To End All Wars – The Heart of Mercy

Posted on June 4, 2008 by Chuck Coty
I finally secured my copy of “To End All Wars” (2001). It was as powerful as it was brutal. What a masterpiece! I rarely watch movies but since this one came so highly recommended by two esteemed friends in the faith, I stayed the course alone, enthralled with the many apparent contradictions of life. “For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.” 1Cor 12:10 (ESV) The movie’s native POW setting and graphic details were certain to violate my wife Debbie’s gentle sensibilities–so I spared her from such.

This is on the order of a modern day Passion of the Christ. Every emotion imaginable is intertwined within this beautifully scripted work of art.

Writer Brian Gadawa deals with the worst depravity has to offer against the qualities found only in those endowed with the Spirit of Christ. Gadawa who wrote an excellent paper, “The Promise to Abraham” (a must read regarding the true “Israel of God”) is no stranger to the concepts of bigotry and the stereotypes that foster oppression and devalue human life.

Even the hate, fear and vengeance that are on stark display in the brutality of war, wilt under the incredible pressure of mercy and forgiveness. It’s what the Christianity of Scriptures would look like today had it not been hijacked by the mindset of the average westernized 21st century believer. Kill the Islamofascists before they kill us we cry. Evangelist Rod Parsley said, “Amercia was founded in part by seeing this false religion (Islam) destroyed”. “Destroyed” is a very volitile word that serves to inflame the passions of Muslims, Jews and Christians.

Is Parsely speaking of destruction through peaceful conversion by the non-violent gospel-preaching methods of Peter and Paul (murdered by their audience) or ultimately by military aggression? Since I’ve had time to reflect over these past 2 1/2 years, today’s vitriol that emanates from the mega-church’s “religious right”, seems so foreign to the message of the New Testament. Have we not lost the message of Christ? Were the beatitudes to be confined to Christ’s earthly existence?

Love your enemies. Pray for those who persecute you. Turn the other cheek. Vengeance is mine says the Lord. Until recently, these concepts were totally foreign to me. I read them as though they had no relevance in my life. I had a sense of duty to help others pay the price for making me uncomfortable (but always with the rationalization that it was a righteous indignation). In reality more like sinful resignation.

“To End All Wars” presents a model of first century Christianity in its finest hour, where hope, sacrifice and a passionate commitment to Christ, overcome the most horrific adversity of torture and ultimately death.

Acts 7:60 (NASB) Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them!” Having said this, he fell asleep.

Do we not all long to have the compassion of Stephen, capable of truly loving our enemies with this kind of selfless abandon? Can we joyfully accept the “plundering of our goods”? (Don’t forget the context of the following Hebrews’ passage written in the latter part of the 60’s AD, just prior to the Destruction of Jerusalem. Audience relevance must be constantly on our minds, especially as we reach verse 37, which was the short term hope of these heavily persecuted believers)

Hebrews 10:32-37 (NASB) But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings, 33 partly by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated. 34 For you showed sympathy to the prisoners and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and a lasting one. 35 Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36 For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised. 37 For yet in a very little while, He who is coming will come, and will not delay.

“What is the final destination of hatred? When you look into the eyes of your enemy and you see yourself…” These were the disturbing words at the movie’s end. They dare us to look within.

Oh that I could be “Dusty”, a POW so captivated and saturated with the Gospel of Christ that he was completely compelled to live its message. A faith so tangible that it left him no choice but to demonstrate the love of Christ, not merely to his friends but to his enemies as well.

John 15:12-13 (NASB)“This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you. 13 “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.

I thought the following excerpt from a Christianity Today review was extremely poignant:

Cunningham explains that the film is “not a Christian movie, and we don’t want it portrayed as one.” In an interview with The Oregonian, he elaborated: “The rating is an R and my frustration [with conservative Christians] is this: that over the last few years, all the great movies—Schindler’s List, Dead Man Walking, The Shawshank Redemption and Amistad—are all R-rated pictures, and everybody should be seeing them. They’ll accept PG-13 in The Fast and the Furious but not the R of Schindler’s List. The church should not be basing its decisions on that system, which covers such a range.”

When asked why he doesn’t follow the route of films like Left Behind and The Omega Code, Cunningham explains, “They almost seem to me like fear-motivated messages—’turn or burn’ kind of things. I don’t think they’re related to modern life. It may be well meaning, but none of these people are filmmakers; they’re all evangelists trying to use film. My heart and desire has been to make a film that causes you to think. It’s not based on fear, but on the struggles that we have inside us.”

Don’t get me wrong. This was not an easy movie to watch. It will not leave you feeling entertained. Neither did The Passion of the Christ. Both should be seen and assimilated. Drained you will be, and stretched for certain, but disappointed you will not be.

Posted in Updates | Leave a comment

Is McCain able? The line is in the sand

Posted on April 11, 2008 by Chuck Coty
After watching this short video clip you may begin to understand why I voted for Keyes in this year’s Florida presidential primary and why I hope Alan Keyes becomes our Constitution Party candidate, and ultimately the president of the United States. Wishful thinking? Perhaps.


I have been continually bullied by proclaimed conservatives like Gary Bauer who is in reality quite unabashedly more sold out to a party than a set of non-negotiable values. He insists that a vote cast for anyone other than McCain is a wasted vote and therefore believes it is imperative that we “close ranks”. Why does it always come down to fear? Why are we considered less than patriotic for principle-based voting? I’m quite frankly tired of being manipulated to violate my conscience that I believe is heavily influenced by the residence of God the Holy Spirit.

I contend that it is sometimes necessary to willingly take a few steps back in order to eventually take gargantuan leaps forward. Yes, I do believe a vote for Keyes may in fact be in essence a hanging Obama chad, which ultimately could spell disaster on many levels. So am I therefore obligated to vote for McCain, a man so distant from my faith-controlled values? In dreaming of casting my ballot for McCain I wake up in cold sweats knowing that I have sold out to expediency over righteousness. At what point do we as believers draw our lines in the sand and say, “Enough is enough!”

I reached that position 2 years ago after watching George W. Bush, who Bauer proclaimed savior of Republican Party, literally wreak havoc on the basic tenets that “W” so exuberantly asserted. I voted for him in 2000 and then against my better judgment again in ’04. Just a short while before that ‘04 presidential election I had been challenged by long time friend Debbie Beckett to consider a candidate from the Constitution Party who more accurately reflected our values. At that point I felt that it was too late to make such a move. I argued that the Supreme Court’s balance of power was at stake and therefore I could not in good conscience veer from another Bush term.

Well, I’ve seen and had enough. If the Republicans are not going to act in a manner consistent with the Biblical principles I hold dear (most of which were stated in the party platform) then I cannot in good conscience continue to endorse this charade.

Over the past 7 years we have been spent into oblivion and during the first 6 it was at the hands of a consolidated Republican monopoly that I had always dreamed would take us to the promised land of righteousness and prosperty. Back in ’94, I was convinced that Newt and the boys, along with the emergence of the Contract for America, would turn things around in favor of Biblical principles i.e. against big government, abortion on demand, and for traditional values.

Joe Scarborough in his book (on my nightstand), “Rome Wasn’t Burnt in a Day (2004), describes how all but a tiny handful of those newly elected congressmen (dedicated to the tenets in that contract) abdicated their commitments so quickly. After the greed-facilitated Washington social network took its toll even their pledge for term limits was abandoned for the trash heap.

And where did Colon Powell, the man most responsible for our invasion of Iraq, go? What is he saying today about our war with Iraq? What does Colon Powell’s former Chief of Staff, Colonel Larry Wilkerson, have to say about WMD and Iraq? 

Listen, I am not becoming a shill for the Democrat Party. Far be it! However, I do believe that as Christ-followers we should do everything in our power to obtain and dispense truth. Do I believe everything Wilkerson says? No. Do I think Colon Powell’s departure from the repub party should have been a red flag? I think so.

What I do know is that I can’t continue to support policies and principles that are in direct conflict with Holy Scripture. It’s quite clear that this administration had the intention to wage war against Iraq before they took their places in the Oval Office—a full year ahead of 9/11. The baloney about WMD, democratizing and freeing the Iraqi people was mere window dressing necessary to dupe the America people. I don’t say this lightly becaus this is a rather a rather sad commentary on the veracity of this administration’s personel. I spent days researching this issue in hopes that I would not confirm my growing suspicions. I vehemently defended this adminstration again pariah Michael Moore and yet I’m forced to report that I believe there was at least a modicum of truth behind his attacks.

If that is claim is doubted then consider the views of Paul O’Neill, a two-year member of the Bush cabinet as Treasury Secretary. These revelations are problematic at best. Sure O’Neill had an axe to grind but are we to continue to trivialize the comments of all those who at one time took prominent positions within the administration? And lest we think this has nothing to do with Israel, then we are naïve. Watch the video below as well as the You decide 2004 video regarding O’Neill’s book, and the 60 Minutes Interview.


It has been through the realization that, although important, political operatives cannot exact change on this land and many times do things deleterious to our freedoms—they will never supplant or subvert our role as ambassadors of the Kingdom. In my view change will never spring from a top-down strategy. Certainly we don’t relish placing those in power that are in opposition to that which is good, decent and right, but we must know that God is always in control no matter who it is that governs us. It will most certainly not make the ensuing difficulties more palatable but it will lend the necessarily confidence to forcefully proceed in spite of the odds.

Jesus wasn’t murdered at the hands of men but by God’s sovereign decree. Rulers are in the palm of God’s hand.

  • So Pilate said* to Him, “You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?” 11 Jesus answered, “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.” John 19:10-11 (NASB)
God did not abrogate His thrown 2,000 years ago and He certainly hasn’t done so in 2008. It is only through His children, living in a manner consistent with the principles laid down in Scripture, which will afford us the kind of existence we treasure. The propagation of the Gospel is our only hope.

In AD 27 when Jesus launched His public ministry it was apparent that Jews wanted an earthly Messiah. They desperately desired to have a powerful political figure lead them out of the hundreds of years of oppression and bondage. But their Messiah didn’t come as an earthly King and He never will. How long will it be before we realize that the Kingdom will never be about flesh and blood? Jesus said:

  • “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.” John 18:36 (NASB)
The Apostle Paul wrote:

  • Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 1 Corinthians 15:50 (NASB)
Our Kingdom is spiritual. The New Covenant blessings of righteousness, salvation, resurrection, eternal life, sanctification and redemption are purely spiritual. That’s why the Gospel does not come with persuasive speech but by the power of God. (Rom 1:16) This Kingdom cannot be and never will be observed for it is only through the eyes of faith that it can be “seen”.

This is how Jesus answered the Pharisees when they confronted Him about an earthly Kingdom:

  • Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; 21 nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.” Luke 17:20-21 (NASB)
Do we make the same mistake longing for the types and shadows when the King is already before us—when His spirit already inhabits our very being? We cannot “see” because we are still partially blinded by the veil of Moses (2Cor 3:13-18). The veil that should have been fully lifted in Christ still clouds our view because we don’t see with the eyes of faith. For we know that without faith it is impossible to please God yet most of us live lives controlled by empiricism—and I might add the same empiricism that guides the atheist.

  • Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1 (NASB)
In my humble opinion I think we have a crisis of faith within the church. We exalt the natural but yet it is only the spiritual that is permanent. For goodness sakes I’m not some sort of Gnostic seeing no temporal value in anything physical. However, are the eternal blessings of God physical in nature? God’s Kingdom can never be prevailed against because it is not of a physical/natural nature.

The King told us when He would return and yet we cannot “see it” because the eyes of our faith are too dim. Paul tells us that the orderly progression is first the types and shadows manifested in the natural/temporal—then comes the reality which is wrought in the spiritual/eternal through the person and work of Christ Jesus.

  • However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 1 Corinthians 15:46-47 (NASB)
Our faith must never take rest in the earthly atmosphere deemed conducive to the propagation of the Gospel. It should not be shunned but no matter the environment, the Gospel cannot be defeated. Matter of fact, it was through persecution that the early church thrived.

The Apostle Peter, writing in approx AD 67, knew that the earthly Roman authority was not ultimately in control of his destiny. Times were very grim from a material/temporal perspective. Many of his compatriots had already been murdered for their faith. Peter was abundantly aware that the Judaizing scoffers (2Pet 3:4) were out in full force when he wrote, “The end of all things is near” (1Pet 4:7)—“the glory that is about to be revealed” (1Pet 5:1)—“He is ready to judge the living and the dead” (1Pet 4:5). It had already been 36 or 37 years since Jesus’ “this generation” proclamation and the natives were growing restless—Jesus had not yet arrived. Aid was just around the corner. The Thessalonians had been promised near term vindication. The stage was set to see the faithfulness of God poured out to all the oppressed. Peter along with every Apostle was martyred and yet through inspiration he wrote:

  • Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. 15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. 16 Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. 17 Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king. 1 Peter 2:13-17 (NASB)
Peter knew that his marching orders came directly from the Lord Jesus Christ. Physical death was not his enemy and neither is it ours. That’s why he did not fear the political establishment that merely controlled his earthly estate. (Mt 10:28)

Why have I taken this particular path to help dispel the myth that we must dutifully vote for John McCain or we will lose ground? I think we need the confidence to know that our hope is not in an earthly leader. Peter and the early church believers thrived in an atmosphere of contention and opposition to the Gospel. Governments can attempt to remove the mention of God from the public square but it will never be successful. As long as we are there the presence and power of God is as well.

At this point as I reflect back on my life I have made the commitment to attempt to leave this place in better stead then when we arrived. How can that be objectively quantified? I’m not altogether certain but one thing’s clear, we are not where we once were. This admission is not one of defeat but of reality. How can we get the train back on track?

It cannot and will not be accomplished solely on the back of the political system. I believe that making disciples in all nations is the only legacy I want to leave behind. If believers begin to take the claims of Christ seriously, the political process will change and the religions of Islam, atheism and Judaism will be defeated. This is our promise if we make Jesus both Savior and Lord of our lives.

In closing consider Gordon James Klingenschmitt’s reasoning for not voting for John McCain.


Let me state for the record that I believe John McCain stands closer than Clinton or Obama to Biblically sanctioned values. But then again so does Jeremiah Wright as compared to Adolf Hitler. The fact is that McCain is so far off the mark that it prompted James Dobson to say, “I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances”. Be that as it may, I’m looking far past the next 4-8 years. I think we must begin to plan for the long haul and stop this short-term thinking. Sadly many Christ-followers believe (and I think it cannot be supported Biblically) that we won’t even be here 25 years from now and in so doing they have unwittingly taken themselves out of the game.

Regardless of eschatology I think this short-term mentality must be confronted and debunked. We must develop a worldview consistent with the implications of a resurrected Savior. Defeatism must be abolished and relegated to the pre-AD 70 generation to which it was prophesied. Positive change can and will occur when we in mass begin recognizing that the redemptive plan of Christ has been completed. Death has been destroyed and we are free without encumbrance to follow the law of Christ!

Our victory will only come as a grassroots effort where righteousness is the prevailing influence and in the context of the greatest commands.

  • Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! the Lord our God is one Lord ; 31 and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart , and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength .’ 31 “The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself .’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” Mark 12:29-31 (NASB)

Posted in Updates | Leave a comment

Death in the Garden: Physical or Spiritual?

Posted on March 24, 2008 by Chuck Coty

Was God’s Garden death sentence physical, spiritual or both? Answering this question is of extreme importance if we are to properly understand the death spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5:12ff. Consider the following statement from Jesus just before He raised Lazarus from his 4 day encounter with physical death. Was Lazarus’ physical resurrection a shadow of things to come?

  • Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” John 11:24-26 (ESV)

Those who die “shall live” and those alive “shall never die”. Both the living and those that have passed on are made alive in Christ. Jesus is most certainly speaking of spiritual life and therefore the common denomenator between the physically alive and dead, is “spiritual birth”. With that as a background let’s move to the sequence of events that brought us to the place of the cross.

What took place that fateful day in the Garden of Eden on,

April 15, 0081 A.M. (Anno Mundi—a running clock from the beginning) that forever plunged man into the abyss of oppressive wickedness, thus requiring this regeneration required to commune with God? Actually we truly have no clue as to the first transgression’s date or year but in honor of what may be the most despised day in the U.S., I thought it was only fitting to tie sin’s origination with income tax day. 🙂

  • So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Genesis 3:6 (ESV)

There is virtually no theological misunderstanding regarding Adam’s original edict-breaking decision (at least not that I am aware of), but there is a great deal of controversy relative to the nature of the death that was to befall Adam and Eve. It is this “death” that I will attempt to address. Was the nature of “the death” physical or spiritual? If we don’t correctly identify the precise consequence then we will incorrectly apply the solution.

There’s no doubt that the desire to make autonomous choices was at the heart of this original sin. That very special fruit that hung on the tree in the middle of the garden, apparently looked irresistible, tasted like the most heavenly desert and was promised to bring wisdom on par with the Creator. So what else is new? Aren’t these one in the same temptations we daily succumb to that evidence our link to Adam’s “sin nature”?

I used to wonder why the demonstration of our faith was so important to God. I’d say to myself, “Self, I thought God’s ultimate desire was for my obedience?” Even obedience outside the context of faith is apparently of little value to the Lord. We are told that “without faith it is impossible to please Him” (Heb 11:6a) The Apostle Paul wrote, “For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” (Rom 14:23b) I believe the reason God covets faith is because it violates the autonomous nature that feeds our fleshly desires.

Utter dependence on God, believing that He alone is sovereign, runs against every molecule of our Adamic nature. Becoming like a child, totally dependent upon God, mocks our seeming independence. Even the most popular soteriology of our day, arminianism, is consistent with the belief that we are self-sufficient determinative creatures. We say, how dare God tell us what to do! I can choose or not choose Him as I see fit! Ah, but this idea stems from a misunderstanding of the very nature of our condition. I’m forever writing a paper entitled, “Dead Men Can’t Jump”. It typifies the total depravity of the human race, launched by that notorious garden couple.

What were the immediate and ultimate consequences of Adam and Eve’s violation of God’s law? I believe a misstep in our understanding of the Garden crime’s commensurate punishment, has created a great deal of confusion resulting in some rather faulty presuppositions.

This heinous act was a willful and premeditated contravention of God’s only law. As a point of emphasis it should be recognized that man was created outside the lush surroundings of Eden.

  • The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and keep it. Genesis 2:15 (ESV)

At this juncture it is not my intention to deal with man’s mortality or the origination of evil but it should be duly noted that the both the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil predated Adam’s insertion into this paradise. I think this speaks to the very nature of man’s originally sinless longevity.

  • And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 2:9 (ESV)

The Commandment

Let’s look at the composition of the entire body of law that existed during the first millennium of God’s creation. As opposed to the 612 laws that would eventually be instituted, there was but one command.

  • And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Genesis 2:16-17 (ESV)

Consider the details of this edict. It is here where I think an errant presupposition has been inserted—and as such it is not confirmed by the text. To properly understand the Scripture, I believe it’s an absolute necessity to learn to take out of (exegesis) and not read into (eisogesis) the text. Man need only obey one simple command and his disobedience produced a rather obvious result—death. Spiritual or physical?

The Punishment

What was the retribution for violating this decree? Was it physical death? The above passage clearly states that they were to “surely die”. Simple, right? This is where we need to check our assumptions at the cover of the Word.

In Genesis 2:17, did God say, “…the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for if you eat of it you shall surely die”? Read this statement again. It seems to be that most interpret the verse in the manner in which I restated it. As Michelangelo is credited as saying, “the devil is in the details”, and in this instance the details of God’s first law are of monumental significance.

What was the punishment for this atrocious crime of desiring to usurp God’s sovereignty and be a god unto themselves? I ask it again. Was the punishment physical death? I’m being redundant at this juncture because I think it is incumbent upon us not to be blinded by presupposition.

In the above reading of Genesis 2:17 did you miss anything? I did. Unlike our current penal system, God’s punishment was to be every bit as swift as it was certain. There was no trial. There was to be no appellate process. The verdict was final and the transgressors experienced the immediacy of the consequences. I ask again, did God say, “if you eat of it you shall surely die”? Absolutely not! If we add to or remove from God’s Word we end up in a world of chaos. I intentionally left out a key prepositional phrase that’s found in the passage quoted above.

For God said, “in the day” you eat you will “surely die”. Yes, they were to die but the death was to be “in the day”, not hundreds of years future. Retribution for eating the fruit of this special tree was not to be carried out at some future indeterminate time but was to be immediate—it was to happen the same day. Would you agree?

God did not say that man would die 800 or 900 years after the offense (we are told that Adam lived 930 years). This is absolutely crucial. God specifically told Adam and Eve that their death sentence for disobedience would be carried out the very day they ate from the forbidden tree. So at this point the question on the table is: was God faithful to this promised same-day judgment?

Keeping this query simmering, let’s move on to the interaction between the Mr. Ed of reptiles and the original first lady.

By contrast what did the serpent tell Eve?

  • But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. Genesis 3:4 (ESV)

As a sidebar, I think it’s rather interesting to note that the serpent’s plan of attack went through the woman who was not directly and specifically given the directive by God (at least that is recorded in Scripture). Clearly Adam must have passed down God’s command to Eve (she was obviously accountable) because with only a minor addition regarding touch, she quoted God’s command verbatim back to the rowdy reptile. As we know, the serpent attempted to use a little misdirection by including all the trees of the garden as part of God’s rule, but the key here is in the serpent’s reply to Eve. “You will not surely die”.

At this point we have an obvious challenge to God. This wicked creature told Eve that she would not die, while God had made it abundantly clear that she and Adam would not only die but their death would occur the very day they partook. This to me is the epicenter of this issue and it must be dealt with if we are to reach the heart of the sin problem.

The theological conclusions of many today unwittingly side with the serpent. On what basis do I make this claim? When Adam and Eve violated the law who correctly identified the consequences? Was it God or the conniving serpent? Asking this question may seem rather presumptuous but it’s entirely valid and germane to the issue at hand relative to the conclusions that many people have drawn. Certainly we know that God cannot be in error, so if our conclusions say that he is, then we must be forced to adjust our ill-conceived ideas.

We all know the outcome of this Peyton Place scene but let’s look at it more closely while attempting to discard presuppositional bias. I ask again. Was God’s death sentence immediate? Let’s look at the text. (I would consider reading Genesis 2 and 3 for context)

  • So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths. Genesis 3:6-7 (ESV)

  • The Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. Genesis 3:14 (ESV)

Their eyes were opened and shame flooded their very being. The violation of God’s law was swift and it was sure but was it meted out by physical death? Did Adam or Eve breathe their last breath the day they ate?

According to the chronology below who was cursed first? The serpent was told of the enmity that would exist between him and Eve’s offspring. What were the specific and pertinent punishments for the human violators of God’s law or in the case of the cunning mercenary that challenged others to transgress?

  • I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” 16 To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” 17 And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; 18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” Genesis 3:15-19 (ESV)

The Penalties:

  1. The Serpent: was to crawl on his belly and eat dust (doesn’t quite sound like the super-being assumed today—that’s another can of worms that should be addressed—it’s much less messy to blame all evil on some external dragon without considering the accountability of our own depraved condition)

  2. The Woman: would feel the utter pain in childbearing; and her husband was to rule over her. (Adam probably saw Eve’s 2nd punishment as the silver lining in the very ominous cloud! Just kidding…)

  3. The Man: God cursed the ground. Toil would be certain as man attempted to cultivate this new unhealthy thistle-laden work environment (a few verses later we find that the man was banished from the perfect Edenic conditions)

Was the “return to the ground” part of Adam and Eve’s punishment? Sure it was, or I should say most think that it was. Is this truly what the text implies? Without presupposition, I believe one would conclude that “till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken” was part of the natural process. How can this be? Surely most of us assume that physical death is part of sin’s curse. This is something for a latter time but I think it is worth pondering.

I believe it is of value to draw a distinct contrast between God’s command and what the serpent told Eve. God said, “the day you eat of it you shall surely die” while the serpent said, “you will surely not die”. If the current theological paradigm (punishment equating physical death) is allowed to stand, who was telling the truth—God or the serpent? Did Adam and Eve physically die the very day they ate of the forbidden fruit? Do you see the problem? Physical death was not realized for hundreds of years after the transgression.

At this point the ensuing argument usually resides in the proposition that they “began to die” that day. This is not what the text says or even implies. This conclusion is assumption driven. The text does not say, “the day you eat of it you shall surely begin to die”. We must be precise with God’s Word.

Adam lived at least 800 years after this supposed immediate death sentence. A year after his conviction, had his death decree been carried out incrementally by 1/930th? With each passing year was he that much closer to realizing the full weight of God’s punishment or was God’s vengeance to be realized immediately?

Back in the late 70’s I worked at the Reception Medical Center (RMC), a prison intake facility in north Florida. I flipped the switch that night that allowed Ted Bundy to shuffle through the iron-barred doors of RMC. This notorious murderer was quickly classified and in a short while was shipped out to Florida State Prison’s infamous death row, where Bundy would live out the remaining years of his life.

At 7:06 a.m. local time on January 24, 1989, Ted Bundy was electrocuted in FSP’s “Old Sparky”, after being sentenced almost 10 years prior. Stay after stay, many were outraged that this sadistic sexual deviant’s execution was so long coming after his initial death sentence.

Here’s the point. Let’s compare Bundy’s “swift and certain” (at least that’s the way it’s supposed to be) death sentence with Adam’s. Bundy lived 10 years after sentencing while Adam lived more than 800 years! As slow as our justice system is in executing those who await their final rest, how does that stack up against God’s punishment of Adam, if in fact physical death was the death that God spoke of in Genesis 2:17. And if physical death was the intended consequence why didn’t God make a salt statue out of each of them the day they realized their nakedness?

Consider this. If the serpent had been given the opportunity to speak with the women he deceived, what would have been his unequivocal statement had physical death been God’s expected method of punishment? “See I told you, you weren’t going to die and you clearly didn’t die, did you? God is the liar I told you He was”. Clearly this conversation never took place nor could it have because I do not believe physical death was the anticipated punishment.

After Adam realized that his physical life was spared, wouldn’t Adam have thought, “I guess God wasn’t all that serious about ‘the day you eat of it you shall surely die’.” Isn’t this like telling one of our children, “If you do that one more time I’m going to send you to your room for the rest of your natural born life!” It’s only going to take 2 or 3 times before little Johnny begins to suspect that we don’t really mean what we say?

Adam and Eve each received the immediate and expected punishment which included something not yet mentioned in the Scripture passages quoted above—banishment from the garden. God “drove man out of the garden”. Why? Because in it was the tree of life. His removal was the evidence that he was forever separated from His Creator.

  • Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life. Genesis 3:22-24 (ESV)

Punishment was spiritual

The sin problem created by Adam was not physical but spiritual. And without the miraculous intervention of God through Christ, Adam’s sin could never have been atoned for. God knew from the beginning that the blood of bulls and goats would never be enough. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Hebrews 10:4 (NASB) One physical act of disobedience (which was calculated and volitional) led to spiritual death—not physical death. Adam and Eve were separated from God the very day they ate of the fruit. They were forever banished from the garden. As per verse 24 above, in its midst was the tree of life which was basically a fountain of youth. Apparently in it was immortality and that’s why God was forced to guard the tree with a special detail of angelic beings—the fleshly state of Adam was overtly mortal.

  • For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 (NKJV)

  • So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul [nephesh-Gen 2:9].” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 1 Corinthians 15:45 (NASB)

In Adam all that are dead spiritually will return to the dust of the earth and forever be separated from God. But how glorious it is that through Christ we are alive! Born dead spiritually in the condition of Adam but made alive through Christ. We are born again. Though alive in the flesh we are born in the spirit. And that which is made alive shall never die.

What physical death accomplishes for the believer is to pass Christ-followers directly into the presence of God. Death has no sting because our spirit has already been raised with Christ. This is why Jesus told Nicodemus that his physical birthright was of no eternal consequence. His physical Jewishness was of no value because although alive physically he was dead spiritually.

  • Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” John 3:3 (ESV)

The issue for Nicodemus, and for that matter all men, is that we are all still-born spiritually. As in the Princess Bride classic (one of my all-time favorites), men are not “mostly dead” but “all dead”. As Paul points out, it’s rather preposterous to think that a dead man can seek God. To me this is what the entire plan of redemption is about. Though we are alive physically we are dead spiritually, not to be raised out of our Adamic bondage apart from a saving faith initiated by Christ. Being physically alive does not constitute spiritual life and being spiritually alive does not preclude one from dying physically. The beating of the human heart tells us nothing about our eternal spiritual condition. Following is a rather dismal commentary on the reality of man’s condition apart from Christ.

  • as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” 13 “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” 14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” 15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 in their paths are ruin and misery, 17 and the way of peace they have not known.” 18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Romans 3:10-18 (ESV)

  • The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Genesis 6:5 (ESV)

  • The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Jeremiah 17:9 (KJV)

Adam, and all that will continue to forever follow, are at enmity with God from their very birth. We aren’t sinners because we sin; we sin because we are born sinners. Yes, we are free moral agents. We can choose to sin or we can choose to sin. This is the Baskin Robbins of only one flavor. However, through justification by faith the walls of separation are torn down and we are freed from the chains of sin. This is God-initiated grace where we finally have peace with God. (Rom 5:1).

The following passage contains some exquisitely clear language regarding justification. By the one (Adam) we are all condemned, but by the ONE (Christ) we are made righteous. There are only two states of being. We are either in Adam or in Christ.

  • If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. 18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 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. 20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.Romans 5:17-21 (ESV)

Concluding Thoughts

Looking back to the garden we must know that God’s righteous punishment for Adam and Eve was immediate and it was certain. We know that God was in fact telling the truth and that the serpent was a deceitful desperate liar. The day Adam ate of the fruit he died. He didn’t begin to die. It was a spiritual death and the gravestone read, “Today you transgressed My law. Today you died forever.” It was separation from the Creator because with this sin barrier in place God could no longer fellowship with man as He once did. On that very day God’s rather laborious eschatological plan of redemption was launched and was to be consummated at the end of the “last days”.

We know that the serpent was found wanting. For if the consequential death prescribed by God had been physical, the serpent would have been truthful—because Adam and Eve didn’t physically die the day they ate but yet remained alive on earth for at least 800 years after the entrance of sin. Adam lived under his spiritual death sentence for the bulk of his 930 years, knowing that the day he breathed his last would in fact be his last—never to see God again.

How did I miss the difference between Adam’s physical and spiritual death for 33 years? Presupposition. I assumed by what I had been told, that physical death was the ultimate enemy that must be conquered. However, physical death merely finalizes our eternal state—either eternal life with God for the believer or eternal separation from God for those who do not by faith choose Christ. I believe this seemingly small issue has caused innumerable interpretational problems.

