June 12, 2008

Quoting Scripture Is Not Exegesis

I listen to lots of messages by pastors and theologians. I also read lots of articles and books. I’ve been noticing a disturbing trend over the past 15 to 20 years.

Back in the day exegesis, the art and science of drawing the meaning out of a text, was something that many conservative Evangelicals did fairly well. Admittedly biases would come in and people would miss the point. Lordship Salvation is an example. However, even when a person would miss the point of a passage, they would be pointing to words and phrases in the passage in an effort to prove their points.

Today what passes for exegesis is stating one’s opinion and then citing one or more verses. Little if any comments are made as to why the cited words prove the point. The writer or speaker assumes that merely mentioning words of Scripture is enough.

An especially disturbing trend in this regard is authors who will give one or more pages of verses, one after another, with no comments or explanation. The impression is given that the author’s point must be true for look at all the verses that say that.

Exegesis requires analysis. Bible 101 is observation, interpretation, application. If we skip observation, then we will not interpret or apply correctly. Of course it is possible that merely by reading a passage quickly one will make some helpful observations. But in my experience meditation is what results in break through observations. But regardless of how long one thinks about a text, exegesis requires one to observe. Then exposition, the explanation of our exegesis, requires that we give enough of our observations to prove our interpretation.

Why isn’t this being done much today? The seminaries aren’t teaching it. What seminaries teach today is that students are to study the scholars and cite them. A NT scholar, for example, is not someone who studies the NT per se, but someone who is an expert in what all the scholars have to say about various texts. The way new views of passages emerge is by one scholar slightly tweaking the views of all the other scholars. Occasionally this can result in correct exegesis. But if people are studying the writings of other scholars and not the actual text of inspired Scripture, we can expect a lot will be missed.

I’ve been spoiled. I was trained by Zane Hodges, a man who taught me to study and meditate on the text of Scripture first and only go to commentaries and journal articles after I’d come to my own conclusions. I’ve enjoyed his writings and those of men like Jody Dillow (The Reign of the Servant Kings). Writers like Zane and Jody prove their exegesis not by merely quoting texts, but by pointing to the grammar, by doing word studies, by looking at word order, by examining the preceding and following context, and by looking at parallel texts.

Quoting Scripture is not exegesis. Exegesis is analyzing Scripture.

Increasing in Him,
Bob_Wilkin

Topics: Soteriology | 2 Comments »

June 5, 2008

Off for Colorado Springs

Sharon and I leave tonight for Colorado Springs. We will stay with our good friends Arch and Carolyn Rutherford, who recently moved there to work with Dr. Jody Dillow and BEE. While there this weekend I plan to meet with Jody to discuss our journal and our conference and other things related to the Free Grace movement. I also hope to meet with Pastor Raleigh Gresham, another old friend.

It also happens to be our anniversary today and Arch and Carolyn’s this weekend, so we will all celebrate. I think we are going to a neat brunch at the Broadmoor on Sunday.

We’ve been married 32 years and it seems like we just got married the other day. How time flies. I rejoice at how kind God has been to Sharon and to me in our years of marriage. We have had good health and good years.

I’ll also be speaking this Sunday night. Arch and I are speaking at the same church, Northeast Bible Chapel. He will speak at the AM service. I’m speaking on Gal 5:1-6. I took the occasion to completely redo my message on the passage, and Kyle in the office redid the PowerPoint slides.

Don’t fall from grace (Gal 5:4). Legalism causes the fall. We live by faith in Christ, not by focus on the commandments (Gal 2:20; 2 Cor 3:18).

Increasing in Him,
Bob_Wilkin

Topics: Soteriology | No Comments »

June 2, 2008

Salvation in Philippians, What Is It?

This past Saturday night I spoke on the meaning of the words save and salvation in the NT. A friend who is an expert in the book of Philippians, Bob Swift, made some terrific comments when we discussed salvation in Philippians.

