| (From "The Jerusalem Connection, July 2009) In 1787, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh named Alexander Tyler made the following comment about the fall of Athens. "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship." Tyler continues, "The average age of the world's greatest civilization from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During that time, those nations always progressed through the following sequence: 1. From bondage to spiritual faith. 2. From spiritual faith to great courage. 3. From courage to liberty. 4. From liberty to abundance. 5. From abundance to complacency." 6. I have added: From complacency to dictatorship. 7. Finally, to revolution and disintegration! -- Mal Couch |
Friday, July 31, 2009
SOUNDS LIKE AMERICA!
Ask Dr. Couch
| Dr. Couch, I heard the other day of a fellow who believes God speaks with him, and told him to travel the earth and go about praying over everything. He leaves his wife and children and just travels! What do you think? ANSWER: Don't be fooled by pious activities. In a certain reverse way, this is what the monks of the Middle Ages did. They hid themselves away and simply prayed night and day. First of all, God does not speak to this man. It is either indigestion or the influence of demons. God has given us all the revelation He has for us, for all of us! We need no more messages than what we have in Scripture. Notice how our flesh responds when we hear of such piety! "Oh, he must be so holy and Godly"! In my opinion, "What a waste of time!" He could instead be giving a clear message of salvation in plain language to a dying world that needs clarity about spiritual things. In Paul's criticism of those who gibbered in tongues, he said, "If a harp, flute, or bugle does not produce a clear sound … it is like speaking into the air!" (1 Cor. 14:7-9). "So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air" (v. 9). If you think God is directly speaking to you and giving you messages, it's probably because of the bowl of chili you had last night! In a sense, what Paul says fits somewhat as to what this fellow is doing. He's going nowhere! (I wonder if charismatics have read these verses?) Don't be fooled by foolish foolishness! Thanks for asking. Dr. Mal Couch |
Thursday, July 30, 2009
FAVORING THE ISHMAELITES …
| A dissertation done for one of the "big" seminaries in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area makes Ishmael and his descendants look like a group of Sunday school teachers! The dissertation was published recently in part in a religious magazine. How it was approved by the examining committee to me is a mystery! The dissertation makes Ishmael, as seen in Genesis, look as if he was equally blessed spiritually as Abraham's true son, Isaac. Again, the question—how was this paper approved? The only answer must be that it was seen as being Politically Correct, but it certainly was not correct biblically! One of the arguments in the dissertation I agree with is that there should be more evangelism directed toward the Arabs, many of whom are descendants of Ishmael. But in reference to the present animosity now being shown towards the Jews, the descendants of Isaac, there is raging both physical and spiritual warfare that will take the world up to the brink of the tribulation! The birth of Ishmael through the Egyptian handmaiden Hagar was indeed a spiritual failure of Abraham. He tried to rush things up with God in order to have a son to whom he could pass along to his son the covenant promised to him by the Lord. Both Abraham and Sarah were not able to have children. God made them wait until they were up in years in order to show that the arrival of Isaac, the true son God intended, would be a miracle birth! The dissertation argues that the birth of Ishmael was a positive compensation to Hagar—"God promised to multiply Hagar's seed exceedingly (Gen. 16:10), making her the only woman recipient of such a promise in the Bible." But reading the narration does not give one such an impression. It was true that Hagar as a mother was blessed by Ishmael's birth, however the birth of Ishmael would be a negative influence in the world and not a positive one. The angel of the Lord told Hagar that her son "would be a wild donkey of a man. His hand will be against everyone, and everyone's hand will be against him" (v. 12). The dissertation author says this became a beneficial promise bestowed upon Hagar and Ishmael. No one has ever taken these words this way! The author goes on and says that "Whether God's pledge is part of the initial covenant with Abraham or an independent promise" is not certain. How could the author miss 21:10 where Abraham rightly said "Drive out the maid (Hagar) and her son, for the son of this maid shall not be an heir with my son Isaac" (21:10). The Lord made it clear, "My covenant I will establish with Isaac" and not with Ishmael (17:21). Because Hagar named her son through Abraham Ishmael (God hears) the author makes a broad, sweeping statement that was supposed to have a spiritual connotation: "This is a reminder that hearing the cries of the afflicted is a beautiful trait of God (v. 11). God promised Hagar that He would listen to her and her descendants in their unfavored social status." Where that is stated in Genesis, I do not know! By the way, Paul makes the story of Hagar and Ishmael a negative one. Hagar is the type of human effort attempting to please God. Isaac born to Abraham and Sarah is a type of obeying God and following Him by faith (Gal. 4:21-25). The author of this dissertation turns the story around! The author also argues that Ishmael was blessed because "he lived in the presence of all his brothers" (Gen. 16:12). The NAS reads "And he will live to the east of all his brothers." The author does not deal with the textual problem in the passage. He leaves out "to the east." Ellicott points out that "Many commentators consider this the more exact rendering. This is certainly the meaning of the word in 25:6." Thus, Ishmael did not stay around the tents of Isaac and receive the blessings bestowed upon him by the Lord. He fled from the presence of the family and also from the presence of the Lord! When Ishmael is called "a wild donkey" the author turns this phrase around to some positive statement. He cites Job 39:5—that was a mistake! Job 39:5 derides the idea of the wild donkey. He says about the ass, "Will you trust him because his strength is great and leave your labor to him? Will you have faith in him that he will return your grain?" Of course not! So, with Ishmael. He never was trusted, nor did his descendants trusted in the God of Abraham! While the dissertation author puts such a positive spin on Ishmael and his children, who today form the core of the Arabic people, he forgets to remind us that Muhammad comes from this line. Unger notes that Ishmael became "the progenitor of the Arabs, Israel's traditional enemies. Also from this line came Muhammad and Islam, one of the most demonic of religions and a foe to Christianity [and Judaism]." The article closes with the words of the author that thousands of Arabs have come to Christ and been martyred over the years. While there is no doubt that many have trusted in Him for salvation, in my experience the numbers are somewhat exaggerated. Many in Bethlehem today call themselves Christians but there is some question whether they are truly born again—they appear to be but "cultural Christians." There is little doubt that most despise their Jewish neighbors and have nothing to do with them. This would make one think that they do not fully understand what the Bible is saying in its overall message. – Dr. Mal Couch |
Ask Dr. Couch
| Dr. Couch, the 360 days calendar seems to be used in Genesis, Daniel, and Revelation. How does this fit in the length of days in the story of the Flood? ANSWER: Yes, you pointed out that the Bible (and the ancients) used the lunar calendar rather than the solar year calculations. I'm not sure what problem you are having with this. In adding up the days for the length of the Flood we come up with the following for the length of the time period: 371 days. I do not see any conflicts or problems concerning the Flood days in Genesis. Maybe I'm missing something! Thanks for asking. Dr. Mal Couch |
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Ask Dr.Couch
| Dr. Couch, I'm told by some legalistic Christians that believers no longer can sin. This does not seem correct from the biblical standpoint or from experience. How do you answer? ANSWER: I answer by Scripture! I find it fascinating how many Christians do not read their Bible and therefore do not know what it says. For example, if I asked some of those folks who have never read their Bible, can believers practice idolatry? most would answer no! Again, they have not read what the Word of God says. In Ephesians Paul writes about Christians being liars: "Be laying aside falsehood, speak truth" (v. 25). He adds "Do not give the devil an opportunity …" (v. 27). "Let the thief stop stealing" (v. 28), and "Let no unwholesome (spoiled fish) word come from your mouth" (v. 29). "Do not grieve the Holy Spirit" (v. 30), and "Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you" (v. 31). "Be kind to one another" (v. 32). "Walk in love (5:2), and "do not let immorality or any impurity or greed even be named among you" (v. 3). "There must be no filthiness and silly talk" among you (v. 4). Here's the biggy: "Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret" (vv. 11-12). Concerning idolatry further: Paul says to believers, "Flee idolatry" (1 Cor. 10:14), and "Don't be an idolater" (v. 7)). In 1 John 5:21 we read "Keep from idols." How stupid for believers to say they do not sin! How blind they are to their own actions! The problem is that few believers have been taught by their lazy pastors to understand the difference between POSITIONAL and EXPERIENTIAL Truth! In our Position, we are saints in Christ, but in our walk in time, in our Experience, we can sin, and in fact DO SIN! Of course believers are not supposed to sin but the reality is that we do! Ephesians 5:8 explains this clearly. Paul writes "For then in the past you were DARKNESS, but now LIGHT in the Lord; be continually walking as children of light." Paul does not write that we were IN Darkness but that we WERE DARKNESS! Now, we are not simply In the Light but we are LIGHT! This is a statement about our old and our new POSITION in Christ. Now, we are to be walking about in our EXPERIENCE in Christ, as children of Light! Go to a church where you are taught the Word of God. Stop listening to sermonettes for Christian-ettes! Start being taught by teachers who know their stuff! Thanks for asking. Dr. Mal Couch |
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Ask Dr. Couch
| Dr. Couch, what is going on in Genesis 22:17 in connection with Galatians 3:16? There seems to be a conflict. Can you explain. ANSWER: Here is a case that shows why I spent three years studying graduate Hebrew and took about thirty hours in graduate Greek courses. If one does not know the original languages one cannot be an engineer of the Scriptures, and that is the calling of those of us who wish to be exegetes. In the KJV and in the Hebrew-English version of the OT, Genesis 22:17 is translated correctly. The pronoun "his" is correct. It is masculine possessive singular. "Your seed shall posses the gate of HIS enemies. But in the NAS, and some other translations, the pronoun is incorrectly translated "THEIR enemies." In actuality, the word is a masculine possessive singular, but some translators wrongly thought that the force of the context should call for it to be translated as a plural and not a singular. They must have translated the verse in the Hebrew at 3 am and were too sleepy to notice that when Paul refers to Genesis 22:17 in Galatians 3:16 he rightly translates it as a singular. Here is what is happening in the passage: It should read "Your seed (singular) shall possess the gate of HIS enemies." This is a way of saying that the SEED here is the Messiah and should be translated as a singular possessive. The expression about possessing the gate of His enemies is a way of saying that He would be victorious! Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Paul saw what was going on. In Galatians 3:16 he points out that Seed should be singular, thus God did not say "And to seeds" as referring to many seeds (plural), but rather to one (with the singular possessive pronoun). "And to your seed" that is, to Christ. Christ is the One who secures the promises made to Abraham by His obedience unto death. So to speak, He is the victorious General who takes possession of the gate of His enemies! He conquers death and evil! If we do not have men who know the original languages we will have more and more translation problems that will finally destroy doctrinal sharpness! For example, I cannot prove the doctrine of the Trinity without knowing the original biblical languages! In more and more schools the languages are being set aside. Men are learning less and less in seminaries. I have a friend who is a graduate of one of the big schools who has admitted "I really can't do quality language exegesis! I did not get enough biblical language in my masters and doctoral program!" This was not the case with me. I was blessed with a bunch of language courses. I took extra exegetical classes in order to be able to translate properly! I hope this helps. Thanks for asking. Dr. Mal Couch |
DR. COUCH BEGINS EPHESIAN SERIES
| Don't miss this verse by verse exegetical series that will be recorded and available on both the Clifton Bible Church, and the Scofield Ministries websites. Dr. Couch will be giving his translation notes from his commentary on this book that will be released this fall through AMG Publishers. Ephesians takes us into the throne room of God in the heavenlies and shows His absolute sovereignty in the process of our salvation. Students have appreciated his studies in this book in years past. His usual sayings in these Bible studies that often bring a chuckle is: "Who is in Charge?" And, "Who do we think we are?" Join Dr. Couch in a few weeks for Studies in Ephesians! |
Monday, July 27, 2009
Ask Dr. Couch
| Dr. Couch, what is going on in Romans 3:25 where Paul speaks of God "passing over the sins previously committed"? ANSWER: When I translated Romans entirely some years ago I caught what was happening in the verse. And then found recently it was also fully explained by Kenneth Wuest in his Word Studies. "Passed over" is the Greek word "paresis" and it is used in the NT only here. The meaning is "to let go, release," in the sense of "letting go unpunished/overlooking." Balz & Schneider say "in the juridical aspect, it concerns the forgiveness of all sins of the believing OT sinner that occurred before Christ" went to the cross. In other words, God did not condemn those in the OT for their sins. He was waiting for the death of Christ, in order to apply His death to them for their salvation. Christ's work on the cross goes back say, to Abraham, and to other believers in the OT, and it goes forward to us. All OT saints, and us as well, are saved on the basis of Christ's work. Wuest puts it this way: "It was the passing by of sin before the Cross. It looked forward to the satisfaction of the broken law at the Cross. It makes no difference with God whether He saves sinners before or after the Cross. The Cross is an eternal fact in the reckoning of God. God's righteousness is maintained!" The final line in the verse further confirms this. "God passed over the sins which had been previously done!" Paul uses a Perfect Tense in Greek. "The sins which had been done in the past with the results coming up to the present, up to the work of the cross right now!" In a certain sense, God was waiting for the death of His Son in order to finish the work of salvation, based on His work at the Cross! This is a wonderful idea and it tells us how the OT saints were saved! Thanks for asking. Dr. Mal Couch |
MESSAGE FROM AUSTRALIA
| We receive almost daily messages from around the world. We have an excellent contact in Australia who keeps us aware of what is happening with the churches there. Our "contact" tells us that in West Sydney, there are few truly teaching churches. Though he is on the elder board of a specific congregation, he tells us he is about to give up on church. And though he was placed on the elder board just recently, the lack of spirituality is disheartening. If it were not for some of my books, and some other premillennial/dispensational volumes, he would be out in the cold. The Scofield Reference Bible and the Bible Knowledge Commentary keep him solid doctrinally and biblically. The churches there are deep into The Emerging Church Movement. Even in the Bible schools that he knows of, doctrinal teaching is foreign to the teachers and the students. One can say the disease of Apostasy is spreading around the globe! This can be good in that those who want to teach the full council of God are growing stronger in their conviction and determination. Prosperity teaching is in; Exegetical instruction is out! When possible, I want to supply to Australia books for pastors. I will do the same for other pastors. Here in the States we'll send the books at no charge, but if sent overseas, we need a donation for the shipping costs. – Dr. Mal Couch |
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Ask Dr. Couch
| Dr. Couch, where I live we have no Bible churches, so my family is attending a SBC! Our pastors all come from SBC seminaries where they have only been taught how to run a church and "preach." The preaching we receive from them is simply oration containing baby-step advice on how to live, some of it biblical and some of it not so biblical! It is certainly not exegetical. The SS is even worse. Each quarter when I open the new SS book (put out by Lifeway), I shudder to see what lightweight material they are putting out. More often than not it is written by women with no theological training at all—they have for the most part simply been SS teachers. Is this a sign of the apostasy? ANSWER: Thank you for your email letter: I am amazed how those trained at SBC schools think they are getting solid Bible courses. They are not! They get big doses of pablum with no meat or vegetables. But they brag that they are "Bap…" and have no idea what they are missing in understanding the Bible. Unfortunately, independent seminaries, and seminaries that used to give good teaching, are also moving toward the lightweight stuff. Doctrine and exegesis is out and simple how-to stuff is in! I find it most disturbing that the material is being written by women. Men are to be the theological leaders in Bible studies. Apparently, no men are available to write and lead, or this denomination is going Politically Correct (PC) in assigning women "elders" to write. Many in the denominational churches are just playing church. But I would agree with you that, putting it all together as to what is happening in our churches, we are moving rapidly toward the apostasy of the church. Looking at all the passages of Scripture, the apostasy, as Paul puts it, is a departure from THE Truth and from THE Faith! In my opinion, there is no turning back. The course has been set. And what the Word of God says about "the departure" from the truth is coming to pass. I wish I had some suggestions for you. I keep praying that men such as you will attempt to band together with other like-minded folks to begin a home-church that has a strong and virile doctrinal statement, and that calls upon soundly trained men to exegete the Scriptures for those who are spiritually hungry. By the way, I get letters like this almost on a weekly basis. People are in deep trouble! Thank you for your email. Dr. Mal Couch |
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Ask Dr. Couch #111
Dr. Couch, in dispensationalism it is taught that there is a "difference" between Israel and the church, but I don’t hear much about regeneration in the Old Testament. Can you help?
