People, Pace and Presence

While hiking in the mountains with a group of people this past summer I was at the front and in conversation with someone near me I said, “When you are leading you need to pay attention to two things, people and pace.” The idea here being that you need to make sure everyone is okay on the hike and you need to set a pace that people can follow. Now, you likely noticed that I added the word presence to my title. I will explain why.

In carrying this idea over to our spiritual journey with Jesus I think these three elements are important. Who are we walking with? Are we able to walk together at a functional pace? Notice I said functional, not comfortable. At times we need our walk challenged. Lastly, and most important, are we walking in Jesus’ presence?

I enjoy hiking and I enjoy working with others. When I was working, at times I had staff who were open to having supervision while walking. It is hard to take notes but I found walking dialogue often more effective than sitting in an office. There is something about walking with others, which may be why Paul used the analogy.

1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. Ephesians 2:1–3 (NKJV)

10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. Ephesians 2:10 (NKJV)

Paul describes our pre-conversion life as a walk, but a walk, ‘according to the course of this world’ whereas after our conversion our call is to walk in the ‘good works’ that the Lord prepared before for us.

Thus, when people say ‘God has a plan for your life that is true. There is no guarantee however that we will ‘walk’ it out. This is where people, pace and presence come in. What helps us walk it out is those we walk with. We need to find those we can keep pace with and also those who will push us beyond things we think we are capable of doing.

When I was younger, I learned a good deal in a few months from a gentleman name Rene. He wasn’t a spiritual mentor nor do I think he planned to be a mentor, he just was. My first winter out of high school I spent working for a trucking company moving oil rigs, at times in brutally cold conditions. I worked mostly with Rene Bilidou, farmer in the summer, truck driver in the winter. I was the swamper, which meant Rene drove and I walked and ran around behind the truck (imagine a very large tow truck to try and get the image) while we tore down and put oil rigs back together on oil leases and hauled components to the next site.

That is the background. Rene taught me many things, pushed me to do things I didn’t think could be done, and was patient in teaching me when I failed. Being 19 at the time, I of course had plenty of great ideas on how to do things, most of them wrong. Rene had the wisdom to let me try and fail so that I was in a more teachable space and then he would show me how to do things correctly. Rene was a practical rather than a spiritual mentor. In our Christian walk we need spiritual mentors who are also practical and walk with us like that, mentors who allow us to make mistakes, help us learn from them, and keep pointing us in the right direction.

This leads us to presence. The key factor in our walking with others is pursuing Jesus’ presence. We need to pursue Him ourselves and we need to walk with others who both pursue Him and push us to do the same. The potential for failure is this endeavour is readily available, for example, consider the following verse.

24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Acts 17:24 (NKJV)

Paul said Yahweh doesn’t dwell in material structures and he also noted in 1 Corinthians (3:16-17 and 6:19-20) that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, his point being to affirm what he said in Acts. In the Old Testament the temple was built and sacrifices were made to create sacred space and Yahweh dwelt on the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant. Yet at Jesus crucifixion Matthew, Mark and Luke all reference the veil in the temple being torn. This meant two things, Yahweh was coming out of the temple and would be available everywhere (think of Acts 2 and the Spirit being poured out at Pentecost) and that as Hebrews says, there was now free and bold access to the throne of grace, the mercy seat (Heb. 4:14-16).             Let me pull this back together. I am in Saville as I write this, and yesterday I visited an ornate old church building and as I left reflected on what I had been writing. Of note, I didn’t encounter His presence there. In terms of People, Pace and Presence, People walked together to build this and other amazing edifices (we have our own in North America) but at some point, they walked away from His presence and began following religion instead of Jesus. They reverted to thinking that buildings rather than His body, the church, could contain His presence. While we may use buildings to serve His purposes, it is people that host His presence. Thus in our individual walks we need to find people with whom we can keep pace and with whom we encounter His presence.

