"The Narrow Road": Blogs By Shane Kastler

The Supremacy of Jesus

By Shane Kastler

Was Jesus God? Or was Jesus a man?  Of course the answer to this question is “yes.”  He was and is both.  But it is vital to understand exactly how this union works.  For example, it would be incorrect to say that Jesus was a man who became God.  Rather, the opposite is true.  Jesus was God and became man.  The Bible says this of Jesus:

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.” (Colossians 1:15-16 NASB)

The first part of this passage tells us that Jesus is “the image of the invisible God.”  In other words, if you want to know what God “looks like” the answer is to look to Jesus.  The second part of the verse states that he is “the firstborn of all creation.”  This does not mean that Jesus was the first object that God created.  To the contrary, the passage goes on to tell us that by Jesus “all things were created.”  So if you analyze the relationship between Jesus and the creation you will see that Jesus is not a part of the creation but rather he is the creator himself.

The term “firstborn” meant something very distinctive in Jewish culture.  The term was not always used to describe physical birth.  Sometimes it was used to describe the “status” of a person.  To be declared the “firstborn” meant that you had a loftier position than anyone else.  In Psalm 89:27, King David is described as being God’s “firstborn” in the sense that God would make him greater than any other king on earth.  Certainly it didn’t mean David was born before everyone else, for he was the youngest boy in his own family.  Yet he was the “firstborn” in terms of status.  Likewise with Jesus.

As the Son of God, Jesus was unique in a way that no one else was.  Jesus has always existed, for nothing came into being apart from him.  The passage in Colossians goes on to say that all things were created through him, and “for him.”  In other words, you exist to bring glory to Christ.  The question is, do you?  Have you trusted in Jesus as your Lord and Savior?  And are you walking with him daily?  Do you love him and worship him as he deserves?  Do you understand his status as “the firstborn” of all creation?  Trust in him today, and look forward to being with him forever.

A Pastoral Argument Against the “Pastor Protection Act”

By Shane Kastler

This week the Louisiana House of Representatives passed House Bill 597, also known as the “Pastor Protection Act.”  As a Louisiana pastor, you might think I would be excited about this bill, but I am not.  While I agree with the basic philosophy of the bill which states that pastors who refuse to participate in same-sex marriages, cannot face punitive damage.  My problem is that this would be a redundant bill, if the state of Louisiana would simply honor the U.S. Constitution’s first amendment.  And the fact is ANYTIME a governing agency butts its nose into a wedding ceremony, then it is breaking the first amendment which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  When the government states who can and cannot be married, then they are infringing on “the free exercise thereof.”  And rather than pass yet another law that will systematically be ignored, government should instead get out of the marriage business altogether since it does not belong there anyway.

As a pastor, it should be my prerogative to perform weddings for whomever I wish. And to refuse whomever I wish.  But a Pastor’s right to perform or refuse a marriage should extend to any union he’s uncomfortable with.  An amendment to HB 597 places an exclusion on biracial, heterosexual couples.  So does this mean I am required by law to perform all such marriages?  What if it’s a marriage between a black Muslim and a white Christian and I refuse to do the marriage on religious grounds?  Would I be sued and smeared as a racist?  Would I be fined or imprisoned?  Whom I marry is my own business, and I need not provide the government with ANY REASON whatsoever.  The fact is, I have refused heterosexual marriages numerous times because I didn’t believe the marriage was Biblical or wise. Whatever my reasoning for not performing a ceremony, it is none of the state’s business.  The couples could still marry legally, but I am not required to perform the ceremony. Who I choose to marry is between me and God; or me and the couple; or me and my church. At no point should the government butt their nose into these religious matters. And to many Christians like me, this is a religious (not a government) matter. The solution, of course, is for government to get out of the marriage business and leave such decisions to individual pastors and the churches to which they and the couple belongs. The state doesn’t tell us who we can or cannot baptize or give communion to. Why should they tell us whom we can and cannot marry? 

The very idea of government licensing spits in the face of American liberty.  To say we are a free people is total mythology.  We are not free when we have to get the government’s permission to catch a catfish, shoot a deer, or cut someone’s hair.  We are not free when we have to get the government’s permission as to what type of lightbulb we use, how big our toilet can be, or what way we choose to educate our children.  And no, we are not free when we have to get the government’s permission to get married.  Who do they think they are?  The answer of course, is God.  Eliminating God from the equation and setting themselves up as the highest authority is the goal of all oppressive governmental regimes.  The idea of submitting to God as my master, or even the idea of a non-religious self-ownership is eschewed by the dictatorial state.  In their minds, you and I are THEIR property.  And for most things we must seek THEIR permission.  America is no different than the Soviet Union, China, or Nazi Germany in this regard.  The only difference is America has done it subtly and with a smile on its face, claiming “diversity” and “equality” and “tolerance” when they really mean coercion, destruction, and subjugation.  And sadly, many American Christians have taken the bait and bowed the knee to the American Caesar rather than the Lord Christ.

