Jesus continues His use of the foil technique in the second scene of the parable. Both characters have died, and their positions begin to invert. The Rich Man is “buried” while the Lazarus is “carried by angels” (22). The Rich man, who once enjoyed a life of comfort, is in Hades in torment. Whereas Lazarus is now at Abraham’s side enjoying heavenly prosperity. (23). Remarkably, we see that the Rich Man has now become the beggar, asking for a single drop of water to cool his tongue (24). Jesus’ ability to teach in parable and via contrast is brilliant.

For centuries, scholars have debated whether Jesus’ story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is a parable or an account of a true, historical narrative. Thankfully, regardless of whichever side of the fence one falls on, it doesn’t change the clarity or the message of the story. Both hermeneutical approaches yield clear warnings about the eternal consequences of sin and the hope we have in the gospel, as preserved in Holy Scripture. Truly, the perspicuity of God’s Word is a gift to His people!
One of the primary arguments of those who hold to the historical narrative point of view is that Jesus uses specific names in the text. Such is not the case for Jesus’ other parables. Instead of proper names, characters are usually given descriptive archetype titles such as “The Dishonest Manager” or “The Prodigal Son”. The giving of proper names is a compelling argument for this historical point of view. Yet, despite this fact, I still hold firmly to the notion that this story is indeed a parable. Why? Because of Jesus’ spectacular use of poetry. This has been overlooked by some commentators. One of the amazing things about studying scripture is that highlights the infinite breadth and brilliance of Jesus.
The Juxtaposition of Characters
Juxtaposition is a powerful communication tool. By contrasting two, unlike things, we glean more than looking at these things by themselves. This is exactly what Jesus uses in the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus. The two characters rely on each other to teach the message of the parable. Notice that while Jesus never directly condemns the Rich Man’s actions, He manages to effectively build a case against him by holding him up against his counterpart, Lazarus. Truly, this is brilliant storytelling. Writers sometimes refer to this type of juxtaposition as a “foil”. Meaning, that the two main characters and their qualities are only rightly understood when they’re placed side-by-side.
Jesus tells us that the rich man is clothed “in purple and fine linen” and that he “feasted sumptuously every day” (Luke 16:19). How about Lazarus? Comparatively, Jesus tells us that instead of being covered with clothes, he is covered with “sores”, and that instead of feasting he is starving. It says he “desired to bed fed with what fell from the rich man’s table” (16:21). The Rich Man’s behavior, when isolated, is hardly compelling. Yet with the juxtaposition and plight of Lazarus, the heinousness of the Rich Man’s crime is displayed. He is a self-absorbed man who lacks compassion and kindness.
I’m reminded of Proverbs 14:31, which reads, “Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.” The Rich Man has greatly neglected his poor neighbor and his conduct has shown contempt for God. The Rich Man has sinned against a holy and just God.
The depth of the crime is emphasized when Jesus adds the interesting element of the dogs in verse 21. Jesus says, “Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores” (16:21). In this culture, dogs were viewed as little more than troublesome scavengers. The Jews looked with disdain upon dogs; they were among the dregs of animals. Again, Jesus uses distinction to point out how wicked the Rich Man was. The detestable dogs demonstrate more kindness and compassion towards Lazarus than him.
Jesus continues His use of the foil technique in the second scene of the parable. Both characters have died, and their positions begin to invert. The Rich Man is “buried” while the Lazarus is “carried by angels” (22). The Rich man, who once enjoyed a life of comfort, is in Hades in torment. Whereas Lazarus is now at Abraham’s side enjoying heavenly prosperity. (23). Remarkably, we see that the Rich Man has now become the beggar, asking for a single drop of water to cool his tongue (24). Jesus’ ability to teach in parable and via contrast is brilliant. In just a handful of verses, largely via juxtaposition, Jesus paints a poignant picture of two men, their lives, and their eternal states.
Read More
Related Posts:

If a pastor is not actively living his life “above reproach” and is allowed to continue in his role as an elder/pastor, there are potentially dangerous consequences for him. Paul warns that ministers can “fall into disgrace” and then “into the snare of the devil” (1 Timothy 3:7). Again, this is significant.  As brothers in Christ, we should never allow a friend or elder to continue to incur the displeasure of God’s judgment or will. We should aim to protect one another from these humbling realities. It is well-known that the families of pastors/elders can struggle. They often report feeling forgotten and neglected as their husband and/or father spends a notable amount of his time, energy, and emotions shepherding a church of God’s people. I suspect in most cases the lack of attention towards home isn’t intentional. Responding to a supernatural calling, these men are led to care for the flock God has placed under them. Yet, in their efforts to fulfill their calling, they forsake a primary obligation (and prerequisite) – even disqualifying themselves.
This issue has been heavy on my heart in recent weeks as I have watched a close friend walk through the challenging dynamic described above. His love for the church, work, and his flock distracted him from other, higher-ranking priorities. The result has been nothing short of tragic for him, his church, and his family. For others, not yet in such a devastating situation, I hope that this article will spur you to think seriously about your pastor, and his family, and how you can serve and love them. Even as a layperson, you can have a tremendous influence on your pastor. Gentle, loving reminders can go a long way in serving him and his family.
Through God’s tremendous kindness, He has given us His Word to help navigate such complicated issues. It is as the Westminster Confession of Faith says: “The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence, we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture” (Chapter 1, Section 10).
Consider then a few texts on the issue of elder/pastor qualification:
 “This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach” (Titus 1:6-7a)
“The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore, an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.” (1 Timothy 3:1-7)
In the two texts quoted above on elder qualifications, we see the Apostle Paul repeat the phrase “above reproach” multiple times. Lending many commentators to argue that this phrase is the summarization and key qualifier of an elder/shepherd. Certainly, no one does this flawlessly; we are all fallen, sinful beings who are in all ways inadequate. 
Read More

So how does one claiming a “no creed but Christ” hermeneutic deny the clarity of scripture? It aims to presume, if not intentionally, that no one before him has been able to see the truth of scripture. Such a person needs no ecumenical guidance in their doctrinal discernment—they are their own authority. 

As a reformed, confessional Presbyterian, I am prone to defer back to creeds and confessions when discussing theological topics. I find them extraordinarily helpful in bringing concise, biblical clarity to complex doctrinal issues. Yet, not all Christians share this appreciation. Often, I run into believers who look upon the historic creeds and confessions with a certain level of contempt. They dismiss any value and declare they have “no creed but Christ.” While I understand their sentiment, I contend their reasoning stands flawed and short-sighted. Why? Because in a shade of irony, when one insists on a blanket dismissal of creeds and confessions for a “just me and Jesus” systematic framework, they (usually unknowingly) deny the clarity and sufficiency of God’s Word. 
By God’s amazing grace, the essential elements for faith and salvation are clear for almost any reader; this truly is a wonderful thing. Chapter 1, Section 7 of the Westminster Confession of Faith speaks to the perspicuity of the critical elements of scripture. The confession reads: 
…those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
This perspicuity was a driving force for the Protestant Reformation. The Reformers asserted that due to the clarity and accessibility of scripture, man does not need an interpreter – such as the Roman Catholic Church. With the aid of the Holy Spirit, the essential elements of the Christian faith and salvation are understandable, accessible, and trustworthy. Scripture encourages men to read and search the Bible for themselves. Remember the Bereans? In Acts 17:10, we are told they “received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily.” Luke continues and lets us know that “many of them believed.” Yet, Rome insists that God requires an interpreter. Justly, the Reformers pushed back on this.
Read More
Related Posts:

There is so much inherent virtue built into Middle Earth that even an outline-based narrative, such as Rings of Power, should allow some beauty to bleed through. While it will never repeat the moral depths of the original narrative, I will watch and hope for more.