Atonement Part 3

Since it is quite evident that scripture teaches Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA), that is, Jesus paid the price for our sins on the cross. My qualifier regarding PSA is that God’s wrath against sin is not some capricious emotion, it arises from His inherent need to execute justice and punish sin given that righteousness and justice are the foundation upon which His throne rests. Now we turn to how other views relate to PSA followed by whether the church fathers endorsed PSA.

We begin with the other views from my first post on this subject.  

•           The Ransom Theory. In this view, the atonement was payment made by God to Satan, because Satan held mankind in bondage to sin and death. Origen in particular argued that the cross was a ransom payment equal in value to man’s sin debt, a debt accrued since Adam’s original sin. At the cross, the death payment of Christ, the devil was obliged to release man from bondage. COMMENTS this view doesn’t’ fit with scripture as our sin debt was owed to God not Satan. Satan brough humanity into bondage and brought about the corruption of creation through their sin.

•           The Satisfaction Theory. This view of the atonement, sometimes called the “Latin view,” was primarily developed by Saint Anselm in Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man). This view sets God’s justice or honor against man’s immense sin debt. The satisfaction view is a reaction against the ransom view. Anselm argued that it was not to Satan but to God that man’s sin debt was owed. Now that man’s sin debt has been exacted from the Son, man can be reconciled to God’s divine justice. COMMENTS this is a variation of PSA.

•           Christus Victor. This view of the atonement argues—in the words of its best-known promoter, Gustav Aulén—that “the work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil” (Christus Victor, p. 20). This view is a reaction to both the ransom and the satisfaction theories. Instead of payment to Satan or to God, the death of Christ is seen as a conquest in a cosmic conflict. COMMENTS Christs sacrifice was a victory in a cosmic conflict but this view falls under PSA as a n aspect of it, it doesn’t replace it.

•           Penal Substitution. This view is often associated with the magisterial reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin. Some studies have demonstrated, however, that key elements of the penal substitution theory are evident in the early years of church history. The word “penal” refers to the divine penalty enacted at the cross. This penalty is more than payment for sin to God (though it is that); it is also the site at which God expended his wrath against human sin. God can be just and the justifier of the ungodly because Christ was our substitute on the cross: he paid sin’s penalty. By his sacrificial death he “cancel[ed] the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands” (Col 2:14). Our sin, in this view, is imputed to Christ, and his righteousness is imputed to us.

•           The Scapegoat Theory. René Girard, a Roman Catholic philosopher, is the figure most often associated with the scapegoat theory. He appeals to the motif of the scapegoat, the azazel, from the atonement rituals in Leviticus 16. In this theory, communal tension that would otherwise erupt in violence is dissipated by redirecting that violence toward a scapegoat. When in Christ God makes himself the scapegoat, directing human violence toward an innocent party, he reveals the error in scapegoating and breaks the cycle of violence. This theory has wide acceptance in those (typically mainline) Protestant circles that tend to shy away from or reject substitution theories. COMMENTS The overall theory fails to align with scripture with the exception that Jesus bore our sins as the scapegoat. Scripture says He suffered, ‘outside the gate.’

12 Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate. Hebrews 13:12 (NKJV)

Just as the scapegoat carried the sins of the nation away from the nation so Jesus took sin outside of Jerusalem to Golgotha. However, this theory presents more as humanism than atonement.  

 •          The Governmental Theory. Hugo Grotius, Charles Finney, and Wesleyan Methodism have championed this view. In the governmental view, Jesus did not pay a penalty for human sin; instead, at the cross he made a display of God’s displeasure with sin. COMMENTS certainly the Father is displeased with sin, we see this in PSA, but scripture is clear that Jesus paid the penalty for our sin.

•           Theosis. This view is closely associated with Eastern Orthodoxy. It posits that the joining of man to divinity is the telos, the completion, of humanity. The cross makes theosis possible by its great act of transfiguration from death to life. COMMENTS partaking of the divine nature (2 Peter 1) is a fruit of Jesus sacrifice but as a stand alone theory it fails to deal with what scripture shows us about PSA.

•           The Moral Influence Theory. In this view, man’s greatest need is not to be reconciled to God; rather, man needs an ultimate moral example, and Christ provides this via his self-giving life and death. COMMENTS there is no atonement here and thus no dealing with the problem of sin, merely humanism disguised as theology.

•           The Solidarity Theory. This view argues that Christ at the cross identified with humanity’s suffering and overcame it. In doing so, he brought humanity into a new way of living according to divine justice. While considered newer, this view has roots within other, older views. This view most resembles Christus Victor, and N. T. Wright and the others who adopt the New Perspective on Paul have been this view’s most influential proponents. Jürgen Moltmann and his “suffering of God” theology, too, provide a variation on the solidarity theory.[1] COMMENTS the primary problem with this theory is that while through the cross Jesus identified with us, and the suffering sin causes, it fails to address the need for justice and the penalty for sin being paid.

As a final point, I referenced the importance of looking to the church father. In his teaching on PSA Sam Storms has pointed out some of those who have held to PSA throughout church history, showing that it is not a product of the Reformation and Protestantism, it is a product of scripture and church history.

Justin Martyr (c. 100-165), Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 275-339), Hilary of Poitiers (c. 300-368), Athanasius (c. 300-373), Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 330-390), Ambrose of Milan (339-397), John Chrysostom (c. 350-407), Augustine (354-430), Cyril of Alexandria (375-444), and Gregory the Great (c. 540-604), all of whom advocated penal substitution in one form or another. Other significant figures who understood the atonement in this way include Thomas Aquinas (cf. 1225-74), John Calvin (1509-64), Francis Turretin (1623-87), John Bunyan (1628-88), John Owen (1616-83), George Whitefield (1714-70), Charles Spurgeon (1834-92), D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981), as well as Billy Graham, John Stott, and J. I. Packer. These are only representative thinkers and represents a small fraction of those who have embraced the truth of penal substitution.

Thus, we close with the famous John 3:16.

16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16 (NKJV)

NOTE My next post will look at People, Pace and Presence. If there is a particular topic or subject you would like me to cover or address please let me know in the comments.


[1] Mark Olivero, “Theories of Atonement,” in Lexham Survey of Theology, ed. Mark Ward et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018).

Atonement Part 2

            I last presented that I have long held to Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) and presented a brief definition of other views. Here I begin by outlining from scripture the issue the various views are attempting to solve so that we can then see how they hold up as solutions to the problem. First a comment on the character of God. We have the following statements in Genesis and Psalms.

25 Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” Genesis 18:25 (NKJV)

14 Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne; Mercy and truth go before Your face. Psalm 89:14 (NKJV)

Genesis 18:25 has long been a comfort to me when I struggle with something regarding Yahweh’s character as I believe the answer to Abraham’s rhetorical question is a resounding Yes! The Judge of all the earth shall do right precisely because His throne is built upon righteousness and justice. Thus, in light of that idea, we look at sin and atonement.   

            In scripture Adam and Eve were given dominion over all of material creation and assigned the responsibility to steward it and basically expand Eden to fill the whole the earth (Gen. 1:26-28). Their subsequent sin affected all of creation given the dominion they possessed, hence the following statements from Paul.

19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. Romans 8:19–22 (NKJV)

Sin affected all of creation and needed to be addressed, which beings us back to righteousness and justice being the foundation of Yahweh’s throne. Some have asked why Yahweh couldn’t simply forgive sin and start over. The answer is that to do so would be unjust, the sin had to be atoned for. This is where we find our more modern judicial phrase, ‘Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.’ Another aspect is that Were Yahweh to not deal with sin He would violate His own nature and cease to be just or good. As a result an animal was slain to create a ‘covering’ for Adam and Eve. Their sins were atoned for, covered, by blood being shed. This pattern continued from Genesis 3 right up to the time of Jesus. The blood of the innocent being shed to atone for the sins of the guilty. Paul addresses the history and the solution in Romans.

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, Romans 3:23–25 (NKJV)

            Paul presents a few points in this passage. The first is that we are all sinners, no exceptions. Second, we are justified when we place our faith in Jesus’ sacrifice on our behalf. Three that Jesus blood paid the price for our sins and that prior to His sacrifice they were passed over but never fully addressed. We see the necessity and reality of Christ’s sacrifice in the following passages.

