Julian Freeman » Doctrine

What Did Jesus Say About Heaven?

Julian Freeman — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:51:30 +0000

Have you ever asked that question? Was it easy to find an answer?

While the doctrine of heaven may be firmly established by using the whole of the revealed will of God, it is interesting to me how little Jesus himself says about heaven–at least in its future aspects.

For the most part, when Jesus talks about heaven, he is not concerned with what it will be like, but rather, (1) How you get yourself ‘in’, and, (2) the fact that it has begun now–and we are called to live in light of that reality.

It’s almost like if you asked Jesus, ‘What is heaven like?’ he’d answer, ‘You’re asking the wrong question.’ He would correct us, ‘Don’t think about heaven as some ethereal future hope–ask whether or not you have reason to believe that it is your hope.’ And then he would add, ‘Heaven isn’t an ethereal future hope–it is a present reality that begins when you live under my kingly reign now and you begin to experience my blessings now.’

All that being said, if we query the text of the gospels, I think we can find some details about the future reality of heaven from Jesus’ teaching.

Heaven is a place. According to the Sermon on the Mount (in particular, Matthew 6) and John 14, heaven is an actual place–not bodiless beings floating through clouds. It is the place where God is and his presence is made known to bless.
Heaven is a place of treasures. Again, from Matthew 6 we learn that the treasures and rewards we store up in heaven now will never be taken from us and they will never cease to give joy.
Heaven is a place prepared for us. In Matthew 25 Jesus speaks of heaven as the kingdom which has been prepared for us from before the creation of the world. Again, then, we see it is a literal place where God is intent on blessing us.
Heaven is a place of joy and reward. Still in Matthew 25, Jesus tells the parable where those who have been faithful with what they were given are commended by their master. The blessed words are this: ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’
Heaven is a place of justice. In Luke 16, while teaching an entirely different point altogether, Jesus tells the story of two men who receive a just reversal of fortunes on the other side of judgement.
Heaven is a place of single community. Luke 20 (cf. Matthew 22) teaches that humans will not be married or given in marriage in heaven. That being said, we are not community-less beings, but rather, we are like the angels, in fellowship with one another and ultimately, with God.

Can you think of any more places where Jesus talks about heaven? Any other details that can be gleaned from various places?

Post from: Julian Freeman

What Did Jesus Say About Heaven?

Download ‘Religion Saves’ for Free

Julian Freeman — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:07:56 +0000

Post from: Julian Freeman

Download ‘Religion Saves’ for Free

Adoption or Justification: Which is Greater?

Julian Freeman — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:45:48 +0000

I found this quote from CJ Mahaney’s blog, where after discussing the doctrine of adoption, he looks at Packer’s answer to the question, ‘Which is greater, adoption or justification?’. I thought it was an interesting question and definitely worth thinking through. Here is Packer’s answer:

That justification—by which we mean God’s forgiveness of the past together with his acceptance for the future—is the primary and fundamental blessing of the gospel is not in question. Justification is the primary blessing, because it meets our primary spiritual need. We all stand by nature under God’s judgment; his law condemns us; guilt gnaws at us, making us restless, miserable, and in our lucid moments afraid; we have no peace in ourselves because we have no peace with our Maker. So we need the forgiveness of our sins, and assurance of a restored relationship with God, more than we need anything else in the world; and this the gospel offers us before it offers us anything else…

But contrast this, now, with adoption. Adoption is a family idea, conceived in terms of love, and viewing God as father. In adoption, God takes us into his family and fellowship—he establishes us as his children and heirs. Closeness, affection and generosity are at the heart of the relationship. To be right with the God the judge is a great thing, but to be loved and cared for by God the Father is greater.*
———–
Note:
* J.I. Packer, Knowing God (IVP, 1993), pp. 206–207.

Post from: Julian Freeman

Adoption or Justification: Which is Greater?