The fact is, marriage licenses are a relatively new phenomenon.  They didn’t exist in America until the 1880s when they were introduced so the government could prohibit interracial marriage.  Yes, that same benevolent government that now wants to enshrine laws forcing certain types of marriages has also sought in the past to forbid the very same type of marriages.  If they really cared about interracial couples they would simply abolish the practice of state licensing as a requirement for marriage.  But amazingly, this idea spooks many people who assume that marriage simply cannot exist without governmental approval.  I think most Christians are surprised to learn that the Bible does not require you to get a state license to get married; and that Joseph and Mary did not need approval from the Nazareth Court House before they tied the knot.  Marriage was considered a private, religious entity.  It still should be.

The amendments to HB 597, open up a potential Pandora’s box where government might eventually provide a litany of situations in which they will force pastors to participate in.  Personally, I would gladly marry an interracial couple, provided they met the Biblical qualifications for marriage.  And I would refuse to marry a “same race” couple if they didn’t meet the Biblical qualifications, as I interpret them.  The point is, those Biblical qualifications, or even my own personal views on marriage, are none of the government’s business.  The solution is fairly simple.  Get government out of church matters such as marriage. And leave pastors and churches alone to perform whatever ceremony they deem appropriate. We have the right to view marriage however we wish.  And others have the right to disagree and go to church elsewhere. But the government does not have the right to step in and dictate whom we will or will not marry.

In fact, I would even go so far as to say the government does not have the right to force acts or purchases on anyone for any reason.  Be they a pastor or not.  We shouldn’t be forced to buy insurance, buckle our seat belts, or incriminate ourselves by filing a tax return.  But those are articles for another day.  My point today is that I shouldn’t be forced to marry anyone I don’t want to marry; and the so-called “Pastor Protection Act” could easily end up being the “Pastor Incarceration Act” before it’s all said and done.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this article reflect my own personal views and not necessarily the views of any organization to which I am affiliated.

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this article reflect my own personal views and not necessarily the views of any organization to which I am affiliated. - See more at: http://shanekastler.typepad.com/pastor_shanes_blog/politicspolitical_issues/#sthash.ay96jq6K.dpuf

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this article reflect my own personal views and not necessarily the views of any organization to which I am affiliated. - See more at: http://shanekastler.typepad.com/pastor_shanes_blog/politicspolitical_issues/#sthash.ojqmcHo9.dpuf

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this article reflect my own personal views and not necessarily the views of any organization to which I am affiliated. - See more at: http://shanekastler.typepad.com/pastor_shanes_blog/politicspolitical_issues/#sthash.ojqmcHo9.dpuf

Legalistic Damnation

By Shane Kastler

Legalistic Salvation is synonymous with damnation, because legalistic salvation is no salvation at all.  Maybe you would prefer I pretty it up a little bit?  Then I’ll say legalistic salvation is synonymous with condemnation.  Do you prefer the word commendation instead of damnation when describing those who shall eternally burn in Hell?  Both terms are pertinent; and the point remains the same.  Legalistic salvation is a sinking ship that many have boarded to their eternal doom.  But there is a life boat!  Be sure to read to the end.

In the Apostle Paul’s day, many of the Jews thought they would be saved by their meticulous keeping of the Mosaic Law.  This is what I mean by the term legalistic salvation (salvation by the law).  Of course this is futile.  This is a fool’s errand, for not only is the Law incapable of saving you, it was never intended to.  God’s plan was to save all whom He wished to save through His son Jesus Christ.  No one enters Heaven, lest it be through the door of Christ.

As a Pharisee, Paul thought otherwise.  He declared himself blameless (Philippians 3:6) as it pertained to the Law and thought himself justified.  In his zeal for the Law he played a part in the public stoning of Stephen, the first Christian martyr.  It also led him to pursue other Christians in Damascus.  It was on this road trip that Paul encountered the risen Christ and was confronted in painful fashion about just how wrong he was.