4 Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. Isaiah 53:4–6 (NKJV)

13 For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; or if we are of sound mind, it is for you. 14 For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; 15 and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again. 16 Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 2 Corinthians 5:13–19 (NKJV)

We see in the above passages that we all died and all need redemption and Isaiah prophesied Jesus ultimate sacrifice to redeem us, summed up in the phrase, ‘And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.’ This is PSA on display in scripture.

            In my next post I will look at how the other atonement theories relate to scripture and PSA.

Atonement Part 1

            I have, as long as I can remember in my Christian journey, held to Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). Prior to even hearing the term, it was what I had been taught and understood from scripture. However, PSA is one theological position among many, though, as noted,  it is the one I have always held. Seeing it regularly attacked on social media in recent times has led me to examine it and other views as I have long been convinced that we need to both know what we believe and why. Thus, while I hold to PSA I will present and examine a number of views, as while they are different, they are not all mutually exclusive.

PSA is the position generally under the most attack since it deals with God’s justice and His wrath, topics that many seem uncomfortable coming to terms with. When it comes to PSA some have derisively said that in His crucifixion and resurrection Jesus merely, ‘lost a weekend.’ Others have portrayed Jesus’ crucifixion as ‘cosmic child abuse.’ One of the most recent attacks has come from the popular author John Mark Comer. He came out against PSA while promoting Andrew Remington Rillera’s book Lamb of the Free, which Comer described as a ‘knockout blow’ to PSA. I confess, I haven’t read the book. I have read some reviews and rebuttals but I don’t have time to read every book on every subject nor do I need to – what I need to do is hold any view up to the light of scripture, which I do know. I have long held to what Isaiah wrote.

20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Isaiah 8:20 (NKJV)

Scripture is the standard not the shifting sands of theological opinion.

            So, here I will share a spectrum of historical views of the atonement, what I believe and why, and draw some conclusions. I think it is also important to know if a view we hold was held by the church fathers as they were instrumental in sorting out the theology of the church after the completion of the New Testament. They didn’t always agree but they did wrestle through difficult questions and draw conclusions. Many have alleged that PSA is a view that arose in the Protestant church world, which is not trues since it was held by some of the early church fathers. The most important thing for me however, as noted above, is that scripture is the final arbiter. 

            As part of this introduction, below is an overview of theories I have pulled from my online theological library. As I go further, I will present my thoughts, as I always have, in plain language. However, as you look at them remember, two things, first, as noted above, these theories are not all mutually exclusive, secondly the most important thing is what Jesus said.

16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16 (NKJV)

Atonement Theories

The various theories of Christ’s atonement describe God’s purposes in Christ’s death and lead to further inquiry about the efficacy of the cross, especially the extent of its benefits and recipients.

Theories of the atonement are rich and complex, because they necessarily involve views of original sin, grace, law, the wrath of God, hell, holiness, righteousness, covenant, the deity of Christ, even the nature of the Trinity. Often a theory is developed as a reaction against other theories. Below is a brief explanation of major theories and a few primary contributors.

•           The Ransom Theory. In this view, the atonement was payment made by God to Satan, because Satan held mankind in bondage to sin and death. Origen in particular argued that the cross was a ransom payment equal in value to man’s sin debt, a debt accrued since Adam’s original sin. At the cross, the death payment of Christ, the devil was obliged to release man from bondage.

•           The Satisfaction Theory. This view of the atonement, sometimes called the “Latin view,” was primarily developed by Saint Anselm in Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man). This view sets God’s justice or honor against man’s immense sin debt. The satisfaction view is a reaction against the ransom view. Anselm argued that it was not to Satan but to God that man’s sin debt was owed. Now that man’s sin debt has been exacted from the Son, man can be reconciled to God’s divine justice.