ANSWER: It is a cloudy issue concerning regeneration for the OT saints. As with Abraham we know he was justified, or legally acquitted by his faith in the fact that God would be giving him an uncountable number of children (Gen. 15:6). Paul picks up on this and over and over says that belief is what now saves, though the object of that faith is Christ, whereas with Abraham it was simply trusting in God’s word.
The OT predicted that God would, under the New Covenant (in contrast to the Mosaic Covenant), give birth spiritually to the Jewish people as they enter the land under the millennial reign of Christ. This "new birth" is regeneration and it is unique to the New Covenant. Ezekiel says "They will come to life" (Ezek. 37:9), will be spiritually washed (36:25), have the Lord’s Spirit placed within them (v. 27), and "you will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers" (v. 28). Regeneration, or the new birth, is again described for Israel in the land like this: "I will put My Spirit within you, and you will come to life [the new birth], and I will place you in your own land" (37:14).
[Can you believe the foolish Reformed folks take the above verses allegorically and say this is about the church! However, some like Ellicott understand rightly that these verses are to be taken literally. He says: "Therefore the promise for Israel of earthly restoration must yet be made, and must in due time be literally fulfilled."]
The church now benefits from the New Covenant that was ratified by the death of Christ, though originally meant for Israel first (Luke 22:20). The church does not fulfill the New Covenant, but instead, simply benefits by the death of Christ for sins.
Paul gives one of the most important verses about regeneration in Titus 3:5. From the Greek he writes:
He saved us, not on the basis of works which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by means of the again birth (regeneration) and the again making (remaking) done by the Holy Spirit.
This is virtually what is written in Ezekiel.
To further answer your question, dispensationalists do not propagate the differences between Israel and the church. The Bible does, and all dispensationalists do is "observe" carefully what the text indicates!
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
ANSWER: It is a cloudy issue concerning regeneration for the OT saints. As with Abraham we know he was justified, or legally acquitted by his faith in the fact that God would be giving him an uncountable number of children (Gen. 15:6). Paul picks up on this and over and over says that belief is what now saves, though the object of that faith is Christ, whereas with Abraham it was simply trusting in God’s word.
The OT predicted that God would, under the New Covenant (in contrast to the Mosaic Covenant), give birth spiritually to the Jewish people as they enter the land under the millennial reign of Christ. This "new birth" is regeneration and it is unique to the New Covenant. Ezekiel says "They will come to life" (Ezek. 37:9), will be spiritually washed (36:25), have the Lord’s Spirit placed within them (v. 27), and "you will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers" (v. 28). Regeneration, or the new birth, is again described for Israel in the land like this: "I will put My Spirit within you, and you will come to life [the new birth], and I will place you in your own land" (37:14).
[Can you believe the foolish Reformed folks take the above verses allegorically and say this is about the church! However, some like Ellicott understand rightly that these verses are to be taken literally. He says: "Therefore the promise for Israel of earthly restoration must yet be made, and must in due time be literally fulfilled."]
The church now benefits from the New Covenant that was ratified by the death of Christ, though originally meant for Israel first (Luke 22:20). The church does not fulfill the New Covenant, but instead, simply benefits by the death of Christ for sins.
Paul gives one of the most important verses about regeneration in Titus 3:5. From the Greek he writes:
He saved us, not on the basis of works which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by means of the again birth (regeneration) and the again making (remaking) done by the Holy Spirit.
This is virtually what is written in Ezekiel.
To further answer your question, dispensationalists do not propagate the differences between Israel and the church. The Bible does, and all dispensationalists do is "observe" carefully what the text indicates!
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
Behind our Backs
Whether you are an Obama fan, or not, EVERYONE IN THE U. S. needs to know....
Something happened... H.R. 1388 was passed yesterday, behind our backs. AGAIN!! You may want to read about it. It wasn't mentioned on the news... just went by on the ticker tape at the bottom of the CNN screen.
Obama funds $20M in tax payer dollars to immigrate Hamas Refugees to the USA. This is the news that didn't make ANY headlines...
By executive order, President Barack Obama has ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in "migration assistance" to the Palestinian refugees and "conflict victims" in Gaza. And not one penny to Israel for all the rockets and killings!
The "presidential determination", which allows hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States, was signed on January 27 and appeared in the Federal Register on February 4.
Few on Capitol Hill, or in the media, took note that the order provides a FREE ticket - replete with housing and food allowances to individuals who have displayed their overwhelming support to the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the parliamentary election of January 2006.
Let's review...itemized list of some of Barack Obama's most recent actions since his inauguration:
These important, and insightful, issues are being "lost" in the blinding bail-outs and "stimulation" packages. That have never been read by anyone who votes on them in the middle of the night!
Doubtful? To verify this for yourself: go to The Federal Register and search the term: E9-2488 on that website!
PLEASE PASS THIS ON... AMERICA NEEDS TO KNOW
WE are losing this country at a rapid pace. ....right under our noses! YET BEHIND OUR BACKS............
Something happened... H.R. 1388 was passed yesterday, behind our backs. AGAIN!! You may want to read about it. It wasn't mentioned on the news... just went by on the ticker tape at the bottom of the CNN screen.
Obama funds $20M in tax payer dollars to immigrate Hamas Refugees to the USA. This is the news that didn't make ANY headlines...
By executive order, President Barack Obama has ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in "migration assistance" to the Palestinian refugees and "conflict victims" in Gaza. And not one penny to Israel for all the rockets and killings!
The "presidential determination", which allows hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States, was signed on January 27 and appeared in the Federal Register on February 4.
Few on Capitol Hill, or in the media, took note that the order provides a FREE ticket - replete with housing and food allowances to individuals who have displayed their overwhelming support to the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the parliamentary election of January 2006.
Let's review...itemized list of some of Barack Obama's most recent actions since his inauguration:
Now we learn that he is allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees to move to, and live in the US at American taxpayer expense!
- His first call to any head of state, as president, was to Mahmoud Abbas, leader of Fatah party in the Palestinian territory.
- His first one-on-one television interview with any news organization was with Al Arabia television.
- His first executive order was to fund/facilitate abortion(s) not just here within the U. S. , but within the WORLD, using U. S. tax payer funds.
- He ordered Guantanamo Bay closed and ALL military trials of detainees halted.
- He ordered overseas CIA interrogation centers closed.
- He withdrew ALL charges against the masterminds behind the USS Cole and the "terror attack" on 9/11.
These important, and insightful, issues are being "lost" in the blinding bail-outs and "stimulation" packages. That have never been read by anyone who votes on them in the middle of the night!
Doubtful? To verify this for yourself: go to The Federal Register and search the term: E9-2488 on that website!
PLEASE PASS THIS ON... AMERICA NEEDS TO KNOW
WE are losing this country at a rapid pace. ....right under our noses! YET BEHIND OUR BACKS............
Ask Dr. Couch #110
Dr. Couch, could you tell me how people were saved in the OT? Were they saved by the blood of Christ?
ANSWER: The apostle Paul quotes the faith of Abraham found in Genesis 15:6 as the great example of trust for salvation. one can extrapolate back to others before Abraham who likewise believed in the Lord. Their object of belief was simply in God, or in what He said. In the case of Abraham, he was told he would have an innumerable company of descendants—and he believed this promised. Therefore, his faith was accounted (accredited, imputed) to him for righteousness. He was seen in God’s positional viewpoint as righteous as God. This is the only way anyone can come into His presence.
Paul writes something in Romans 3:25, something that is often overlooked. He says that the Lord displayed Christ publicly as a propitiation (an object of satisfaction, object of mercy), in His blood through faith. "This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the patience of God He passed over the sins previously committed."
Ryrie adds, "The death of Christ also paid fully for sins committed before He died." The great old scholar Charles Hodge writes, "The words "that are past" seem distinctly to refer to the times before the advent of Christ … the remission of sins committed under the former dispensation … and also the remission of sins at the present." In my commentary series on the NT, in which Woodrow Kroll wrote on Romans, he says, Christ was atoning for "present and future sins as well as past sins."
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
ANSWER: The apostle Paul quotes the faith of Abraham found in Genesis 15:6 as the great example of trust for salvation. one can extrapolate back to others before Abraham who likewise believed in the Lord. Their object of belief was simply in God, or in what He said. In the case of Abraham, he was told he would have an innumerable company of descendants—and he believed this promised. Therefore, his faith was accounted (accredited, imputed) to him for righteousness. He was seen in God’s positional viewpoint as righteous as God. This is the only way anyone can come into His presence.
Paul writes something in Romans 3:25, something that is often overlooked. He says that the Lord displayed Christ publicly as a propitiation (an object of satisfaction, object of mercy), in His blood through faith. "This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the patience of God He passed over the sins previously committed."
Ryrie adds, "The death of Christ also paid fully for sins committed before He died." The great old scholar Charles Hodge writes, "The words "that are past" seem distinctly to refer to the times before the advent of Christ … the remission of sins committed under the former dispensation … and also the remission of sins at the present." In my commentary series on the NT, in which Woodrow Kroll wrote on Romans, he says, Christ was atoning for "present and future sins as well as past sins."
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Ask Dr. Couch #109
Dr. Couch, I heard a pastor on the radio say: "You cannot get saved and not have your life changed. You cannot get saved and not do good works."
ANSWER: The point he seemed to be making was not, that one must do good works to be saved, but that without a doubt, it is for certain that one will absolutely do good works as a proof of one’s salvation. How does this line up with 2 Corinthians 13:5? What do you think?
Fruit will be produced by the believer in Christ. Good works will follow salvation, but the apostle Paul also warns of deep carnality that can and will come forth from the child of God. Maturity is a process and does not happen all at once. Everyone matures and changes at a different pace, and in regard to individual sins in the life that need to be purged. one cannot make a blanket statement as to the issue of good works.