Full ’26 Questions’ Series Now Available

Julian Freeman — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 03:49:46 +0000

Last Autumn at GFC we embarked on a journey. We endeavoured to ask and answer 26 of the most crucial questions that Christians should be asking–and should know the answers to. Basically, it was a sneaky (read: not boring) way to teach our people sytematic theology.

We taught this series on Sunday evenings, with various men from our church leadership and mentoring program teaching each week. Each week we were given a handout outlining the question that would be answered that week. Those outlines have now been put into a single booklet, which you can download below.

It’s a 61 page systematic theology. It’s simple, it’s short, we believe it’s accurate, and it’s as comprehensive as we could be for a short series on Sunday evenings. Best of all, it’s free. If you’re looking for materials for introduction to the Christian faith or something similar, this could be very helpful.

Our 26 questions cover everything from Creation to the end of the world, even to eternity future. You can even click here to view and download the audio messages from the series so you can listen and read along with the notes. Click the image to download the booklet itself.

Here’s a listing of the 26 Questions that you should be asking (and we attempt to answer):

How Can I Know What is True?
Who is God?
How Many Gods are There?
Where Did the World Come From?
Does Prayer Matter?
Are There Other Spiritual Beings?
Why Did God Create Us? What is Our Purpose?
Who is In Control Here?
Is There a Difference Between Men & Women?
What is Sin and What Difference Does it Make?
Who is Jesus?
Why Did Jesus Have to Die?
Where is Jesus Now?
What is the Gospel?
What Does it Mean to Be Born Again?
What is Justification?
What is Sanctification?
Will I Make It?
Who Is the Holy Spirit?
What is the Church?
What is Baptism?
What is the Lord’s Supper?
Where Do I Fit in the Church?
What Will Happen at the End of Time?
What Happens When I Die?
What is the ‘After-Life’?

Post from: Julian Freeman

Full ’26 Questions’ Series Now Available

No Wonder They Hate It

Julian Freeman — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:23:39 +0000

This past Sunday at GFC, the preacher taught on Core Value #4: Authority. That was good for my heart to hear. When we, as elders, sat to discuss what we wanted to include in this series (i.e. What are our core values?), authority wasn’t the first thing that came to mind.

As we reflected on the biblical guidance for Christian leadership and where that intersects Canadian culture, however, we quickly realized that this was something we needed to speak to. Our culture hates authority. The very fact that one person might have the ‘right to command’ another person to do something just makes our skin crawl.

But that begs this question: Why? Why would we hate it so much and so instinctively?

To be sure, the reasons are numerous. We have seen authority ill-defined and often-abused. We’ve seen people in authority positions without authority qualifications, and that makes us question the legitimacy of it all. We’ve all be subject to authorities who have made us do things we just don’t want to do. We could go on and on.

But I would argue that there’s something more at play–something deep-seated in our very nature as humans that makes us want to either (1) reject authority and rebel against it, or, (2) seize authority and use it for our personal gain. What is it in us that makes us act this way?

I think the answer is simple: Authority is rooted in God, defined by God, is good and is a part of what it means to be God.

Since we’re created in his image, it only makes sense that we would be created to reflect this reality. But ever since the fall, we’ve done with authority what we do with every other part of the image of God in us: we either deny it or distort it.

The authority of God the Father cannot be questioned. Throughout the Old Testament, his Word stands. He declares the end from the beginning, and his will is brought to pass. In the gospels (especially John) we see that it was the Father who sent the Son. The Son speaks the words that the Father gave him to speak, and does the works the Father gave him to work.

The authority of Christ is a present reality. At the Great Commission Jesus said, ‘All authority has been given to me…’. In Ephesians 1, we’re told that Christ (after being raised from the dead) was seated at the right hand of God the Father, ‘in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion…’ with ‘all things under his feet…’.