The only work that can save you is the work of Christ, who came to earth and lived a life of sinless perfection; then died a sacrificial death on the cross.  For those who trust in Him, God credits His perfect life to their account; while He credits their sin to Jesus’s account.  This is what transpired on the cross.  Much more than simply an innocent man being railroaded by jealous Jews (as true as that is).  The death of Christ was God’s perfect plan to pay for the sins of His people.  And His people are those from every tongue, tribe, people group, and nation that trust in Him alone.  Legalistic salvation, on the other hand, trusts in self and it leads to Hell.

Don’t trust in yourself.  You’re not that good.  You might say I cannot judge since I don’t know you.  That’s true, but I do know people and I assume you are one of those.  And the Bible tells me that all people are sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23) Good works won’t cut it in the end, no matter how good you think they are.  Only Christ can save the sinner. Trust in Him today.

How Can You See the Invisible God?

By Shane Kastler

How can you see something that is invisible? How can you see SOMEONE who is invisible? The Bible speaks both of something and someone who is invisible and yet can be seen; and both of these invisible entities pertain to God. The book of Romans says that “His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made...” (Romans 1:20 NASB) Likewise, Colossians, speaking of Jesus, tell us, “He is the image of the invisible God.” (Colossians 1:15) One passage speaks of “invisible attributes” that are “clearly seen” while the other passage speaks of the “image” of one who is invisible. How can these things be?

The first issue deals with an apologetic argument for the existence of God. Some would say that since we cannot see God, then HE cannot truly exist. Of course on a purely philosophical and even scientific level, this argument holds no water. Lots of things exist that we cannot see, as even the most skeptical scientists will readily attest to. The Apostle Paul, in the book of Romans, argues that though God is invisible His attributes are clearly seen. Where might we go to see these attributes, you ask? The verse tells us that we see His attributes “through what has been made.” We see the creation around us and it screams to us of a Creator. We see rain fall from the sky and food grow out of the ground and it screams of a Creator. We perceive through scientific study of our planet spinning on an axis at a constant rate for as long as we can trace it. And it screams of a Creator. The earth does not slow down, nor speed up. How can this remarkable consistency remain lest there be a God behind it all? We orbit the sun at a constant rate bringing the four seasons of the year; and this again happens every year. How do we explain this? Evolutionary atheism fails us at such points for evolution does not teach the uniformity and constancy of our world, but rather the massive flux and change of all things, even to the point of animals changing species. Evolution would have you believe there is no God and that chemical and creative processes simply sparked from no viable source. And while the Christian may be mocked as a religious fool by the atheist, the Bible is quite prescient when it remarks, “The fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God.'” (Psalm 14:1) Fool being defined as one who refuses to see what is plainly in front of him. Fool as being further defined as one who rejects the invisible attributes that are “clearly seen.”

To truly “see” and know the Lord in a saving way requires a work of God. Jesus said, “You must be born again.” (John 3:3) So God must take spiritually dead sinners and grant them spiritual life (regeneration) for them to embrace Christ and the gospel. But regeneration is not required to know that God exists and that He is a God who works wonders. This is clearly seen in the creation through both His “eternal power” and “divine nature.” A scientist, no less brilliant than Albert Einstein himself, once remarked the following: “There are moments when one feels free from one’s own identification with human limitations and inadequacies. At such moments, one imagines that one stands on some spot of a small planet, gazing in amazement at the cold yet profoundly moving beauty of the eternal, the unfathomable: life and death flow into one, and there is neither evolution nor destiny; only being.”[1]

Einstein's conclusion was wrong, but his instincts were right. His personal belief could best be described as “agnostic” but even at that he could grasp the idea of the eternal. And in this way, the great physicist is described eerily in Romans 1, for Einstein could “clearly see” God's “eternal power” though he refused to recognize it as such. Instead he did what all mean do by nature, he “suppressed the truth in unrighteousness.” (Romans 1:22) God's attributes then are “clearly seen.” So too, is God's Son.

Jesus is described as the “image of the invisible God.” This profound phrase would have sparked much consternation among many of the Jews to whom Paul wrote; for “images” of God were strictly forbidden under Mosaic Law. Amazingly, no painter nor sculptor could supply an image adequate anyway. For God alone would provide His own image in a living, breathing, flesh and blood person. Do you want to know what God looks like? He looks exactly like Jesus because Jesus is “exactly” God. There is one God who exists in three constant, eternal forms: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This doctrine of the Trinity is mesmerizing, yet clearly taught in Scripture. Also clearly taught is the “oneness” of God as Jesus declared, “I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30)

Jesus showed His divine nature, time and time again during His earthly ministry. He commanded the wind and the waves and they obeyed Him (Luke 8:22). He commanded demons and they obeyed him (Matthew 8:32). He commanded physical sickness (Luke 5:24) and blindness (Mark 8:22-25) and it obeyed him. He even commanded the dead to come alive and they obeyed him (John 11:43)! These physical manifestations of Jesus's divinity are amazing examples that we would classify as miracles. Phenomenon which occurred outside the boundaries of the laws of nature. But Jesus didn't limit His authority to the physical world alone. Indeed He reigned over the spiritual realm as well. Jesus forgave sins. What man has the authority to truly do that?