2 Corinthians 13:5 reads: "Examine yourselves, whether you are in the faith; prove your own selves." Paul is not saying that they should examine themselves as to their salvation as proven by their works. No one is saved by works. The context goes back to verse 3 that says: "Since you seek a proof of Christ speaking in me …" Paul’s point in verse 5 is that they have to believe Paul because Christ is speaking through him. Do they, or do they not believe the gospel the apostle is teaching? There is little doubt that Paul accepted the fact that there were unsaved people in the Corinthian congregation. He is not asking for them to "examine themselves" as to good works that supposedly would automatically come forth with their faith; he is asking whether they have trusted the gospel at all, because he, Paul, is speaking "for Christ" the truth about salvation.
If the pastor you mentioned is saying that good works are automatic, and will always and instantly come forth as an absolute proof of salvation, then he is dead wrong, and he has not read the rest of the New Testament about carnality!
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
ANSWER: The point he seemed to be making was not, that one must do good works to be saved, but that without a doubt, it is for certain that one will absolutely do good works as a proof of one’s salvation. How does this line up with 2 Corinthians 13:5? What do you think?
Fruit will be produced by the believer in Christ. Good works will follow salvation, but the apostle Paul also warns of deep carnality that can and will come forth from the child of God. Maturity is a process and does not happen all at once. Everyone matures and changes at a different pace, and in regard to individual sins in the life that need to be purged. one cannot make a blanket statement as to the issue of good works.
2 Corinthians 13:5 reads: "Examine yourselves, whether you are in the faith; prove your own selves." Paul is not saying that they should examine themselves as to their salvation as proven by their works. No one is saved by works. The context goes back to verse 3 that says: "Since you seek a proof of Christ speaking in me …" Paul’s point in verse 5 is that they have to believe Paul because Christ is speaking through him. Do they, or do they not believe the gospel the apostle is teaching? There is little doubt that Paul accepted the fact that there were unsaved people in the Corinthian congregation. He is not asking for them to "examine themselves" as to good works that supposedly would automatically come forth with their faith; he is asking whether they have trusted the gospel at all, because he, Paul, is speaking "for Christ" the truth about salvation.
If the pastor you mentioned is saying that good works are automatic, and will always and instantly come forth as an absolute proof of salvation, then he is dead wrong, and he has not read the rest of the New Testament about carnality!
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
MORE CRAZY STUFF!
| Former President Jimmy Carter made it public how "he has been in love with the Palestinian people for many years." He insists there can never be peace in the Middle East until everyone opens their arms to groups like Hamas. To the Palestinians he said, "I hope someday in the future to address you in your perpetual capital, Jerusalem." Sounds good but it really was a lie! Our not-too-informed President, Barack Hussein Obama, said that Israel has had a right to exist in the Holy Land since the Holocaust. This is false! Their right to exist there goes back to God's promises that began in the OT. The drive to "go back home" to the Promised Land has been in the working stage since the Jews were scattered in A.D. 135 but for over two hundred years, this yearning to return has been in the works in earnest! Obama does not know his history. In a revisionist frame of mind he believes that Jerusalem is the home of the three faiths—Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. This too is wrong! Only the Jews hold the title deed to the land, and to Jerusalem, as given to them by God! It is the amillennial Catholic Church that has tried to lay some kind of claim on Jerusalem. It is not theirs! With Obama's statement that Israel has had a claim on the Holy Land since the Holocaust, Prime Minister Netanyahu has set the record straight by saying, "Our prophets always envisioned peace; we bless each other with Shalom (peace); our prayers end in peace." Be prepared for some who are "Christians" to cut Israel free from the promises of the prophets. The Protestant denominations are shifting even more to the left. This will be part of the Apostasy that we are rapidly moving toward. – Dr. Mal Couch |
Ask Dr. Couch #108
Dr. Couch, I am having trouble reconciling the transfiguration in the Gospels. Matthew and Mark both state that “after six days” while Luke simply says “about eight days after …” What do you say?
ANSWER: I think in your email you got the answer. Luke is including the day that Jesus predicted His death, and Luke also would be including the actual day of the transfiguration. This is good thinking! But note too that Luke said “about eight days …” He could be rounding off the number and not be writing specifically! The word “about” is the key! Look carefully at Mark 9:1. It is clear that what Christ said in this verse starts the counting. Mark 9:2 says “And six days later …”
I have never found the Word of God truly contradictory though there can be occasions when we do not know all the details of what is happening.
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
ANSWER: I think in your email you got the answer. Luke is including the day that Jesus predicted His death, and Luke also would be including the actual day of the transfiguration. This is good thinking! But note too that Luke said “about eight days …” He could be rounding off the number and not be writing specifically! The word “about” is the key! Look carefully at Mark 9:1. It is clear that what Christ said in this verse starts the counting. Mark 9:2 says “And six days later …”
I have never found the Word of God truly contradictory though there can be occasions when we do not know all the details of what is happening.
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Ask Dr. Couch #107
Dr. Couch, does the Bible condemn polygamy?
ANSWER: By the command that one man should marry one woman makes it clear that polygamy is unacceptable. Also, in every case I can think of, polygamy was destructive to the children involved. This is true of Abraham, David, Solomon, etc. By that fact alone, it is easy to say that polygamy was wrong.
In the story of Abraham, God made it clear that Ishmael who was born to the handmaiden Hagar would not be his legal heir. The Lord punctuated this fact when He spoke to Abraham about offering up Isaac. God said: “Take now your son, your only son, whom you love …” (Gen. 22:2). Though Hagar was a mistress of Abraham, Ishmael did not count in God’s plan for the passing down of the Abrahamic Covenant to later generations.
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
ANSWER: By the command that one man should marry one woman makes it clear that polygamy is unacceptable. Also, in every case I can think of, polygamy was destructive to the children involved. This is true of Abraham, David, Solomon, etc. By that fact alone, it is easy to say that polygamy was wrong.
In the story of Abraham, God made it clear that Ishmael who was born to the handmaiden Hagar would not be his legal heir. The Lord punctuated this fact when He spoke to Abraham about offering up Isaac. God said: “Take now your son, your only son, whom you love …” (Gen. 22:2). Though Hagar was a mistress of Abraham, Ishmael did not count in God’s plan for the passing down of the Abrahamic Covenant to later generations.
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
CAREFUL INTERPRETATION
| I was asked recently about Genesis 17:4, 6, concerning the nations coming forth from Abraham. Is "the nations" a reference, an allegorical reference, to the fact that the Gentiles would be blessed by Abraham? In order to answer we must use two very important principles in hermeneutics: (1) good observation, and (2) examining carefully the context of a passage. The "nations" here have to do with the many tribes that were spawned from Abraham. God told him that He would "multiply him exceedingly" (v. 2). And, that he would be "the father of a multitude of nations" (vv. 4, 6). This came about literally if one carefully reads 25:1-11. Through his second wife, Keturah, he had many other children, who then had more children. Also, his other children came through several concubines, and through Ishmael (the son of Hagar), as listed in 25:12-16. However, God made it plain that through Sarah, Abraham would have seed (descendants) "after him" (17:7-10). The "after him" (Abraham) is a direct reference to the children who would come from his true wife (not a concubine) Sarah. "God said, 'but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant; for his descendants 'after him'" (v. 19). Question: "Well, are the nations not the children of Abraham, as mentioned by Paul in Galatians 3:7-8?" Read carefully! Paul takes note that the "nations shall be blessed in" Abraham (v. 8; Gen. 12:3). Paul is not making an allegory when he writes that we are sons of Abraham "by faith" not by lineage. He concludes: "So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham the believer" (v. 9). Noting carefully what Moses and Paul write in a technical sense: (1) Many nations will physically come forth from Abraham; (2) the nations will be blessed by Abraham; but (3) the seed (the descendants) of Abraham, as Moses is using the idea, happens to be those who come "from Abraham" through Sarah-Isaac-Jacob. Granted, the idea is close when Paul says we are "sons of Abraham," but he is very careful by adding, "by, through faith." This is certainly a spiritual idea but it is not "spiritualizing" or "allegorizing." An allegory is made when one creates a new idea and replaces an old thought. In other words, to allegorize, would be to say that Israel means the church, or, the church means Israel! The apostle Paul takes his thought further by writing "In Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith" (Gal. 3:14). Paul makes it clear that the ultimate seed of Abraham is Christ. He writes: "When God spoke to Abraham and to his seed, He does not say, 'And to seeds,' as referring to many, but rather to one, 'And to your seed,' that is Christ" (v. 16). He elaborates by adding that the ultimate seed is Christ "the seed to whom the promise had been made" (v. 19). I hope this helps. – Dr. Mal Couch |
Ask Dr. Couch
| Dr. Couch, I have heard some say that Christians should not fear God. Is this true? ANSWER: In my opinion this attitude is absolutely wrong! There are times when the word "phobos" (NT Greek) and "yee-r-ah" (OT Hebrew) can often mean reverence or respect, yet about half of the verses are referring to a Godly "quake" kind of fear of the Lord. This does not mean that one can lose his salvation but it does mean that God will spank those whom He loves and who have a rebellious heart towards Him. And that discipline can be painful! The most well-known verse in the OT is Proverbs 1:7: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." The idea of quake" fear is used more than once. It is used in Exod. 20:20; Deut. 2:25; Job 28:28; Psa. 119:38; Prov. 1:7; 9:10. Prov. 19:23 says: "The fear of the Lord tends to life." When the Lord struck down Sapphira in Acts 5:11 the text says: "And great fear came upon the whole church, and upon all who heard of these things." This is not speaking about reverence but about fear for messing with God. We may debate as to which verse is speaking about fear or about respect/reverence but there is no doubt that the idea of "fear" is a legitimate emotion for believers who play spiritual or moral games with the Lord! I think there is something wrong with a Christian who says "I don't fear God!" What would you think of a son who said "I don't fear my father! I can do anything I want and he will not punish me!" I believe a Christian who does not fear God does not respect Him! And they are showing that deep down they have a contrary spirit—even a spirit that is challenging the Lord. Without fear a believer will go on doing just what he wants. He is one who is spoiled and believes he can do anything and will not have to answer for it! Thanks for asking. Dr. Mal Couch |
Ask Dr. Couch #106
Dr. Couch, I understand John Piper has gone mystical. Have you heard about this?
ANSWER: Yes, I have. Piper sent out a short article on his recent charismatic-like experience.
Piper has made some meaningful contributions in his writings for the body of Christ, even though he is an allegorist (amillennialist), and a Covenant guy. Unfortunately, because of his Covenant position and allegorical interpretation he would deny the clear biblical doctrines of the rapture of the church, the seven-year tribulation, and the earthly millennial reign of Christ, the son of David.
His article is entitled "The Morning I Heard the Voice of God." This "wonderful experience" happened to him in the early morning of March 19, 2007 at a Minnesota retreat grounds. Well over thirty times he focuses on God’s speaking directly to him. Over and over again he kept using the pronouns "I," and "me" which highlighted the moving experience he was having in this encounter. This "experience" was more about something missing in Piper’s life rather than about some new revelation in regard to the greatness of God.
On one hand Piper glories in the fact that he had this direct voice revelation. However his article is full of contradictions and even conflicting points. He argues for the fact that now in this age God is speaking directly to people, and yet he then tries to verify that God only speaks through the written Word! It is as if Piper is exalting in his experience, catches himself, and comes back down to earth to verify that, no, God really only speaks through His written revelation.
In the article Piper writes that he "heard the words in my head just as clearly" as if when one has a conversation "across your consciousness." "God actually spoke to me," he adds, "There is no doubt that it was God." From this "absolute self-authenticating ring of truth, I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that God still speaks today." What does Piper mean by "self-authenticating"? By writing this, no one can check and balance what Piper experienced.
Piper adds that that morning he "couldn’t sleep for some reason." He then adds that "God moved me out of bed." Was God simply using his sleeplessness for an opportunity to speak to him, or was the revelation planned and executed by His providence?
While praying and musing, God said, "Come and see what I have done." Piper adds that "in his mind" these were the very words of God. God was speaking to him with absolute authority and self-evidencing reality. He adds, "God was near." Ironically, God did not show Piper anything in visible form, though he said the Lord said "come and see."
What message did Piper get? The Lord simply quoted Psalm 66:5-7 which reads: "I turned the sea into dry land; they passed through the river on foot. There they rejoiced in Me …" Piper adds that he was being taken back several thousand years when God dried up the Red Sea and the Jordan River. "I was transported by his word back into history to those great deeds. This is what he meant by ‘come and see.’"
So the Lord give Piper some special revelation, a quoting of Bible passages, that he could have read at any time, and all of us have the privilege to read for ourselves! With all due respect, what is the big deal! The "big deal" is that Piper could be privy to an "experience," a feeling, a sense that he was important with the Lord. For some reason he needs such an experience. He is having trouble it seems in trusting what the Lord has already revealed in His recorded Word!
Piper then adds what I consider many self-serving and arrogant phrases in his testimony.
