Read This! 12.03.19

Mike Leake

I haven’t shared a Read This! for quite some time so naturally some of these articles are older. But I still think they are valuable and I’d like you to give them a read.

Tying Up Truth With Threadbare Ribbons

What Lore is describing here is part of why I’ve found writing so difficult lately.

How Does ‘Willful Sinning’ Threaten My Salvation?

I don’t fully agree with Piper here. (My view of the warning passages of Hebrews 6:4-6 is similar in Hebrews 10). But I do agree with how he frames the discussion and defines the terms on willful sinning.

What’s the Point? (Alternative Ways to Frame Your Sermon)

I absolutely agree that our sermon needs structure. And I appreciate some of the suggestions Tim gives here. I’ve thought for a long time that we aren’t really doing the text justice by trying to make it confine to three points. I believe our task is to show what the text says—how we came to that conclusion—and through the whole thing explain why it matters for us today. For me, I tend to preach what I’d call a thread.

3 Ways to Deal With Anger in Ministry

I’m not a fly off the handle in anger type of guy. I’m probably more likely to seethe. I found this incredibly helpful and realistic. The second one is the most difficult for me and the one I’m learning about the most.

9 Questions to Ask Yourself Before Arguing Online

I don’t think this would end all arguments online—some are actually necessary. But I think it’d certainly make the more civil and productive. We would also probably not have nearly as many arguments.

Your Church Needs You to Sing

Another part of this is the necessity of singing songs in church which are singable. I’m not blessed with a tremendous singing voice—and this causes me to not really sing out much in church. This is one thing I’d really like to change. Right now I passionately whisper sing.

Is God Going to Wipe Out the Ocean?

Mike Leake 2 Comments

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. –Revelation 21:1

I’ve only been to the ocean once in my life. And the particular beach that I went to isn’t one that is known for it’s beauty and grandeur. Yet, I was still taken aback. I’m not even a swimmer and I was captivated by this apparently only mediocre view of the ocean. I hope to see the ocean again. But if Revelation 21:1 is any indication I better do it now. One of the greatest elements of God’s creation is the sea, so why is he going to wipe it out? Has he got something against the ocean?

What Does the Sea/Ocean Symbolize?

It’s helpful, especially in a book like Revelation, to consider the importance of metaphor. All throughout the Scriptures the sea and the ocean is symbolic of chaos, danger, and evil. It’s not surprising, then, that the great beast will come out of the sea (Rev 13). This is the place where all that is unpredictable and chaotic comes from.

So it’s not surprising then that to a non-seafaring Israelite the sea would be happily eradicated. If God is going to create a new-heaven and new-earth where there isn’t going to be crying or death or mourning then it’s not surprising that he’d rid the earth of this nasty beast called the sea.

Philip Ryken’s words are helpful:

The sea represents everything that chafes and frets under the dominion of God; everything that is out of our control. But there is nothing like that in the new heaven and the new earth. Everything there is under the orderly blessing of God

But, Will It Be Literally Gone? Like, No Snorkeling In Heaven?

Some interpreters think the sea will be literally gone. John MacArthur actually goes further than any others I’ve read. He believes there won’t even be water but another substance in the river of life:

The sea is emblematic of the present water-based environment. All life on earth is dependent on water for its survival. . . . But believers’ glorified bodies will not require water, unlike present human bodies, whose blood is 90 percent water, and whose flesh is 65 percent water. Thus, the new heaven and the new earth will be based on a completely different life principle than the present universe. There will be a river in heaven, not of water, but of the “water of life” (22:1, 17).

While it’s certainly possible that there is literally no sea, it’s probably better, as R.D. Phillips so eloquently says, to take John’s statement here as “theological instead of topographical”.

Three Reasons I Don’t Believe It’s Literal

There are three reasons why I would lean towards viewing this as a non-literal removal of the sea.

First, consider what would happen if John had only said that we were getting a new heaven and a new earth? In a biblical worldview the cosmos is divided in three parts. The heavens (sky), the earth (land), and the sea. If God only redeems two of those three—and a great beast has already come out of sea to destroy the good—what would make us think this isn’t going to happen again? So it’s absolutely necessary that John has everything within his scope of redemption.