In the gospel of Luke we are told of a paralyzed man whose friends were so desperate to get him to Jesus that they tore up the roof in a home where Jesus was at and lowered his stretcher down to him. The text records, “Seeing their faith, He said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven you.” The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, “Who is this man who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?” But Jesus, aware of their reasonings, answered and said to them, “Why are you reasoning in your hearts? “Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins have been forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? “But, so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,”—He said to the paralytic—“I say to you, get up, and pick up your stretcher and go home.” Immediately he got up before them, and picked up what he had been lying on, and went home glorifying God. They were all struck with astonishment and began glorifying God; and they were filled with fear, saying, “We have seen remarkable things today.” (Luke 5:20-26 NASB)

First of all, Jesus could “see their faith.” What does that mean? It doesn't mean that He could simply see their desperation and their belief that Jesus had the ability to heal. You and I might be able to see the “effect” of faith, but Jesus could see their “faith.” Jesus could see something that was non-physical and invisible. What does faith look like? Where do you buy it? What does a box of faith look like? Faith itself is not tangible. The effects of faith can be seen, but faith is invisible. Yet Jesus could see it.

Also, we know that the “faith” Jesus saw was much more than simply their belief that Jesus had the power to physically heal. We know this because of what Jesus went on to say next as He declared, “Your sins are forgiven.” Sins are not forgiven on the basis of a belief that Jesus is a really good medical doctor! Forgiveness of sins is not based on a positive attitude that Jesus could grant a miracle. Sins are forgiven on the basis of saving faith that recognizes Jesus for who He truly is as the sinless Son of God. The paralytic and his friends had such faith and Jesus “saw” it, granting forgiveness.

The Pharisees who were present grumbled that no on can forgive sins but God alone. In this they were correct, yet they were standing in the very presence of God and rather than worshiping Him they hated Him. And yet again we see Jesus's divine knowledge on display when we are told He knew “the reasonings” in their hearts. While you and I might think we know what someone is thinking; Jesus knows beyond all doubt. He confronted them over their grumbling and then proceeded to do the amazing yet again. Jesus not only forgives the man's sins, but He also grants the physical healing. Clearly this was no mere carpenter from Nazareth as evidenced by His authority and His power. And hearkening back to Romans 1, we might say His “eternal power and divine nature” were clearly seen through what He did. Likewise, we might say and see clearly that Jesus was “the image of the invisible God.”

God has revealed enough of His attributes that all people are “without excuse” in their rejection of Him. (see Romans 1:20) While unseen with the physical eye, God's presence is painfully obvious to all. By nature we can see God is there, but also by nature we “suppress” this truth and reject Him. No person is a natural born atheist, but all people are natural born sinners. Being “dead in our trespasses and sins” we ignore the obvious traits of God before our eyes and instead seek to be “gods” in our own right. We refuse to submit to God, who “is not far from each one of us.” (Acts 17:27) And we refuse to believe in His son, Jesus Christ. The image of the invisible God came and lived and died and rose again. And in our sin we reject Him, to our peril. But God is still there and He still sent His Son. And if you saw the Son, you saw the Father. (John 14:9)

So if you had lived in New Testament days and you saw Jesus in all His glory; performing miracles, giving sight to the blind, and life to the dead, then realize this: You would have seen the image of the invisible God!

Likewise, if you had lived in those days and saw a dirty, sweaty carpenter from Nazareth who ate and drank with “sinners” and tax collectors, and stooped down to wash the filthy feet of His ungrateful disciples: You would have seen the image of the invisible God!

Even today, if you read these words about God becoming man and dwelling on earth; and living a perfect life and dying a sacrificial death to pay the eternal sin price for all who trust in Him. If you believe He is who He says He is, and want to follow Him with your life and are willing to suffer for the sake of His name. And you do this knowing you will suffer and maybe even die for the faith. And IF you still say, “I want to know and follow this Jesus of whom you speak.” Then realize that you have just seen God. The eyes of your heart have been opened to see what your physical eyes and your rock hard heart would never see on its own. You have just seen the image of the invisible God. Which is amazing when you consider that it's impossible to see the invisible. Impossible, that is unless God allows it. Because what is impossible to man is possible for God. For with God “all things are possible.” (Mark 10:27)

 

 (Note: To hear an audio message I preached on this topic, click here).

---

[1] Jeremy Bernstein, Einstein (New York: Viking Press, 1973), 11.

A Friendly Response To a Criticism of My Views on New Covenant Theology

Dear Lynda,

Your recent post on the Moral Law was brought to my attention because you cited and provided a link to an article in which I critique both Steven Furtick and Tim Challies in their views of the Law. Immediately after citing my article you made the following statement, in response to my views. (I've cut and pasted from your article to ensure accuracy). You appear to take issue with my.....

"1) rejection of any type of covenant made with Adam in Genesis 2, because “I don’t see the word covenant there” (really? is the word “Trinity” ever found in the Bible?), 2) dislike of Covenant Theology as “those baby baptizers” (will you ever consider that CT includes a credobaptist version, and decide to meaningfully interact with THAT form of CT?  No, it’s easier to resort to name-calling and broad-brushing about how CT is wrong because they’re baby baptizers…), and 3) the stated claim that the moral law was something that started (and ended) with Moses, and thus the only moral law for Christians is what is stated in the New Testament."

Since your statements contain things that I have never said, and my views were somewhat misrepresented in your characterization, I thought I would write and clarify my position. I certainly cannot speak for all who hold to New Covenant Theology, as there is variance in what people believe. Which is also the case for Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism.

First of all, my rejection of the “covenant of works” made with Adam has nothing at all to do with the fact that the word “covenant” isn't in the Genesis text. I agree with you that a concept might be taught even if the word itself is not. You correctly cited the word “Trinity” as an example. The problem with the covenant of works is that, not only is the word “covenant” not used, but the concept is not presented either. God issued a command to Adam and puts forth a potential punishment for disobedience. But if you read the text carefully (as I'm sure you have) you'll find God making no promises about eternal life, if Adam were to remain perfectly obedient. I find it somewhat dangerous to put words into God's mouth in this fashion, as CT does. Even most theologians who teach the covenant of works will admit that this covenant is a mere assumption that they make based on the text. I have written on this elsewhere if you care to read it.

As to your assertion that I (or others like me) “dislike” those “baby baptizers” – nothing could be further from the truth. I would count many Presbyterian Covenant Theologians to be dear friends and brothers and sisters in Christ; and would gladly say they were used of God to help me grow in the “grace and knowledge of the Lord.” As to the “baptist” version of Covenant Theology; I am aware of it and have studied it extensively. I think you might be assuming any non-CT Christian to be much more ignorant than they (we) are. Rather than seeking a “baptist” version of CT; I would argue that we should seek a more Biblical version of all things theological. In seeking to do this, I (and many others) have come to the conclusion that what is called “New Covenant Theology” is more faithful to the text than either of the two major systems currently in vogue. If you have any interest in reading further on this, I have written a four-part series comparing the 1646 and 1689 London Baptist Confessions, which I would encourage you to read, if you so desire.

Finally, your opinion that NCT teaches that the “moral law” began and ended with Moses is somewhat fuzzy in my opinion. CT refers to the Decalogue as the “moral law” in their famous tripartite division of the Law. NCT argues that no such division of the Law was ever presented in Scripture and in fact, this practice originated with Thomas Aquinas. Of course this is more than mere opinion, rather it is historical fact. While both CT and Dispensationalism are Biblically accurate in some things, they both also force assumptions on the text of Scripture that do not exist. CT is especially bad about doing this. The result is an entire lexicon of CT phrases and doctrines that find no basis in Scripture. Some of these include infant baptism, the covenant of works, and the three uses of the Law. (Which I have written against here). I find, that when pressed, Covenant Theologians will often resort to phrases such as these, or they will cite various theologians (Calvin, Chantry, Sproul, etc.); rather than citing contextual Biblical support for their position. What NCT seeks to do is simply force us back to the text itself rather than pointing to church history or our favorite theologian as the foundation for our beliefs.