•           Christus Victor. This view of the atonement argues—in the words of its best-known promoter, Gustav Aulén—that “the work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil” (Christus Victor, p. 20). This view is a reaction to both the ransom and the satisfaction theories. Instead of payment to Satan or to God, the death of Christ is seen as a conquest in a cosmic conflict.

•           Penal Substitution. This view is often associated with the magisterial reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin. Some studies have demonstrated, however, that key elements of the penal substitution theory are evident in the early years of church history. The word “penal” refers to the divine penalty enacted at the cross. This penalty is more than payment for sin to God (though it is that); it is also the site at which God expended his wrath against human sin. God can be just and the justifier of the ungodly because Christ was our substitute on the cross: he paid sin’s penalty. By his sacrificial death he “cancel[ed] the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands” (Col 2:14). Our sin, in this view, is imputed to Christ, and his righteousness is imputed to us.

•           The Scapegoat Theory. René Girard, a Roman Catholic philosopher, is the figure most often associated with the scapegoat theory. He appeals to the motif of the scapegoat, the azazel, from the atonement rituals in Leviticus 16. In this theory, communal tension that would otherwise erupt in violence is dissipated by redirecting that violence toward a scapegoat. When in Christ God makes himself the scapegoat, directing human violence toward an innocent party, he reveals the error in scapegoating and breaks the cycle of violence. This theory has wide acceptance in those (typically mainline) Protestant circles that tend to shy away from or reject substitution theories.

•           The Governmental Theory. Hugo Grotius, Charles Finney, and Wesleyan Methodism have championed this view. In the governmental view, Jesus did not pay a penalty for human sin; instead, at the cross he made a display of God’s displeasure with sin.

•           Theosis. This view is closely associated with Eastern Orthodoxy. It posits that the joining of man to divinity is the telos, the completion, of humanity. The cross makes theosis possible by its great act of transfiguration from death to life.

•           The Moral Influence Theory. In this view, man’s greatest need is not to be reconciled to God; rather, man needs an ultimate moral example, and Christ provides this via his self-giving life and death.

•           The Solidarity Theory. This view argues that Christ at the cross identified with humanity’s suffering and overcame it. In doing so, he brought humanity into a new way of living according to divine justice. While considered newer, this view has roots within other, older views. This view most resembles Christus Victor, and N. T. Wright and the others who adopt the New Perspective on Paul have been this view’s most influential proponents. Jürgen Moltmann and his “suffering of God” theology, too, provide a variation on the solidarity theory.[1]


[1] Mark Olivero, “Theories of Atonement,” in Lexham Survey of Theology, ed. Mark Ward et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018).

Authority and Abiding

          Recently I was rereading one of Rick Joyner’s books and was struck by this quote, “Spiritual authority is not gained through knowledge but through our union with Him.”[1] In reflecting on it I see the importance. After all Jesus had some things to say on the subject. He referenced it as abiding.

7 If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. John 15:7 (NKJV)

The context here is Jesus talking about the importance of being connected to Him, like a branch is to a vine. It is obvious when we think about it. We don’t see apple or pear branches or grape vines bearing fruit independent of the tree or main vine. The reason is obvious. They need to draw nurture and sustenance from the main vine or branch because it is connected to the roots.

            Let me dig a little deeper! Years ago, I kept a bonsai tree in my office at work. What I discovered through some research is that there were two reasons bonsai trees were grown in a shallow dish. One was to occasionally put it in a sink or bucket and soak the tray and roots in water. The other, and more important reason, was that when you prune the branches you need to take the bonsai tree out of the pan and prune the roots at the same time to prevent overgrowth. I prune my apple tree every year but each year the amount it grows more than replaces what I prune. The reason? I don’t pull it out of the ground and prune the roots each time I prune the branches! Every year the roots grow deeper and stronger and so the branches have more to draw on to both grow and produce fruit.  

Now back to abiding. Jesus is the source of life for the fruit bearing branches, us. If we want to produce fruit, we need to do the two things Jesus said are necessary. First, we need to abide in Him, then we need to let His words abide in me. Doing this will lead to us walking in spiritual authority and answered prayer. Abiding is about a daily ongoing relationship. Letting His words abide in us is about choosing obedience and adherence to His word.  