Christ will not always hold on to that authority, however. In 1 Corinthians 15, we read that at the end of this world, Christ will hand all things back over to the Father, who is the true, ultimate authority–even within the Godhead, where all are perfect equals. Authority, then, existed in eternity past (where there was no sin) and will exist into eternity future (where there will be no sin).

This tells us why we hate authority. We hate it because we’re rebels by nature. We hate God and everything that he is. Authority is intrinsically good. Authority is a part of what it means to be God. It is not a result of the fall–rather, it is merely perverted and hated because of the fall.

As Christians, we are called to rightly reflect the image of God as we were created to. Our response to perversions of authority in the world is not to reject all authority, but to esteem and praise right authority, and to respond to bad authority rightly and humbly: by submitting ourselves to it (1 Pet 2.13-17).

Post from: Julian Freeman

No Wonder They Hate It

The Primacy of Praise to the Father

Julian Freeman — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:30:21 +0000

Sunday’s post reminded me of something that Dr Ware taught us in a contemporary theology course not too long ago. He challenged us to develop our Trinitarian categories, and to work hard for clarity in the distinctions between the persons of the Godhead.

One challenging example he gave was that of Ephesians 1. How many times have we read Ephesians 1 and gloried in the amazing grace of God which called us, sought us, won us, and keeps us? Too many to count! And yet, how many times have we thought seriously about the pronoun ‘he’ / ‘him’ / ‘his’ in that passage? To whom does that refer in which instance?

It is important to understand whose grace we are revelling in, and whose praise all of this is for. After all, getting the praise of ‘his’ glorious grace right is the very point of the passage!

Admittedly, the pronouns in the passage can seem a tad difficult to identify. Here is Dr Ware’s interpretation (based on the ESV translation):

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places [i.e. Praise the Father who gives blessings through the work of Christ, mediated to us by the Holy Spirit], even as [the Father] chose us in [Christ] before the foundation of the world, that we should be blameless before [the Father]. In love [the Father] predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ [to the Father] according to the purpose of [the Father’s] will, to the praise of [the Father’s] glorious grace, with which [the Father] has blessed us in [his beloved Son]. In [the Son] we have redemption through [the Son's] blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of [the Father’s] grace, which [the Father] lavished upon us in all wisdom and insight, making known to us the mystery of [the Father’s] will, according to [the Father’s] purpose, which [the Father] set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth.

In [Christ] we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of [the Father] who works all things after the counsel of [the Father’s] will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of [the Father’s] glory. In [Christ] you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in [Christ], were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of [the Father’s] glory.

If we were to praise God for his work in salvation, based on this text, the praise would necessarily be Trinitarian. All the members of the Godhead have their roles, and the glory of all three is extolled. But whose glorious grace should be the centre of our attention and praise, based on these verses?

Is this reflected in your prayer life? How about your private worship? Why are we so quick to abandon the primacy of praise to the Father for his work in salvation?

Post from: Julian Freeman

The Primacy of Praise to the Father

Beware the Pendulum

Julian Freeman — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 19:00:00 +0000

It seems that in theology, as in the rest of life, we’re constantly riding a pendulum. The more we run from doctrinal error that we see in others, the more likely we are to fall into the opposite error ourselves.

If we reject an over-emphasis on God’s love as the basis of his character, we run the the risk of focusing too much on his justice or transcendence. If we seek to reject the feminist tide of our culture and hold to biblical distinctions between male and female, we run the risk of keeping women back from the legitimate ways that they are to serve and minister in the body of Christ. The examples are endless, and for every false doctrine there is an equally-wrong opposite reaction offered in an attempt to correct it.

Tim Challies made a comment once, when reviewing a Brian McLaren book, that McLaren appears to love Jesus, but to hate God (i.e. the Father). Bruce Ware made a nearly identical statement in a theology course I took with him recently. They both made the statement because… well… it’s true. But here’s what concerns me–I wonder how far we are from being the same.

I would never suggest that anyone at GFC or in our circles hates the Father. But I do wonder how our love for him compares to our love for Christ.