Physical death is not the enemy of those that know Christ. However, for those who have not yet believed in the name of Jesus Christ, physical death seals their eternal doom. Every human being will eventually be put to rest. “And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” Hebrews 9:27-28 (ESV) It is the unseen removal of sin that is of eternal value. Matter of fact, the New Covenant blessings are spiritual in nature only “seen” through the faith of our spiritual eyes.

  • Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1 (ESV)

  • For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 1 Peter 3:18 (ESV)

We know that Christ enjoyed a resurrection of both body and spirit. Hundreds witnessed the physical results of His resurrection. Was Thomas so unlike us all?

  • So the other disciples told him [Thomas], “We have seen the Lord.” But he [Thomas] said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.” John 20:25 (ESV)

How much more though is it of value to God for those who daily trust Christ without physical eyes? For those who recognize that His return was not intended to be physical–for the Kingdom did not come “with signs to be observed”…nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.” (Luke 17:20-21)

  • Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” 28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” John 20:27-29 (ESV)

Christ accommodates our spiritual weakness but yet extols the virtue of those that live lives propelled by faith.

It was the resurrection of Jesus’ spirit that forever conquered the bondage of sin. However, had Jesus not been raised bodily there would have been no proof that He had been raised spiritually. Lazarus was raised as well but yet we can reasonably assume that he eventually returned to the earth. In his case the conquering of physical death was temporal, for from the dust we come to the dust we will return. Paul tells us that our carbon-based bodies cannot exist in the life hereafter. Therefore the corruptible must put on the incorruptible. (1Cor 15:35-49)

The ultimate resurrection is of the spirit, for we know that we have been translated from death into the Kingdom (Col 1:13) through the blood of Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world (1Pet 1:19; Rev 3:8). By faith Lazarus looked forward to the parousia, which was the resurrection on the last day. As Paul was proclaiming the Gospel to Felix we are struck by the nearness of the resurrection which was to occur at the shattering of the holy people. (Dan 12:2;7) By presupposition most translators omit the impact of the little Greek word, “Mello” which means “about to be”. It’s a word of imminence but sadly quite often its impact is neutered from the text. Occasionally the Young’s Literal Translation gets it right and we gain a glimpse of what we may have missed.

  • having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, [that] there is about to be [mello] a rising again of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous; Acts 24:15 (YLT)

  • Elders who [are] among you, I exhort, who [am] a fellow-elder, and a witness of the sufferings of the Christ, and of the glory about to be [mello] revealed a partaker, 1Peter 5:1 (YLT)

It is not the intent of this study but should you like to learn more about the impact this word should have click Greek: Mello. When I’m reading the NT I can smell a “mello” a mile away!

And so it was, although God’s plan of redemption was conceived before the foundation of the world, it was initiated and inaugurated at the cross and consummated 40 years later at His parousia. Through faith in the finished work of Christ the Adamic problem was forever remedied for those who put their trust in Christ and Christ alone. He truly is THE way, THE truth and THE life and no man can come to the Father apart from the shed blood of Christ. With confidence we look back at the cross as the greatest day in human history, for without it our Adamic sin-laden body of death could never be raised to life. The New Covenant of Christ’s death and resurrection forever solved man’s utterly depraved and abundantly miserable state.

Let’s close with this from these wonderful words from the Apostle Paul:

  • There is, then, now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit; 2for the law of the Spirit of the life in Christ Jesus did set me free from the law of the sin and of the death; 3for what the law was not able to do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, His own Son having sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, did condemn the sin in the flesh,that the righteousness of the law may be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 5For those who are according to the flesh, the things of the flesh do mind; and those according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit; 6for the mind of the flesh [is] death, and the mind of the Spirit — life and peace;

  • because the mind of the flesh [is] enmity to God, for to the law of God it doth not subject itself, 8for neither is it able; and those who are in the flesh are not able to please God. 9And ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God doth dwell in you; and if any one hath not the Spirit of Christ — this one is not His;

  • 10and if Christ [is] in you, the body, indeed, [is] dead because of sin, and the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness, 11and if the Spirit of Him who did raise up Jesus out of the dead doth dwell in you, He who did raise up the Christ out of the dead shall quicken also your dying bodies, through His Spirit dwelling in you.

  • 12So, then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh; 13for if according to the flesh ye do live, ye are about to [mello] die; and if, by the Spirit, the deeds of the body ye put to death, ye shall live; 14for as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God; 15for ye did not receive a spirit of bondage again for fear, but ye did receive a spirit of adoption in which we cry, `Abba — Father.
  • 16The Spirit himself doth testify with our spirit, that we are children of God; 17and if children, also heirs, heirs, indeed, of God, and heirs together of Christ — if, indeed, we suffer together, that we may also be glorified together. 18For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time [are] not worthy [to be compared] with the glory about to be [mello] revealed in us; Romans 8:1-18 (YLT)

What was lost in Adam has been retrieved in Christ. We who are “in Christ” have become Abraham’s seed according to the promise. (Gal 3:16;28) Once we were at enmity with God, dead in our transgressions (alive physically), yet Christ plucked us out of the bondage of the law of sin and death. Does this New Covenant freedom give us license to violate the law of Christ? May it never be! For in verse 12 we read, “So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh— 13 for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. Romans 8:12-13 (NASB)

Adam lived the majority of his 930 year stay on earth in the deadness of his separation from the God who created him. He died the very moment he took that infamous crunchy chomp. His physical death only sealed that which had already been determined by his spiritual departure.

I am just beginning to “see” with spiritual eyes because it is only by the spirit that we communicate with God. (John 4:21-24) It seems to me that we put such a premium on the literal/natural when Jesus was constantly moving His sometimes faithful followers forever to the spiritual. Hopefully this short study will open your eyes (as it did mine) to see which death Paul was referring to in 1Cor 15, because “flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God”. We must constantly change our gaze from the physical to the spiritual.

However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 1 Corinthians 15:46 (NASB) My challenge is to be forever mindful of God’s order. This is why it is absolutely absurd to believe that Jesus again will leave Heaven, return to earth and set up some sort of utopian physical Kingdom. But that’s yet another story for another time.

I’ll leave you with this parting thought. Resurrection takes place the day you enter the Kingdom. Just as Adam died the very day he violated God’s law, we are raised with Christ the very day we partake of His life-giving spirit.

  • But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you. Romans 8:11 (NASB)

Posted in Updates | Leave a comment

Call Them Heretics So You Don’t Have to Dialogue

Posted on March 11, 2008 by Chuck Coty
Too often the heretical label is used as a huge wrecking ball cascading down upon all who dare stand in its path. We act as though the non-essentials of the faith such as eschatological positions can damn us to hell. With brothers fighting brothers who needs a devil? I truly never dreamed of the day when the greatest persecution of believers would come from within the church. To be constantly crammed into the same theological den as the JW’s is rather disconcerting and completely unjustified.

As many of you know, the late David Chilton, a rather prolific author and brilliant Christian scholar, converted from postmillennialism to preterism near the end of his abbreviated life. He’d had a massive heart attack prior to his commitment to preterism, and many of his detractors attributed a loss of mental clarity with his departure from “orthodoxy”—therefore rather unabashedly crowning him as a de facto heretic. Gary North, writing about his former friend David Chilton’s “conversion” to preterism, made the following comments. (For those that make a living taking every line out of context, by Chilton’s “conversion” it is presupposed that his faith-initiated “conversion to Christ” [that came many years earlier] is the one and only “conversion” of eternal significance) You be the judge as to the appropriateness of North’s tenor.

GARY NORTH: “As the publisher of Days of Vengeance and Paradise Restored, let me say, without hesitation, that the post-1994 David Chilton is indeed a heretic who has denied the Church’s historic creeds and confessions on the question of the Second Coming of Christ and the Final Judgment. [CWC note: Sounds like hyper-credalism to me. Since when were the creeds canonized?]

It is always sad when a defender of the faith abandons orthodoxy on any point. When he abandons it on the very point on which he had made his intellectual reputation, it is double sad. In Chilton’s case, it is pathetic, for no matter what he writes on this topic from now on, his critics will be able to say, justifiably: “His heart attack disrupted his ability to think clearly. It distorted his judgment.”

NORTH continues: “We can and should pray for the restoration of his mind, but to debate with him publicly will almost certainly drive him deeper into this heresy. He will feel compelled to defend himself in public. Let him go in peace. It is not our God-given task to confront him at this point. That is for his local church to do. It is not as though he were some unknown church member who has stumbled into this heresy unknowingly. He is self-conscious, to the extent of a victim of a massive, brain-affecting heart attack can be self-conscious. He is not the man we used to know, as he has admitted here. That man died in 1994, he says. I agree. So, let us say now, David Chilton, RIP.”

Shortly after North’s public flogging, Chilton finally did rest in peace and by faith I’m certain he found himself in the arms of Christ. How sad is it that he went to his grave disfellowshipped by those he faithfully stood by for so many years. Eschatological Phariseeism at it’s best!

I struggled with this for many years and only recently came to realize that no theological camp had a monopoly on being bigoted, narrow-minded and nasty. What’s so sad is these vitriolic types truly think they are doing God’s work—but then again so did Paul when he was persecuting and killing Christians.

I have no problem with those that want to engage in theological debate—matter of fact that’s what we should be doing. Tim Martin kindly sent me his latest co-authored book, “Beyond Creation Science”. Very cool cover I might add! Jim Kessler ought to be proud. There has been quite a bit of acrimony surrounding the underlying views of this book but in my opinion none of the nastiness was necessary. I trust the future will be bright in that regard.

I will review this book to the best of my ability while attempting to read it with as open a mind as I can muster. Granted, I do have a paradigm that does not at this point fit well with what I’ve “heard” to be the book’s conclusions, nonetheless I realize that at one time neither did my preteristic conclusions fit well within my then current futurist presuppositions. Times can change and we all need to be given space to be effective Bereans.

At any rate, this is what it should be all about. Engaging one another in dialogue and when not coming to a meeting of the minds on non-essential doctrinal issues, agreeing to continue to love one another in the bond of peace. Some have snarled at this notion as though I am suggesting that we engage in a sort of doctrinally deprived lovefest. Hogwash! I think we should be forever mindful that the greatest theologian of all times was also the author of the “love chapter”. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 13 to the most morally decrepit church in existence. He chided them to attain to sound doctrine and righteous living but not in the absence of brotherly love.

There are foundational principles regarding Christ that set all Christians apart from the cults and they are the unifying positions that should be the basis for our love one to another. But the cowardice of name calling and audacity of deliberate doctrinal distortions should be put away as we mature in Christ. I think some of the most aggressive “heretic-hunters” are those who hail under the reformed label. “Reformed and always reforming?” Great motto but rarely employed.

I will say that we have good reason to adhere to the doctrines of our forefathers and only through painful toil, careful exegetical study and much prayer, should we ever consider departing from them. I’m not bound by creeds but I am guided by them.

It’s sheer folly that preterism is blamed for lascivious living and a disdain for orthodoxy. That’s utter nonsense and what I find rather curious is those making these outrageous claims, although avowedly committed to preterism for many years, did not lapse into this supposedly guaranteed formula for antinomianism. The free exercise of sin is not a respecter of eschatological positions. Show me an adulterous preterist and I’ll show you 10 adulterous futurists (simply because there are more futurists).

The largest churches in my home town have endured a number of cataclysmic events over the past 3-5 years. Each has lost its pastor due to adultery and each of the pastors shared the typical premillennial dispensational paradigm. Should I come to the silly conclusion that eschatology was at the root of their spiritual failing? Of course not. It was merely a matter of James’ warnings coming to fruition. They didn’t guard themselves from themselves. The devil didn’t make them do it. They were carried away by their own lusts and none of us are immune from the worst kinds of unrighteous behavior. Surely we aren’t naive enough to believe that eschatological positions automatically placed them in moral jeopardy.

  • Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. James 1:13-15 (ESV)

I’m sick and tired of this nonsense of being told that preterism generates antinomianism. Some have even gone so far as trying to create some sort of a deprogramming for those who are “snared by preterism”. If they lapsed into willful sin then they need look no further than their walk with God. It is only a moment by moment faith walk with Christ that shields any of us from the snare of sin.

I am a bondservant of Christ Jesus and it is unadulterated rubbish to believe that preterism will automatically yield lives of lawlessness. I am committed to the law of Christ which supersedes all other laws last I checked. If some still want to live in the bondage of the Old Covenant, avoiding picking up sticks on the Sabbath, believing that this is somehow going to win them favor with God, then that’s their prerogative.

  • Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. 17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. 18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. 1 Peter 2:16-18 (ESV)

Freedom is never a license to live lives of debauchery. How dare those tell me that preterism will force me down that road. Shame on them! They ought to speak for themselves and stop transferring their own sinful leanings to all preterists. No one should be ignorant enough to think that believing that the Lord is faithful to do exactly as He planned in the time that it was prophesied, is obligated to deviate from the spiritual path that leads to maturity in Christ. Believing that our Lord faithfully returned in 70 AD does not give anyone the freedom to live a life contrary to His teaching any more than it does those who choose not to take Jesus at His word. No one who calls themselves a Christian is given the moral license to willfully violate the teachings and commands of Christ. Those who fully recognize His miraculous coming in real time should be ones dedicated to walking that very narrow road.

  • I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves! 13 For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another. Galatians 5:12-15 (ESV)

Very powerful language indeed! No one can doubt the Apostle Paul’s clarity. No one should trifle with our freedom in Christ but no one should use their freedom to abuse the grace of God. We live lives pleasing to God out of gratitude not from compulsion.

Some want to continue “to bite and devour one another” over doctrines that are not foundational. I’m quite frankly sick of it. Thanks Paul for that admonition!

Posted in Updates | 3 Comments

Relevant Revisited

Posted on February 22, 2008 by Chuck Coty

Regarding the Tampa Tribune’s Thou Shalt Canoodle article expounded upon in this past blog, and the fact that it received national attention, I think this follow-up is expedient.

Most of the responses I received were in agreement with my characterization but there were a few gentle dissenters. I welcome all comments because we grow by challenging one another. I should add that no one countered with any Scriptural support in favor of this church’s methodology and the blog defenders simply wrote that we should love one another, therefore implying that doctrinal challenges were off limits. I think far too many confuse form with message. We would do well to recognize Solomon’s wisdom; there is a time and a place for everything. Being culturally relevant in style has nothing to do with the content. And by suggesting that this challenge is inappropriate in its current forum doesn’t necessarily insinuate that this topic in unsuitable in all venues.

I want to make a few additional, hopefully non-redundant points. I’ve attached a 4 minute segment from “The Way of the Master” Radio if you’d like to hear their reaction. The online posts reacting to this short segment were decidedly negative. One fellow wrote, “This is what makes all Christians look bad. We spend more time slamming each other than reaching out! If this dj checked out the church and “the challenge” he would see it’s about strengthening Christian marriages. It’s more about emotional needs than sex. After the embarrassing debate over evolution on national tv, should WOTM really be slamming other Christians for attempting to get a message heard even if they disagree with how they do it?! It takes all kinds 2 reach all people.”

 

This is precisely the problem. There must be a level of accountability measured by objective Scriptural standards, discerning what is and what is not appropriate. Another frustrated blogger wrote, “This seems to be unfortunate and condescending tirade against people doing the same thing you are “trying” to do but just in a different style. I find it ironic that a church is about to chat about sex and how to make it all God hoped it would be then gets slammed by other Christians.” Making sex “all God hoped it would be” may be the intent of the 30-Day Challenge creators but this is far from what is portrayed. There seems to be confusion as to the intent of this challenge. Is it evangelistic? Is it about self-actualization? Is it about enhancing marriage? Is it attempting to encourage abstinence? Is it trying to do all the above? There are so many mixed signals sent that it’s truly difficult to discern. The mastermind behind this endeavor as shown in the video guide seemed to say that it was all about improving marriage. So what’s the problem with isolating the content in a marriage seminar? Why tack on the abstinence idea, sandwich it together in one guide and use it as a church-wide ad campaign?

