke 1 – he was praising the Lord even in the womb.
    2.) The biggest area that I think non baby baptizing people have is to realize who is doing the work in baptism. If it is God, as I say it is, he is saving his people at any age, breaking into the strong man’s house like a thief, tying up the strong man and stealing his possession.
    3.) If it’s the person doing the work, well, I guess he had better be well verses before deciding to allow Jesus to be savior in their life.

    God made his biggest covenant while Abraham slept through it. I wonder if Abe woke up and said, “wait, you can doing that without my permission!” 🙂

  82. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    This is what is so good about Hebrews. In all the descriptions of Jesus as mre superior, he is even more superior than a sleeping baby’s will.

  83. Josh the Baptist says:

    Nooooo, we don’t read in our doctrinal bias into the text at all. HAHAHAHAH

  84. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    So it was a spiritless John the B leaping in his mother’s womb? Interesting.

  85. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Hey Josh, do you know of Western Ave Baptist Church in Statesville NC?

  86. Jean says:

    “Nooooo, we don’t read in our doctrinal bias into the text at all. HAHAHAHAH”

    So, what else is new? Everyone reads through their own presuppositions. MLD is transparent about where he’s coming from.

    The real question is, who is willing to critically evaluate his/her presuppositions against Scripture and other traditions? MLD has done this all his life and has landed where he is coming from Evangelical and SBC after much study and discernment. We should all be as self-critical as MLD.

  87. Josh the Baptist says:

    Yes, I do know of Western Avenue Baptist, why?
    When we were first married my wife and I lived in Statesville. WABC was one of the main too churches in town. My wife worked at the other one.

  88. Em says:

    MLD, is a baby alive spiritually? i’m not willing to give you that… when John the Baptist’s mother felt her baby leap at Mary’s declaration i’m not willing to say that John “heard” the declaration… but among those born of women there was none greater than John and he may have received his anointing in the womb… dunno…
    but anoint your babies and offer their lives to God in Faith – the ones you love the most – i have no quarrel with such a beautiful thing and go ahead and believe that God saves them then and there, but raise them in nurture and admonition nonetheless, eh? as i’m sure every good baby baptizing parent does do…
    oops, you don’t baptize, do you? God does that… hmmm… well then every baby that you bring to God…
    God keep

  89. Josh – They seem to be a amil SBC church. I found their classes in Revelation online. I am always on the lookout for non Lutheran or non liturgical churches who are amil so I can share it with others without the stain of “you Lutherans…”

  90. em, “But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45 Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!”

    It is fact that Jesus wanted the children brought to himself – and when he spoke of faith, he said that you must have the faith of little children – the word including infants. So, what faith do the little children have that we are suppose to copy?

    This is what is happening in Hebrews – the people are thinking their way out of the faith, instead of staying in childlike faith.

  91. em, churches that baptize babies do just that – train them up, catechize and confirm.

    But I ask you, how do you teach a child the things of the spirit if they do not already have the spirit in them?

  92. Em says:

    yes, to the Scripture quoted, John was filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb and exactly what that means i don’t know… but he did hit the ground running…
    and yes, Jesus does want the children brought to Him, but i read that as instructing them, lovingly teaching them … not baptizing them, but, i repeat myself… hmmm…
    if you had a child baptized in infancy and were raising him/her in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, if that child at a later age asked to be baptized, wanted to “experience” their own obedience by doing so – sprinkle or dunk – would that child be told, no?

  93. Em says:

    how does one teach anyone the things of the Spirit? line upon line and precept upon precept – milk for babes, strong meat for mature in Christ… can a child be born again, receiving a spiritual birth? i am sure that they can and some undoubtedly grow like young seeds from an early and unnoticed birth …. enough on that … pray for the children

  94. But Jesus never commanded anyone to get baptized to experience their own obedience. He baptized so he could deliver good gifts of forgiveness, the holy spirit and salvation.

    “would that child be told, no?” I would tell the person no – but as you know, no one listens to me. If baptism is God’s work, then to re-baptize is saying “God, you didn’t do it good enough.”

    Lutherans do not re-baptize anyone who had a trinitarian baptism. You could be EO, RCC SBC or have had Chuck Smith himself baptize you in the waters at Corona del Mar – we will not ask you to get it done over.

  95. In shoet – it’s not about us and our experience.

  96. Em says:

    well, in ‘shoet,’ in one respect it IS about us… praises to a Creator, Who loved the world (that’s us) and proved it with an unspeakable gift

    but God’s truth is absolute and not experience, nor for the most part, doctrines dependent…

    thank God for grace and mercy

  97. Josh the Baptist says:

    SBC doesn’t have a set eschatology other than the bodily return of Christ, but most are definitely pre-mil. Western Ave. could be amil, but why would you think that?

  98. Josh the Baptist says:

    “X. Last Things

    God, in His own time and in His own way, will bring the world to its appropriate end. According to His promise, Jesus Christ will return personally and visibly in glory to the earth; the dead will be raised; and Christ will judge all men in righteousness. The unrighteous will be consigned to Hell, the place of everlasting punishment. The righteous in their resurrected and glorified bodies will receive their reward and will dwell forever in Heaven with the Lord.”

    That is the only eschatological statement in the Baptist Faith and Message. I’m assuming amillers could subscribe to that. Preterists would probably be excluded, but other than that, it’s all good.

  99. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Josh – their pastor of education taught a 40 week class from the amil view. I just found it interesting and since they were in NC I wondered if you knew of them.

  100. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    yes, the amil could subscribe to that 100% as that is the totality of the end times events. 🙂

  101. Josh the Baptist says:

    AH cool. I have a friend who is (or was) on staff there. He’s an evangelist. Went to undergrad together.

  102. Josh the Baptist says:

    I think Preterists would object to “Physical return” and “to the earth”, right?

  103. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    I think a Preterist thinks Jesus already came, judgement was on Israel in 70AD … but I don’t know how they tie the bow at the end.

    Amil just goes pretty much by Matt 25:31-46

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Phoenix Preacher

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading