Christ Seated On David's Throne part 3

In this post, I must argue that Christ is currently seated on David's throne. The reason I had to demonstrate that David's throne is God's throne is that Dispensationalists will separate the two. When this is done, they have Jesus seated at God's right hand while also looking forward to a later reversal in redemptive history. When David's throne is seen as God's throne, then we see that the world is not in some chaotic state and going to hell while Christ is powerless to do anything about it. Instead the New Testament explains to us that all things that happen do so according to Christ's purpose. Allow me to present two texts. First from Acts chapter 2:

²⁹"Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. ³⁰But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. ³¹Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ,^f]">[f] that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. ³²God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. ³³Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. ³⁴For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said,
" 'The Lord said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
³⁵until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet." '^g]">[g]

³⁶"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

The resurrection of Jesus was a resurrection that fulfilled all of the promises. Christ is now both Lord and Christ, seated at the right hand and on David's throne. He is now by virtue of His resurrection seated on David's throne. So again, this is not some future event but has already occurred.

The other passage is from Hebrews chapter 1.

After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. ⁴So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

The writer tells us that Jesus is seated at the right hand of God. How does he demonstrate that this is the fulfillment of prophecy? He tells in the following verses. He cites from the Old Testament:

For to which of the angels did God ever say,
"You are my Son;
today I have become your Father^a]">[a]"^b]">[b]? Or again,
"I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son"^c]">[c]?

It was this very passage that caused me to seriously consider Dispensationalism years ago. When we start with the New Testament's own view of the fulfillment of prophecy, then we must reject Dispensationalism's claims for a future throne in a small earthly city called Jerusalem. Instead we must as Paul tells us, to consider the heavenly Jerusalem, the mother of us all.

Christ Seated On David's Throne part 2

In this post, it must be shown that David's Throne is God's throne. That the New Testament writers thought this way as well is crucial in our understanding of New Testament eschatology. The reason is that if we understand that the Bible does not separate the throne of David from God's throne, then we will see that Jesus rules and reigns now and not on some separate throne from God in an earthly Jerusalem.

Allow me to cite an Old Testament passage. The prophet Nathan speaks of a promise to David in 2 Samuel 7.

"When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever." In accordance with all these words and all this vision, so Nathan spoke to David.

Within this text is a verse that is often overlooked. Not only does God promise to David that his throne would endure forever, but that it is God's throne. Notice "I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me". God makes Solomon His son and establishes his throne. Solomon ruled within a context of a shadow of God's Kingdom. The entire Old Testament was waiting for the Messiah to come and fulfill all of these promises.

The New Testament writer to the Hebrews cites Psalm 2:7 in connection with this passage.

But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. [verse 1:8]

Here the writer tells us that David's throne is God's throne citing Psalm 45. To sit on David's throne is to sit on God's throne.

Solomon was adopted as God's son. He is a type or shadow of the even greater Son. He sat on David's/God's throne. This same throne would one day rule the nations. This is where Dispensationalists go awry. This throne is not merely a future throne in an earthly Jerusalem, but is instead a throne established by Christ Himself at His resurrection.

The Old Testament looked forward to Christ. It explained in types and shadows what the Kingdom of God and His throne would look like. To revert backwards to types and shadows is to go backwards in salvation history. It is to reverse the outworking of redemptive history.

Solomon's throne in the Davidic Kingdom was the place where God ruled in His kingdom. That throne has now been expanded in Christ to rule in the Kingdom of God which has gone into all the world.

Christ Seated On David's Throne part 1

The other day I had coffee with a good friend of mine. In light of the recent election, he was wanting to discuss End Times and was speculating on certain passages. Although I have tried to explain to him in past conversations that I am not a Dispensationalist, he is clearly struggling with what it is I believe.

For instance, the question almost always arises, "Do you believe in the Tribulation and Rapture?" Of course, I have to ask in response, "What do you mean by those things?" Which is usually followed by the "Don't you interpret the Bible literally?"

So for the rest of the day I was trying to think of an example that an Amillenialist could use that might explain the Amillenialist's method of interpreting the Bible. There is one that I think may be helpful for those of us who are in situations that require to scale a high Traditional barrier. That would be the throne of God.

For the Dispensationalist, Jesus will someday come again and set up a kingdom and reinstitute David's throne in the earthly Jerusalem. However, if it may be demonstrated that Jesus is not coming to sit on David's throne in the earthly Jerusalem but instead is seated currently on David's/God's throne, then perhaps a step to having meaningful categories will be established and a better understanding of each position.

In my next post/s, I will attempt to show that the Old Testament throne is not only David's throne, but God's throne. I will then demonstrate that Christ sits on David's/God's throne now. Therefore, Jesus is ruling now, though"now we do not yet see all things subjected to him." [Heb 2:8]

Nominating David Ogden

Albert Mohler's post today is very alarming. Our new President has nominated yet another criminal...eh hem...I mean another nominee that is most troubling. President Obama has nominated David Ogden for Deputy Attorney General.

Mohler explains,

One of the leading legal defenders of pornography has been David Ogden, a lawyer who can only be described as a First Amendment extremist, who has even argued against laws against child pornography.

And,

In essence, David Ogden has been in the forefront of arguing for the unrestricted sale and distribution of any and all pornography by any and all means - and now he will be in charge of prosecuting those who were his clients and arguing against all that he has argued in the past. Are we to believe that this will have no effect on prosecutions against pornography?

Mohler asks the question,

What signal does President Obama intend to send by this nomination, and to whom?

The answer is simple. "I am going to hell, and I am taking all of you with me." Christians must understand that Obama's behavior isn't going to bring God's judgment, it is the judgment of God against a wicked people. So not only is Obama participating in the murder of millions of children, he will be participating in their abuse by the pornography industry.

And the Politicl Left has the nerve to call the Political Right immoral?

Jacob Sings

The joys of singing children to sleep. Now my son requests "Holy Persons" and sings along. Listen here.

Update: I think I have the link fixed. Also, this picture is from our trip to Boston. Jacob is looking out the window of the Prudential building.

Alternative Universes For Abortion

OK, you might be disgusted by this, but here is more evidence for the doctrine of Total Depravity. In this BPNews story a woman decides to have an abortion at 23 weeks. Here is where the story gets really sad and sick.

Williams arrived at that clinic the next day, but Renelique [the doctor] didn't show up, at least not on time. After waiting about two hours for the doctor to arrive, Williams began feeling nauseated and was placed in a patient waiting room, given a robe and told to lie down. At 2 o'clock that day -- and with Renelique still not at the clinic and no one in the room -- Williams felt an immense pain and delivered a baby girl. The staff began screaming "and pandemonium ensued," and Williams "watched in horror and shock as her baby writhed with her chest rising and falling as she breathed," a civil lawsuit filed in January on Williams' behalf states.

With the baby trying to breath, a staff member, Belkis Gonzalez, who has no medical license, came in the room and used orange shears to cut the umbilical cord, the suit states. She then "scooped up the baby," the placenta and afterbirth, placed everything in a red plastic biohazard bag, sealed it and tossed it into a trash can. Renelique later arrived and told her the "hard part was over," the suit states. He gave her an IV and a shot, cleaned her up and sent her home, the suit says.

The Florida Board of Medicine revoked Renelique's medical license Feb. 6, but many say criminal charges should be filed. After all, Williams' baby, whom she named Shanice, could have survived. A baby born in 2007 just prior to 22 weeks at Baptist Children's Hospital in Miami, Fla., survived and went home after a nearly four-month stay. Quadruplets in Nebraska born at 23 weeks last year survived.

An autopsy showed that Williams' baby had air in her lungs and was trying to breath.

"It's infanticide. We're trying to make sure we don't tolerate infanticide here," Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society, which filed the lawsuit, told Baptist Press.

There seems to me to be an obvious question that everyone is overlooking. Why is this woman filing a lawsuit? The article goes on to say that "The suit's main goal, Brejcha said, is to pressure prosecutors to file murder chargers."

Perhaps I am going out on a limb here, but am I living in an alternative universe? What did this woman think she was murdering before the baby popped out? A duck? A Martian? A Whale (which would be protected by the way)?

I am simply at a loss. She goes in to have the baby murdered 2 hours earlier. BUT, because the doctor was late by a mere 2 hours, now we need to try to file murder charges against the doctor? Was the mommy unconscious during her "choice"? What difference does it make where the location of the baby was when they murdered it? What difference does it make that the baby took a couple of breaths of air before it was thrown into the garbage?

My opinion, if the state is going to charge the doctor with murder, then to be consistent, since mommy was there to murder her baby just moments earlier, on what rational basis can we target the doctor? These people live in an alternative universe in which reason and logic and morality simply don't exist.

This is just sick.

Use of Confessions Part 2

In this post I would like to make a positive argument for the use of Confessions in the local church. If you read Schinnerer's article carefully, you may have wondered what the logical connection is between Revelation 22 and Deuteronomy 4 and the use of Confessions. Let me be blunt at this point. Mr. Schinnerer does not seem to realize that when he read those texts, he is interpreting those texts within his Tradition. Because Mr. Schinnerer seems to not be aware of his Traditions, his Traditions become equivalent to the Word of God. In other words, he sees no difference between his conclusions (his confession) and the text itself. He is also assuming that when you read those texts, you should come to the same conclusion he does. No logical argumentation is ever offered.

In the Summer 2005 edition of the Founders Journal Tom Nettles wrote,

John Gale [an early 18th century baptist] expressed the opinion of the non-subscribers [the position he held] when he preached, "Away then with all human forms and compositions, with all decrees and determinations of councils and synods, with all confessions and subscriptions;...let every pious Christian embrace and subscribe only that most valuable form of sound words contained in the scriptures." No evangelical Christian disagrees with the desire to have every doctrine supported by the clear words of Scripture. To assert that desire accompanied by a denigration of the value of confessions, however, often cloaks a disbelief of vital doctrine more than it affirms a belief of Scripture. [-- emphasis mine]

So stating that we only believe the Bible is something far too vague. If Jesus were to ask us what we believe, would we say nothing? I would suggest that Confessions serve a purpose in helping the average member understand the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

1) First of all Confessions are useful for expressing what we believe Scripture to be saying in summary form. In Matthew 16 we have a similar example of the need for Confessions. Jesus asked His disciples who men thought He was. He then turned the question to them. At this point Peter gives his famous confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

Scripture deals with many topics. Yet, there is clearly an overarching theme. The Scriptures teach us who and what man is. They also teach us who God is. Confessions are useful to offer a summary statement about what it is we believe they teach about God and man.

Remember the initial responses to Jesus' question. Men confessed all kinds of things about who Jesus is. Simply saying I believe in Jesus doesn't mean a thing if that definition of who Jesus is is wrong. We, like Peter, must confess what God has revealed in His Word about Jesus.

2) They are useful for unity of the local congregation. Too often we see churches that do not maintain a Biblical polity split for various reasons. However, churches also split over doctrinal issues. If the pastoral leadership is held to a stricter standard to the Confession, then doctrinal purity may be more easily maintained. It must be admitted that Confessions do not keep churches from drifting into error. They are a tool that is most helpful in settling disputes.

Sam Waldron wrote in the same issue,

It is clear from all this that a vital distinction must be maintained between the members and the elders of the church. Members need only to submit to the confession. Elders are obliged to teach it (1 Tim 3:2; 2 Tim 2:24; Titus 1:9).

Obviously the Confessions are not the ultimate authority. They derive their authority from Scripture and local church's abiding by it. They are of a secondary nature of authority. If a member were to "stray" from a local church's confession, then they are straying from the authority of the local church.

3) Confessions explain what a specific church's Traditions are upfront. By using a Confession, a church may see its own traditions and admit them up front. A member may see how their particular church approaches interpreting the Bible. This is very helpful when dealing with Christians from other denominations. It is also extremely helpful when dealing with cultists.

Again Waldron wrote about the London Baptist Confession of 1689,

Its distinctives are biblical. Its Reformed approach to God, His decree, the work of Christ, the application of salvation, the law of God, and the Christian worship is biblical. Its Baptist approach to the covenants, the ordinances, and the local church are all deeply and substantially biblical.

Here Waldron admits that the Confession helps the member understand how a local church approaches the text of the Bible. How he sees its unity in the covenants. This basically lays all of the cards on the table for all to see.

4) A great teaching tool. How often have churches received new members into their church only to discover over time those same members disappear. Some of those members are thrown into teaching positions (a most unbiblical thing to do...) not really knowing what they are teaching. A Confession is a simple and easy way to introduce someone to the broad teaching of the Bible.

It also serves us in reminding us that Christianity just didn't start the day we were saved. We stand on the shoulders of giants. It is most arrogant to say that we will invent the wheel when it has already been done.

Tom Ascol wrote in his article,

I do not automatically check my sermons by the 2LC to make sure that I am staying within its doctrinal boundaries. I do not have to since I am in agreement with it. I do consult it when I run up against knotty theological issues in my expositional work. If I find myself coming to conclusions that are contrary to the confession, I pause and give serious reconsideration to the text. Often the problem has been one of language or emphasis. Never have I found myself in contradiction to the clear doctrinal commitments of the confession.

We are not the first to arrive on this planet as Christians. Many godly men have gone on before us laying down a solid foundation. Great men of the past have wrestled with texts of the Bible just as we will continue to do so in our own generation and those to come. This isn't to say that men of the past are infallible. They are not and are just as subject to God's Word as we are. Nevertheless, they ought not to be despised.

In conclusion, I simply do not see how we may say we do not need Confessions. Christian men have come before us. We would be wise to receive their council. To say we do not is to despise gifts that God has given to His church. He has not only given to His church the Scriptures, but He has also given to us Apostles and prophets, and pastors and teachers.

Every generation must contend for that faith which was delivered unto the saints. What confession of faith will you defend?

Use of Confessions Part 1

In our Local New York Times, Clyde Schinnerer, a resident of Scott City, has been contributing a series of articles on his faith for at least the last couple of months. Mr. Schinnerer is a member of the Church of Christ. For many of his articles, the language has been vague enough that it is difficult to know if he truly grasps the Gospel. For instance, Mr. Schinnerer wrote a piece dealing with John 15. I truly had to wonder if he understands the difference between texts that are indicative verses texts that are imperative. In other words, commands verses texts that describe things the way they are or ought to be.

If you read this article, you will see that much of it could easily be agreed upon. But then he comes to his conclusions, and you have to wonder if we are using the same terminology with totally different definitions. In other words, we seem to be using the same words while speaking different languages.

Mr. Schinnerer titles his article "Let the Bible Speak" and then quotes Deuteronomy 4:2, which says, "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it..."

Now again, what true Christian disagrees with this? He then cites a couple more passages and finishes with Revelation 22

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

His conclusion to this is stated almost in passing. But this point is so important to his thinking that if miss it we will miss Clyde's entire point. He writes,

"If we use a manual, discipline, catechism, ect. as part of our doctrine, we are adding to or taking from God's word."

Now of course this begs the question. Does Mr. Schinnerer mean that Christians, who use creeds and confession, are adding to the word of God, no matter what their doctrinal meaning is or whence they are derived? If you know anything about the history of the Church of Christ, you will know the common phrase, "No creed but Christ". Contextually, this is the most probable meaning of Mr. Schinnerer's statement. Therefore, Mr. Schinnerer is making the brief argument that those of us who use Confessions are adding to the Word of God. A serious charge indeed and one which I take seriously.

Of course to make a statement such as "No creed but Christ" or the above quote from the article is like saying, "Never say never" or "there is no such thing as absolute truth and I believe that truth absolutely". It is a self-contradictory statement.

In my next post, I would like to make a positive case for the use of Confessions in our local churches. I will make references to some of the Founder's Journal articles on this subject. For now I would like to conclude this post by asking those who would agree with Mr. Schinnerer's position a few questions.

Do you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity? Do you believe in the vicarious substitutionary atonement of Christ? Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God? Do you believe that we are saved by faith alone? Do you believe in the Protestant teaching on Justification?

If you could say yes to any of these, could you define to someone, who is not a Christian and totally unfamiliar with the Bible, what these things mean? Where is the Trinity in the Bible? Could someone who believes that Jesus is a created being yet is baptized under their formula (you must be baptized by them to be saved) and attends their church faithfully be saved?

There are far too many assumptions in Mr. Schinnerer's conclusion. He paints with a broad brush and clearly has come to illogical conclusions without almost any evidence at all. This is almost cultic in thinking and needs to be dealt with more fully.

Some Pictures

I tried to take a few more. Focusing is really difficult. Perhaps better equipment might help me, but I think the real problem is the user. :-) Enjoy.

Some Pictures

Steven took this a couple of months ago.


I managed to get these tonight. I think I may need to try some kind of filter. Enjoy!