He suggested, rightly I believe, that the salvation of Phil 1:19, where Paul says, “I know that this [his imprisonment and various people preaching Christ for good and bad motives] will turn out for my salvation through your prayers and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ…” is explained in the very next verse. Clearly Paul was already born again. He didn’t need the Philippians to pray so that he might have eternal life! He needed them to pray, and the Spirit to empower him, so that he might glorify Christ in his afflictions. Bob Swift suggested that in the very next verse Paul defines the salvation of which he is speaking as follows: “That in nothing I shall be ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ will be magnified in my body, whether by life or by death” (Phil 1:20).  

Salvation in Phil 1:19 is enduring persecution for Christ with the result that Christ is glorified and that he will have boldness and not shame at the Bema.

The same basic idea is seen the notorious problem text, Phil 2:12, “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” Bob Swift suggested that Paul defines that salvation a few verses later when he write, “That you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world…” (Phil 2:15). Notice that how we will be found by Jesus at His Judgment Seat is in view both in 1:20 and 2:15.

Salvation in Philippians is the successful handling of persecution in such a way that Christ is magnified in our lives with the result that at the Bema we will have boldness and not be ashamed before Christ.

The world salvation in the NT rarely refers to the new birth or to deliverance from eternal condemnation (e.g., John 3:17; Eph 2:5, 8; Titus 3:5). Over 70% of the time in the NT salvation refers to deliverance from death, disease, God’s temporal wrath, or as in Philippians and Hebrews, a figurative use that looks at handling persecution well with the result that one will have boldness at the return of Christ.

Increasing in Him,
Bob_Wilkin

Topics: Soteriology | 11 Comments »

May 27, 2008

Calvinists Now Openly Teaching Works Salvation

Have you heard of a 2006 book called Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works? It is by Dr. Alan Stanley. Actually the book is his doctoral dissertation that he did at Dallas Theological Seminary.

This past Sunday I gave two messages on current trends in Lordship Salvation and I used Stanley’s book to illustrate two major trends. One those trends is the open proclamation of salvation by works by Reformed Lordship Salvation advocates.

In this book Stanley doesn’t say that we are saved by faith alone but the faith that saves is not alone. That is a clever saying that essentially teaches works salvation, but in a clever way. Stanley comes out openly and says things such as the following:

“When judgment day comes (Matt 7:22-23) it will not be sinners who enter into the kingdom but the righteous. This distinction is important to make for it is only once anyone is in a relationship with Jesus that they are able to produce the kind of righteousness required to make it into the eschatological kingdom (i.e., post-conversion works). This does not mean that one is self-righteous but neither does it mean that one simply has righteousness as a gift from God” (Stanley, Salvation by Works, p. 328, emphasis his).

 “The ongoing nature of salvation can be seen throughout the NT. And yet churches today, for some reason, appear oddly oblivious to the idea that salvation is a process in any sense of the word. Rather most probably think of salvation as a one-time decision, as I once thought myself…Salvation is multifaceted and when all its facets are comprehensively in view it can legitimately be understood as a pilgrimage” (Stanley, Salvation by Works, p. 153).                                                                                                   “There are, in my view, passages that appear to teach the eternal security of believers…We might say that He knows who are His. However, there are also passages—especially John 15:1-6; 1 Corinthians 15:2; Colossians 1:13; Hebrews 3:6, 14—that teach the possibility of forfeiting salvation through lack of endurance. These passages appear to teach anything but eternal security. However, in these instances the perspective in view is not God’s but ours. The NT writers do not know for sure who are God’s. Hence in a pastorally appropriate way they urge their readers on to endurance” (Stanley, Salvation by Works, p. 327, emphasis added).

                                                                                  I could give more examples. The clear answer that Stanley gives to the title of his book is Yes, Jesus did teach that works are a condition for salvation from eternal condemnation. That Reformed Lordship people are openly saying this is both extremely troubling and encouraging. It is troubling since it so far off the mark. It is encouraging since this makes clear what we’ve been saying all along. People steeped in works salvation teaching will hopefully become open to the grace of God for no one can be born again by some works pilgrimage. The Lord may actually use this open teaching of works salvation to bring more people to faith in Christ as they become frustrated by their inability to achieve a personal righteousness worthy of kingdom entrance.