 

Some thought that I may have overacted solely by reading the Tribune article—the assumption was that I was not fully attuned to the true purpose and complete message of this relevant strategy. Well, I wish that were the case but I usually don’t make a habit of sharing things off the top of my head without conscientious research.

 

Just so you know, I spent roughly 6 hours in due diligence. I read the pdf manual/devotional “30-Day Sex Challeng guide”; I watched the “Guide Explained”; I read the “Questionnaire”; I read the blogs posted by the pastor & staff; and I listened to a number of sermons. So although some may not agree with my conclusions, I will tell you they were not derived from ignorance. I have no interest in rehashing what I have already written but I would like to clarify a few things.

 

I want to reiterate that I have in no way questioned the motives of those leading Relevant Church. I don’t doubt their intentions. What I do object to is their judgment in the creation of a community-wide campaign that can be so easily misunderstood. Being relevant does not dictate a message change to meet the ever-morphing demographics. Neither Jesus nor the Apostle Paul ever softened their moral expectations in an effort to be culturally relevant. And John the Baptizer was so culturally relevant (facetiousness assumed) that he said:

 

  • “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath that is about to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, 9 and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. Matthew 3:7-9

If we think today’s sexually promiscuous climate is over the edge just revisit the first century Corinthian Church through the Apostle Paul’s eyes. How did this inspired apostle communicate to the believers mired in sexual sin? Did he encourage them to take a 30-day hiatus so that they could uncover their inner fears and expectations? Did he exhort them to go on a personal journey of discovery? He said to get the heck out of every situation that might cause them to compromise their integrity. Flee! He didn’t cajole them. He didn’t attempt to understand there difficult circumstances. He simply said to get the heck out of dodge!

 

  • Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 1 Corinthians 6:18 (ESV) 
  • As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting. For you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us. 10 For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death. 2 Corinthians 7:9-10 (ESV)

I have no problem whatsoever with using creative methods to reach an untapped and unchurched audience. For the past 10 years I’ve been part of a ministry that has attempted to do just that. I have felt the whir of the fiery arrows launched by members of the more traditional churches in Brandon—as if the non-traditional style of Bay Life is automatically equated with a lack of spirituality.


I love contemporary worship services where dance, loud music, movies and props are used to bring the message to the people. I’m all for the forms that are crafted to meet people where they are. I’m not out of touch with the younger generations. I’m all for using “relevant” means as long as the message is entirely Scriptural. But in our quest to be “pertinent” and “germane”, I believe we must do everything in our power to challenge people with the full force of God’s Word. The Gospel is not a message of acquiescence but of confrontation. It’s harsh because the consequences of sin are everlasting. Yes, we need to share this message with sensitivity—surely compassion should drip from our lips—however, the message should never become luke warm or compromised. I believe this program has unwittingly done that.

 

The following is from today’s most recent blog at Relevant. It’s quite clear that this blogger, who I may incorrectly assume to be a staffer at Relevant, has a heart for sexual purity & marriage fidelity. But that’s not the issue at hand. No one is accusing this church of promoting sexual immorality. What I question is the forum for this message; the over-emphasis of this very volatile racy mode and the ensuing natural misdirection veering from the Gospel of Christ; and the appearance of lowing the standards.

 

  • Our challenge is that us single adults would take 30 days to consider God’s way and remove sex from the equation to focus on who we are, who we are becoming and what is truly defining our relationships. Tragically, for many single adults, sex is the only bond of a relationship leading to complications and emotional emptiness. My hope is that in 30 days, this idea of saving sex for the right context would become a lifestyle that leads to great, healthy relationships. [cwc: my hope is that “right context” is a code reference to “marriage”. Not sure why “marriage” could not have been explicitly stated.] 

I was accused of not doing my homework therefore not fully understanding this new approach. Well, let’s take that accusation to the logical extreme. The leadership of Relevant should have been responsible enough to have thought through the community’s reactions. I received the following from a young person:

 

  • I agree with you wholeheartedly… this message series is a shame the way it is being presented. I think it was a definite media stunt because the media doesn’t scour church websites for stories; the pastor shouldn’t be shocked at the media response he got.

In my opinion this is spot on. This appears to be a calculated approach and for the pastor to act surprised at the response is rather perplexing. Is this the way the church should find the spotlight? I’d much prefer to make headlines feeding the hungry, caring for the infirmed or loving the unlovely. Where’s the message of the cross? My church has been unflatteringly labeled, “The Rock and Roll Church” and “Bay Lite”, but if Bay life ever becomes known for anything other than a church infatuated with the Gospel of Christ and obsessed with disciple-making, I will cease attending. Consider another email I received:

 

  • I heard about this on Way of the Master Radio. And there are Christians being tortured and killed for having underground house churches; missionaries from China that feel called to bring the gospel to Muslim countries (not enough persecution in China?).

Have we so lost our way that we are oblivious to what the message of Christ is all about? Is it about garnering attendees? Is it about sex? Is it about sensationalism? Doing anything we can to fill up the boat? Listen, I believe we need to do everything in our power to bring the message of Christ to all generations. But we don’t need to water down the Word to do it. We don’t need to accentuate our weaknesses to do it. The mere inference of this challenge is at best disheartening. When some participants tell the Tribune that they are expecting a “tough month” by abstaining for a whole stinking 30 days, I know we are in big trouble. Who’s being honest with these folks? Where’s the truth? Where are the stated consequences? Are not teachers held to a greater level of accountability…?

There are only two people groups in this world. People with and without Christ. This is another reason why the 30-day message is inappropriate in its current context. If Christians are engaging in pre-marital sex then they need to be told using Scriptural admonition to cease. Not for 30 days, and not for a determinate amount of time—but until they are married. They need to know the consequences. I didn’t say it was easy and I didn’t say no one would fail. The Bible has provisions for failure but failure should not be presumed from the start.

 

However, let me change gears for a moment, since there is the presumption that this particular church is reaching many non-believers. And that’s great! But the message to them must be quite different than to those attendees indwelt with the Holy Spirit. Those that don’t know Christ are in desperate need to hear the Gospel and need to know the ramifications of life with Christ.


The unbelieving crowd needs to know that ten days, thirty days or 100 days of sexual abstinence is of no eternal value to God. They don’t need to be led to believe that sexual abstinence is going to gain them favored status before God. We surely don’t want any non-believer to ever get the impression that the church is obsessed with sex and I also don’t want them to see the church through this much clouded kinky prism. Sexual abstinence will not gain anyone entrance into the Kingdom. No doubt it’s a safe practice and it will do no harm for any non-believer to abide by Scriptural teaching, but it cannot be seen as a substitute for spirituality—or a token offering to God as atonement. This is the danger especially for those outside this church’s scope and control. What message is the community hearing and is it consistent with the Good News?

 

The fact that the church is focusing on abstinence should not be something the community is forced to consider. This should be a personal matter and handled on a much smaller venue. Cricket called me last night and told me that secular radio station WQYK featured comments concerning this 30-day program and they weren’t flattering. This church should have been responsible enough to know how this message was going to reverberate throughout the bay area and beyond. In the article the pastor stated, “It’s amazing the kind of media attention we’re getting just for talking about sex.” How can we take this comment seriously?

 

Now to the other group. Those that are committed to Christ. Thirty days is a travesty. It’s a sham and there’s no Biblical precedence for it. Where in Scripture do we have even one example of anyone being told to incrementally deny sin? This is a worldly strategy. It’s born out of the self-help books and is in tune with the hottest prosperity teaching called “The Secret”. This is not reliance on the Holy Spirit but is a sort of behavior modification of the will.

 

Let me share with you the entire day #4 devotional for the single person (which includes a Scripture reference to Prov 13:20) Is this the kind of questions you presumed to find in this guide?

  • In what situations are you more likely to make poor sexual choices? For example: tequila shots.

Is this the kind of question Jesus asked the tax gatherers and sinners that He spent time with? Here’s to me the bottom line. The ends never ever justify the means. We must not succumb to the temptation of altering or softening the message. Sure it may increase the size of Relevant Church but will it foster Scriptural expectations in the lives of its believers? Will it spur them on to maturity knowing that only through Christ do they have a chance?

 

  • But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, 33 sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. 34 For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. Hebrews 10:32-34 (ESV)

The believers identified in Hebrews, joyfully accepted the plundering of their goods for the sake of the Gospel and yet we spend our pulpit time attempting to be culturally relevant? We need to become students of the Word. More time in His word & in prayer. That’s the issue. It’s not merely a lack of counseling. It’s not a shortfall of being sensitive to the needs of the younger generation by playing to the most base of all desires. We have lost our way. If we’d teach people how to study the Bible and challenge one another how to live godly lives always reaching out to those in need then the rest of this sexual stuff will take care of itself. If our focus becomes others-centered then there will be less time for sin. Lying down prostrate before a holy God is what we need. When we engage in sexual relations outside of marriage we do not merely “fall off the wagon” (as was characterized in day #4 of the manual) but we commit willful sin that God may choose to punish.

 

  • Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge. Hebrews 13:4 (NKJV)

In my opinion this sexual 30-day exercise is nothing to trifle with. And that’s exactly what we appear to be doing when egregious sin and the accompanying significant consequences are boiled down to attempting to break bad habits. Did Jesus or any members of the inspired canon-writing team every approach sin in this matter? Is there any place on record where sin was quantified therefore giving one the false feeling of success by abstaining for short bursts? Does the Apostle Paul say, “Flee youthful lusts for 30 days?” Is there precedence anywhere in Scripture for this kind of ratcheting approach to sexual immorality, or any sin for that matter? How did Jesus handle the lame man after He healed him?

 

  • Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, “See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you.” John 5:14 (ESV)

How did Jesus react to the woman who was caught in adultery? Yes, He was abundantly compassionate and we should be too, but what did He tell her? Did he tell her to try His 30-day abstinence plan, hoping that she would stay pure after the 30 days?

 

  • And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.” John 8:11b (ESV)

I’m not suggesting a message of condemnation toward those that are failing morally. People need to know that they are fully forgiven in Christ. We will never be acceptable based upon our own effort. But in my opinion, we must expect more from people. We need to raise the bar straight to Biblical standards. This is not like a coaching clinic where we pat people on the back for doing some task successfully 30 times in a row—where the hope is that muscle memory will eventually kick in. We are dealing with something so sacred and at the same time so potentially life-altering if ignored. I just don’t see how we can justify treating sexual sin in the same vein as giving up chocolate for lent. That may not be the intent of Relevant but that’s how it appears to the on-looking public.

 

  • Therefore, preparing your minds for action, and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, 15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” 1 Peter 1:13-16 (ESV)

Instead of challenging people to be holy should Peter have attempted to stay germane to the first century culture? The Corinthians were having sex in the dadgum church! They were crazy out of control. Did the apostle Paul soften the message and give them bite-sized chunks that they could safely ingest?

 

No matter how pragmatic Relevant’s message is attempting to be I just can’t see it synchronizing with Scripture. Did the Apostle Paul tell the church at Corinth, “Flee from sexual immorality for as long as you can? Hey fellas try to work up to it.” I can just see the Apostle Paul say, “I know it’s going to be hard but do the best you can for a few weeks. Abstaining from sex will be habit-forming.” I know this is not Relevant’s position but that is the unintended consequence that with some discernment should have been recognized before engaging in this program.

 

Is there one Scriptural precedent for this kind of method? I’m not asking this rhetorically. If there is I’d like to know about it. I may have some clear convictions but one thing’s certain—if Scripture contradicts my views then I’m going with Scripture every time.

 

Our challenge should always be to view everything through the lens of God’s Word. Not what’s pragmatic or relevant but what’s Scriptural. And I think we must always be aware of the potential impact of our behavior & focus on the Gospel’s propagation. We must attempt to live above reproach. We must always be cognizant of what are we saying loud and clear without uttering a word. People see the church placing sex in a role of such prominence that it becomes a focal point issue. People may throw their hands in the air and say, the church is no different from any other civic organization. For goodness sakes when’s the last time the Elks Club members were extolled to have sex for 30 days straight? Are we not out of control? Is this not a message that should be confined to a marriage seminar or a single’s retreat? As good friend David said to me yesterday, “Is there no shame?”

 

Contrary to what some may think I’m saying, I do not think sexual promiscuity is something that should or for that matter can be avoided by the church. It was rampant in NT times and is a severe problem today. The forum we choose is the key. This is something for exclusive seminars. If it was done in that context there would be no issue and the Tampa Tribune would have never considered it worthy of a headline in the Metro.

 

We have a group called “Breakthrough” that meets each week at Bay Life. Addictions of all kinds are addressed. This is a very valuable program. It thrives in the appropriate venue. Occasionally Sunday morning we dedicate some time for an addictive sin-conquering testimony. However, we never have and I pray never will embark on a church-wide campaign launched from the pulpit dealing with addictions. These are problems that must be handled and dealt with in the proper context on a smaller scale.


I understand that participants in this program do not necessarily reflect the intents of Relevant Church. A recent site blogger (who I assume posted under the church’s scrutiny) wrote:

 

  • If you haven’t considered giving this challenge a try I would highly recommend it. All there is to lose is 30 days of some hibidty-dibity, but if you have the results that I have had then you might be surprised to see how truthful you can be with yourself about your relationships. What I mean by that is simple. Before, I took this step of leaving sex out, I had been in several long term relationships where sex had been more of a focus than honestly looking at our personal differences to see if our relationship could stand on it’s own two feet without one of us having to be on our back. Good Luck.

Do you see anything there that causes pause? Where’s the testimony to “doing it God’s way” regardless of the relational result? At least in this blogger’s case, this seems to be all about the outcome of a successful relationship without the “hibidty-dibity”. Where’s the awareness that he has been violating God’s standards? Where the repentant attitude? Where’s the peace made with God about abiding by Biblical benchmarks? At least in this blog, the focus of this man’s attitude seems to regard successful functionality, not that he is doing what’s right and pleasing in the eyes of Lord Jesus. Maybe he doesn’t know Christ. If he doesn’t, then why post his thoughts as a representative sample? Is the goal not spiritual maturity in Christ? What would have happened had his experience of “leaving sex out” been decidedly unsuccessful in his partner’s eyes? Would he have deemed this exercise a failure and reverted back to his old ways?


My hope for Relevant is that this preoccupation with sex does not backfire. I realize that the heart of this church is to drive people to Jesus Christ where He alone can satify. The pastor’s wife has said as much in her blog. I hope the focus changes decidedly toward God and away from self.

Even if there are positive stories that arise from this exercise (and undoubtedly there will be), we will never fully comprehend the long-range implications for those inside and out of this church. Do the participants realize that this is not about what works but what’s right? The effects will never be fully understood. Membership may be increased and some may come to know Christ as Savior.

In my opinion these will never be justifications because the ends don’t validate the methods. There are many ways to share Christ. God uses even the poorest of our decisions to bring people to Himself. Is it not possible that if they simply share with the attendees the Biblical prohibitions & consequences of sex outside of the marriage bed, that they may produce better results while remaining Scripturally relevant.

Posted in Ethics, Relevant | 1 Comment

30 Days of Abstinence or Indulgence?

Posted on February 20, 2008 by Chuck Coty

When I came out to the kitchen this a.m. Debbie had set a copy of the Tampa Tribune’s front page Metro on the counter with the following article highlighted.