"Why else would God come and tell me these things?" he asks. The Word of God was apparently not sufficient for John Piper. We know God cares for us and strengthens our faith through His established written Word, and by the illumination of His Holy Spirit. Some super-duper experience is not necessary!
Piper then does something strange in his article. The final three paragraphs seem to confirm that he holds to the authority of the written Word, sola scriptura, if you will! To substantiate this point he closes his article with, "Still hearing his voice in the Bible." By the strange contradiction Piper may be trying to say, "Yes, we have the written revelation, but I now believe also that God comes and gives direct experiential revelation to us individually." Piper is advocating a "both-and" in this testimonial. Whatever the case, Piper apparently needed to claim that God spoke directly to his soul, audibly!
Three things stand out in Piper’s article. (1) He has opened the door for many in the Covenant theological movement to follow his lead in having charismatic experiences. (2) What God said to him was already recorded in the verses the Lord quoted. Why then did He need to reveal some so-called new message above His written Word? (3) Just ever so little, Piper moved the written Word of God down a notch from its certain and exalted position as our only revelation of what He wants us to know. This will not bode well for the body of Christ that has respected Piper throughout the years!
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
ANSWER: Yes, I have. Piper sent out a short article on his recent charismatic-like experience.
Piper has made some meaningful contributions in his writings for the body of Christ, even though he is an allegorist (amillennialist), and a Covenant guy. Unfortunately, because of his Covenant position and allegorical interpretation he would deny the clear biblical doctrines of the rapture of the church, the seven-year tribulation, and the earthly millennial reign of Christ, the son of David.
His article is entitled "The Morning I Heard the Voice of God." This "wonderful experience" happened to him in the early morning of March 19, 2007 at a Minnesota retreat grounds. Well over thirty times he focuses on God’s speaking directly to him. Over and over again he kept using the pronouns "I," and "me" which highlighted the moving experience he was having in this encounter. This "experience" was more about something missing in Piper’s life rather than about some new revelation in regard to the greatness of God.
On one hand Piper glories in the fact that he had this direct voice revelation. However his article is full of contradictions and even conflicting points. He argues for the fact that now in this age God is speaking directly to people, and yet he then tries to verify that God only speaks through the written Word! It is as if Piper is exalting in his experience, catches himself, and comes back down to earth to verify that, no, God really only speaks through His written revelation.
In the article Piper writes that he "heard the words in my head just as clearly" as if when one has a conversation "across your consciousness." "God actually spoke to me," he adds, "There is no doubt that it was God." From this "absolute self-authenticating ring of truth, I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that God still speaks today." What does Piper mean by "self-authenticating"? By writing this, no one can check and balance what Piper experienced.
Piper adds that that morning he "couldn’t sleep for some reason." He then adds that "God moved me out of bed." Was God simply using his sleeplessness for an opportunity to speak to him, or was the revelation planned and executed by His providence?
While praying and musing, God said, "Come and see what I have done." Piper adds that "in his mind" these were the very words of God. God was speaking to him with absolute authority and self-evidencing reality. He adds, "God was near." Ironically, God did not show Piper anything in visible form, though he said the Lord said "come and see."
What message did Piper get? The Lord simply quoted Psalm 66:5-7 which reads: "I turned the sea into dry land; they passed through the river on foot. There they rejoiced in Me …" Piper adds that he was being taken back several thousand years when God dried up the Red Sea and the Jordan River. "I was transported by his word back into history to those great deeds. This is what he meant by ‘come and see.’"
So the Lord give Piper some special revelation, a quoting of Bible passages, that he could have read at any time, and all of us have the privilege to read for ourselves! With all due respect, what is the big deal! The "big deal" is that Piper could be privy to an "experience," a feeling, a sense that he was important with the Lord. For some reason he needs such an experience. He is having trouble it seems in trusting what the Lord has already revealed in His recorded Word!
Piper then adds what I consider many self-serving and arrogant phrases in his testimony.
- "This was a holy moment in Minnesota."
- "God Almighty had come down and was giving me the stillness and the openness and the willingness to hear his very voice." [Whatever this means!]
- "This was breathtaking." "At least a warning."
- "This is glorious."
- "The very words of God in my head."
- "God still speaks in the twenty-first century."
- "I heard his very words. He spoke personally to me."
- "It filled me with a fresh sense of God’s reality."
- "It strengthened my faith."
- "He cares for me."
"Why else would God come and tell me these things?" he asks. The Word of God was apparently not sufficient for John Piper. We know God cares for us and strengthens our faith through His established written Word, and by the illumination of His Holy Spirit. Some super-duper experience is not necessary!
Piper then does something strange in his article. The final three paragraphs seem to confirm that he holds to the authority of the written Word, sola scriptura, if you will! To substantiate this point he closes his article with, "Still hearing his voice in the Bible." By the strange contradiction Piper may be trying to say, "Yes, we have the written revelation, but I now believe also that God comes and gives direct experiential revelation to us individually." Piper is advocating a "both-and" in this testimonial. Whatever the case, Piper apparently needed to claim that God spoke directly to his soul, audibly!
Three things stand out in Piper’s article. (1) He has opened the door for many in the Covenant theological movement to follow his lead in having charismatic experiences. (2) What God said to him was already recorded in the verses the Lord quoted. Why then did He need to reveal some so-called new message above His written Word? (3) Just ever so little, Piper moved the written Word of God down a notch from its certain and exalted position as our only revelation of what He wants us to know. This will not bode well for the body of Christ that has respected Piper throughout the years!
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
PASTOR HARRY R. JACKSON ON TARGET!
| Pastor Harry R. Jackson heads up a church in Beltsville, Maryland and considers himself a social conservative. While I do not agree with all he says, he is right on target on many things happening in our country. As an African-American he is deeply concerned with the move to make legitimate same-sex marriages. And he says it may soon be approved in Washington D.C. and have a further terrible impact on Black families. (As reported in The Washington Times, July 6, 2009) As he faces liberal opposition, he says "I believe the Bible. … I'm just worried about the next generation." He says that when in the 60s a lot of government programs, government open-ended welfare, was put in place, it made it easier for [Black] men not to own up to their responsibilities. We helped our pocketbooks and hurt our homes." Many uninformed Black pastors are accepting the same-sex marriage argument as a continuation of the civil rights movement. They are an elite group of people, he says, masquerading as a minority and systematically imposing their will on the majority. In the fall the same-sex marriage issue will probably come up in Congress concerning the governess of Washington D.C. He says if same-sex unions pass, "it will be the Armageddon of marriage there." Pastor Harry Jackson says that "everybody in the [Black] community knows that our families are all torn up. I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to say this is not going to strengthen marriage." He adds that the civil rights movement was one of the main reasons that marriage has depreciated in the Black community." Jackson takes to task Black leaders like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton for being out of touch with the Black community. "I think they have decided that no matter what the church says at the grass-roots level, … no matter what the community says, they see themselves as leading in a direction that [says] they know better than the people." Pastor Harry Jackson wants to work with other denominations to stop the same-sex marriage movement. He views as ignorance the unintended consequences of same-sex marriage. While I appreciate what this pastor is doing, the bottom line is the fact that same-sex marriage is being inspired from the pit of hell! It attacks the fundamental purpose of creation! It denies the historical facts laid down in Genesis about the roles of men and women. When the apostle Paul attacked homosexuality in Romans 1:27, he used for the word "male" the Greek word "arseen." God gave homosexuals over to their "degrading passions" for "their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, in the same way also the men abandoned ("dismissed") the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another MEN ("arseen") with MEN committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which were not right" (Rom. 1:26-28). The idea behind "arseen" is "male sex" which is a legitimate word to use. But the word is very graphic. In their Lexicon, Balz & Schneider point out that the root of the word carries the picture "it flows," or "that which discharges sperm." Here in Romans 1, the word is placed in an earthy context of men who discharge themselves without a female. Paul could have used the word "anthropos" but instead he chose to use this graphic word. Can same-sex marriage be stopped? In my opinion, No! The larger sin is that those practicing such no longer "acknowledge God." This is the larger sin of our present culture. This is taking us deep into the apostasy. Sin will only accelerate and become more sinful! If same-sex marriage is approved this fall in Washington D.C., it will spread rapidly across the nation. And that is what will probably happen sooner or later! Prepare for a terrible judgment to follow. – Dr. Mal Couch |
New Audio Files: Genesis
Join Dr. Couch and the Clifton Bible Church as they study the book of Genesis. Listen to a verse by verse exegetical study as well as some topical studies.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
New Audio Files: Ecclesiastes
Join Dr. Couch and the Clifton Bible Church as they study the book of Ecclesiastes.
Ask Dr. Couch #105
Dr. Couch, does regeneration come before saving faith, after, or is it simultaneous?
ANSWER: This is an old debate that I am not sure we can all solve. Since we are chosen for salvation from eternity past, the issue is moot as far as I am concerned. I "lean" however toward the fact that regeneration may come first. Because we are conscious beings, we will speak forth our faith in Christ, though sovereignly moved to do so by the Holy Spirit. In Titus 3:5-7 Paul mentions the order of salvation but does not address the issue of the words of trust and faith that will come out of our hearts and minds.
From the Greek text the passage could read:
He saved us, not on the basis of deed which we have done by righteousness, but according to His mercy by means of the washing that takes place by the "again birth" (palingenesia) even the "again newing, remaking" (anakainosis) done by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that being legally acquitted by His grace we might be made heirs according to the anticipation of eternal life.
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
ANSWER: This is an old debate that I am not sure we can all solve. Since we are chosen for salvation from eternity past, the issue is moot as far as I am concerned. I "lean" however toward the fact that regeneration may come first. Because we are conscious beings, we will speak forth our faith in Christ, though sovereignly moved to do so by the Holy Spirit. In Titus 3:5-7 Paul mentions the order of salvation but does not address the issue of the words of trust and faith that will come out of our hearts and minds.
From the Greek text the passage could read:
He saved us, not on the basis of deed which we have done by righteousness, but according to His mercy by means of the washing that takes place by the "again birth" (palingenesia) even the "again newing, remaking" (anakainosis) done by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that being legally acquitted by His grace we might be made heirs according to the anticipation of eternal life.
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
Ask Dr. Couch
| Dr. Couch, I believe the Bible is clear that the Mosaic Law ended with Christ's death, but Matthew 5:17-18 troubles me. Is the Law still in force? ANSWER: In these verses Christ said that He did not come to "abolish" the Law but instead, to fulfill it. He said not one part of it would pass away "until all is accomplished." "Abolish" is the Greek word "to destroy, to pull or tear down." It is an Aorist Infinitive and could be translated "to reach a point to tear [the Law] down." The word "fulfill" is "plaraoo" and it is also an Aorist Infinitive. "I came to complete the Law." He then adds that not one small part of the Law will pass away until "all of it should come about" (an Aorist Subjunctive). Many believe that the Lord was indicating that He, by His life, would fulfill or keep the Law. What part of the Law? Probably not the Civil or Ceremonial part of it but the moral principles of the Law. Christ lived a perfect and complete life, with no sin, because He is the holy Son of God! The NT says two things: (1) the Law would someday cease and be replaced by the New Covenant, and, (2) we would no longer be under the Law. That (1) the New Covenant would replace the Mosaic Law was stated in Jeremiah 31:31-32. "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel (Northern Kingdom) and with the house of Judah (Southern Kingdom), not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, …" With the new covenant the Jews will receive permanent forgiveness of sin (not so under the Mosaic covenant), and "their sins I will remember no more" (v. 34). Hebrews 8:6-13 picks up on this and says that the new covenant will replace the Law. "When God said 'A new covenant,' He had made the first covenant (the Law) obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear" (v. 13). Paul then adds that (2) we are no longer under the Law which was a tutor to us to bring us to Christ. "We are no longer under a tutor" (Gal. 3:25). He also says: "You are no longer under law, but under grace" (Rom. 6:14). "We have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit (the new covenant) and not in oldness of the letter (of the Law)" (7:6). We are now justified not by law-keeping but by faith. "We maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law" (3:28), thus we do not nullify the Law through our faith but instead "we establish the Law" (v. 31). Finally, "by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in God's sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin" (3:20). In place of law, we are "being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" (v. 24). I hope this helps. Thanks for asking. Dr. Mal Couch |
Ask Dr. Couch #104
Dr. Couch, I just read a review of your wonderful and helpful Handbook of Revelation (Kregel) in which the reviewer blasts premillennialism and pretribulationalism. He says such works are influenced by the Left Behind series, and by Hal Lindsey. Why is there such hatred against the premillennialism of the early church?
ANSWER: about the Preterists and the Amils, and that is, it is impossible for them to exegete both OT and NT prophecies. They are long on criticism, and short on exegesis and biblical explanation.