But what type of redemption is this? The second reason I would view this as not a literal removal of the sea has to do with the nature of the new heaven and the new earth. What God is doing is making all things new by means of renewal and restoration. So if the sea is no more, then the sea which is removed would be the old chaotic sea of the old order. Which leads to my third reason.

Consider the biblical storyline. Is there a literal sea in God’s good creation? Are ocean’s from after the Fall, or remnants of the flood? Consider Genesis 1:6. “God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.” If God is restoring humanity to an Edenic paradise doesn’t it make sense that the flowing waters of Eden, untainted by human sin, would not also be present in the new creation?

Conclusion

We cannot be dogmatic on this point because Scripture is not explicit. There is enough within the text of Scripture to push us towards a more metaphorical reading of Revelation 21:1, but not enough to be definitive. Maybe there will not be a sea.

But one thing we can be certain of. Christ, our King, has conquered and all evil and chaos has been defeated. There’s no more uncertainty or pain or any other oceanic turmoil. It’s peace. And it’s beautiful.

I can’t swim well enough to snorkel in this fallen world. The ocean still symbolizes death for me. It’s beautiful, but it’s fearsome. But perhaps some day when the “sea is no more” I’ll be able to snorkel and swim with a glorified shark.

—

Photo source: here

Knowing the Difference Between Accommodation and Adaptation

Mike Leake

Allow me to give you the profile of two preachers.

The first preacher is one who is incredibly consistent. You are never going to be shocked by this guy. If you watched a sermon of this guy you wouldn’t have any idea if he was preaching to a bundle of small children or to a gathering at the local nursing home. He doesn’t shy away from using big words in his sermons. Nor does he pull any punches in presenting the truth. He just “tells it as it is”. There isn’t much nuance in this guy. If you’d ask him about this he would say something like, “it’s my goal to preach and present God’s truth. It’s not my concern how people respond”.

The second preacher is a bit like Groucho Marx. “These are my principles, if you don’t like them I have others.” He’s a chameleon. If he’s speaking to a group who wants a nice and warm ear-tickling message then he’ll give it. If they wanted a fire and brimstone fear-mongering type of message then he’d give that one too. Whatever the audience wants. He knows how to give them the truths they want to hear.

Which one of these preacher’s is faithful?

I’d argue that neither of them are. In fact, I think they bow to the same idol. Self. One is a people-pleaser for the sake of self-concern and the other is self-pleaser under the guise of biblical fidelity. What they both have in common is a lack of concern for the hearer and of honest submission to the Word of God. 

I would argue that both of them haven’t learned the difference between accommodation and adaptation. The first guy refuses to adapt because he believes it’s capitulating. He doesn’t want any one to accuse him of accommodating sinners. The second guy is accommodating, perhaps because he’s never learned the wiser path of adaptation.

I think Jay Adams is helpful here:

Adaptation is not accommodation. The two are opposites. The accommodator changes God’s message to conform to the listener, to the speaker, or to both. There is concern about people, but it is a humanistic and unbiblical concern that overrides concern for God. And it is a concern that, in the final analysis, is superficial and often not genuine. This concern to accommodate truth often amounts to little more than a concern for one’s self—what others will think of me. True concern for others will push self into the background while concentrating on what is best for them; it will cause one to speak in season (when the results are likely to enhance relationships) and out of season (when they are not). It will impel him to speak hard things for the benefit of others when necessary, even at his own peril.

While accommodation is self-centered (or, at its best, humanistically oriented toward others), adaptation is other-concerned. The speaker who takes the time to adapt his message doesn’t change the message at all; he changes his own ways and in every circumstance adopts the best possible method of conveying that message to others. He changes himself, not the message; he, himself, becomes flexible and moldable in order to meet each situation and/or group of persons to whom he is speaking. He is the one who moves—he is willing to discover where his audience is and to travel to that spot. Unlike the professional, he does not expect his audience to make all of the movement toward him.

There is a balance here and it’s crucial. If we don’t catch this then we’ll end up calling our friends heretics or we’ll end up becoming heretics ourselves in the name of winning friends for the sake of the gospel. We must be absolutely dedicated to the truth of God but we must be willing to adapt ourselves so we can reach sinners where they are.