Thou Shalt Canoodle, Church Says “Members get 30-day challenge for Sex”

The article begins, “Relevant Church offered an interesting challenge to its members Sunday: 30 straight days of sex or no sex at all.” Apparently the “30-Day Challenge” exhorts the married participants to have sex for 30 days straight while the single folks are to abstain for 30 days.

Upon first blush (pun intended) do you see anything inherently wrong with this picture? Have we raised the bar so low where we hope the unmarried abstain from sex for a whole 30 days in a row? What happened to the commitment to lifelong purity outside the marriage bed? Is that passé and out of touch? Is that way too much to ask in this world dominated by promiscuity? Do we have to stay so relevant that we resort to lowering our expectations to such pitiful levels?

“The intent of the challenge”, the articles continues, “is to return sex to the realm of marriage”. A worthy goal to be sure. Certainly nothing wrong with that. But is that the message this attention-getting theme sends to a world starved for truth and Biblical clarity? One of the church pastors stated, “he hoped the sex challenge would excite young Christians”. I bet it will!

I am not naïve. We all have to deal with temptations and the enticements today that are exponentially greater than they were when I was a kid. I understand all that. By my questioning I’m not insinuating that this serious problem hasn’t infiltrated the church. We know that it has and we’ve been told that there’s little difference between the church-goer’s behavior and that exemplified by the world. I get that. But isn’t that part of the issue. Why is it this way and is this sort of 30-day challenge sending the right message?

Here’s my problem. When we set the standard so pathetically low are we not ignoring the power and presence of the Holy Spirit to sanctify us? Are we so bankrupt that asking folks to abstain from sex outside of marriage becomes just a silly whimsical idea relegated to the 1950’s? Listen, I’m not attempting to be judgmental. Relevant Church obviously has a strategy to reach those through non-traditional means. I don’t decry their attempt at a “relevant message” but I do question their standards against Scripture.

Debbie and I had a youth lifegroup ministry in our home for four years and the majority of the attendees were extremely worldly. A number came from broken families and they’d spent more time in juvenile detention than in church at attention. We had a varying amount of success with these kids but one thing we never did was lower the standards. These kids were starved for boundaries because they knew that the lifestyles they were leading were going nowhere fast. We never softened the expectations. We never told these kids what they wanted to hear just to maintain their attendance. We didn’t tell them to stop taking the Lord’s name in vain for a mere 30 days or to refrain from sex for what they might consider a manageable period of time. It was wrong on day one, day thirty one and year 21.

I just don’t see a pragmatic antiseptic method to deal with the reality of sin. Paul told Timothy to “flee youthful passions”. These mid teens knew their morally-challenged behavior was wrong because of Biblical prohibitions we shared with them including the commensurate consequences.

On Metro page six the article continues with the comments of an engaged couple that is quoted as saying, “We’re going to take the challenge. We talked about it, and we both realize the importance of doing things the right way.” Great! Nothing wrong with that you say? No, but as Paul Harvey says, “And now for the rest of the story”. The engaged man went on to say, “I think it’s worth trying to find out other things about each other.” Yikes! Nothing like being in a relationship for the right reasons. The Tribune writer apparently had an extended conversation with the couple because the following tidbit was added, “Jeff (I changed the name) is expecting a tough month, though”. Is this not alarming?

The abstinence idea seems like it arises from the same logic used to lose a few unwanted pounds or to quit smoking. I would assume that the goal is for this unmarried couple to abstain for longer and longer periods of time until they finally quit this insidious sexually immoral habit—but by the time they are capable of exercising restraint they might find that they have conceived a “mistake” that will alter their lives forever.

Aren’t there serious warnings for those engaged in willful sin? Does God not discipline those that He loves? Should we equate premarital sexual abstinence with pushing away a double chocolate fudge brownie at the end of a meal? Have we lost our way to the point where the message of the cross has been neutered by such low expectations? Are we not told, “greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.” And are we not ignoring a whole host of unforeseen consequences that will come as a result of sexual promiscuity? Are we disregarding God’s preordained standards of excellence?

What does the relevant Scripture say about sexual immorality? Does it merely hope for a mere month-long restraint from sexual impurity?

  • Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. Hebrews 13:4 (ESV
  • Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 1 Corinthians 7:1-2 (ESV)
  • Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 1 Corinthians 6:18 (ESV)
  • But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Ephesians 5:3 (ESV)
  • For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; 1 Thessalonians 4:3 (ESV)
  • But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. James 1:14 (ESV)
  • So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. 2 Timothy 2:22 (ESV)

Where’s the message of pursuing righteousness? The Apostle Paul told the Ephesians that he didn’t even wanted impurity to “be named among you”. Granted, this Tribune article may have skewed the church’s actual intent. Hopefully the pastor did share the above passages. Did he make certain the Trib writer knew that Relevant Church stood on the bedrock of the Apostle Paul’s teachings? We all know that the media is not beyond exaggerating and sensationalizing and possibly ignoring relevant facts. And let me add that I do not want to judge the motives of the leadership involved in this 30-day program. My guess is that in their own minds their intentions were valid. I don’t doubt their desire to be relevant to those who may not grace the doors of the more traditional-styled churches. But does this message compromise the Scripture in order to be inoffensive? Does the message of a consistent call to repentance morph simply because morality has declined? Is the clarity of the Gospel’s power slighted?

Did the Apostle Paul use his inspired writings to say, “Flee youthful passions for 30 days?” Is this the message that churches should garner front page attention over. How about, “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous”. Or why not say, For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality. Surely we cannot expect those who don’t know Christ to adhere to a level of godliness only facilitated by the indwelling Holy Spirit. But why can’t we tell the truth to the young believers and speak about the consequences of willful disobedience?

The Pastor seemed to be taken aback by the exposure. He said, “It’s amazing the kind of media attention we’re getting just for talking about sex.” Oh really? Are you kidding me? How could anyone be amazed by this? The questions should viewed as red warning flags not banners of excitement. I thought the teaching of abstinence while single was rather clear in Scripture. Is this truly all we can expect—that young people avoid immorality for 30 days? Say it isn’t so.

Man it would be my hope that the Tampa Tribune distorted this whole 30-day program and the pastors at Relevant are livid because of it. If the Trib got it right then I’m deeply saddened.

Is this what being “relevant” has come to? If so, maybe we ought to start a new church and call it, “The Irrelevant Church”!

Posted in Abstinence, Relevant | Leave a comment

Hermeneutical Principles – Reading the Bible with First Century Glasses

Posted on January 22, 2008 by Chuck Coty
1. Scripture was written FOR us but it was not written directly TO us.

It is of immense value to realize that when we read the Bible we are reading someone else’s mail. At first some may immediately bristle at this notion thinking that this precludes personal application but that is absolutely not the case. By the mere fact that God meticulously preserved the Scripture for us is testimony to the fact that the Bible has every bit the relevance today as it did 2,000 years ago. Recognizing first century context in no way negates or neutralizes the impact of 2Tim 3:16-17.

Clearly all Scripture is not only inspired by God but is fully profitable to equip us for all things. However, reading the Word as though it was written directly to us, while ignoring context, has been a fundamental problem resulting in significant interpretational errors and misplaced hopes. Before we can determine how a passage applies to us we must first understand what it was intended to mean to the original recipients. It requires us to remove our 21st century glasses and replace them with those warn by Jesus, Peter, Paul and John. This is not a simple undertaking therefore necessitating diligent study and a great deal of effort.

For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, 13 for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. 14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. Hebrews 5:12-14 (ESV)

Case in point. Let’s say for our morning devotion we begin reading 2Tim 3. But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. What immediately springs to the forefront of your mind? Most of us assume that since we are experiencing similar “times of difficulty” per Paul’s warning to Timothy (lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God), we therefore assume that “the last days ” refers to the perilous times of the 21st century.
However, it should not come as a surprise that every generation as far back as the third century has made the same assumption. Can every generation be living in “the last days”? Doesn’t this phrase, first mentioned in Genesis 49:1, become rather oxymoronic if it extends hundreds or in this case thousands of years? (Acts 2:16-21 )

Paul goes on in verse 13 with while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. So we look around, clearly see a declining morality in the in the U.S. and apply this passage directly to our 21st century context. Clearly these sins exist today as they have in all prior generations. So what’s the problem with applying this passage to the here and now? Paul was warning Timothy, not Bert Barber, Steve Thomas or Michael Hemond, of the coming apostasy. This thinking has caused significant harm to the psyche of the 21st century believer. We develop and adopt a wholly unbiblical expectation of abounding evil as though it is to be anticipated as clarification that we are indeed nearing the end. This is so destructive and antithetical to the resurrection which is embodies in the Gospel of Christ.

How do we interpret the following: “Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand.” (Mark 14:42 ESV) If we are to read this passage in the same manner as we do many eschatological texts, then we encounter the obvious fallacy of this type of interpretational system. It is an undeniable historical fact that the betrayal of Jesus occurred in 30 A.D. and none of us would be willing to transport this passage into the 21st century because we know that “at hand” meant about to take place. Mark was writing to a first century audience and we must never lose sight of that fact. We must be consistent in our interpretation and not abuse word meanings to fit our personal theological presuppositions.

Here’s another from the book of Hebrews. How we interpret verses that contain imminent language is absolutely critical to our application and understanding. In the second verse of chapter 1, the author tells his readers that they are in the time period identified by the term “last days” (the same last days referred to by Peter in Acts 2:16-21).

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. (Hebrews 1:1-2 ESV)

Note that there is a clear dichotomy between “long ago” and “in these last days”. This is evidence that “time matters” and is vital to the understanding of the Scripture. God surely is infinite, not bound by time, but the Bible is God’s communication to His finite creation. This passage along with Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 place those living between 30-70 AD, in a “last days” context. The cross, resurrection, Pentecost, completion of the canon, and the holocaust of 70 AD (including the destruciton of the temple and the end of the Old Covenantal system), all took place within this time period. That’s why Paul told the Corinthians “the time is short…the form of this world is passing away” (1Cor 7:29-31) and the reason Peter warned his readers in 1Peter 4:7, “The end of all things is at hand”. These texts must be reconciled by whatever theological system we adhere to.

If we read the Bible as though it arrived on our doorstep with the morning paper we will forever be confused and confounded. The Bible was written in the transition period (the Exodus antitype) between AD 30 & AD 70. So when we read the Word as though we are still living in the time of its writing, it seems rather odd to us that the Apostle Paul wrote, Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. Romans 13:11 (ESV)—How do we relate to Paul’s statement? Paul’s not simply stating the obvious in that it’s a few years closer in the span of 2 millennia, but there’s an eager expectation that it’s about to come upon them—its “the last hour”. (1John 2:18)

Salvation is not merely “nearer” to those of us who are reading the Scripture in the 21st century. It has fully come. We have it. We have already been saved but most today are still waiting. Why? Because they still “see” with physical eyes. Their expectations are skewed and what it means to have no more tears or suffering is strictly physical to them (to be quite honest this was my paradigm as well for 33 years—so I’m not certainly not casting stones). This is not the language of the New Covenant which has been revealed as a spiritual kingdom (1Cor 15:50, John 1:13, John 4:21-24, Luke 17:20-21). That’s why when read this passage out of context one gets the mistaken impression that they’re still living in this “already but not yet” transitional state.

So it would behoove us to the read the Bible with First Century glasses while walking in the sandals of those to whom it was written. We need to observe our significant cultural differences. We need to understand the Hebrew mind where such things like chronology and numbers are not an end in and of themselves. That’s why Mark puts little triptych nuggets together where he sandwiches events that take place out of chronological sequence. His interest is one of contrast—a premium is placed on theology over timelines. Numbers to us are to be crunched; to them they had significance far beyond their numerical value. By not understanding the culture and the times when the Scriptures were written, we stand the significant risk of misinterpreting passages, therefore creating false applications and ultimately abding in the resultant confusion.

2. Audience relevance

If we don’t attempt to discover what the intent of a passage was relative to its direct recipients, then how will we ever expect to determine what it means to us 20 centuries after the fact? This is one of the greatest interpretational abuses of modern times.

When James wrote, “Be patient for the coming of the Lord is at hand…the judge is standing at the door” (James 5:8-9) we cannot simply ignore the recipients of this message as though they were not real people who had real feelings & thoughts. As though the words had no relevance to the actual readers but were merely code phrases meant mainly for those who would come 2,000 years future.

I heard a sermon preached on patience that used this text. I wanted to scream but I was in the second row and had to settle for squirming. It was said that James was attempting to create an air of expectancy for all future generations regarding Jesus’ Parousia (coming). So later I asked this pastor the rhetorical question, “So you think that James was purposefully lying to create this expectant attitude?” The point is that we must not presume that God is employing situational ethics where the end (creating expectancy) justify the means. Do we presume that our Creator has a need to employ psychological tricks (let’s call it what is is—lying) to motivate us and keep us on our toes? This thought should be disgusting to us all. If I told you that I would be there “shortly” while never intending to come in your lifetime, would you consider me faithful? How about if my reason was that I just wanted to create a sense of expectation so that you wouldn’t forget me? Would that make you feel any better toward my unfaithfulness? In the same regard we oftentimes are unwilling to consider the unfiltered ramifications of Scripture when they violate our paradigm—and in so doing we are destined to succumb to this sort of ill-fated logic.

It is this same interpretational problem that caused the well-know atheist Betrand Russell to reject Christ (Why I’m Not a Christian). He knew that Jesus could not be a liar and be God at the same time—and he was correct! But how sad is it that Russell never met a Christian who could adequately divide the Word in this area of eschatology. This is why we cannot excise the study of last things from the Gospel. They are inseparable. This accepted departure from the common sense hermeneutic of audience relevance has led many astray. How grieving. Jesus did exactly as He and others prophesied and accomplished all at the end of the ages both in his death/Resurrection and His Parousia (Heb 9:26-28) In Scripture it was viewed as one Christ event that spanned a 40 year millennia. From Pentecost to Holocaust. (Acts 2:16-21)

3. Interpreting the unclear in the light of what we know to be clear.

Abusing this simple rule has resulted in the creation of many cults. For example: Interpreting James 2 as a stand alone doctrine ignoring the plethora of grace-based passages gives rise to doctrines such as Lordship (works-added) Salvation. Matter of fact, if one goes to the extreme where James makes mention of Abraham’s works of righteousness, we end up in a very confusing dilemma. Therefore it is imperative that we create matters of doctrine from passages that are abundantly clear while attempting to conform the less clear passages (which may appear to be in conflict) to the framework that we already know to be true. Therefore we know that Scripture be internally inconsistent.

4. The Analogy of Faith

Using Scripture to interpret Scripture will avoid a multitude of interpretational errors. (So many read the Old Testament as though it is the end of the story. But without viewing it through the lens of the New Testament authors, one is left quite confused—one errant belief that is derived from letting the Old Covenant stand on its own merit is the presumption that God is going to restore the land of Israel to the Jews etc. This misses the teachings of the New Covenant that are so prevalent in the book of Hebrews, and therefore they never “see” the spiritual anti-types as fulfillments of the physical types of the Old Covenant. So we accentuate physical healing as thought it’s almost an end in itself when clearly Christ’s healings were not use the temporal to prove the eternal.

Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your bed and walk’? 10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic— Mark 2:9-10 (ESV)

When reading Jeremiah 31 as though it is the end of the story, has caused major interpretational errors. If it is not interpreted in the light of the New Testament author’s illumination, we will gain the wrong temporal/physical picture of fulfillment. Hebrews 8 quotes Jeremiah 31 and puts it in the context of the New Covenant. This (Hebrews 8) is a gross departure of what one might conclude by meditating solely on Jeremiah 31.