Increasing in Him,
Bob_Wilkin

Topics: Soteriology | 6 Comments »

May 20, 2008

Amazing coincidence regarding Gal 6:1-5

A week ago Sunday I spoke at Church of Hope in Laguna Hills, CA on Gal 6:1-10. However, I also covered the context going back to Gal 5:13-26. I showed that for Paul walking in the flesh is not open rebellion, but it is legalism.

Move ahead one week to this last Sunday. Since I didn’t have a speaking engagement and since we were staying with a friend in Frisco, Sharon and I went to Stonebriar Community Church. Pastor Chuck Swindoll was out of the country. So the speaker was Dr. John Street of The Master’s College.

His passage amazed me for the coincidence: Galatians 6:1. However, he covered from Gal 5:13-26 and from Gal 6:1-5.

His view? He took the same view I did, that sowing to the flesh was legalism. Now he didn’t state how he understood inheriting the kingdom in 5:21 (whereas I said it was ruling with Christ, not getting in). And he didn’t make clear what Gal 6:5 means, “For each one shall bear his own load.” I had suggested that refers to the Bema. Nor did he go on to discussion Gal 6:6-10.

However, I found it amazing that I ended up hearing a sermon on the same basic passage I had spoken on the previous week and that the speaker, though he was from The Master’s College, took the same view I did on the passage.

I have found that some of the people from The Master’s College and The Master’s Seminary do not proclaim a strong Lordship Salvation message like their President, Dr. John MacArthur, does. Maybe they are trying to recruit people for the school and are hiding their views. However, I believe some of the faculty actually either only hold to a very mild form of Lordship Salvation, or even hold to an inconsistent Free Grace position.

Anyhow, I believe the Lord was impressing the message of Gal 6:1-10 to me. While I’m not superstitious, God can and sometimes does work via coincidences that really aren’t.

Increasing in Him,
Bob_Wilkin

Topics: Soteriology | 2 Comments »

May 13, 2008

Church of Hope in Laguna Hills, CA Seeing Mom

This past weekend I was in So Cal. I spoke at Church of Hope in Laguna Hills, CA at the invitation of Pastor Freddy Cortez, Jr. I always enjoy being at this church. It is a a very loving and encouraging group. I spoke on the sowing and reaping principle in Gal 6:1-10 and then later fielded general Bible questions for an hour.

I was also able to see my 95-year old Mom on Mother’s Day, which was great. Mom and I and my sister Pam and my nephew John went out to eat and had a great time. Mom is doing pretty well after having had a drop off in health a few months back when she was hospitalized for a few weeks. It took her a while to get her strength back. But now she is walking again and is doing well. We talk about Christ and eternal life a lot. So far she hasn’t indicated that she has believed in Him for eternal life. But she knows the message well. And she is quite open to talk about it too.

On the plane on the way home I got into a nice conversation with a man who saw me reading my Bible. We talked about the grace message and the emerging church (which he indicated he feels is dangerous, and I told him I agreed with him). Later he indicated an interest in eschatology so we talked about the Rapture and the Bema. He appears to be a serious student of the Word. I gave him my card and pointed him to the website. He indicated he would check it out.

You should be able to check out pictures of Church of Hope and of my Mom this week. Just go to our home page and click on GES Picture Gallery. Then click on Church of Hope, May 11.

I am so thankful to each of you who supports this ministry both financially and prayerfully. It is quite a pleasure to promote the grace message by writing and editing and speaking.