When our hearts are at rest in Him the desires and words that flow forth from us are carried by, and rooted in, His life. It isn’t just about reading and speaking scripture, it is about abiding and life so that we read and speak the right scriptures needed in the present moment. When we are speaking with someone and we receive a word of wisdom for their situation or a word of knowledge about their life that comes from the Spirit because in that moment we are abiding in the vine, Jesus. Another way of saying this was written by Solomon.

5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; 6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths. Proverbs 3:5–6 (NKJV)

Thus, let’s abide in Jesus and walk in the spiritual authority He releases through us. After all, our spiritual authority is not simply grounded in knowledge about Jesus but through our relational union with Him.

NOTE in my next post, which may take a little longer to research and write, I will address Penal Substitutionary Atonement and some of the other historical theories to help ground us in what scripture teaches and defend us against error.


[1] Joyner, Rick. The Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand (Kindle Locations 504-505). MorningStar Publications. Kindle Edition.

Two Places at Once

Recently I was hiking on top of a mountain and there was a boundary marker delineating the border between two provinces. If I stood with one foot on either side of the boundary I could be ‘in two places at once.’ Cute. Yet, there is a deeper and more important aspect, scripturally we were originally designed to live in two places at once, the natural earthly realm and the heavenly spiritual realm. I believe Adam and could see in both realms, hence Eve could see and interact with serpent, a spiritual being and throne guardian, not a talking snake. I think one of the things that made them aware of their fallen state was the shift in what they were able to see and interact with. Whether that is accurate or not, doesn’t change what we were designed for.

            We were created to live in two places at once, the natural and spiritual realms, after all, at the consummation of the age the New Jerusalem, the Lamb’s bride, the Holy city, comes from heaven to earth and the two realms are joined. In the meantime, if we have a better understanding of how we are called to function now we can live out of an awareness of both realms.

            Paul made some comments about being in two places at once in both Ephesians and Colossians.

4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, Ephesians 2:4–6 (NKJV)

2 Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. 3 For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. Ephesians 2:4–6 (NKJV) Colossians 3:2–3 (NKJV)

Jesus also had a perspective on this concept.

13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. John 3:13 (NKJV)

Jesus more than any of us knew what it was to live in two places at once, to be in home in both the natural and spiritual realms. While I don’t expect any of us to fully live this out to the degree that Jesus did, He did set an example for us to follow. We follow His example by paying attention to what Paul wrote.

            The obvious practical issue is delineating the how. I know in my own life often during the day my thoughts are drawn heavenward. That is, I am drawn to prayer, worship and reflection, sometimes in the midst of a group of people. It also means that heaven has a perspective on my days and decisions and I need to factor in heavens perspective in my decision making. Lastly, I can simply abide in His presence at any time and all times by turning my mind and heart toward Jesus. This is our call, to believe we are seated with Him and thus set our affections upon Him.  

NOTE This post will lead into the next one, Authority and Abiding

Seek First

            I last wrote about the kingdom of God, the gospel of the kingdom, which is broader than the gospel of salvation, and the need to understand the church is not the kingdom, it is subsumed under the kingdom of God. In response a friend, Mark, shared his definition of the kingdom of God (he and his wife have been faithfully pastoring for decades), “The liberating invasion, the present manifestation and the future consummation of the rule and reign of God in Jesus Christ.” I like Mark’s definition and as we go a little deeper let’s, look at a verse that I am sure is familiar.

33 But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. Matthew 6:33 (NKJV)

Of note, Jesus didn’t tell us to seek the church, He told us to seek the kingdom of God. Now guess what, the Greek word translated seek means just that, to seek or search for something. Taking Mark’s definition, we should be looking for His kingdom to break into our lives and the lives of others. I don’t think we can make it happen, just as I don’t believe we can create revival. I believe revival is like a natural birth. It isn’t the labour (our effort) that brings on the baby, it is the baby beginning to move down the birth canal that brings on the labour.