Finally, your confident assertion that NCT is “bizarre” and that it teaches of a “God who changed His plan and changed His promises” shows a deep misunderstanding of what I (and many others who hold to NCT) believe. I would argue, NOT that God “changed” His plan and promises; but rather He brought His perfect plan to fulfillment in the life and work of Christ. While there is plenty of room for disagreement among Christians on the nature and future of ethnic Israel, many Christians believe (as I do) that Old Covenant Israel finds it's fulfillment in the New Covenant church. And we would cite Biblical sources for such a belief. Many also would see countless exegetical problems for premillennialism. Furthermore, there is ample reason to hold to a hermeneutic that gives the New Testament primacy over the Old Testament in terms of our understanding. If we are to see Jesus as the true “lamb of God”; and the “Son” who was called out of Egypt; then we must get this from the New Testament where it is clearly taught. Far from “bizarre” many would see this type of hermeneutic as the clearest and most faithful way to understand God's Word.

In closing, I hope this clarifies my personal beliefs. Once again, I cannot speak for all who hold to NCT and I would be disappointed to hear of any who would resort to “name calling” as you stated. Sometimes, I fear those on all sides of these issues allow themselves to be influenced too much by the flesh when defending their beliefs. My hope is that God's grace will prevent me from doing this. I have no doubt you feel the same way.

Blessings to you,

Shane Kastler

 

When Doctrine Divides

By Shane Kastler

Sometimes Biblical teaching can be divisive.  The fact is that Christians don’t agree on every theological point found in the Bible.  But Christians do agree on enough to make them Christians.  For example, all Christians agree that Jesus is the Son of God who came and lived a perfect life and then died a sacrificial death to pay the sin price for those who trust in him.  Likewise, all Christians believe Jesus rose from the dead and that one day his followers will be with him forever.  Any so-called Christian who would neglect these truths could be called a “Christian” in name only.  A “Christian” who rejects Christ is no Christian at all.

Of course there are other doctrines that Christians don’t agree on.  We can be brothers in Christ and disagree on the timeframe of Jesus’s return.  Or on what the Millennial kingdom means.  Or on whether or not certain spiritual gifts are still valid.  Heaven and Hell does not depend on these issues.  But it does depend on your beliefs about Jesus.

While some bemoan any doctrinal divisions within Christianity, doctrine is actually the one issue worth dividing over.  The Bible says: “I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them.” (Romans 16:17) The Apostle Paul was warning the Romans, not only to keep an eye on those who divide.  But specifically, those who divide by teaching a different doctrine.  Paul’s conclusion is that they should “turn away” from such people.  In other words, they should divide over doctrine, if the doctrine being pushed is heretical.

Hopefully doctrine is important to you.  And hopefully you know and embrace the truth about who Jesus is and what Jesus did.  Hopefully you have trusted in Him completely and are walking with Him daily.  Many claim to, but few actually do.  Take Paul’s admonition to heart and seek to know the Lord and His word.  Avoid those who would lead you astray and fellowship with those who will point you to Christ.  A lot of things in life aren’t worth dividing over.  But some are.  Jesus sometimes brings division.  And if and when he does; make sure you’re on HIS side.

Why Furtick & Challies Are Both Wrong About The Law

By Shane Kastler

Megachurch guru Steven Furtick recently created a bit of a theological firestorm by declaring that God loved us so much he “broke the law” in order to save us.  Not surprisingly this elicited a passionate response from many Christians who bristle at the idea of God being accused of “breaking the Law.”  Tim Challies wrote a response in defense of God by declaring that the Law is perfect and thus God would never break it.  This, Challies claims, would be contrary to God’s nature.  In examining the position of both of these men, I think in some ways they both miss the point.  Here’s why.

Furtick’s greatest error on this particular point, is to elevate self above God.  He is by no means the only preacher to do this; as it is a common practice among many, both great and small.  The mantra of “God needs me so bad he’d do anything to get me” is appealing to the sinful pride of men and women who long to be fawned over.  The idea that God Himself fawns over us is attractive to some.  It’s also blasphemous, for God needs no one to be complete.  He’s not a lovesick teenage boy longing for acceptance.  He is the God of the Universe.  Furtick’s “touchy feely” portrayal of a weak God is unbiblical.  With that said, Furtick is right about one thing.  The Law does not, nor did it ever, have the power to save.  Old Covenant Jews who received the Law could not be justified by it.  Many erringly thought otherwise and were thus thrust into a deluded life of self-righteousness.  Saul of Tarsus was once like this, but came to know better by the grace of God.  Of the Jews, Paul wrote: “For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” (Romans 10:2-4 NASB)

Another ironic error that Furtick makes is to declare that "God gave us the Law for our good."  A statement that I assume Challies would heartily agree with.  The problem here is that God didn't give "us" the Law. He gave Old Covenant Jews the Law.  By the time we came along the Law had been fulfilled for two millennia.  To really study the Law in context is to study how it exposed sin in the Jews of Israel.  It was their "tutor" to drive them to Christ.  But it was not a tool given to the Gentiles. Certainly not 21st century ones.  It seems both Furtick and Challies are confused on this chronological aspect of the Law.