Increasing in Him,
Bob_Wilkin

Topics: Soteriology | No Comments »

May 6, 2008

Why I believe Revelation was written in AD 68-69

Earlier today I had a very edifying discussion with my friends Zane Hodges and Bob Vacendak about the date of Revelation. We all hold to the view that it was written during the reign of the sixth Caesar, Galba, who reigned from June AD 68 until Jan AD 69. Revelation 17:10 says “There are also seven kings. Five have fallen [Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero] one is [Galba], and the other [Otho] has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time (he reigned only 3 months). For a listing of the dates of the emperors, click here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Emperors

Why is this important? First, it is the only view that takes Rev 17:10-11 literally. The text indicates that John is talking about kings, men, not kingdoms. The early date position shows that John is speaking with absolute precision about the first 7 Roman emperors.

Second, it shows that the entire NT was written during the generation alive at the time of Jesus’ death and resurrection. A Biblical generation was 40 years. That the entire NT was completed before AD 73 shows it was all written at the time when a large percentage of the eye witnesses to the death and resurrection of Jesus we still alive.

Third, it shows that John didn’t leave out something vital, like the destruction of the temple. Surely if the temple had been destroyed, he would have mentioned it.

The futurist view of Revelation, which I hold, does not demand a pre-70 date for the book. The full-preterist position does. However, the futurist interpretation certainly is not in any way compromised by an early date. In fact, I’d argue that it is enhanced.

 Pastor Bob Vacendak has written our commentary on Revelation and both Zane and I feel that he did a fantastic job on the commentary. It is a grand slam. I believe all of you who end up reading it will be blessed, as I’ve been as I’ve edited it.

Increasing in Him,
Bob_Wilkin

Topics: Soteriology | 12 Comments »

May 1, 2008

NT Commentary Project Progressing Well

We are really making a push to complete the 1000+ page one-volume NT commentary this year. Thus far we have completed 3 separate edits of Matthew, Mark, Romans, and Hebrews. We expect to have the 3rd level edits done for Philippians and Revelation in the next week or two. Initial edits are nearly done for Luke and John. We hope to begin editing Acts soon.

I am extremely pleased with the quality of the work. I am convinced that this commentary will be on par with The Bible Knowledge Commentary, which is probably the leading conservative one-volume NT commentary today.

We began this project in 1990. Initially we expected to have it in print by late 1994 or early 1995. So we are about 14 years overdue. While I regret it has taken this line, I sure am thrilled with the commentary that is emerging.

At this point it looks possible that we could have 3 levels of editing done for all books by the end of July. If so, then we will spend August proofing everything (getting a number of volunteers to help with this major task). Then hopefully we can do typesetting in September or October and the printing in November. This is such a big project that it could take a lot longer. But we are hopeful.

We’d appreciate your prayers for the final stages of this massive undertaking.

Increasing in Him,
Bob_Wilkin

Topics: Soteriology | 3 Comments »

April 24, 2008

I heard MacArthur in Dallas last Friday on Luke 15

Pastor Bob Vacendak and I went to hear a message on Luke 15 by Dr. John MacArthur. He was in Dallas to show his appreciation for KCBI Radio station and also to promote his new book and his new TV show Grace to You.

In my dissertation I argued that the younger son coming to his senses represented faith in Christ. About 10 years later I became convinced of the view of Zane Hodges, that the younger son was born again before he left home. He was a son before he left. He didn’t become a son by returning. His coming to his senses represented a believer turning from his sinful ways to get back in fellowship with God.

Dr. John MacArthur’s position is hard to explain. There are two main components. First, the younger son’s turning from his sins was what led to him be born again. Thus he was arguing that repentance is a condition of eternal life. Second, the older son represents the unbelieving Pharisees. The Pharisees legalistic attitude toward tax collectors and sinners keeps them from being born again. So, too, the older brother’s legalistic attitude toward his repentant younger brother keeps him from being born again. Only the person who accepts the grace of God is able to have eternal life.