Having said that, while I have never been in a revival movement. I have had times of personal revival when I responded to His leading in my life. I have had experiences and seen significant spiritual manifestations in small groups, church conferences and services, which leaves me wanting more! Yet while I know that I can’t create the breaking in of His kingdom I am also aware that I can position my heart to be ready by seeking and expecting it. After all that is the message of the wise and foolish virgins, the need to be prepared, to be ready. Solomon put it this way.

1 The preparations of the heart belong to man, But the answer of the tongue is from the Lord. Proverbs 16:1 (NKJV)

To that end, let us seek and search for the breaking in of His kingdom in our lives and communities and be found faithful by living with prepared hearts.

Through Kingdom Eyes

In my doctoral work I defined worldview as, “The lens through which we view and interpret reality.” I still hold it as a practical and useful definition, so with that in mind here is a question for us to ponder; do we see and interpret reality through the lens of the church or the kingdom? Do you know they are not the same thing? Is this something you have considered?

Jesus expressed the significance of the new birth in relation to the kingdom in the following way.

3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” John 3:3 (NKJV)

5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. John 3:5 (NKJV)

For Jesus the new birth was about entrance to and participation in the kingdom. Paul wrote.

13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, Colossians 1:13 (NKJV)

This means that at our conversion we were birthed into Jesus’ kingdom. We stopped living in darkness and came into light. Once that happened His expectation is that we continue to live in and out of His kingdom (think Romans 12:1-2 or Ephesians 4:17-25 for example). This is where how we view reality becomes important. The church is in the kingdom and an expression of the kingdom. The church is not the kingdom. The kingdom is something much more significant. 

           I have written in the past about the perspective George Eldon Ladd popularized, the ‘already not yet’ nature of the kingdom. Jesus has already secured victory through the cross and His resurrection, yet it will not be fully realized until His return.

In the gospels Jesus taught much more about the kingdom than the church. He shared parables about the kingdom because it is the expression of His rule and reign in the earth. As the church expands the mustard seed that was the initial expression of the kingdom grows in the earth. Yet, one of the most significant aspects of the kingdom being represented in the earth is the making of disciples not the production of converts.

In this regard Jesus made some crucial statements.  

14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. Matthew 24:14 (NKJV)

18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. Matthew 28:18–20 (NKJV)

Jesus expects us to preach the kingdom and from His perspective the kingdom is evident when we see new converts taught to observe all that He commanded. Jesus wasn’t expressing some dominionist mandate where the church takes over the earth, that happens when He returns as the triumphant king. However, we are to reflect His kingdom values in how we live and our lives are to be a blessing to those around us.

           After all, we are either a kingdom influence in our culture, or we are coming under the influence of our culture. Given that the church is called to disciple both individuals and nations let’s be the former.

What Happens Next?

Here is a question that was asked in a Christian and Atheist debate group that I am involved in administering, “If a rebellion took place in heaven, it means sin or bad things can happen in heaven. This is in contradiction to a God who is perfect and can only have good around him. Does this mean that sinners can go to heaven or that people can sin in heaven?”

In reflecting on this I think the scriptural answer is something important to all of us as believers and right after I decided to write on the matter it came up in an apologetics group that I participate in. There are important elements in the questions. A simple answer to one question is that no, sinners cannot go to heaven. The other part gets at whether sin and free will are compatible when we step from time into eternity. I have heard this part of the question asked a number of times.

We start by addressing sin, if we look at what Paul taught in Romans 6-8 we see the struggle of the believer with sin and we also see the solution, walking with and being led by the Spirit. Earlier in his ministry Paul put forth this same solution in his first letter, Galatians (see chapter 5). This is the case because even though we become a new creation at conversion, there is still a propensity toward sin in our physical bodies. Now to more detail.  

We begin with what took place at conversion.

17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 2 Corinthians 5:17 (NKJV)

21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. 2 Corinthians 5:21 (NKJV)

We received a new nature at conversion. Our spirit was reborn. Yet when we read Paul’s letters it is evident that believers still struggle with sin. Paul’s heart cry is found in Galatians.