They are also foolish to think we get our eschatology from the Left Behind series, Hal Lindsey, John Darby, C. I. Scofield, or any other Bible teacher of the past. (I personally have never read anything from Darby.) We get our eschatology from sound, consistent exegesis, and detailed observation, of the biblical texts. Church history shows that in the past 175 years there began a growing return back to premillennialism by some of the greatest scholars of both England and America. Many were carefully observing that the church had to do something about what the Bible said about the regathering of the nation of Israel. No longer could the argument simply be that the church replaces Israel, or that God is finished with the Jews. The great OT passages about the return of the Jews to the land, the great tribulation, and the literal coming of the Messiah, could no longer be ignored.
Reformed folks are stuck in a time-warp with the great Reformers, in regard to eschatology. I admire these men and we all owe them a great debt of gratitude. But while they espoused literal interpretation, they did not apply their own principles of literalness to prophecy. Their inconsistency is glaring! And yet in other areas of theology they are basically biblical (except in their made-up and un-biblical Covenant theology!).
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
ANSWER: about the Preterists and the Amils, and that is, it is impossible for them to exegete both OT and NT prophecies. They are long on criticism, and short on exegesis and biblical explanation.
They are also foolish to think we get our eschatology from the Left Behind series, Hal Lindsey, John Darby, C. I. Scofield, or any other Bible teacher of the past. (I personally have never read anything from Darby.) We get our eschatology from sound, consistent exegesis, and detailed observation, of the biblical texts. Church history shows that in the past 175 years there began a growing return back to premillennialism by some of the greatest scholars of both England and America. Many were carefully observing that the church had to do something about what the Bible said about the regathering of the nation of Israel. No longer could the argument simply be that the church replaces Israel, or that God is finished with the Jews. The great OT passages about the return of the Jews to the land, the great tribulation, and the literal coming of the Messiah, could no longer be ignored.
Reformed folks are stuck in a time-warp with the great Reformers, in regard to eschatology. I admire these men and we all owe them a great debt of gratitude. But while they espoused literal interpretation, they did not apply their own principles of literalness to prophecy. Their inconsistency is glaring! And yet in other areas of theology they are basically biblical (except in their made-up and un-biblical Covenant theology!).
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Ask Dr. Couch #103
Dr. Couch, is 1 John 2:28 a rapture passage? I have some who deny that it is. What do you think?
ANSWER: From the Greek text the passage reads:
This is clearly a rapture passage because it addresses those who were alive at that time (circa. 90-95 AD) when "old" John did all of his writing.
Though John's days were short, he still saw Christ's coming for His own possibly in his short life-time. He speaks of "we" have confidence when He comes! This means it could have happened in John's life.
Rapture passages always have a certain immediacy to the audience to whom the letter is written. It always addresses "we," "you," or "us," as is done here.
1 John 3:2 is also clearly a rapture passage. The construction "when He appears" is the same construction as in 2:28, giving a clear sign that both verses are rapture passages. According to the great Greek grammarians Dana & Mantey, the "when He appears" should better read "whenever He appears," as if taking any uncertainty away from the construction of the verse. Another Greek scholar (A. T. Robertson) says about "not shrink away from Him," could better read: "Not shrink away from His face."
The bema judgment seems to take place shortly after the rapture of the church. The "shrink away in shame" appears to connect to what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5:10 about being recompensed for what we do "whether good or bad."
Those who do not hold to the rapture of the church really do not understand what all is happening in all of these verses. In 3:2-3 John adds: "When He appears, we shall be like Him just as He is. And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure." The hope of the rapture, truly believed and embraced, has a practical application to change the life of the believer.
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
ANSWER: From the Greek text the passage reads:
And now, children, be continually [daily] sticking with [Christ], in order that when He should appear, we might be possessing a confidence [fearlessness, boldness, certainty] and we should not shrink back from Him in the coming [of] Him.
This is clearly a rapture passage because it addresses those who were alive at that time (circa. 90-95 AD) when "old" John did all of his writing.
Though John's days were short, he still saw Christ's coming for His own possibly in his short life-time. He speaks of "we" have confidence when He comes! This means it could have happened in John's life.
Rapture passages always have a certain immediacy to the audience to whom the letter is written. It always addresses "we," "you," or "us," as is done here.
1 John 3:2 is also clearly a rapture passage. The construction "when He appears" is the same construction as in 2:28, giving a clear sign that both verses are rapture passages. According to the great Greek grammarians Dana & Mantey, the "when He appears" should better read "whenever He appears," as if taking any uncertainty away from the construction of the verse. Another Greek scholar (A. T. Robertson) says about "not shrink away from Him," could better read: "Not shrink away from His face."
The bema judgment seems to take place shortly after the rapture of the church. The "shrink away in shame" appears to connect to what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5:10 about being recompensed for what we do "whether good or bad."
Those who do not hold to the rapture of the church really do not understand what all is happening in all of these verses. In 3:2-3 John adds: "When He appears, we shall be like Him just as He is. And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure." The hope of the rapture, truly believed and embraced, has a practical application to change the life of the believer.
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
Ask Dr. Couch
| Dr. Couch, some folks say we do not have to study the Scriptures because after all, Jesus fulfilled the OT, so we do not have to go back and study the Bible passages because Christ has fulfilled many of the prophecies of the Word of God! We just look at Him, because this is sufficient for us today. How do you answer? ANSWER: We are still commanded, as the Greek text states: "Be zealous, take pains, to stand yourself, approved by testing [with] God as an artisan, a craftsman, who does not need to be ashamed, to cut apart accurately the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15). The reference to "the word of truth" is mainly referring to the OT prophecies! Wuest has some great notes: "Study means 'to make haste, to exert one's self, endeavor. Paul is saying—I wish to know that you are hurrying on the making of it.' "Put to the test for the purpose of approving, and finding that the person or thing meets the specifications laid down, to put one's approval upon that person or thing." "Rightly dividing or cutting straight, to hold a straight course, to make straight, to handle rightly," the word of truth. Note these verses: John 5:46; Luke 22:37; 24:26-35; Acts 10:43; 28:23; 26:22-23. Yes, it is true He fulfills the OT prophecies, but so what? We are still commanded to glean from the Word of God all that it says about Him, and about so many other great doctrines that are laid out for us. What are the elders supposed to do? Note Titus 1:9 and 2:11-15. Also, 2 Timothy 2:1-2. Too: 1 Timothy 5:17. Believers are not to be kept uninformed or kept in the dark about Bible prophecy and the plan of God. Paul tells the Romans: "I do not want you, brothers, to be 'ignorant' of the mystery of the hardening of the heart of the Jews, because from Israel (from Zion) will come the Deliverer" (Rom. 11:25-32). "Ignorant" means in Greek "to be unknowing" (agnoein). It is a Present Infinitive. "I don't want you to be right now unknowing!" Paul then reminds his readers of the prophecy of Isaiah 59:20-21. He wants his audience to know what that great prophecy is saying. Thanks for asking. Dr. Mal Couch |
Ask Dr. Couch #102
Dr. Couch, I'm confused. I believe you advocate a "heavenly destiny" for the church. However, both the church and Israel will be on earth during the millennial reign. Also, you advocate seven years in heaven followed by the same 1000 years of earthly reign. Why do you consider your position a "heavenly destiny" when the church will spend 993 more years on earth after such a short stay in heaven? Wouldn't that identify the church's destiny as "earthly"?
ANSWER: The order is: (1) the church is in heaven for the seven year tribulation that takes place on earth, and (2) the church comes back with Christ to be in His presence for the 1000 millennial reign. I don’t get the 993 year thing! All of this seems so easy and so biblical! I must be missing something in translation! Or, there is an agenda to avoid the obvious. The agenda is to soften the truth of the doctrine of the rapture by the Progressive Dispensationalists (PDs), and bring confusion on this issue. I know for a fact that at the "big" seminary in the Dallas/Ft Worth area the students are getting terribly confused and cannot defend biblically some most clear and obvious doctrines of the Bible, much less the simple facts of the rapture of the church.
To make it simple: (1) the church’s key destiny is heaven at the rapture, and despite the poor reading ability of some PDs, heaven is called glory! (2) the church will be in the kingdom but is certainly not seen as the "key" people. That is Israel, and not the church!
The PDs try to get rid of the church’s heavenly-destiny and even try to say that heaven is not called glory. While it is true that the word "doxa" can be applied to several areas or issues, it still is used to describe in many places, heaven! They are WRONG! And don’t forget, they have "reasons" to change doctrine. Be aware!
I just got through reading, once again, Progressive Dispensatinalism by Blaising and Bock, and I find dozens of verses that do not say what they claim, like: "The eschatological Zion is said to be in heaven at the present time (Gal. 4; Phil. 3:20)." (p. 266) These verses do not say that!
Remember, they have an agenda! When PD began, one of the proponents said that they as dispensatioalists wanted to soften the dispensationl teaching and give a compromise view more compatible with covenant theology. one of the proponents said that in eschatology, he puts the doctrine of the rapture way down the list in importance. And remember too, that PD is softening present love of, and support for, Israel. At that "big" school the understanding of, and the teaching of premillennial prophecy, has almost died. And more and more students there, unknown to the leadership, are jumping ship to amillennialism.
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
ANSWER: The order is: (1) the church is in heaven for the seven year tribulation that takes place on earth, and (2) the church comes back with Christ to be in His presence for the 1000 millennial reign. I don’t get the 993 year thing! All of this seems so easy and so biblical! I must be missing something in translation! Or, there is an agenda to avoid the obvious. The agenda is to soften the truth of the doctrine of the rapture by the Progressive Dispensationalists (PDs), and bring confusion on this issue. I know for a fact that at the "big" seminary in the Dallas/Ft Worth area the students are getting terribly confused and cannot defend biblically some most clear and obvious doctrines of the Bible, much less the simple facts of the rapture of the church.
To make it simple: (1) the church’s key destiny is heaven at the rapture, and despite the poor reading ability of some PDs, heaven is called glory! (2) the church will be in the kingdom but is certainly not seen as the "key" people. That is Israel, and not the church!
The PDs try to get rid of the church’s heavenly-destiny and even try to say that heaven is not called glory. While it is true that the word "doxa" can be applied to several areas or issues, it still is used to describe in many places, heaven! They are WRONG! And don’t forget, they have "reasons" to change doctrine. Be aware!
- "I press toward the goal for the prize of the UPWARD CALLING of Christ" (Phil. 3:14).
- "Our CITIZENSHIP is IN heaven from which we wait for a Savior" (3:20).
- "God shall supply your needs according to His riches IN GLORY IN CHRIST" (4:19).
- "God made known the mystery [of salvation], which is Christ in you, the HOPE OF GLORY" (Col. 1:27). Christ is the Hope, of what? "Concerning glory!" The great John Eadie, one of the giant Greek scholars, says about this verse: "The Christian’s treasure is in heaven."
- "The hope laid up for you IN HEAVEN" (1:5).
- "Absent from the body, … to be at HOME (IN HEAVEN) with the Lord (2 Cor. 5:8).
- "A house (new body), not made with hands, eternal IN THE HEAVENS" (5:1).
- "We shall be caught up (the rapture) together with them (the resurrected) in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord" (1 Thess. 4:17).
I just got through reading, once again, Progressive Dispensatinalism by Blaising and Bock, and I find dozens of verses that do not say what they claim, like: "The eschatological Zion is said to be in heaven at the present time (Gal. 4; Phil. 3:20)." (p. 266) These verses do not say that!
Remember, they have an agenda! When PD began, one of the proponents said that they as dispensatioalists wanted to soften the dispensationl teaching and give a compromise view more compatible with covenant theology. one of the proponents said that in eschatology, he puts the doctrine of the rapture way down the list in importance. And remember too, that PD is softening present love of, and support for, Israel. At that "big" school the understanding of, and the teaching of premillennial prophecy, has almost died. And more and more students there, unknown to the leadership, are jumping ship to amillennialism.
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Ask Dr. Couch #101
Dr. Couch, someone has said that we should not use the expression “the Palestinian Covenant” today, that it implies something the Bible is not saying about the Land of Israel. What do you say?
ANSWER: My good friend Dr. Tom McCall has reminded us all that we should be using the expression “The Land Covenant” or “The Holy Land Covenant” and not the Palestinian Covenant. Today, people wrongly identify the word “Palestinian” with the Arabic and nomadic peoples who never owned the land. They were simply squatters on the Land. And, for hundreds of years the Land was controlled by the Turks until the British defeated them in 1917 and took over the Land as a protectorate. The title deed to the Holy Land is eternal and it belongs to the Jewish people not the Arabs.
Inadvertently, we all in the past innocently used the expression “Palestinian Covenant,” but this is wrong. The word Palestinian comes from the word the Romans used to describe the Holy Land, Palistia, after the ancient people who inhabited that area—the Palistines.
Premillennialists should call this Land what it is called in Scripture—“The Holy Land,” “The Beautiful Land,” “God’s Land,” and “The Land of Israel.” By these expressions it is clear from the Word of God that the Land belongs to the Jews by title deed in perpetuity and not to the Arabs. The Arabs and Muslims held the Land until the rightful owners, the Jews, came home, as it was prophesied in Scripture.