For whatever reason, the tide of our Christian culture seems to be waxing strong in our love for and devotion to Christ. Perhaps because of the resurgent emphasis on biblical as opposed to systematic theology. Maybe it is the fact that we tend to focus more on the fulfilment of our salvation, rather than the promise and story leading up to it. Maybe it is our culture’s disdain of authority (and especially authority held by a male, patriarchal figure). Maybe it is just the fact of Christ’s ‘like-us-ness’ that makes it easier for us to imagine him. Regardless of the reason, it is far more common to hear a Christian these days talking about their love for Christ than it is to hear a Christian talk about their love for the Father.

Growing in our love for Christ is always a good thing. But growing in our love for Christ at the expense of our love for the Father is not a good thing. But is this a genuine problem?

Think through the songs you sing in church. Think through the Bible reading you like to do most. Think through your conversations you’ve had recently with fellow believers. How central to your conversation, your reading, or your worship is Father himself, distinct from the other members of the Trinity? Are the affections of your heart warmed the same way when you think of God the Father as when you think of Jesus?

It was the Father’s will to create. It was the Father who chose us to be in Christ before the foundations of the world. It was the Father who planned in eternity past to send Christ, the Father who promised Christ, and the Father who carried out that plan. It was the Father’s will to crush Jesus to save you. It was the Father who had to withhold his wrath for thousands of years and then bear it all on his only true Son, thus breaking an eternity of perfect union and unbroken fellowship. It was the Father who looked away from Christ in anger in order to look to you with grace.

It was the Father’s plan to send his true Son to make you an adopted Son. It is the Father who gives you his Spirit. It is the Father who holds the king’s heart in his hand, who governs all this according to the counsel of his will, and who will bring about the end of all things in the fulness of time. It is the Father’s throne on which Christ sits, and to whom Christ will return the kingdom at the end of time.

How is your love for the Father?

Post from: Julian Freeman

Beware the Pendulum

Thoughts on Baptism

Julian Freeman — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:08:00 +0000

In the life of our church, there is no greater highlight (in my mind) than when we celebrate baptisms. The baptism of a believer is the rite of inauguration into the church of Jesus Christ. When we celebrate baptism, we celebrate that one more soul has been delivered from the domain of darkness and transferred to the kingdom of Christ, in whom there is true redemption, the forgiveness of sins (Col 1.13-14).

Over the years our Lord has continued to save people at Grace Fellowship Church, and we absolutely glory in that! As I prepare to meet in the near future with some of these individuals who are preparing to be baptised, I have had opportunity to study the doctrine of baptism from Scripture all over again.

What did I find this time? I found that it’s even more glorious than I remember. Here are three things that impressed me this morning as I studied baptism.

The ultimate importance of baptism.

In the book of Acts, I was amazed to see where baptism is placed, and how careful Luke is to include it wherever the gospel is preached. What I found really amazing this morning is the connection of baptism with the growth of the church.

Most people are familiar with the fact that the book of Acts is recorded as the fulfilment of Acts 1.8, where Jesus says that ‘you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.’ Acts, then, proceeds to show how the church does in fact spread through all those places.

What I noticed this morning, however, is that wherever the church spreads in accord with this promise, baptism figures prominently. In Acts 2.37-42, Peter preaches to the Jews in Jerusalem and when they ask how to be saved, he says, ‘Repent and be baptized!’ In Acts 8, when Philip preaches the gospel in Samaria, and many there believe, Luke records that ‘when they believed … they were baptized, both men and women.’ Then, finally, in Acts 10 when Peter brings the gospel to the Gentiles (representative for the rest of the non-Jewish world, i.e. ‘to the ends of the earth’), he sees that they do believe, and once they are converted he declares, ‘Who can withhold water for baptism?’ From Jerusalem to Samaria, to the ends of the earth, where the church goes forth, so does baptism of believers. That is seriously important!

The intimate connection of baptism with salvation.