19 My little children, for whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you, Galatians 4:19 (NKJV)

Paul wanted to see believers reflecting Jesus’ character, their new nature. In 1 Thessalonians 5:23 Paul’s prayer for the Thessalonian believers was that their spirit, soul and body would be preserved blameless at Jesus return.

To understand, when we dig a little deeper, we see the solution to our problem. At conversion we receive Jesus’ nature in our spirit. It is sanctified. As we continue in our walk our soul (mind, will and emotions), should progressively express Jesus’ nature, as Paul prayed in Galatians 4:19. I don’t think any of us will achieve perfection in this life, but we can increasingly look more and more like Jesus. Then finally at Jesus return we will be caught up into the air with Him in glorified new bodies, or be resurrected with glorious new bodies (1 Thessalonians 4:14-17, 1 Corinthians 15:39-49). At our resurrection or translation, we receive a glorified incorruptible body. There will only be one thing missing, a propensity to sin!

19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. Romans 7:19–20 (NKJV)

Now we can answer the questions, Does this mean that sinners can go to heaven or that people can sin in heaven?” No, sinners cannot go, only saints, and while theoretically we could sin, with sin removed we will have no desire to do so!

Eyes to See

Let’s talk about and reflect on perspective in terms of what we see and how we see. Jesus exhorted us many times to see and hear. The choice to hear is consistent refrain in His messages to the seven churches in Revelation. One of the main passages is below and Jesus quotes Isaiah in His highlighting of the issue.

10 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” 11 He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: ‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive; 15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.’ 16 But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear; 17 for assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it. 18 “Therefore hear the parable of the sower: Matthew 13:10–18 (NKJV)

In this passage Jesus tells his disciples that they can see and hear and on a later occasion rebukes them for failing to do so.

18 Having eyes, do you not see? And having ears, do you not hear? And do you not remember? Mark 8:18 (NKJV)

This should provoke humility in us and a recognition that just because we can see it doesn’t mean we do see! However, it also means we have the capacity to see and can develop it and if we miss the mark recover it.

Given the impact our perceptions have on our faith, it seems important to ‘look’ at how we can make changes. Here are a couple of examples of the need to ‘see’ accurately, salvation and spiritual gifts. I am sure you have heard someone share the example of how unfair it is for a murder, rapist (fill in the blank) or some other person considered terrible, to be able to repent and embrace Jesus and get into heaven while a ‘good person’ they know or know of, misses heaven and encounters hell because they never embraced Jesus.  

In looking at this an illustration that came to mind is the idea of an old door with the brass casing and a hole in the centre for the key. One could push the key against the door jamb, the top of the door, or the bottom of the door and the key would not work. You could also push against the metal plate just next to the keyhole and encounter the same outcome. You would only be able to open the door if you actually put the key in the lock and turned it. In the same manner salvation is through Jesus, you can try other methods but only Jesus unlocks and opens the door to salvation. Therefore, we need eyes to see the source of salvation.

Now we look at spiritual gifts. There are two basic camps, those who claim that spiritual gifts, as listed in 1 Corinthians 12 ceased when scripture was complete, or when the last of the twelve original apostles died or something similar. Then there are continuationists. Those who hold that these gifts are still in operation today. I am in the latter camp. I am aware that theological arguments can be made for either position, though frankly I think key points made in scripture need to be ignored and misrepresented to hold to a cessationist view. I am a continuationist for two primary reasons, well maybe three. Scripture exhorts us to seek these gifts, I have seen them in experience for decades in my life and the lives of others, and lastly, because I think we need them to accomplish what Jesus has called us to do. Given that millions of Christians around the world function in spiritual gifts I ask of cessationists what Jesus said in Mark 8:18, “Having eyes, do you not see?”

Now is there a point somewhere here? Yes, Jesus has given each of us eyes to see and I am confident that we all miss things. I know I have learned a great deal over time and adjusted my theology more than a few times. Which requires a willingness to look at things in a new way, to reconsider my position. Jesus always has more for us if we are willing to look and ask Him to open our eyes to see.