5. Realizing that the New Testament is not new

There isn’t anything new about it. Paul repeatedly told us that he preached nothing new—everything came from the law & the prophets.

`And I confess this to thee, that, according to the way that they call a sect, so serve I the God of the fathers, believing all things that in the law and the prophets have been written, 15having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, [that] there is about to be a rising again of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous; Acts 24:14-15 (YLT)

And at this point, it should not go unnoticed the reason I chose to use the Young’s Literal Translation. Many times it accurately captures the verb tenses. No other translation reads “about to be” because their paradigm doesn’t allow them to properly translate that little Greek word, “mello”, which means just that—“about to be” or “to be about”.

In the New Testament there is never a redefinition of terms. There was “this age” and “the age to come” and those phrases are never reinterpreted by New Testament authors.

And whoever may speak a word against the Son of Man it shall be forgiven to him, but whoever may speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age, nor in that which is coming. Matthew 12:32 (YLT)

I find it rather odd that the YLT abandons their translation of “mello” in this text and uses a rather nebulous, “that which is coming”. It should read “nor that which is about to come”.
I used to believe that Christianity was a new religion and a total departure of the Old Testament, never realizing that everything in the Old Testament was prophesied in the NT. It just wasn’t seen clearly without the illumination of the Holy Spirit. They were “behind the veil of Moses” (2Cor 3) That’s why Peter & the gang seemed clueless even after the resurrection. After Jesus’ death they didn’t even understand that Jesus was to be raised.

for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead. John 20:9 (ESV)

But in Acts 2 we see an entirely different Peter. He now gets it to the point where he’s quoting from Joel and now sees the whole picture. The difference was the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

I think the new and old divisions have deleterious to the believer’s understanding of the Word as a living organism. We perceive one as old and done away with and that’s not the case. Yes, the Old Testament was not complete and on its own merits it cannot stand as the final arbiter of truth, because it’s simply the beginning of the story. The New Covenant fully put away the OC in 70AD (Heb 8:10) but it did not negate the Old Testament as irrelevant. Christianity is not a new religion. It’s an extension of the law and the prophets.

6. Misunderstanding apocalyptic language

This is the single-most reason for the confusion regarding eschatology. Folks think that the Olivet Discourse of Mt 24 (Lk 21 and Mk 13) as well as Rev 6, Acts 2 and 2Pet 3, consider a new type of speech referring to the end of the world. Nowhere do we find this expectation in the New Testament. The New Testament is replete with references to what sounds like end of the world type language i.e. Isa 34, 13, Ezek 32, Mic 1 etc. This is God’s poetic speech regarding the destruction of nations. So when we come to the New Testament & the same moon turning into blood and the stars falling from heaven type verbiage is used, they (the authors) aren’t all of a sudden changing the rules of interpretation. This heaven & earth passing away that you find in Hebrew 1 (garment growing old etc.) is not speaking about a physical end of the planet but an end to Judaism & the sacrificial system i.e. the Old Covenant. I was always taught that the OC passed away at the cross but that is not the case as we see clearly delineated in Hebrews 8.

In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 8:13 (ESV)

7. Time is always constant throughout the Scriptures

Parables and apocalyptic language use hyperbole to hammer home particular points but never do we find indication in Scripture that time can or should be trivialized or neutered. Imminent language is contained in every New Testament book. There was a clear sense of eager anticipation. To ignore that fact plays right into the hands of those who say that the Scripture is not reliable. Timing dictated the nature of His coming & yet we so misunderstand the nature that we willingly assume that God can’t tell time.

We cannot continue to ignore time as it is expressed by every New Testament author including Jesus. We cannot allow “a day to the Lord is but a thousand years & a thousand years is but a day” to be improperly extracted & misapplied, and in so doing trivialize time to suit our own “private interpretations”. If read in context, this verse from 2Pet 3 is Peter’s defense against the last days scoffers & expresses just the opposite of the way many are abusing it. Written in the latter part of the 60’s, Peter is telling his readers that even though it’s been more than 35 years since Jesus said, “This generation shall not pass away until all these thing are fulfilled”, He will fulfill His clearly-stated expectations within the bounds of “this generation”.

Simply because we cannot comprehend the nature of His coming does not give us license to reject the clear timing laid out in Scripture. Time is never bastardized. It is always consistent. At hand always means at hand. In a little while does not mean a thousand years. Shortly does not translate time into perpetuity. “This generation” does not morph into “that generation”. By reading the Scriptures in this way we have reduced the Word down to the least common denominator. If we abuse time we can make it say anything we please. Then there is no objective standard of interpretation and therefore the Scripture becomes rather impotent. This as you know was a huge area for me. I had lost faith in the Word partly because of what I perceived (rather incorrectly) as contradictions. Why trust it for my life if is capable of such fluidity? I believe a full commitment to inerrancy will lead one to take time seriously.

8. Recognizing how our own paradigm can skew our view of Scripture

We all have presuppositions & there’s nothing wrong with that. They are our framework which enable us to make sense of a very complex Word. However, to not recognize that we have them and to not realize that they can cause us to miss truth, is a serious issue.

Short example but one that continues to boggle my mind. Every time I saw the term, “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, I didn’t even really read those words. I simply replaced them with “John”, since we’ve been told from the beginning of time (it seems) that John is the disciple whom Jesus loved. I never one time questioned this “fact” even though nowhere in Scripture do we find even a hint of Jesus’ specific love for John. When I first was confronted with this fact I became somewhat indignant because surely we cannot be fooling around with authorship. That’s what the liberal heretics do that want to discredit the Word. Upon further study I found (not really me because I don’t read the Scripture with as much attention to detail as I should—but I’m trying) through a few sources that there was definitive Scriptural evidence that the Apostle John did not in fact write the 4th Gospel. So I was left with a choice—I could continue to blindly follow tradition (because who are we to disavow third century testimony) or I could allow the Word to successfully shape my belief.

(For a thorough treatment of this issue you can either go to www.thedisciplewhomjesusloved.com and read the book of the same name or you can listen to a sermon of that name @ www.charlescoty.com/audio2.html. You will be amazed)

Why does this example matter? First of all, Scripture is always enhanced and enriched when read through the eyes of truth—but on a different note; this was a glaring example of how tradition had blinded me to truth. The exhortation of Acts 17:11 to be a faithful Berean continues to plague my instincts but something we should always strive for. I would much rather not have to forsake age old tradition because it’s always uncomfortable to deviate from the party line and makes others thusly squeamish.
Posted in Updates | 1 Comment

Are Arabs & Jews Destined for Eternal Enmity?

Posted on January 16, 2008 by Chuck Coty

While perusing a friend’s blog, I found the following comment posted by an anonymous author. It regards the continued conflict between Arabs and Jews and conforms to what I have found to be a rather stereotypical response among Christians. He writes:

“I’ve heard it “said” that Muslims descended from Ishmael (son of Abraham and Hagar). Is this true? If it is true, in Genesis 16:12, it is said of Ishmael”:

“He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers.”

“Does Genesis 16:12 only refer to Ishmael, or does it in some way, foreshadow the continual conflict between Muslims and Jesus’ followers?”

Is this assumption valid? Are those that trace their lineage back to Ishael still bound by this decree? Has anything changed in history that could potentially alter God’s pronouncement? Are Jews and Arabs (many of whom are Muslim) or Arabs and Christians destined for eternal strife and foreordained to an acrimonious relationship simply due to heredity? Is this truly an irreversible Hatfield/McCoy byproduct of genetic predisposition?

One might think so were it not for the New Testament’s divinely inspired commentary on the Old Testament. Too often we read the Old Testament without the benefit of New Testament revelation. At this point it may be of some value to consider the thoughts of the Apostle Paul since he was painfully aware of the division of Jew and Gentile. He was both persecutor and persecuted. Did Paul believe that differences were irreconcilable?

Consider the following New Testament passages that provide the backdrop for understanding the nature of the New Covenant. Let’s look at our world through the lens of this inspired NT author.

For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:13 (ESV)

We are all of one spirit. In Christ we are clearly homogenized.

For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. Romans 10:12 (ESV)

There is no racial distinction.

Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all. Colossians 3:11 (ESV)

In this New Covenant world, genetics do not divide.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. Galatians 3:28-29 (ESV)

God has leveled the playing field. Who is Abraham’s offspring? Those born according to the flesh? Physical Israel? Absolutely not. Those who are “in Christ” by faith are Abraham’s offspring. Jews and Gentiles alike become “heirs according to promise” by a faith decision.

Paul even takes this a step further. In this New Covenant economy God has wiped the slate clean. Clearly, God has erased artificial barriers between both races and sexes. Any existing racism or sexism is not God-ordained but man maintained. Faith is the only dividing characteristic between people. There are believers and non-believers. However, is this division supposed to be an obstacle that separates?

I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 1 Corinthians 1:10 (ESV)

Clearly the Apostle Paul is exhorting believers to be united, but this is not merely to those inside the Church but more so an extension of God’s mind for all. Through our faith in Christ we are to love all equally, not treating any people groups with preference. Our call is to preach the Gospel to all. We love Jews and Arabs alike. We aren’t to favor one over the other any more than we are to divide based upon skin color. At any moment, through faith in Jesus Christ’s shed blood, one can move freely from non-believer to believer. From a position of enmity with God to everlasting peace with God. How cool is that!

So may it never be said that this long-standing feud between Jews and Arabs, Christians and Arabs or Christians and Jews has anything to do with the ordinance of God. Its roots are in the depravity of man. (Rom 3:9-18) Racism of any kind is not condoned nor is tolerated by God—and neither is it inevitably destined to continue into perpetuity. Peace will abound when both Jews and Arabs alike meet the Messiah!

And lest there be any doubt we need look no further Jesus’ parable of the Samaritan. This came on the heals of Jesus issuing the summation of the law in the two greatest commandments: “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”

So who is our neighbor? Jesus used the example of the Samaritan since they were utterly despised by His own race. They were considered less than human, much lower than a Gentile. Jesus was leaving no doubt as to His conviction regarding racial barriers. There were to be none! Further testimony came while Jesus engaged the Samaritan woman at well. Clearly, Jesus did not consider ethnicity a valid dividing factor. Jesus, of the lineage of David, was pronoucing to the world that this New Covenant economy was a new order where all could be brothers based upon their relationship with Him.

Let’s plunge deeper into the New Covenant. If we want to see how this relationship between Sarah and Hagar played out in history we need turn no further than the book of Galatians. In his allegorical analysis, Paul does a masterful job of untangling this perceived web of intrigue between Arab and Jew. What was going to be the disposition between these supposedly “irreconcilable”people groups?

What I found extremely interesting was the angle of the Apostle Paul’s argument. He didn’t trifle over who the father was e.g., Abraham, but instead totally focused his attention on the mothers. Through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, Paul asks the simple question, “Who’s your momma?” The religious leaders of Paul’s day proudly proclaimed their heritage to father Abraham. Yet, as we shall see in a moment, Paul rather abuptly made the rather shocking judgment that physical bloodline was no longer of consequence.

As John the Baptizer began his public ministry he greeted his fellow countrymen rather offensively. (I don’t believe he’d ever read Dale Carnegie’s, “How to Win Friends and Influence people”!)

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath [about] to come? 8 Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Matthew 3:7-9 (ESV)

The Jews were beginning to find out early on, that genetics were of no value in this New Covenant Kingdom. Without faith it was impossible to please God. (Heb 11:16) (I might add that it has always been about faith, but God was no longer working through nations to mete out that faith—Gal 3:6) So in Paul’s day which people group was the representative of Hagar and her son Ishmael? Paul turns Genesis 16:12 upside down!

For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. Galatians 3:22-24

These women and their offspring represent two covenants—the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. In this New Covenant world the relationship between Sarah and Hagar is treated allegorically. Notice which of the two represent the physical Jews of Paul’s day. It may shock you if you haven’t yet considered the ramifications of this passage. Those born physical Jews are from Sarah, right?

One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. Galatians 3:24-26

Are you kidding me! Hagar, the slave woman is the representative from ARABIA and she corresponds to then “present Jerusalem” which was “in slavery” according to God’s economy. This threw me for a loop! The Jerusalem above is free (New Jerusalem) and Sarah is our mother. Not to be overly repetitively redundant 🙂 but in this New Covenant order, Hagar is the representative of the Jews not the Arabs. This was a monumental revelation to me.

For it is written, “Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband.” 28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. Galatians 3:27-29

Who is the “desolate one”? Sarah and her offspring. And who does Sarah represent in this new equation? The Church—those “born according to the Spirit” who were being severely persecuted by the Jewish non-believers. But who was actually being persecuted? Until Paul took the message of Christ to the Gentiles (many years after his coversion) it was predominantly Jews persecuting Jews. Those adhering to Judaism and those that had committed their lives to Christ. The Jews who denied the Savior, thinking that their religiosity would give them Kingdom rights, were “in slavery” while the Jewish believers (and eventually Gentiles by faith alike) would be part of this New eternal Kingdom.

But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” 31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. Galatians 4:30-31 (ESV)

So what’s the disposition of the physical Jews? What was to come of them? They were to be cast out just as it was predicted by Jesus prior to His Olivet Discourse.

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! 38 See, your house is left to you desolate. Matthew 23:37-38 (ESV)

So in this new Kingdom there is neither Jew nor Gentile, Arab nor Jew. The only distinction in this New Covenant regards our faith choice—those who are with Christ and those who have not yet chosen Christ.

We need to become peacemakers knowing that God does not ordain genetic barriers. It is only through the redemptive blood of Christ that frees us from these racial chains. Is there hope for peace in the Middle East? Absolutely. But if Christians continue to divide people groups based upon non-Biblical parameters, there will always be strife. It’s up to us. So let’s stop practicing racism and begin to love all people equally, knowing that both Jews and Arabs need Jesus.

God is interested in the condition of one’s heart not the pigment of one’s sin. The cross of Jesus Christ is the historical dividing line. On Nisan 14, 0030, the landscape forever changed. Three days and three nights later God’s New Covenant economy was inaugerated. Through faith in Yeshua HaMashia, those born according to the lineage of Ishmael can forever be redeemed and those who consider themselves Israelites can enter the eternal Kingdom as brothers in Christ. And the current Kingdom dwellers offer all who live outside the Kingdom the opportunity to come dine with the King of Kings! (Rev 22:14-15, 17)

Is there potential for peace? You bet there is!

Posted in Updates | Leave a comment

Audience Relevance in the Olivet

Posted on January 6, 2008 by Chuck Coty
Two years ago I ran across the simplest of statements that would forever change my life, my paradigm (worldview) and my faith in the Bible. “Although the Scripture was written FOR us it was not written directly TO us”. At first glance this phrase seemed rather juvenile, that is until I began to consider its earthshaking implications.

I was very much aware that the New Testament writers like Paul and Peter wrote their letters to real flesh and blood 1st century believers or churches, but even in that light I unwittingly bypassed context looking for specific personal applications that I believed was encased in every passage.

Clearly “all Scripture is inspired by God” and fully profitable that “we may be equipped for every good work” (2Tim 3:16-17) but is it beneficial to be so preoccupied with finding personal relevance to the point where we ignore scriptural context? I truly believe this has created a whole host of interpretational errors and has led to a great deal of confusion.

Therefore, our mission, should we choose to accept it, is to first determine what the New Testament author intended to communicate to his immediate audience, and only after that attempt to make proper personal application. In other words, a text can’t mean today what it never meant to the first-century recipients. 