The Holy Land Covenant says that the Land was given to Abraham and his children forever! That promise and that Covenant has not been changed or annulled. With the Jews back in the Land, after being scattered worldwide for almost two thousand years, I do not understand how the Reformed guys, the amillennial allegorists get away with denying this prophesied truth. Such ignorance and blindness amazes me! Notice the silence from the Reformed crowd. They have nothing to say about present events in the Middle East, about the return of the Jews to the Holy Land. They truly have a form of Anti-Semitism in their thinking.
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
ANSWER: My good friend Dr. Tom McCall has reminded us all that we should be using the expression “The Land Covenant” or “The Holy Land Covenant” and not the Palestinian Covenant. Today, people wrongly identify the word “Palestinian” with the Arabic and nomadic peoples who never owned the land. They were simply squatters on the Land. And, for hundreds of years the Land was controlled by the Turks until the British defeated them in 1917 and took over the Land as a protectorate. The title deed to the Holy Land is eternal and it belongs to the Jewish people not the Arabs.
Inadvertently, we all in the past innocently used the expression “Palestinian Covenant,” but this is wrong. The word Palestinian comes from the word the Romans used to describe the Holy Land, Palistia, after the ancient people who inhabited that area—the Palistines.
Premillennialists should call this Land what it is called in Scripture—“The Holy Land,” “The Beautiful Land,” “God’s Land,” and “The Land of Israel.” By these expressions it is clear from the Word of God that the Land belongs to the Jews by title deed in perpetuity and not to the Arabs. The Arabs and Muslims held the Land until the rightful owners, the Jews, came home, as it was prophesied in Scripture.
The Holy Land Covenant says that the Land was given to Abraham and his children forever! That promise and that Covenant has not been changed or annulled. With the Jews back in the Land, after being scattered worldwide for almost two thousand years, I do not understand how the Reformed guys, the amillennial allegorists get away with denying this prophesied truth. Such ignorance and blindness amazes me! Notice the silence from the Reformed crowd. They have nothing to say about present events in the Middle East, about the return of the Jews to the Holy Land. They truly have a form of Anti-Semitism in their thinking.
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
Ask Dr. Couch
| Dr. Couch, who are the Barack Hussein Obama Czars and what is there purpose in the new Washington D.C.? ANSWER: The word Czar and Kaiser come from the Latin word Caesar that means "king, emperor." Obama has appointed dozens of czars in order to directly carry out his orders. This way, he bypasses even his own cabinet, the will of Congress, and the laws made by Congress. This has never happened before in American government! Washington is becoming more evil. Like a cloud, darkness is coming over the center of government. A storm will soon destroy what has been built in our nation. The President is becoming a dictator who is answering to no one. This is why he is rushing to put his orders in place, trying to get his agendas passed before the whistle is blown on his dictatorship! Many conservative African-American pastors have stated publicly on television that they are afraid of what he is doing to America. It seems he is attempting to de-centralize our government and form new power sources that put the country into a socialistic framework. For certain, he wants to be answerable to no one! Thanks for asking. Dr. Mal Couch |
Ask Dr. Couch #100
Dr. Couch, could you tell me how people were saved in the OT? Were they saved by the blood of Christ?
ANSWER: The apostle Paul quotes the faith of Abraham found in Genesis 15:6 as the great example of trust for salvation. one can extrapolate back to others before Abraham who likewise believed in the Lord. Their object of belief was simply in God, or in what He said. In the case of Abraham, he was told he would have an innumerable company of descendants—and he believed this promised. Therefore, his faith was accounted (accredited, imputed) to him for righteousness. He was seen in God’s positional viewpoint as righteous as God. This is the only way anyone can come into His presence.
Paul writes something in Romans 3:25, something that is often overlooked. He says that the Lord displayed Christ publicly as a propitiation (an object of satisfaction, object of mercy), in His blood through faith. "This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the patience of God He passed over the sins previously committed."
Ryrie adds, "The death of Christ also paid fully for sins committed before He died." The great old scholar Charles Hodge writes, "The words "that are past" seem distinctly to refer to the times before the advent of Christ … the remission of sins committed under the former dispensation … and also the remission of sins at the present." In my commentary series on the NT, in which Woodrow Kroll wrote on Romans, he says, Christ was atoning for "present and future sins as well as past sins."
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
ANSWER: The apostle Paul quotes the faith of Abraham found in Genesis 15:6 as the great example of trust for salvation. one can extrapolate back to others before Abraham who likewise believed in the Lord. Their object of belief was simply in God, or in what He said. In the case of Abraham, he was told he would have an innumerable company of descendants—and he believed this promised. Therefore, his faith was accounted (accredited, imputed) to him for righteousness. He was seen in God’s positional viewpoint as righteous as God. This is the only way anyone can come into His presence.
Paul writes something in Romans 3:25, something that is often overlooked. He says that the Lord displayed Christ publicly as a propitiation (an object of satisfaction, object of mercy), in His blood through faith. "This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the patience of God He passed over the sins previously committed."
Ryrie adds, "The death of Christ also paid fully for sins committed before He died." The great old scholar Charles Hodge writes, "The words "that are past" seem distinctly to refer to the times before the advent of Christ … the remission of sins committed under the former dispensation … and also the remission of sins at the present." In my commentary series on the NT, in which Woodrow Kroll wrote on Romans, he says, Christ was atoning for "present and future sins as well as past sins."
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Ask Dr. Couch #99
Dr. Couch, help me out on the issue of Lordship salvation. Can you refute my thinking on the subject?
ANSWER: I do not have enough hours in the day to take the time to refute the mistakes in that first "book" that came out about Lordship salvation! The "author" consistently does not tell the truth, takes cheap shots and uses faulty logic. He sets up straw men and misrepresents the issue. On one hand, he says salvation is by grace alone, and then he turns around and adds works to getting saved.
I will give just two illustrations where his reasoning is so bad! He writes:
1. Saving faith is more than just understanding the facts and mental acquiescing. He writes this because he tries to charge those who do not believe his view of lordship salvation that they only argue for "mental acquiescing" of the gospel only! Where did he get that? I have never heard any Evangelical argue that all one does is just "agree with the facts about salvation" in order to be saved! One must appropriate the work of Christ at the cross and believe "He died for me personally!"
2. He then writes The [anti-lordship people] assume that because Scripture contrasts faith and works, faith must be incompatible with works. Here this author uses smoke and mirrors. He has just fooled the reader. Works ARE incompatible with saving faith, works follow saving faith; they are not the cause of salvation! The way he said this is intellectually dishonest! He then adds: The lordship people set faith in opposition to submission, yieldedness, or turning from sin, and they categorize all the practical fruits of salvation as human works. I have never heard anyone in all my years of ministry that would agree with him! When I trusted that Christ died for all my sins, I was TURNING FROM SIN! After POSITIONAL SANCTIFICATION comes EXPERIENTAL SANCTIFICATION. Submission, yieldedness, turning from sin in the walk, always SHOULD follow the profession of faith in Christ. But it usually does not in an absolute way because there is the growing up that the believer goes through in learning to walk with Christ.
Again, this author sets up a false reasoning. (Works have no place in salvation. And "all practical fruits of salvation are human works!" What is he talking about?) When one says he believes that Christ died for his sins, he means all of his sins. At that moment there is certainly a salvation "submission," "yieldedness," and a turning from sin. I have never seen anyone do anything else! But this author is not saying what I am saying. He believes that Lordship salvation will mean that almost all Christians will walk nearly perfect in their Christian experience. one second after belief in Christ, the issue is making and living for Christ as the Lord! But this author writes:
I have 200 hundred misquotes by this author all dog-eared in his book. His writing is a sham and illogical, if you read it slowly and carefully. He wrote one of the poorest "biblical" books I have ever seen.
I do not understand why there is confusion about this issue. Take a concordance and look up "faith, believe, belief, trust," just in the book of John! I believe the count is about forty verses that say something like: salvation by faith only.
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
ANSWER: I do not have enough hours in the day to take the time to refute the mistakes in that first "book" that came out about Lordship salvation! The "author" consistently does not tell the truth, takes cheap shots and uses faulty logic. He sets up straw men and misrepresents the issue. On one hand, he says salvation is by grace alone, and then he turns around and adds works to getting saved.
I will give just two illustrations where his reasoning is so bad! He writes:
1. Saving faith is more than just understanding the facts and mental acquiescing. He writes this because he tries to charge those who do not believe his view of lordship salvation that they only argue for "mental acquiescing" of the gospel only! Where did he get that? I have never heard any Evangelical argue that all one does is just "agree with the facts about salvation" in order to be saved! One must appropriate the work of Christ at the cross and believe "He died for me personally!"
2. He then writes The [anti-lordship people] assume that because Scripture contrasts faith and works, faith must be incompatible with works. Here this author uses smoke and mirrors. He has just fooled the reader. Works ARE incompatible with saving faith, works follow saving faith; they are not the cause of salvation! The way he said this is intellectually dishonest! He then adds: The lordship people set faith in opposition to submission, yieldedness, or turning from sin, and they categorize all the practical fruits of salvation as human works. I have never heard anyone in all my years of ministry that would agree with him! When I trusted that Christ died for all my sins, I was TURNING FROM SIN! After POSITIONAL SANCTIFICATION comes EXPERIENTAL SANCTIFICATION. Submission, yieldedness, turning from sin in the walk, always SHOULD follow the profession of faith in Christ. But it usually does not in an absolute way because there is the growing up that the believer goes through in learning to walk with Christ.
Again, this author sets up a false reasoning. (Works have no place in salvation. And "all practical fruits of salvation are human works!" What is he talking about?) When one says he believes that Christ died for his sins, he means all of his sins. At that moment there is certainly a salvation "submission," "yieldedness," and a turning from sin. I have never seen anyone do anything else! But this author is not saying what I am saying. He believes that Lordship salvation will mean that almost all Christians will walk nearly perfect in their Christian experience. one second after belief in Christ, the issue is making and living for Christ as the Lord! But this author writes:
- "True salvation wrought by God will not fail to produce the good works that are its fruit." Oh, really? Does he mean "Never fail" in the absolute sense? If he does not he needs to explain himself, but he does not! What about all of the verses in Paul’s letters that speak of the believer’s walking carnal? Did I miss something? Who wants to say they are living perfectly? If they don’t does this mean that were not "truly saved"?
I have 200 hundred misquotes by this author all dog-eared in his book. His writing is a sham and illogical, if you read it slowly and carefully. He wrote one of the poorest "biblical" books I have ever seen.
I do not understand why there is confusion about this issue. Take a concordance and look up "faith, believe, belief, trust," just in the book of John! I believe the count is about forty verses that say something like: salvation by faith only.
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
Ask Dr. Couch
| Dr. Couch, will the earth be restored to its sinless state, as it was before the fall? Will the new earth and new heaven also be blown apart by fire as mentioned by Peter? ANSWER: We have a preview of the final stage of world history. The Bible tells us God will "create a new heavens and a new earth," for "the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind" (Isa. 65:17). When the new heavens and new earth come into being, the old life, and the dysfunctional sinful universe will be forgotten! As for believers, we shall, as Peter says, "lay aside this earthly dwelling" (2 Pet. 1:13-14). This was explained to him by the Lord in regard to his new body, but of course, the same thing will happen to all those in Christ, not simply just to Peter! Revelation 21 gives us a full panorama of information about the new heaven and the new earth. Sin will be eradicated as indicated in verse 4. "He shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first [of these] things [will] have passed away." Christ will be "making all things new" (v. 5). The nations will walk in the light of the new Jerusalem (21:23-27). There will be nothing "unclean" (v. 27a) and there will be no "one who practices abominations and lying" (v. 27b). Evil, and those who practice evil, will be excluded from the new state of the "renovated" universe (22:6-17). Before the new state is inaugurated "the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up" (2 Pet. 3:10, 12). Because this present system will be destroyed, we are not to cling to it as if it is to last forever. We should look carefully at ourselves, and examine our present attitudes, as to "what sort of people we ought to be in holy conduct and godliness" (v. 11). I hope this helps. Thanks for asking. Dr. Mal Couch |
Ask Dr. Couch #98
Dr. Couch, I have noticed in the past you mentioned that "big" (buh-ig) seminary in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area. They clearly have taken a swipe at support for Israel, and, they have moved into an aberrant view of dispensationalism. on their website is posted the article where they seem to be turning against the nation of Israel. What do the "younger-smarter" faculty there think of the great blessed giants of the past who taught so faithfully Bible prophecy?
ANSWER: We know for certain that most, but not all, of the faculty have turned against their heritage. Many of them have graduated from the "big" liberally accredited seminaries abroad, or some of the more infamous ones here in the states. (One of those accrediting agencies support "lesbian women in theology".) Many of the young faculty worship "academia" as a philosophy. (The more obscure you can teach the better!) I was told just recently from the president of one of the few "GOOD" seminaries left, about a discussion he had with one of the teachers at that "big" school. When asked about the aberrant view of dispensationalism he held, the man could not give a clear answer about what he believed. He simply went brain dead, sputtered, and hung his head. And that was shared with me from a president of another institution. We are in trouble, but few know it!