Consider the Apostle Paul who “became all things to all people”. Notice what changed for Paul. His message never changed. To the Jew he became as a Jew—but he still preached as a Christian. To those under the law he became like one under the law—but he still preached as a Christian. That’s the key. We can’t tamper with God’s message. But we can and must continually work through the best ways to communicate God’s message to diverse people for the glory of God. We must learn the difference between accommodation and adaptation. Rejecting one and learning to embrace the other.

—

Photo source: here

My Understanding of The Warning Passage in Hebrews 6:4-6

Mike Leake

4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. –Hebrews 6:4-6

I’m currently preaching through Hebrews. Last week we came to those difficult verses in 6:4-6. I didn’t preach only those verses. In fact, I preached a massive chunk of text, 5:11—6:20. And I did that because I’m convinced we’ve lost the forest for the trees when it comes to this 6:4-6.

When I began my sermon preparation for this sermon it was tempting to get lost in all the detail of the passage. There are so many questions asked of these verses. Is this describing a believer? Is this talking about an almost believer? Is the situation entirely hypothetical? Is this teaching it’s possible that a true believer can lose their salvation?

But I’m convinced that these questions are absolutely not on the mind of the author of Hebrews. For the author of Hebrews salvation is almost entirely seen as something future. He doesn’t use that word in the same way that Paul does. Asking, “Is it possible to lose your salvation?” is forcing a conversation on the author which he isn’t interested in having. Instead his purpose is to give a very real warning to a very real people.

The image for us to have is of a group of people who are standing outside the Promised Land. Will they trust in the promises and provision of God and enter in or will they end up dead out in the wilderness?

Again, I know that all of our questions about eternal security are easily thrust upon that topic. But if we can suspend those for a moment and simply let the author speak, he has something important to say.

The Problem of Dull Hearing

The fundamental problem with his audience is that they have become dull of hearing. They ought to be teaching others and instead their still having to be spoon fed. The author wants to move on to “maturity” but cannot because they are still stuck on foundational things.

At first glance it seems as if the author of Hebrews might be against gospel-centrality. It almost sounds as if he’d disagree with the assertion that the gospel is the A-Z of Christian living. But upon further inspection I think he’s saying the exact opposite. And understanding that helps us understand the nature of the warning in 6:4-6.

Their fundamental problem is that the gospel message is being met with dullness. While they seem to understand the initial aspects of salvation (repentance, baptisms, laying on of hands) and issues of eternity (resurrection and eternal judgment), they seem to be missing the now component of the gospel. The gospel—the milk of the Word—isn’t impacting their Monday. It’s not actually producing ethical change within them. In fact it’s met with dullness and sluggish living.

How Dull Hearing Relates to 6:4-6

And this is why I think he says what he does in 6:4-6. His point is that if the truths of the gospel cause you to want to go back to Egypt then there isn’t anything left for you. The gospel alone saves. The new covenant alone creates the type of obedience that is pleasing to God. So if the good news of the gospel is being met with dullness then while this is the case of your heart there isn’t hope for you. Because there isn’t another path. There isn’t something else that sparks repentance.

I do believe that all of those things in verse 4-5 are experiences of believers in Jesus. But it’s also a picture of some of the blessings given to the Israelites. So again I don’t think it’s for us to say, “Is this a person who is saved? Is this a person who isn’t saved yet? That’s not the topic at hand. What he’s talking about is what happens in our hearts with the good news of Jesus—with the new covenant—with this elementary doctrine of Christ. Does it produce maturity? Or dullness? He’s talking about having received these benefits and blessings of God—this word of righteousness from the Lord.

And I think verses 7-8 tell us that we are on the right path here. You’ve got rain falling on land—that’s the benefits of God, this word of God. And for one piece of land it drinks it in and as such it produces crop that is useful—it receives a blessing from God. But this other land receives that same rain and what comes up is thorns and thistles. It’s worthless—not able to be used for anything. It’s near being cursed. The farmer is going to have to burn the field off because something is radically wrong with the soil.

What you have in Hebrews 6:4-6 is something closer to Jesus’ parable of the soils than really anything related to the discussion about whether a believer can or can not lose their salvation. This text isn’t meant to ask that question. Instead it’s meant to give a very powerful warning and say be careful how you listen so you don’t end up being like the dead Israelite’s outside the Promised Land.

—

Photo source: here