All too often when reading a passage of Scripture I was inclined to automatically transpose the “you” to “me” or “us”. That seemed wise until I realized that by doing so I was ripping “audience relevance” from the equation, and therefore trivialized the lives of the original recipients—to the point where they were deemed irrelevant. By doing this we inadvertently transport segments of Scripture germane to a first-century culture and spiritual climate, 2,000 years to a westernized people who have virtually no connection to the original context.

By ignoring context we create significant confusion such that we unwittingly subject ourselves to Doubting Thomasitis. I surely had a bad case of this nasty superbug! Things just did not add up and the subliminal affects of doubt crept in to the point where it took a serious toll on my relationship with the Lord. It’s insidious yet I prevalent in the Church. Expectations become skewed when we attempt to move passages from their first-century moorings to current day settings. When we time-warp, for example the letter to the Hebrews, to the year 2008 instead of reading it in it’s original 0062 context, we introduce insurmountable hermeneutical issues.

Doing this causes two identifiable problems.
  1. We don’t recognize God’s faithfulness to the original recipients.
  2. We expectantly wait for things to happen today that were prophesied to transpire in the first- century.
Over the next 30 years I fear many will leave the faith or at least shrink back from it, because they will eventually succumb to the beliefs of the theological liberals who tell us that the Bible is not inspired. Why will believers retreat and fall prey to those who don’t respect Holy Scripture? Because the predictions of our modern day soothsayers continue to go by the wayside. Many have not moved from being nominal believers to become effective disciples. They subsist on the elementary principles and do not forge ahead to be faithful Bereans (Acts 17:11) testing everything against the light of God’s Word.

12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, 13 for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. 14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. Hebrews 5:12-14 (ESV)

Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, Hebrews 6:1 (ESV)
The problem, as I now realize after 33 years of struggle, is not with the the God-breathed Words of our Creator but with the faulty interpretational grid of man—who continues to ignore Scriptural relevance to the original audience.
This has lent credence to skeptic’s books like the Da Vinci Code since interpretation has become a matter of personal preference, removed from the realm of studious study based upon sound hermeneutical principles. In the mid 60’s AD, Peter warned his faithful followers of engaging in “private interpretations” and we still languish in the same errors today. Works like the Da Vinci Code would have little enticement if we recognized principles like audience relevance, the analogy of faith (interpreting Scripture in light of Scripture) and paid close attention to scriptural detail.
Let me briefly show you what I mean using a passage from 2 Thessalonians and then move on to intent of this post—reading the Olivet through the eyes and in the sandals of the first century believers. Consider the following passage from 2 Thessalonians 1. I’m going to embolden specific words to shed light on the audience at hand.

6 since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7 and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels 8 in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 2 Thessalonians 1:6-8 ESV)

The immediate reflex for me was to personalize this passage—to bring it into my world. The assumption is that God is going to repay with affliction those who inflict ME and therefore inflict vengeance on MY oppressors. This may apply as a generalized principle but out of context we lose sight of what the Apostle Paul was conveying. The problem is that I’m not part of the Thessalonian Church and God never made that promise specifically to me. We must not lose sight of this fact.

By moving these verses into a modern day context, we fail to realize that Paul’s offering specific comfort to the persecuted Thessalonian Church, letting them know that God will avenge those who afflict them. We know historically that God made good this commitment adhering to Jesus’s “this generation” proclamation. During the ensuing 3 ½ year tribulation that began in the spring of AD 66 and terminated in the fall of AD 70, Jerusalem was obliterated and the oppressors witnessed God’s judgment first-hand. There’s no doubt that the Thessalonians were comforted by God’s faithfulness!

1,100,000 Jews died during the siege and another 80,000 were taken captive by Titus and the multinational force. God’s wrathful outpouring was evident to all!

What’s the lesson for us? How do we make application? By realizing that God is faithful to do exactly as promised within the time frame promised. Therefore, we know that if God was faithful to the first century believers who were in serious need of vindication, God will be faithful to us in our time of need. The problems come when we assume that the “flaming fire, inflicting vengeance” is to occur sometime in our future against those that may afflict us. This cannot be the case since the context of this passage forces us to confine Paul’s promised vindication to the oppressors of the Thessalonian believers in the latter part of the transition period, between the writing of 2 Thessalonians and the terrible day of the Lord in AD 70.

“not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.” Hebrews 10:25 (ESV) (don’t forget that the YOU is not 21st century believers!) “The Day” was approaching rapidly. How soon would “all these things” be fulfilled? (Luke 21:22)

You (those living in the 60’s AD) need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what He has promised. 37For in just a very little while, “He who is coming (Jesus) will come and will not delay. (Hebrews 10:36-37 NIV) We can either choose to believe that God was faithful or we can continue to believe the rhetoric of the modern day prophecy experts…
Let’s take a look at another passage. As you read, consider who is speaking; who the passage is addressed to; what promises were made; to whom the promises were made; and the relevance to the surrounding time and conditions.
I’ll add some bracketed comments just to help us remember that this passage was not written directly to us. Put yourself into the mind of one of the audience members and transport yourself to the Mount of Olives in 30 AD. Picture the magnificent Temple edifice on the massive platform that currently supports the the Dome of the Rock. (click on the photo for perspective)

1 Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said to them [not you & I], “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you [Jesus’ disciples], not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” [verse 34 tells the time frame when this was to take place]

3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age [not the end of the world as in the KJV]?” 4 And Jesus answered and said to them [not me & you] : “Take heed that no one deceives you [the disciples]. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. [in their day not 2,00 years future-and we have record of many who did come in this manner]

6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled [who is the “you” who should not be troubled?—The disciples] ; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet [end of what? End of the World? No, the end of the age] . 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. [all happened like clockwork – Acts speaks of much of this] 8 All these are the beginning of sorrows. [When was this all to happen? Verse 34 tells us]

9 Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you [kill whom?—the disciples], and you [disciples] will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. [and they did]

12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. [from the ensuing temporal destruction that would befall Jerusalem in the tribulation of AD 66-70] 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world [Has this happened yet? See Col 1:6;23] as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come [the end of the age not the end of the world].

15 “Therefore when you see [not us you but the disciples] the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” [Luke tells us (Luke 21:20) that this desolaton will be the result of the armies that surround the city] (whoever reads, let him understand), 16 then let those who are in Judea [not Brandon or Opelika – no reason to spiritualize this text] flee to the mountains [in Florida!].

17 Let him who is on the housetop [not too many hanging out on housetops today in Tampa, FL or Kokomo, IN] not go down to take anything out of his house. 18 And let him who is in the field [Do you work in the field? Not a lot of folks do today. This is where people who pride themselves with the “literal” approach to interpretation, immediately take flight from the natural when it is not called for by the text] not go back to get his clothes.

19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! [wouldn’t make a whole lot of difference today—for goodness sakes, pregnancy virtually poses no problems today compared to 2,000 years ago!] 20 And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath [travel is not impeded in the winter or on Saturday in this day and age but it surely was then].

21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened. [I’m thankful they were shortened but the watchful Christians fled to Pella 3 1/2 years earlier]

23 Then if anyone says to you [the disciples], ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. [the Kingdom was not to come with “signs to be observed” (Lk 17:20-21)]24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you [not us] beforehand. [they were supposed to know the season of His return]

26 Therefore if they say to you, ‘Look, He is in the desert!’ [I guess Matthew’s referring to the the desert of Valrico-just kidding!] do not go out; or ‘Look, He is in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it. [Lk 17:20-21] 27 For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west [figurative judgment language scattered throughout the OT], so also will the coming [parousia-an arrival with a consequential presence] of the Son of Man be.

28 For wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together. 29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light [much like Isaiah 34:4:]; the stars will fall from heaven [much like Isaiah 13:10], and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes [don’t have many tribes in Tampa!] of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds [just like in the OT, they never physically saw the Lord when He came on the clouds. But they certainly were aware of His presence!] of heaven with power and great glory.

31 And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. 32 “Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you now that summer is near. [a clear indication that they were to know the timing, just not the actual day or the hour of His return]

33 So you also, when you see all these things, now that it is near–at the doors! [James 5:8-9 is quoting this] 34 Assuredly, I say to you, [not those of us living in 2008] this generation [not 50 generations from then!] will by no means pass away till all these things take place. Matthew 24:1-34 (NKJV)

Can you “see” how audience relevance shapes the way you read the Word? This makes all the difference in the world when interpreting Scripture. A passage like the Olivet, that may appear future to us when not considering the relevance to the audience at hand, is clearly meant for the generation that received it.

And those who consider a potential double fulfillment (occurring then and again in our future), need to read the passage carefully. It’s rather difficult to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom “in all the world” twice (unless of course we consider future planetary exploration! 🙂 And how can there be double portions of “those days had not been cut short, no one would survive“? And how can it be that an event “never to be equaled again“ will reoccur?
To be quite frank, it seems to me that the only reason anyone would attempt to make this double fulfillment argument, is due to an expectation created by an immovable furturistic paradigm. At that point we enter dangerous waters because we willingly read into the Word instead of determining what it actually says. I would rather deal with the consequences of a changing paradigm than craftily manipulate the Scriptures to fit my potentially flawed presuppositions.
Lastly, we must never lose sight of the reason for the “all these things” that were to come upon the generation that killed the Messiah. Matthew 24 cannot be correctly understand without the benefit of Matthew 23 where Jesus’ tirade against the “brood of vipers” ended with “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. 38Look, your house is left to you desolate.”

So as you read the Word always consider context and remember that little phrase: “The Scripture was written FOR us but it was not written TO us.”
Posted in Eschatology | Leave a comment

Robertson the Prophet that Couldn’t

Posted on January 3, 2008 by Chuck Coty

Following is an AP article from the 2nd day of January 2007. Today, one year later, the prophetic words of Pat Robertson have been found wanting. I say it’s time to hold our leaders accountable when they purport to have “heard from God”. Robertson slightly hedged his bets by saying, “Sometimes I miss”.

Yeah like the Tsumani that was supposed to slam the U.S. coastline in ’06, or Bush’s success in revamping of the Social Security system in ’05. Not a sterling track record. God doesn’t make mistakes! Listen, I don’t have a problem with Robertson’s attempt to be attentive to the voice of God but this kind of public display seems to have exposed potentially ulterior motives.

Robertson clearly stood a 50/50 chance of getting this right given the current Middle East climate—but why does he continue to subject the Church to embarrassment? Do we not pay a serious credibility price for this kind of thing? And what’s the deal with intermediaries? I thought we shed that top-down stuff back in the 1500’s.

And if this is not enough, many of these leaders continue to add insult to injury as they whiff over and again with their eschatological prognostications? Yet we continue to purchase their books while lining their pockets. My hope is that many in the Church will begin to stop the insanity by cutting the free flow of funds to organizations & individuals who persist in this kind of irresponsible behavior.

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. – In what has become an annual tradition of prognostications, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson predicted Tuesday that a terrorist attack on the United States would result in “mass killing” late in 2007.

“I’m not necessarily saying it’s going to be nuclear,” he said during his news-and-talk television show “The 700 Club” on the Christian Broadcasting Network. “The Lord didn’t say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that.”

Robertson said God told him during a recent prayer retreat that major cities and possibly millions of people will be affected by the attack, which should take place sometime after September.

Robertson said God also told him that the U.S. only feigns friendship with Israel and that U.S. policies are pushing Israel toward “national suicide.”

Robertson suggested in January 2006 that God punished then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon with a stroke for ceding Israeli-controlled land to the Palestinians.

The broadcaster predicted in January 2004 that President Bush would easily win re-election. Bush won 51 percent of the vote that fall, beating Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. He also predicted Bush’s victory for a second term in 2005.

“I have a relatively good track record,” he said. “Sometimes I miss.”

In May, Robertson said God told him that storms and possibly a tsunami were to crash into America’s coastline in 2006. Even though the U.S. was not hit with a tsunami, Robertson on Tuesday cited last spring’s heavy rains and flooding in New England as partly fulfilling the prediction.

Posted in Updates | 2 Comments

Thoughts of a Restored Mind

Posted on December 22, 2007 by Chuck Coty

We brought in the 2006 New Year with wonderful friends that we’ve had for a lifetime – well a half-life anyway. After catching up with some that we hadn’t seen in a while, we gathered together as a group to reflect upon the past year. As we went around the room, those that offered their thoughts spoke in fairly affirmative terms as to how they saw God working in their lives. No doubt this was a time of enrichment and thankfulness because it was abundantly clear that God had given us all so much.

As is always the case, there were a few silent souls, with one usually being me. This rare moment I anteed up a few words and thankfully didn’t cave in emotionally as I am prone to do whenever expressing issues of the heart. The skeptic in me always wonders what’s really going on in the deepest recesses of those quiet ones like me – but I no less wonder about those who seem to always be able to put a triumphant spiritual spin on even the most challenging moral and/or spiritual dilemmas.

We seem to learn at a very early age how to fool even the closest of friends when in fact most of us at least occasionally experience those sleepless nights filled with thoughts of inadequacies and doubts and feelings of hurt and fear. In an inaudible whisper we think aloud, “Does God really love me? Is He still there?” Unfortunately uttering those kinds of questions in a group setting make folks very uncomfortable. Certainly we need to dwell on the “good things”, but I have learned that God indeed can handle those questions of uncertainty and insecurity. We just need to be honest and genuine with Him.

Mike Tyson vs. Mr. Bean
The group disassembled and as the evening began to wear down I heard a fellow say that he was reading a book on preterism, which is a theological term for believing that most if not all of the prophecy found in the Bible had been fulfilled (ostensibly by A.D. 70 culminating Jerusalem’s destruction). So, oh dopy me chimed in and said, “I think I believe some of that stuff”. Can you say stupid, stupid, stupid? (I was such a neophyte in the world of eschatology and at that point easily driven and tossed by the wind. The subject of eschatology seemed wrought with subterfuge and confusion so for the most part I had stayed away.)

Well, you’d have thought I just detonated a dirty bomb in New York City! There are a few certainties in life, one of them being, never question the validity of the pretribulation rapture in hearing distance of a hardcore rapturologist whose been studying and honing his views on said subject for the better part of a quarter of a century. To begin with, you have little chance (if you are still in a confused state), and the odds are reduced to below zero when you are as ill-prepared as I was. Stepping into what appeared to be a prearranged ambush of sorts did not bode well for the home team. Though my perceptions were probably errant and there was no ill-intent, it sure felt like I’d stepped into a fire ant bed up to my knee.

It’s like getting into an impromptu street fight with Mike Tyson when he was in the prime of his boxing rampage, directly after coming off a 26-mile mid-summer jaunt through the bowels of the vulture-laden heat-scorched Grand Canyon. First of all, you are thoroughly outmatched because he’s 238 pounds of raw violence, and second, he knows how to take you out with the precision of a Swiss watchmaker. Once he lands the first blow to your glass-like chin you find yourself prostrate on the ground wondering if your undergarments are hospital-worthy.

As you begin to hear the ref count down from 10, your dignity kicks in and somewhere between 7 and 5 you pull yourself back up by the ropes to a semi-vertical position. And before you are nearly seaworthy, wham! You take a severe body shot to the solar plexus with something like, “How can you possibly believe that? Who saw Jesus return”? And just when you think it can’t get any worse and you can’t look any more foolish among your lifelong friends, you get hit with a non-stop combination of “What about _______?” while machine-gunning 10 neatly packaged verses absolutely “proving” his point.