I hope this helps, and, thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
ANSWER: We know for certain that most, but not all, of the faculty have turned against their heritage. Many of them have graduated from the "big" liberally accredited seminaries abroad, or some of the more infamous ones here in the states. (One of those accrediting agencies support "lesbian women in theology".) Many of the young faculty worship "academia" as a philosophy. (The more obscure you can teach the better!) I was told just recently from the president of one of the few "GOOD" seminaries left, about a discussion he had with one of the teachers at that "big" school. When asked about the aberrant view of dispensationalism he held, the man could not give a clear answer about what he believed. He simply went brain dead, sputtered, and hung his head. And that was shared with me from a president of another institution. We are in trouble, but few know it!
I hope this helps, and, thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Ask Dr. Couch #97
Dr. Couch, you write about the "key" people in heaven (the church’s destiny) and the "key" people on earth during the kingdom, the Jews. It seems that the seven years that the church is in heaven is small compared to the thousand year kingdom period, in which the church will be serving with Christ on earth. How do you answer?
ANSWER: You are focusing on the issue of destiny and the issue of "time." The seven years is shorter than the 1000 years. This is still not the point. God has a purpose, program, and function for the two groups, the church and Israel, which are different. Again I urge you to read carefully and slowly Jeremiah 30-33. Try to squeeze a purpose, program, even plan, and specific function for the church in these chapters. To help you out I will do some quoting:
I stopped here, but I could go on and on with hundreds if not thousands of verses to quote. Now what is the point I am making? These verses are all about Israel. Let’s focus on these great passages about Israel—this is what the prophets do! And I rejoice with these promises that, even though the church "will be there," they have to do first and foremost will Israel. Don’t be afraid to say the word: Israel, Israel, Israel! For some reason I suspect there is a slight anti-Semitism going on. Certain Christians are just plain tired of praying for Israel. They are "embarrassed" about Israel and all that is taking place now in the Holy Land! The way to crowd out Israel in our thinking is to bring the church forward in its importance in the kingdom. Israel will then be overshadowed! I have several sayings when I find people who "protesteth too much." They have an agenda, "what is their bottom line," etc.
I hope this helps, and, thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
ANSWER: You are focusing on the issue of destiny and the issue of "time." The seven years is shorter than the 1000 years. This is still not the point. God has a purpose, program, and function for the two groups, the church and Israel, which are different. Again I urge you to read carefully and slowly Jeremiah 30-33. Try to squeeze a purpose, program, even plan, and specific function for the church in these chapters. To help you out I will do some quoting:
- Specific days are coming (the regathering and restoration), 30:3.
- I will restore the fortunes of My people Israel AND Judah, v. 3.
- I will bring them back to the land I gave their forefathers, v. 3.
- They shall possess it, v. 3.
- The words the Lord spoke concerning Israel and Judah, v. 4.
- The birth pangs, v. 6.
- They shall serve the Lord and David their king, p. 9.
- Fear not O Jacob, v. 10.
- I will save you from afar, v. 10.
- Jacob shall return, v. 10.
- He will be at ease, v. 10.
- I will restore you to health, v. 17.
- I will restore the fortunes of Jacob, v. 18.
- I will rebuild the cities and palaces, v. 18.
- I will honor them, v. 19.
- Their congregation will be established before Me, v. 20.
- I will be the God of the families of Israel, 31:1.
- I have [will] draw you with an everlasting love, v. 3.
- You shall plant on the hills of Samaria.
- "Let us go up to Zion," v. 6.
- Time of Jacob’s distress, v. 7.
- I will bring you from the North country, from the remote places of earth, v. 8.
- I am a Father to Israel, v. 9.
- He who scattered Israel will gather him, v. 10.
- Israel shall be radiant over the bounty of the Lord, v. 12.
- They shall return from the land of their enemy, v. 16.
- There is hope for Israel’s future, v. 17.
I stopped here, but I could go on and on with hundreds if not thousands of verses to quote. Now what is the point I am making? These verses are all about Israel. Let’s focus on these great passages about Israel—this is what the prophets do! And I rejoice with these promises that, even though the church "will be there," they have to do first and foremost will Israel. Don’t be afraid to say the word: Israel, Israel, Israel! For some reason I suspect there is a slight anti-Semitism going on. Certain Christians are just plain tired of praying for Israel. They are "embarrassed" about Israel and all that is taking place now in the Holy Land! The way to crowd out Israel in our thinking is to bring the church forward in its importance in the kingdom. Israel will then be overshadowed! I have several sayings when I find people who "protesteth too much." They have an agenda, "what is their bottom line," etc.
I hope this helps, and, thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
Ask Dr. Couch
| Dr. Couch, should churches borrow money for building during these tight times? And should they ever borrow for various projects? ANSWER: The Bible is not against borrowing but it can be risky and must be done carefully. The Bible is against usury, that is, it is against excessive charging of interest. I would certainly be against borrowing large sums, especially with what is now happening in our nation. I believe many churches are on an ego trip. They feel they have to build new buildings in order to be viable. I do not believe that! Churches should operate within their means and not go beyond what they are capable of handling. To have a huge mortgage in today's climate would be foolish! Thanks for asking. Dr. Mal Couch |
Ask Dr. Couch #96
Dr. Couch, I am still confused about the issue of the "heavenly destiny" of the church vs. the "earthly destiny" of the nation of Israel in the kingdom period. Can you help?
ANSWER:Those who do not like this distinction have not read their Bibles very well. But too, remember they have an agenda to meld together somewhat the church and Israel. Thus they attempt to downplay the rapture and the fact that this is the next great event for the church. one of the "big" Progressive Dispensational teachers says that in his opinion the rapture is way down the list of important doctrines. With all due respect, there are over thirteen identifiable rapture passages in the NT! This does not make the doctrine a minor issue! (I have published a technical Greek booklet dealing with these passages of Scripture.)
The word "destiny" is possibly misleading. The words purpose, program, and function are best used to describe what is going on with the church and Israel. God has a distinct purpose and program for the church now. He has a distinct purpose, program, and function for Israel in the kingdom, even though the church will be there with the Lord.
This is a "big" subject that cannot be dealt with in this limited column. However, I urge you and every one reading this to study carefully: Acts 1:6-7; 3:18-on; 1 Thessalonians 1:10, and especially all that is written in Jeremiah 30-33. Observe, observe, observe. What does God say about the regathering of the Jews? What does He have for them in the kingdom? What is the kingdom all about?
Part of the problem today is that we have few scholars who will take the time to study with specific intensiveness to see what the Bible is saying. I just reread the first book published on Progressive Dispensationalism, and I am shocked at misquotes of Scripture. The quotes do not match up with what the authors are saying!
I hope this helps, and, thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
ANSWER:Those who do not like this distinction have not read their Bibles very well. But too, remember they have an agenda to meld together somewhat the church and Israel. Thus they attempt to downplay the rapture and the fact that this is the next great event for the church. one of the "big" Progressive Dispensational teachers says that in his opinion the rapture is way down the list of important doctrines. With all due respect, there are over thirteen identifiable rapture passages in the NT! This does not make the doctrine a minor issue! (I have published a technical Greek booklet dealing with these passages of Scripture.)
The word "destiny" is possibly misleading. The words purpose, program, and function are best used to describe what is going on with the church and Israel. God has a distinct purpose and program for the church now. He has a distinct purpose, program, and function for Israel in the kingdom, even though the church will be there with the Lord.
This is a "big" subject that cannot be dealt with in this limited column. However, I urge you and every one reading this to study carefully: Acts 1:6-7; 3:18-on; 1 Thessalonians 1:10, and especially all that is written in Jeremiah 30-33. Observe, observe, observe. What does God say about the regathering of the Jews? What does He have for them in the kingdom? What is the kingdom all about?
Part of the problem today is that we have few scholars who will take the time to study with specific intensiveness to see what the Bible is saying. I just reread the first book published on Progressive Dispensationalism, and I am shocked at misquotes of Scripture. The quotes do not match up with what the authors are saying!
I hope this helps, and, thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Answering the 95 Objections to Dispensatialism
“95 THESES AGAINST DISPENSATIONALISM”
A team of Bible teachers answers the published 95 objections to dispensationalism. The donation is $35 for over fifteen CDs, plus an attractive carrying case. Send the donation to: Scofield Ministries, 120 CR 3222, Clifton, TX. 76634.
A team of Bible teachers answers the published 95 objections to dispensationalism. The donation is $35 for over fifteen CDs, plus an attractive carrying case. Send the donation to: Scofield Ministries, 120 CR 3222, Clifton, TX. 76634.
Ask Dr. Couch #95
Dr. Couch, what are the "seven spirits" of Revelation 1:4; 3:1; 4:5; 5:6?
ANSWER: This was an abbreviated way of saying the seven aspects of the Holy Spirit as mentioned and prophesied in Isaiah 11:2. "The (1) Spirit of the Lord will rest on Him [the Messiah], the (2) Spirit [related to wisdom] and the (3) Spirit [related to understanding], and the (4) Spirit [related to council] and the (5) Spirit [related to strength], and the (6) Spirit [related to knowledge], and the (7) Spirit [related to the fear of the Lord].
Unger writes about this in his OT commentary: "The Holy Spirit in all His sevenfold fullness and blessing (Matt. 3:16; Rev. 1:4), because seven is the number of fullness and perfection, would rest upon [the Messiah] permanently, not merely come upon Him for temporary ministry."
I hope this helps, and, thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
ANSWER: This was an abbreviated way of saying the seven aspects of the Holy Spirit as mentioned and prophesied in Isaiah 11:2. "The (1) Spirit of the Lord will rest on Him [the Messiah], the (2) Spirit [related to wisdom] and the (3) Spirit [related to understanding], and the (4) Spirit [related to council] and the (5) Spirit [related to strength], and the (6) Spirit [related to knowledge], and the (7) Spirit [related to the fear of the Lord].
Unger writes about this in his OT commentary: "The Holy Spirit in all His sevenfold fullness and blessing (Matt. 3:16; Rev. 1:4), because seven is the number of fullness and perfection, would rest upon [the Messiah] permanently, not merely come upon Him for temporary ministry."
I hope this helps, and, thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
Ask Dr. Couch
| Dr. Couch, does John the Baptist "replace" the coming of Elijah? Elijah is supposed to come before the arrival of the Messiah to establish the earthly Davidic Kingdom. The amillennialists say that John fulfills the prediction of Elijah, and therefore, the Kingdom has come already! ANSWER: Of course, they are wrong, and they do not read carefully. There are two predictions about the arrival of heralds (1) to announce the first coming of Christ, and (2) to announce His second coming. Isaiah 40:3-5 and Malachi 3:1-3 announce the coming of John the Baptist. Isaiah 40:3-5 is directly applied to John in Luke 3:4-6. He is the voice "in the wilderness." The Angel of the Lord made it clear to John's father, Zecharias, that John came in the "spirit and power" of Elijah (Luke 1:17). That is, John came announcing the first coming of Christ, with the same spirit and purpose that Elijah will have when he comes to announce the Lord's second coming. Malachi 4:5-6 tells Israel that Elijah will come to announce Christ's second coming. The passage reads "Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. And he will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children, …" Here, the "great and terrible day" is not the Tribulation period, but is describing the judgment brought on the Gentiles, and upon Israel, when the Messiah arrives to establish the kingdom. He comes with fury and judges the wayward Gentiles and the rebellious Jews. The Jewish people, and Christ's disciples, understood that there was no confusion about the coming of John the Baptist (to announce the Lord's first coming) and the arrival of Elijah (to announce the Lord's second coming). Matthew 16:28-17:13 is an important section of verses on this issue: Christ told His disciples that the Son of Man, the Messiah, would someday come in His messianic, Davidic Kingdom (16:28). This is the one thousand year reign of Christ! Then Jesus was transfigured before Peter, James, and John, that is, He suddenly appeared in His glorified form, as He will be seen, when the Kingdom arrives and is established. Elijah and Moses appear with the Lord and began talking to Him. Moses was used of God to establish the nation of Israel following the liberation of the Jews from Egypt. Elijah announces the Lord's first coming. Christ's disciples said to Him, "Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?" (v. 10), that is, come first to establish the earthly Kingdom rule. Christ then confirmed: "Elijah is coming and will restore all things" (v. 11). The "restore all things" refers to Malachi 4:5-6. But then Christ added, "But I say to you, that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him …" (v. 12). With these words, "The disciples understood that He had spoken to them about John the Baptist" (v. 13). To clarify what Christ is saying, one must look carefully at Matthew 17:11. Jesus uses the Present Tense, and the Future Tense: "Elijah IS COMING and He WILL RESTORE all things." Was John the Baptist coming back "to restore in the future all things?" No, the disciples understood that John was a type of Elijah who signaled the Lord's First Coming, as Elijah would signal the Lord's Second Coming. The transfiguration of Christ was a presentation and preview of His future appearance as "the Son of Man (strong messianic term)" who will someday come to inaugurate His earthly one thousand year Davidic Kingdom (16:28). The disciples were not confused. They got it. We are the ones who are confused because we are not reading carefully enough! Unger well explains: "Just as God sent John the Baptist to be the Messiahs' herald at His first advent, so He will send before Christ's second advent 'Elijah the prophet,' … as a great prophetic witness in Elijah's 'official, not his personal capacity,' in the sense that John the Baptist was an Elijah in spirit (Luke 1:16-17)." I hope this helps. Thanks for asking. Dr. Mal Couch |
Ask Dr. Couch #94
Dr. Couch, I am teaching a Sunday school class on Eschatology from the biblical perspective, which of course means biblical dispensationalism. I am using as a base Dr. Pentecost’s Things to Come, but I would like some kind of workbook that would have questions to facilitate discussion. Do you have any ideas?