Baptism in the New Testament is intimately connected with salvation / regeneration / conversion / belief / the work of the Holy Spirit. This is seen first in the proclamation of Peter in the first New Covenant gospel presentation, where he openly declares that to be saved, the Jews must ‘Repent and be baptized.’ This does not mean that baptism is a work that must be done to be saved, but rather it shows that in Peter’s mind the ‘repentance and belief’ (the phrase that is used through the rest of the book) is so inextricably tied up with baptism, that he conceives of the two as being inseparable.

We see this not just with Peter’s preaching on Pentecost, but also in 1 Peter 3.18-22. Here Peter speaks of ‘baptism … which saves you.’ In the context we see that Peter is speaking of the whole process of being delivered from judgement through identification with Christ by faith–but in his mind, baptism, the symbol of this salvation, is so intimately connected with the salvation process that he can speak of this baptism as the deliverance from the ‘waters of judgement’ (i.e. God’s wrath).

To speak of turning to Christ in faith for salvation from the judgement of God is to speak of the salvation process which involves baptism of believers–the two are intimately connected.

The profound symbolism of baptism.

In the 1 Peter passage above, there is a profound symbolism associated with baptism (Noah and the ark passing through the waters of God’s judgement). Elsewhere in the NT there is other profound symbolism associated with baptism as well. For example, in Romans 6 Paul teaches that our physical descent into the water, submersion under the water, and then rising up from being underneath the water symbolizes Christ’s death and resurrection. As we descend under the water, and ascend from out of the water our unification with Christ in his death and resurrection is symbolized. Just like he died to sin and was made alive to God, so are all who have faith in him.

Colossians 2 uses similar imagery. Verse 12 says that we have ‘been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.’ In other words, in baptism, we are giving public testimony to the reality that we have died and been born again by the powerful working of God. The same power has worked in us as was worked on Christ, when he was raised from the dead, and this we bear witness to when we are baptised. Just as he has been raised, so also we will be raised.

Now that is some profound symbolism.

I can’t help but think that in too many churches, the importance of baptism is underrated. If it was this important for the early church and meant this much to the inspired apostles, we should make it our aim to value it no less than they did!

For further study on the doctrine of baptism, feel free to download and use our ‘Preparation for Baptism Worksheet.’

Post from: Julian Freeman

Thoughts on Baptism

Egalitarian or Complementarian: How to Decide?

Julian Freeman — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:00:00 +0000

Both the complementarian and the egalitarian positions ultimately must stand or fall based on their interpretation of Genesis 1-2. Both sides agree that male and female were created alike, with the same human nature, both created in the image of God with equal dignity and value; but was it God’s intention for there to be distinction in role or was it not?

One basic rule for the interpretation of Scripture that is adopted by the majority of evangelicals is that Scripture must be allowed to interpret Scripture. In other words, where an issue is dealt with in obscure places and then again in clearer places, we must allow the clearer revelation to interpret the less clear. Also, it is standard hermeneutical practice among evangelicals to allow the newer revelation to give clarity to the older (since Christ is the mystery proclaimed in the OT, but revealed in the NT, which has implications for everything!).

This issue is a good place to employ this helpful rule. While scholars may debate the validity of seeing a distinction in role in Genesis 1-2, the apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, has already given us a clear and authoritative interpretation. In 1 Timothy 2:11-15 Paul argues that women must not teach or have authority over a man in the local church, and he cites Genesis 1-2 as his rationale: “Adam was formed first, then Eve.” Lest we think this was an appeal only relevant in a particular situation in a particular local body of believers, Paul uses the same logic again, in 1 Corinthians 11. In this passage he argues that within the kingdom of those redeemed in Christ (therefore, among those spoken of in Gal. 3:28), “the head of every man is Christ, and the head of a wife is her husband”. His defence of this position is drawn from the same text in Genesis, and he says “man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” To these passages must be added Ephesians 5:22-33. In this glorious text, the apostle looks back at the “profound mystery” of two becoming one flesh, which is spoken of in Genesis and says that the original human marriage is patterned after the loving authority-submission relationship of Christ and his bride, which God had purposed to establish from before the creation of the world.