In his rebuttal, Tim Challies errors concerning God’s relationship to the Law as well.  Challies argues that God would never break the Law because the Law is a reflection of His perfect character.  The problem in this argument is that it assumes that God Himself is “under the Law.”  That God is “bound” by the Law.  This is a common mistake made by Reformed Covenant Theologians who elevate the Law of Moses far beyond what it was ever intended. They declare one aspect of the Law (the ten commandments) to be eternal and unchanging. Then they promptly change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.  This blows a massive hole in their own argument.  An argument, by the way, that the Bible never makes.  The Ten Commandments are not God's "eternal and unchanging" moral code.  Some still stand, based on New Testament confirmation. Some don't (like the Sabbath).  Challies's rebuttal doesn't come so much from the Bible, but more from the traditions of Covenant Theology and assumptions forced upon the text of Scripture. Challies doesn't quote Jesus. He quotes Sinclair Ferguson.  I like Ferguson, but what saith the Scriptures?  If Furtick’s mistake is to elevate sinful man above God, Challies mistake (at least potentially) is to elevate the Mosaic Law above God.  Both are wrong.

To Challies, I would pose the questions:  Is a refusal to eat pork a reflection of God’s perfect character?  What about a refusal to wear clothes made of two different materials?  These are both injunctions that are a part of the Law of Moses.  Is God bound to abide by these injunctions?  For that matter, are we? Covenant Theologians will argue that these are “ceremonial laws” that are no longer in effect, but that God’s “moral law” still is.  Of course the Bible itself never divides the Mosaic Law into these nice and neat categories, instead dealing with the Law as a complete unit.  A unit that has been fulfilled in its entirety by the work of Christ. 

The arguments of both Furtick and Challies are non-sensical.  Furtick says God broke the Law.  Challies argues that God obeys the Law.  They both seem to miss the point that God isn’t under the Law, but rather He transcends it.  He is the one who gave it to Israel.  He is the one who declared it fulfilled in Christ.  What if God "murdered" someone?  What if He took a life without cause (hypothetically speaking)?  Would He be charged as a law-breaker?  When considered from this perspective, the lunacy of the argument shines forth.  God can kill anyone He wants.  He does everyday, for all deaths are ordained by a sovereign God.  He's God.  Laws don't exist for Him.  But for man.  God doesn't break the law, nor is He bound to obey it.  He transcends it. And the Son of God fulfilled it.  Of course the theological waters are muddied somewhat when we consider God becoming a man and being born “under the Law.” (Galatians 4:4) Jesus was a Jew.  What was His posture toward the Law and the Jewish leaders of His day?

Jesus fulfilled the Law and attained the righteous standard that no one else ever could.  Neither the Jew who had the Law, nor the Gentile who did not have the Law, could live a life of sinless perfection.  Jesus did and grants the credit for His perfection to all who come to Him by faith (2 Cor 5:21).  Nevertheless, Jesus was frequently accused of not revering the Mosaic Law.  It is interesting to consider what Jesus argued when He was accused of breaking the Sabbath, for example.  Rather than saying, “Oh I would never break the Sabbath!”  Jesus instead declares Himself to be “Lord of the Sabbath.” (Matthew 12:8) Can you imagine any other Jew making such a claim?  Of course not.  They would get stoned.  He didn’t.  He was God and thus His divine character transcended any Law given to sinful men.  Be they Israelite or not.

Jesus also shockingly declared to the Jews, “Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me." (John 5:45-46)  In other words, stop elevating Moses and placing your hope in him and the law.  Instead, submit to Christ and put your hope in HIM and the cross.  For this is what even Moses himself did.  Moses and Jesus are not equals before God.  And the Father made that abundantly clear on the Mount of Transfiguration when Peter wanted to build an altar for Moses, Elijah, and Jesus.  No sir!  God the Father declared, "THIS is my beloved son, listen to him!" (Matt. 17:1-7) Let Moses and the Law stay in retirement where they belong.  Look to Jesus and His greater Law as your standard.  And don't assume that even God Himself is bound to obey Moses.  That is absurd.