ANSWER: Unfortunately, no, not exactly what you are looking for. I might suggest some other volumes that have questions at the end, though not all of the books I am mentioning do. I highly recommend the book of my good friend Dr. Paul Benware, Understanding End Time Prophecy. Also, my The Gathering Storm that is really selling well. (You can get copies through me.) I know many people are using Lewis S. Chafer’s Major Bible Themes. It has a lot of chapters dedicated to prophecy with questions at the end.
For people to really understand prophecy they need to know that there is being fought a hermeneutical battle. The allegorists and amillennialists study with forked tongue, taking half the prophecies in Scripture literally, and the other half allegorically. My book Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics gets this all straightened out. Don’t stop studying "deeply." Most Sunday schools devote, emote, blab, and thinly pretend to be studying the Word of God. At our church the adult Sunday school is no different from the church service. Both services put forth the "teaching" of the Word and not the syrupy "preaching" that is going on today. People are tired of sermonettes for christianettes!
Hang in and teach the Word with zeal!
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
ANSWER: Unfortunately, no, not exactly what you are looking for. I might suggest some other volumes that have questions at the end, though not all of the books I am mentioning do. I highly recommend the book of my good friend Dr. Paul Benware, Understanding End Time Prophecy. Also, my The Gathering Storm that is really selling well. (You can get copies through me.) I know many people are using Lewis S. Chafer’s Major Bible Themes. It has a lot of chapters dedicated to prophecy with questions at the end.
For people to really understand prophecy they need to know that there is being fought a hermeneutical battle. The allegorists and amillennialists study with forked tongue, taking half the prophecies in Scripture literally, and the other half allegorically. My book Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics gets this all straightened out. Don’t stop studying "deeply." Most Sunday schools devote, emote, blab, and thinly pretend to be studying the Word of God. At our church the adult Sunday school is no different from the church service. Both services put forth the "teaching" of the Word and not the syrupy "preaching" that is going on today. People are tired of sermonettes for christianettes!
Hang in and teach the Word with zeal!
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Ask Dr. Couch #93
Dr. Couch, it is good to know that there is at least one good dispensational "Bible Answer Man." My question, is the antichrist brought back to life or just appears to have died, but really did not (Rev. 13:3).
ANSWER: Thank you for your kind comments.
Good scholars have mixed opinions on Revelation 13:3. Some refer to 5:6 where a vision of Christ the Lamb is given "as if slain." Now we know He was indeed killed as a sacrificial lamb, and the same Greek construction is used of the antichrist in 13:3. 5:6 reads: hos esphagmenon (perf. Pass. Part.)," as having been slain." 13:3 reads in the Greek kai mian ek ton kephalon autou hos esphagmenon eis thanaton (perf. Pass. Part). In 5:6 "into death" is left out. With the participial constructions in both passages, I see something that may make a difference. In 5:6 John sees Christ as a Lamb that now is alive, though bearing the appearance, even though living, with some image or sign that He had indeed died! There is some visual reminder to John that "as if slain" He now is living!
In both passages (5:6, 13:3) there is the comparative language word hos translated as if, if, something like, as, it seemed to be, etc. The NAS rightly translates 13:3 about the antichrist with "as if it had been slain." Walvoord takes the view that:
I lean to the position that this is an "appearance of death" but that he does not actually die.
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
ANSWER: Thank you for your kind comments.
Good scholars have mixed opinions on Revelation 13:3. Some refer to 5:6 where a vision of Christ the Lamb is given "as if slain." Now we know He was indeed killed as a sacrificial lamb, and the same Greek construction is used of the antichrist in 13:3. 5:6 reads: hos esphagmenon (perf. Pass. Part.)," as having been slain." 13:3 reads in the Greek kai mian ek ton kephalon autou hos esphagmenon eis thanaton (perf. Pass. Part). In 5:6 "into death" is left out. With the participial constructions in both passages, I see something that may make a difference. In 5:6 John sees Christ as a Lamb that now is alive, though bearing the appearance, even though living, with some image or sign that He had indeed died! There is some visual reminder to John that "as if slain" He now is living!
In both passages (5:6, 13:3) there is the comparative language word hos translated as if, if, something like, as, it seemed to be, etc. The NAS rightly translates 13:3 about the antichrist with "as if it had been slain." Walvoord takes the view that:
"it is significant that one of the heads is wounded to death but that the beast itself is not said to be dead. It is questionable whether Satan has the power to restore to life one who has died, even though his power is great."
I lean to the position that this is an "appearance of death" but that he does not actually die.
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
Ask Dr. Couch #92
Dr Couch, I have always been told that the Reformed theologians took the Bible in a literal, grammatical, historical sense. They even claim they do in the areas of Bible prophecy. Is this true?
ANSWER: Unfortunately, they often speak with forked-tongue and even with a tinge of dishonesty. Read Louis Berkhof’s section on prophecy in his book Principles of Biblical Interpretation (Baker, 1990), pages 148-154. I went "wow" when I first read it; Berkhof has it right, I thought! I can agree with almost all he says about interpreting prophecy. Then I found the statements where he tries to fool his readers. He writes the prophets in their prophecies "always centered in the Kingdom of God, or the work of redemption through Christ" (p. 149).
Gotcha! Berkhof just revealed his narrow and limited view of prophecy as all the Reformed guys do! The Kingdom of God is always about the millennial reign of Christ as so often mentioned in the Gospels. And that Kingdom is not simply about spiritual redemption, as important as that is. The Kingdom of God is about the one thousand years reign of Christ on the Davidic throne in the Holy Land! But of course Christ is the Redeemer who has the right to rule because He was obedient all the way to the death on the cross.
While Berkhof does not say so in his section of interpreting prophecy, he allegorized and "spiritualized" away the literal meaning of the Kingdom of God. This is sorry and deceptive interpretation. I wish I could believe that Berkhof was ignorant of what he did, but I am afraid that the Reformed and Covenant writers know exactly what they are doing when they re-write the literalness of the actual and historical second coming of Christ. But at the same time, claiming they take all of the Bible in a literal sense. They do not! Their (often) hidden allegorical interpretation is a satanic ploy to get rid of Christ’s return, in both the rapture and in His coming to restore the kingdom to Israel.
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
ANSWER: Unfortunately, they often speak with forked-tongue and even with a tinge of dishonesty. Read Louis Berkhof’s section on prophecy in his book Principles of Biblical Interpretation (Baker, 1990), pages 148-154. I went "wow" when I first read it; Berkhof has it right, I thought! I can agree with almost all he says about interpreting prophecy. Then I found the statements where he tries to fool his readers. He writes the prophets in their prophecies "always centered in the Kingdom of God, or the work of redemption through Christ" (p. 149).
Gotcha! Berkhof just revealed his narrow and limited view of prophecy as all the Reformed guys do! The Kingdom of God is always about the millennial reign of Christ as so often mentioned in the Gospels. And that Kingdom is not simply about spiritual redemption, as important as that is. The Kingdom of God is about the one thousand years reign of Christ on the Davidic throne in the Holy Land! But of course Christ is the Redeemer who has the right to rule because He was obedient all the way to the death on the cross.
While Berkhof does not say so in his section of interpreting prophecy, he allegorized and "spiritualized" away the literal meaning of the Kingdom of God. This is sorry and deceptive interpretation. I wish I could believe that Berkhof was ignorant of what he did, but I am afraid that the Reformed and Covenant writers know exactly what they are doing when they re-write the literalness of the actual and historical second coming of Christ. But at the same time, claiming they take all of the Bible in a literal sense. They do not! Their (often) hidden allegorical interpretation is a satanic ploy to get rid of Christ’s return, in both the rapture and in His coming to restore the kingdom to Israel.
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Ask Dr. Couch #91
Dr. Couch, the Southern Baptist Convention a few years years ago added to their doctrinal requirement for missionaries, that they agree that wives should submit to their husbands' leadership in the home. Is this true? And what do you think about this?
ANSWER: Bible doctrine is absolute and authoritative for all believers in Christ. I believe, however, that a denominational or church "doctrinal statement" should address the biblical departures of our day. (The Conservative Theological Society doctrinal statement addresses current doctrinal issues, such as feminism.) Feminism has as an evil agenda: the destruction of the home and husband spiritual leadership in that home. Male leadership of the family has never meant bullying the wife or the children, though unfortunately that has happened all too often. The scriptural directive to men has always been about loving leadership and headship.
The Southern Baptist leaders a few years ago saw feminism creeping into the churches. They added this statement about the roles of husband and wife to stem the tide of liberal thinking. The statement was right, and it is biblical.
Many SB missionaries who graduated from secular universities, and liberal seminaries, could not stomach such a biblical stance and left the mission field. In my opinion that was good. I want the people being reached for Christ to know the "full council of God" on all doctrinal issues. They left the mission field, or were dropped from the mission board. Now in Texas, the "moderates" are trying to get them back on the field and are funding this to happen.
Some years ago Dr. W. A. Criswell told me, that among Texas Baptists, the word "moderate" was another term for liberal! He was right. He saw all of this coming into the SB convention before he died.
In a big denomination the people ultimately sell their discernment souls to the devil. They compromise their beliefs for unity. Unity must be built on the plain teaching of the whole Bible. on the issue of the home and the distinct roles of husband and wife, whatever happened to the following verses of Scripture?
The problem is not that the Bible is not clear, it is that (1) many are not studying it, and (2) many feel its teachings are not for today. Secularism has destroyed obedience to Scripture. Some argue that the verses above were "cultural" in nature and don't fit now. A study of the contexts shows that most of the verses have a doctrinal base and not simply a cultural base.
I hate to be so simplistic but the issue is really about submission to Scripture. By the way, there are a ton of verses that tell how the husband is to treat his family in a positive and loving way, and, shows that he is not be a bully.
Mark my word, the SB convention will again move to the left. More and more men come through the pipeline of liberal universities and attend the elite seminaries that are also liberal leaning. Few seem to understand what is happening.
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
ANSWER: Bible doctrine is absolute and authoritative for all believers in Christ. I believe, however, that a denominational or church "doctrinal statement" should address the biblical departures of our day. (The Conservative Theological Society doctrinal statement addresses current doctrinal issues, such as feminism.) Feminism has as an evil agenda: the destruction of the home and husband spiritual leadership in that home. Male leadership of the family has never meant bullying the wife or the children, though unfortunately that has happened all too often. The scriptural directive to men has always been about loving leadership and headship.
The Southern Baptist leaders a few years ago saw feminism creeping into the churches. They added this statement about the roles of husband and wife to stem the tide of liberal thinking. The statement was right, and it is biblical.
Many SB missionaries who graduated from secular universities, and liberal seminaries, could not stomach such a biblical stance and left the mission field. In my opinion that was good. I want the people being reached for Christ to know the "full council of God" on all doctrinal issues. They left the mission field, or were dropped from the mission board. Now in Texas, the "moderates" are trying to get them back on the field and are funding this to happen.
Some years ago Dr. W. A. Criswell told me, that among Texas Baptists, the word "moderate" was another term for liberal! He was right. He saw all of this coming into the SB convention before he died.
In a big denomination the people ultimately sell their discernment souls to the devil. They compromise their beliefs for unity. Unity must be built on the plain teaching of the whole Bible. on the issue of the home and the distinct roles of husband and wife, whatever happened to the following verses of Scripture?
- God made the woman to be "a helper suitable" for her husband (Gen. 2:18).
- Wives be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the wife" (Eph. 5:22-23).
- The "holy women" also, being submissive to their own husbands. ... Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord" (1 Pet. 3:5-7).
- "Encourage the young women to love their own husbands, to love their children, ... being subject to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be dishonored" (Titus 2:4-5).
The problem is not that the Bible is not clear, it is that (1) many are not studying it, and (2) many feel its teachings are not for today. Secularism has destroyed obedience to Scripture. Some argue that the verses above were "cultural" in nature and don't fit now. A study of the contexts shows that most of the verses have a doctrinal base and not simply a cultural base.
I hate to be so simplistic but the issue is really about submission to Scripture. By the way, there are a ton of verses that tell how the husband is to treat his family in a positive and loving way, and, shows that he is not be a bully.
Mark my word, the SB convention will again move to the left. More and more men come through the pipeline of liberal universities and attend the elite seminaries that are also liberal leaning. Few seem to understand what is happening.
Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