In these decisive passages, where Scripture interprets itself, we are able to see clearly that it was God’s intention for there to be a distinction in role, including a loving authority-submission structure within marriage, and therefore within the local church. Many other details of many other arguments from both sides could and should be examined where time and space allow, but here it suffices for us to know that the testimony of Scripture is on the side of the complementarians. Throughout the Bible, from creation on, through the fall and ultimately through redemption, God has testified that he has a plan for male and female, equally created in his image, equal in essence and value, yet distinct in their roles in the home and in the church.

Post from: Julian Freeman

Egalitarian or Complementarian: How to Decide?

The Gender-Issue Landscape

Julian Freeman — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:00:00 +0000

Seeing as how I’ve been giving some really broad, yet really brief overviews of theological positions this week (dangerous at the best of times, but necessary just about always), I thought I’d continue with that pattern but on a different issue.

So, we approach again the gender debate. Are women free to take any office in the NT church, or are they restricted by their gender? Are men more valuable than women? Did God create men & women with difference in roles, or is that result of sin or some construct of society? Does redemption in Christ undo gender distinctions? These are just some of the numerous questions involved in the gender issue.

Despite how some argue, there are only two positions on the issue of women in ministry in the local church: one is either a complementarian or an egalitarian. This is so because it must be decided, Is being a woman (just having this gender) a disqualifying factor at some point for some positions of ministry or is it not? Regardless of where one draws the line, as soon as a line is drawn, one becomes a complementarian at some level. What follows is a brief sketch of both the egalitarian and complementarian arguments.

Egalitarians

Egalitarians argue for created equality. Adam and Eve were created as equals, both alike in the image of God; there was absolutely no distinction between them other than gender. They have functional equality as well, both given responsibility to rule of the creation. As a result of the fall, however, human relationships have been subjected to disorder and falsely established and wrongly motivated hierarchy. Sin introduced disorder into God’s creation, and the result of the curse of God was that man would “rule over” woman, but woman would “desire” man (Genesis 3:16). The perceived supremacy of male over female in relationships, in the world at large and throughout history is a result of the fall and the resulting disorder. However, now that we are in Christ, and because of the redemption that he has accomplished, “there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). This means that the relationship of equality in essence, function, and relationship has been completely restored. Differences have been obliterated and females, like males, are encouraged to pursue all areas of ministry in the local church.

Complementarians

Complementarians, just like egalitarians believe that Adam and Ever were alike created in the image of God, and that both are of absolute equal value. Complementarians, however, see a distinction in role between male and female, even in the Garden of Eden, before the fall. This is shown in several ways: Adam was created first, then Eve; Adam was given the command and the primary responsibility for the care of the garden; Eve was created to be Adam’s helper; and, the fact that Adam was the one to name Eve. That there was a distinction and overall distinction greater than that admitted by egalitarians is demonstrated by the apostle Paul’s use of the Genesis texts in places like 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2. For the complementarian, the fallen disruption of God’s created design is perceived differently. Where there was loving leadership and glad-hearted submission before, Adam’s desire is to “rule” (that is, by force of power, not lovingly) over Eve, while Eve’s desire is “against” (that is, with evil intent, to subvert and rule over—see Gen. 4:7) Adam. Complementarians argue that there is true role restoration in the redemption that Christ accomplishes, but it is not of the nature envisioned by the egalitarians. Rather, it is a reestablishment of the loving headship-submission relationship of Adam and Eve, which was designed to prefigure the relationship of Christ with his bride (Ephesians 5:22-33). That this is a restoration of the relationship as it was in Eden is evinced by 1 Timothy 2:8-15.

Post from: Julian Freeman

The Gender-Issue Landscape