Then with a smirk-filled accusatory tone, he conjectures, “How in the world can you believe what, in fact, nobody saw?” After your 4th knockdown you rise to your feet again hoping for one last opportunity to preserve even the slightest modicum of dignity, but at that point he really smelled blood. He began to wind up his windmill of an arm and he started to grin at you like, “Are you totally out of your mind?”. Then he methodically proceeds to pummel you into oblivion like a Johnny Damon bobblehead doll in the clenches of an angry die-hard Red Sox fanatic when he hears on ESPN that J.D. has defected to the dark side. You may not be down for the count yet but the fact is you’re toast. Just pack up your thoughts and get out of there before the carnage worsens – because at that point all you can hope for is that you can get out of dodge before you get your ear bitten off by Iron Mike. 🙂

When I arrived home and began to recount this eschatological debate nightmare, I felt the scars of being battered and beaten – metaphorically for sure but emotionally and intellectually pummeled nonetheless. Whoever thought up that old “sticks and stones” garbage ought to be held down and severely licked by my little black dog, Fenway, who has a tongue longer than Kiss rocker, Gene Simmons!

Life is a great teacher and at this point, I want to share with you two life lessons that I learned from this rather vexing experience.

The first is that “winning” an argument should never be the ultimate priority. Truth is vitally essential, but in the context of argumentation it should be void of arrogance and condescension. I can’t believe those words are actually coming from my nimble little fingertips because I have been on the other side of that equation far too many times. However, demonstrating the love that has been so freely given to us (by our Creator), should be our utmost goal. That may sound too syrupy to some but if love and respect are removed from the discussion, there’s close to a 100% chance that even words of truth will fall on deaf ears. People don’t often change closely held views if they are pummeled into submission.

Gentle persuasion is a worthy goal, especially if we are convinced that we are correcting doctrinal error. Sure it’s fun to believe that we are right and there’s a sense of exhilaration when we think that we are successfully dispensing the truth we have captured from Scripture, but the “need” to win must be bridled by humility (Phil 2:3-8). There’s certainly some power in believing we are correctly dividing the Word of God, but it’s like dousing petrol on the fire of our foolish pride when we don’t do it with the love of Christ in full view.

When you think about it, from the time you are old enough to utter your first words like, Tinkertoy or prestidigitation, being right is the name of the game. Hey, listen, there’s nothing inherently wrong with espousing truth (may it never be!) but there’s a way to do it while allowing those that might be in discord with us to feel like they haven’t been beaten senseless.

So lesson number one is to debate with dignity – edify, don’t tear down. This, of course, is far easier written than accomplished but it certainly should remain a steadfast goal. It does not mean that one must retreat from beliefs held dear. It’s more a matter of the attitude we convey. I probably violate this principle far too often but it is something with which I strive for especially in the light of my ever-growing convictions.

The second lesson was the hardest. As Peter wrote in his first epistle (circa AD 60s) “…always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.” Was I prepared? Was I able to wield the sword of the Spirit with the speed and precision that was worthy of my ambassadorship? Not really. I had the “spirit of humility” down pretty well but not because I was overflowing with the fruit of the spirit – it had much more to do with my puny spiritual state and my lack of understanding.

My counterpart surely was ready and eager with Scriptural ammunition that I was hardly able to counter.  The reality is that we are all accountable to offer a reason for that which we believe and that night my defense was rather awkward and acutely pitiful. I was ill-prepared both Scripturally and emotionally to offer a sound response though I didn’t find his arguments convincing.

It was more than apparent to me that my jouster left that night feeling quite victorious and admittedly he was more than justified. A blow to my ego perhaps, but nonetheless productive in the long run as it would be the catalyst that woke me out of my prolonged stupor. In his mind, he’d defeated another foolish heretic engaged in what he believed was Peter’s exhortation against “private interpretations“. After all I had the audacity to question the holy grail of Left Behindology and that simply cannot be tolerated. In my mind’s eye, I could see him scratching a notch into his belt of Scriptural correctness – one more Hymenaen heretic bites the dust! And in a sense, I don’t blame him since this is the only paradigm he knew. He’d been engaged in confirmation bias for the better part of his Christian life.

But the reality is that I didn’t do him any favors. Even though I am now more than ever convinced of the fulfilled position which at the time I only vaguely understood, I am saddened because I didn’t afford this fellow Christ-follower the opportunity of hearing the challenge of a refreshingly Biblical perspective. For as Paul wrote in his second letter to Timothy in chapter 2 verse 15, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth”. So too we should we be able to handle the sword with this kind of confidence.

Adversity is the Mother of Change
Much of the impetus for creating my website (CharlesCoty.com) came from that New Year’s Eve experience. My sincere desire is to honestly and humbly share the hope that Christ has given me – knowing that God’s faithfulness to His first-century followers challenges the LaHayeque model of eschatology. I have found that many do not stop to consider the Bible’s imminence statements relative to the lives of those that received them. If God was not faithful to fulfill his clearly stated imminent promises (soon, shortly, at hand, in a little while) to His committed and heavily persecuted first-century disciples, then what gives us the confidence that He will be faithful to us 50 centuries removed from those promises? Isn’t faithfulness predicated upon timely execution of a promise?

About 2 1/2 years ago when I broke free from the rather severe 12-15 year spiritual slump/fog of apathy and debilitating indifference, I noticed that there had been three tangible events that catapulted me over the wall of unbelief.

The first involved God’s miraculous work in the lives of my wife’s sister and her husband that could not be explained by any amount of skepticism I could muster. That truly was a timely heartening touch from Heaven.

The next was when I became engulfed in the study of Job. I read, listened to on my mp3 player, and studied the book of Job countless times in a span of just a few weeks. It was extremely difficult to come to grips with some of the deeper messages in this very complex book, but nonetheless, I found the exercise quite enlightening and enriching. I learned that outside a personal vibrant relationship with our Creator life doesn’t exist in any meaningful way. In retrospect, these were two identifiable events which began to melt my heart of stone. To that point I had been reduced to a pathetic, ambivalent wanderer. I had written a paper, “Through the Eyes of a Skeptic”, not long after my dad’s passing which was followed by witnessing the most horrific event… our dear friends had lost their adult child. As I penned those words, my frail, tattered spiritual state was in full display.

Eschatologically Induced Depression
Well, that brings me to the third set of dominos that still has me scratching my ever more balding head. I had been studying eschatology (you wouldn’t know it by the outcome of the above New Year’s party episode) and I finally came to the conclusion that the Late Great Planet Earth/Left Behind/Ryrie/Scofield doom and gloom theology did not square with Scripture. I had little to replace it with but recognizing a faulty paradigms freed me to take the necessary step to begin the rebuild process. Although many factors contributed to my new eschatological conclusions, I must say that realizing that although the Bible was written FOR US, it was clearly not written directly TO us, was a monumental revelation. Reading the Scripture with “audience relevance” (which considers the primacy of the original audience) has been a breath of fresh air. Most of us have been conditioned to read the Bible as if it was written directly to us in our generation, but this does grave injustice to the infallible Word of God.

At this point, you may ask, “Why in the world would a change in eschatological position have anything to do with overcoming unbelief and spiritual depression”? The answer is simple yet, complex. The futurist worldview undermines one’s ability to assimilate the latent and continued effects of Christ’s death and resurrection. In a sense, it unwittingly denies the massive impact that Jesus’s overcoming death should have on all of creation. God’s redemption should ultimately permeate the whole earth! His salt and His light should flavor every facet of society. (Read Ezekiel 47 for context)

Futurists say that Satan truly is “Alive and Well on Planet Earth” (a Hal Lindsey paperback written in the early 70’s soon after “The Late Great Planet Earth” burst onto the scene). But does Satan truly have dominion over the earth? Is the war still raging? Clearly there are countless skirmishes, but wasn’t Christ declared the winner when He arose from the tomb and ascended to the right hand of the Father? And wasn’t it the end for Beelzebub’s run on evildoing when he was crushed into tiny unrecognizable pieces and the temple in Jerusalem was annihilated along with the bondage and curse of the law which was embodied in the entire sacrificial system? For in Romans 16:20 Paul wrote, “The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.” (Let us not miss the critical word “soon” found in the above text and not violate key principals of hermeneutics understanding that Paul wrote this letter to the Romans in approx. AD 58, not to Americans in 2007!)

Paul further wrote, “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting? The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Christ said, “It is finished”. Then on the 3rd day he arose from the grave forever conquering sin and ultimately spiritual death. Peter proclaimed, “The end of all things is near” and 40 years after Jesus’ ascension to Heaven, the temple and the entire sacrificial system was utterly destroyed.

Today most of us live as though it was never finished and we unwittingly fail to recognize how our eschatological worldview affects every facet of life. It’s clearly not a foundational issue, but it does flavor the way we interpret Scripture. Unlike the gentlemen at the New Year’s party, many of us say we have no clear position on the “End Times” and we are frightened and perplexed by the imagery of John’s Revelation. I sadly admit that the majority of Christians have a catastrophic view of the “end” with the battle of all battles waged in the valley of Megiddo. This view, I submit, has dangerous fallout. Let me share two somewhat recent examples and how I think it not only damages our credibility in a world that is in desperate need of Christ, but also renders our witness less effectual.

In a February 2005 article entitled, “Are We Doomed? Insanity Now Mainstream -There Is No Tomorrow”, Bill Moyers writes, “Remember James Watt, President Ronald Reagan’s first Secretary of the Interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony, he said, “after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.” (Read the whole article – it’s quite illuminating and informative to see how others outside the evangelical beltway perceive us and our science fiction-like end of the world theology.)

[7/24/09: It has come to my attention that this quote was falsely attributed to James Watt. However, it was consistent with his policies according to Moyer who wrote in an apology to Watt, “You and I differ strongly about your record as Secretary of Interior. I found your policies abysmally at odds with what I understand as a Christian to be our obligation to be stewards of the earth. I found it baffling, when in our conversation of today, you were unaware of how some fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible influence political attitudes toward the environment.”]

I’m not a fan of Bill Moyers but he makes a valid and quite disturbing point. To cap off this whole line of what I believe to be misguided and ill-conceived exegesis, I have heard many allude to a statement of a famous pessimillennialist, “Why polish brass on a sinking ship” – in other words, “Why waste valuable time attempting to stem the tide of abortion on demand, child trafficking and mass shooting when there are souls to be won?” I’m sorry, but that grates at the core of my spirit and it raises the hackles on the back on my neck! How insensitive! Did Christ not come to redeem all of life? Just yesterday I heard someone say, “Don’t bother recycling because this place is shortly going up in a flaming inferno anyway!”

How can we be salt and light to a world in desperate need of the Gospel if we don’t give a darn about today’s moral climate? Oh sure we preach the “good news” to “them” as if the only thing that matters is getting them to sign their confession of Christ on the dotted line. Do we give water to the thirsty, clothe the naked and feed the starving? To a point, but even that seems quite conditional. We want to meet our quota of the great commission by preaching the gospel to everyone on the planet so that we can usher in the 2nd coming of Christ. Do we really care about the environment? Do we want to break down racial barriers? Do we want to change our world and bring it under the Kingship of Christ? Do we want to build buildings to last more than 30 years? Do we believe there are grace- atoning solutions in the Middle East? Palestinian Christians are being persecuted and are fleeing the Occupied territories by the droves? The more militant Muslims have a blood-thirsty desire of eliminating all Christians and Jews from the region and ultimately the face of the earth.

Are there any solutions or is God unwilling or incapable of changing even the hardest of hearts? We are told that enmity has existed for thousands of years and that’s not going to ever change. Is it true that all hope of peace is preordained for failure? I’m saddened to say that my guess is that most would say yes, because they believe that the bible clearly states that short of Jesus’ 2nd return, things will only worsen. (2Tim 3:1-13) But do we not realize that Paul was writing to Timothy referring to the same “last days” that Peter and the author of Hebrews (whom I believe was Paul) said was occurring at that time almost 2,000 years ago? That’s why Peter warned, “The end of all things is near“, why Paul wrote, “The time is short…for the form of this world is passing away“, and why John seconded Paul’s motion with, “The world is passing away” and began the Revelation with, “Things which must soon take place.” There was a clear, unmistakable consensus among the NT writers that can only be trivialized and washed away by our paradigms of gloom.

And it seems that we are more fixated on “Anti-Christ is coming’ than “Christ is coming”. We are told, “What’s the use”, referencing our impotent efforts to change a doomed world. It’s plainly written in the footnotes of our Ryrie and Scofield Bibles and Tim LaHaye spells it out ever so clearly in the fictional Left Behind series? Many treat this series like a God-inspired extension of Scripture? Is it?

The mantra goes on…You must realize that the evil one is coming and all our efforts to make a difference in this world will be for naught, so just save as many as you can before, by the skin of our teeth, we get taken out of this God-forsaken existence. I’ve been hearing much of the same since the early 70’s. My goodness, when the 1973 oil crisis broke out over our support for Israel in the Yom Kippur war, my roommates and I considered quitting college and doing whatever one is supposed to do “in the last days”.

Then in the 1982, when my wife was pregnant with our first child, we were warned by a friend, “”For indeed the days are coming in which they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, wombs that never bore, and breasts which never nursed!‘” How sensitive and comforting. 🙂 I realize that it wasn’t intentional but this about scared my wife half out of her wits. Not one of the top 10 things you tell a pregnant mother! You do want the mark on your hand or forehead?

Then Edgar Whisenant burst onto the scene with his 4.5 million copies of “88 Reasons Why the Rapture Could Be in 1988. I remember it vividly. He was boldly predicting the time when all Christians would exit the earth in flight. It was supposed to happen between September 11-13, 1988. On September 12th my wife and I were tooling around the Gulf of Mexico on a cruise ship to nowhere during one of the fiercest hurricanes of all time. (that’s another story I’d like to forget). Well, Jesus never returned and it would appear that Whisenant finally gave up after numerous date revisions. Today no Whisenant website exists, and he and his 88 Reasons have now entered the lore of false prophecies of the 20th century. And the beat goes on…

Robertson Strikes Again, and Again and…
The 2nd area of heartburn comes from a situation involving a candidate I backed for president some 18 years ago. In the first few days of January this 2006 a CNN article read, “Television evangelist Pat Robertson suggested Thursday that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s stroke was divine retribution for the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, which Robertson opposed.” Robertson was quoted as saying, “He was dividing God’s land, and I would say, ‘Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course… God says, This land belongs to me, and you’d better leave it alone.’”

Is this what it’s come to? Wishing or at least expecting that world leaders should die because they are trying to facilitate peace! If you want to know more about the incredible impact of Christian Zionism just watch the Christian Zionism on the Road to Armageddon series. And if you think that Israel’s becoming a nation in 1948 was divinely fulfilled prophecy then you have no clue how those in the futurist movement have been “helping” God get this done since the late 1800s. In my view, self-fulfilled prophecy seems to be a more accurate depiction of the Israel’s current status.

You see, it does matter how you view eschatology. It makes a difference in more ways than you can ever imagine. I personally think that the premillennial dispensational rapture theories have done a great deal to damage the church’s influence in the world and I’d like to see that changed. I know it will eventually but it must begin with us now. My exhortation is that when we read His word that we do so with the following thought in mind. The Scripture was written for us but it was not written to us. Certainly we understand that “Every Scripture is God-breathed (inspired) and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness” – but we also must be clear that it was written to specific people for specific purposes.

Well, one thing’s for sure. The next time I am engaged in a discussion regarding the “hope that is within me” I will attempt to “rightly interpret the word of God” with humility and meekness. I may fail miserably but I pray that a glimmer of grace might leap from my heart to theirs. And let’s always remember that “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.” Sometimes it’s pretty noisy out there.

Posted in Updates | 2 Comments