How these two seemingly contradictory points coalesced was not explained. If we must turn from our sins to be born again, is that not what the Pharisees believed? Did not the Pharisees believe that a tax collector could get into the kingdom if he gave restitution to all he wronged and ceased to be a tax collector? Wasn’t their objection that Jesus ate with people who were still active tax collectors who had not given any indication of prior repentance? Didn’t the younger son actually give up his sinful ways?

I was struck by the dogmatic assertions he made on points not at all clear in the text, and some not even crucial to his Lordship Salvation interpretation of the text. Here are some examples of his dogmatic assertions:

 

1.      The Father in the parable is Jesus. He didn’t discuss the possibility that God the Father is in view. Why would Jesus present Himself as the Father in the story? Wouldn’t He be more likely to present Himself as a shepherd (15:3-7)?

2.      The key elements in the story are honor and shame. He never explained how he arrived at this conclusion since the text itself never mentions either honor or shame.

3.      The older brother hated his father and hated his brother. This assertion was made without the word hate appearing in the text and with only the scantiest of evidence (verses 29-30).

4.      The story lacks an explicit ending, but has an implicit one. The implicit ending is that the older brother picked up a plank of wood and repeatedly struck his father, that is, Jesus, on the head until he killed Him. This is clear since the Pharisees later had Jesus crucified on a tree.

5.      The younger son is the absolutely worst sinner that Jesus could possibly conceive of. This would seem to mean that he was worse than Judas or Jeroboam or Jezebel. Evidence for this young man being the worst conceivable sinner was not well developed.

6.      A first century Pharisee would not eat a meal with anyone other than another Pharisee, according to MacArthur. How this could be so when according to Luke 14 a leading Pharisee had a meal with Jesus and His disciples (Luke 14:1ff.), none of whom were Pharisees, was not explained.

7.      Jewish first century tax collectors, according to MacArthur, did not go to the temple, did not go to synagogue, and were totally irreligious. In addition, they hired goons to protect them and to get money out of people. That neither the text nor anywhere else in the NT says anything to this effect was not mentioned. Also not explained was the fact that neither Matthew nor Zacchaeus appear to fit his description. Nor does he explain the fact that tax collectors came to John the Baptist.

 

I’d estimate there were about 5,000 present to hear MacArthur that night. The audience was very favorable towards him and towards what he had to say. Yet what he said didn’t make sense. I think this shows the danger of being a powerful speaker with a strong following. Whatever a famous gifted communicator says is accepted as true in spite of it not matching up with what the text says.

Of course, we in the grace movement must take care of this same problem. Fortunately for us, no Free Grace speaker has anywhere near the fame or the charisma of John MacArthur. Still, we must be on guard to preach God’s Word only and not our own ideas.

Increasing in Him,
Bob_Wilkin

Topics: Soteriology | 4 Comments »

April 11, 2008

It was great to be in Winker, MB, Canada last weekend

Last weekend I was privileged to speak at Faith Evangelical Bible Church in Winkler, Manitoba. I’ve know Mike Comtois, the Pastor, and his wife, Renee, for many years. This is my second time at their church.

This church is really growing in part because of all the immigrants from Germany who are flocking to this church. Each time I spoke (Friday night, Saturday afternoon, Saturday night, Sunday morning), a translator (actually two, Julie and Helene, who took turns) would simultaneously translate what I said. I slowed down a bit. But the German listeners wore receivers with ear phones and the translator had a mic and a transmitter. So about half the audience was listening to the translator (and to me to some extent).

I really enjoyed visiting with everyone. I even learned some German while there. Sie sind wunderbar means “You are wonderful.” I said that on Sunday morning and I don’t think I butchered it too badly.

I gave 5 messages on the Book of Acts, as well as a devotional at a men’s breakfast Saturday morning on 2 Cor 5:1-11 (What’s the purpose that drives your life?).

It was hard to leave. I really enjoyed my time, Ay? (Is that how you spell, A? You know the Canadians often put A? at the end of their sentences. It’s a great life, ay?)

Increasing in Him,
Bob_Wilkin

Topics: Soteriology | 1 Comment »

« Previous Entries