The Law of Moses was a temporary code, given to a specific group of people (Israel), at a specific time (under the Old Covenant).  The Law is no more, having been fulfilled in Christ.  The primary point of the Sabbath was to foreshadow a “rest” that believers would have in Christ (Colossians 2:16-17).  When Christ came He fulfilled this typological picture that the Sabbath painted.  The Sabbath was a shadow; Jesus was the substance.  As LORD of all, Jesus was also LORD of the Sabbath.  God supersedes the Law, and we tread on shaky ground when we assume God Himself to be under certain rules He gives to His creation.

In closing, I don’t endorse Steven Furtick and think he’s wrong on many other issues beyond this.  He elevates man too high and brings God down too low.  I do think highly of Challies’s work, but answering error with a different form of error ultimately is counterproductive.  Jesus was NOT a follower of Moses.   Jesus was the fulfillment (and Savior) of Moses.  Don’t elevate sinful man.  Nor the Mosaic Law.  But instead, “Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you.” (1 Peter 3:15) Both Furtick and Challies are wrong to some extent.  Jesus is right and He is Lord of all things, including the Law.  Use discernment regarding any human teacher and let the word of God be your standard.  All gurus are subject to correction and have the ability to be wrong. So make Jesus your guru.  He is always right.

Church & State Interview with Brent Prentice on Abortion & Adoption

On the March 31, 2016 edition of "Church & State" on KELB radio, Shane Kastler interviewed Pastor Brent Prentice of Eagle Heights Baptist Church in Stillwater, OK. On the topics of abortion and adoption.  Brent shared some of his experiences in going through the adoption process and he spoke of ways in which churches could be better involved in promoting a culture of life.

To listen or download the audio, click here.

Church & State Interview with Dr. Bryan Barrilleaux

On the March 31, 2016 edition of "Church & State" on KELB radio, Shane Kastler interviewed Dr. Bryan Barrilleaux on the topics of campaign finance and immigration.  Dr. Barrilleaux also announced his plans to run for the U.S. House of Representatives in 2016; and his philosophy of accepting no financial contributions.

To listen or download the audio, click here.

 

 

Jesus & The Two Goats

By Shane Kastler

In the Old Testament we are told about the sacrificial system that the Jews were to incorporate.  In addition to daily animal sacrifices there was an annual sacrifice on the Day of Atonement.  On this day, the High Priest would take a bull and two goats that would be used in the ritual. The bull was for the sins of the High Priest and his household.  One goat would be sacrificed for the sins of the people; while the other goat would be let go in the wilderness.  Known as the “scapegoat” this animal would have the guilt of sin symbolically transferred to it before it was sent out into the wilderness.

While these practices seem odd to us today, they pointed to and symbolized the true sacrifice for sin that Jesus would one day make.  The first goat was killed as a substitute for the people.  Likewise, Jesus died on the cross to pay the eternal penalty for the sins of those who trust in him.  God, being perfectly righteous and holy, demands a payment for sin.  And Jesus, being the Son of God, and thus perfectly righteous and holy; is the only one qualified to make the payment.  Jesus lived a life of sinless perfection, then died a sacrificial atoning death that was acceptable to God the Father.

The “scapegoat” also symbolizes the work of Christ.  For in the death of Christ the “guilt” of sin is transferred to Christ from believers.  Though we are all “guilty” as sinners before God; we can rest and trust that Christ took upon himself the guilt of those who trust in him.  For the Christian, Jesus takes their guilt and punishment, and he grants them his perfect righteousness.  If you are truly a follower of Jesus, then you have a righteous standing before God, based upon the life of Christ.  We get credited for his perfection and he gets credited with our sin. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

The only danger with this amazing transaction is that there are some people who assume they belong to Christ when they do not.  If you don’t truly know and love the Lord, then don’t be deceived into thinking your sins are paid for when they are not.  If you do know and love the Lord, then your life will reflect that in every aspect of your being.  No longer will you crave sin, but rather you will crave holiness.  No longer will you live for this life, but rather you will desire to be in the presence of Christ.  While you still get entangled in sin, it is no longer master over you.  Jesus is your new master and he takes your guilt away.

If Jesus is truly your greatest love and treasure, then you need not fret about death, nor what awaits beyond the grave.  You will one day be with Jesus and that condition will last forever.  You also need not beat yourself up with the guilt of your past sins.  They are paid for and Jesus has removed your guilt.  Learn from the past and live a holy life in the future, constantly looking to Jesus for the comfort and strength that only he can provide.