Rings of Power is unquestionably a beautiful TV show. You can see where the enormous budget went – production quality. After watching the first two episodes, I was in awe of the visuals. The elven kingdoms and dwarf mines are captivating. They are as good as, if not better, than Peter Jackson’s masterpiece from the turn of the century (my favorite film of all time). Yet, for all of the visual splendor that Rings of Power yields, the story thus far feels a bit hollow and manufactured for this Tolkien fan. I think it’s because the writers are products of a generation that doesn’t understand the substance and significance of transcendent virtue.
My theory is bolstered by the initial reviews for The Lord of the Rings: Rings of Power are mixed. While critics seem generally pleased, Tolkien fans remain cynical. As of writing this article, Rotten Tomatoes presented 84% approval from critics but only 39% approval from fans; this is a notable disparity. Why? Because whether they know it or not, the devoted Tolkien fan craves the depth, soul, and virtue that only the narrative based on the original novels can produce; the bar is set very high.
Recently, I was challenged to compare and contrast the terms “values” and “virtues”. While the task seemed trite at first, after some consideration, I was struck by how opposing the two words are and how interchangeably they are used in our current day. Admittingly, I have been guilty of treating the two as synonyms in many cases. Yet, in Western Philosophical Classical thought (which Tolkien would have been very skilled in) virtue is understood to be an alignment of the person’s will and actions with that of the divine. In contrast, values are things a person believes. The former is vertically aligned, and the latter is horizontally focused, a byproduct of our post-modern age.
Why does this matter? Because what makes Tolkien’s epic, The Lord of the Rings, work so well is that the primary thrust of the narrative is guided by virtue and not personal pragmatism. Subsequently, Jackson’s films did a wonderful job of capturing this. Consider for a moment the virtues that drove the actions of the primary characters in Tolkien’s narrative. Aragorn sought justice, peace, and honor. Samwise displays unwavering fortitude. Frodo exhibits self-sacrifice, temperance, courage, and wisdom. The characters often do the right thing, because it is the right thing as defined by God’s law and objective moral code. In the face of pure evil, they maintain a deep conviction that goodness and providence will prevail over darkness. It is these virtues (and many others I didn’t name) that make the novel so influential, timeless, and epic.
Read More
Related Posts:

As dreary as a study on depravity might sound. It is very theologically rich and beneficial. It is not until we have genuinely grasped the reality of who we are and what we have been saved from that we can see the riches and depths of God’s grace. 

In the first article of this series, I worked to dispel some of the common misconceptions related to Calvinism. Moving forward, I will begin addressing the doctrines individually using the commonly known acronym, TULIP, as a guide for our discussion.
The TULIP acronym represents:
T – Total DepravityU – Unconditional ElectionL – Limited AtonementI – Irresistible GraceP – Perseverance of the Saints
It’s worth noting from the outset that the phrasing above doesn’t always do the best job in describing what each doctrine teaches. Some of the terminologies can be a little misleading. For example, the phrase “Limited Atonement” doesn’t outline who or what is limited (more on that in a later article), and that has led to some confusion over the years. Nevertheless, because TULIP  is so well known, it makes sense to use it for our study. In cases where the terminology is weak or unclear, I will do my best to explain why and offer some supplementary phrasing that better captures the accurate teaching of the doctrine(s).
Total Depravity
If one wishes to understand Calvinism rightly, there are a couple of core, bedrock principles to grasp. Total Depravity is one of them. I contend that every other doctrinal point in the TULIP acronym hinges on a correct understanding and application of Total Depravity. If you miss this one, it will likely skew how you process and apply the others. Though each doctrine is fully supported in scripture, the interworkings of each form a holistic understanding of biblical soteriology. Total Depravity is, in many ways, a systematic, theological linchpin for Calvinism.
Before moving on, I want to make it clear that Calvinism is biblical before it is systematic. Many critics point to the systematic nature of Calvinism as a fault, stating that it’s a forced reading of scripture in an attempt to fit doctrine into a system. This is simply not true. Reformed thought holds scripture in the highest regard, and any observed systematic reading in scripture is read because it is simply that – observed. The reformers were adamantly opposed to forcing doctrines, traditions, etc. Scripture is, and always will be, the final rule of Calvinism.
A right understanding of how sin has impacted the positional standing of mankind before a just and holy God is elemental to biblical and reformed thought. If we think too much of ourselves and our good works, we miss the entire point of the bible. This is because the true cornerstone of our faith, our salvation, our hope, and our glory is only found in Christ. He is the focus and glory of all of human history – not us. I once heard a theologian remark, “If your sin is great, your Savior will also be great.” This is how a study of Total Depravity helps us. It teaches us, who we are and what we naturally deserve: wrath. Total Depravity is a critical, first lesson that one must learn if they are to truly grasp the depth, beauty, and richness of God’s sovereign grace.
Stated plainly, Total Depravity teaches that original sin impacts and taints every person in every aspect of our being. In other words, the whole person is affected and dead in sin – the sum total of the person. Adam’s fallen nature was passed down to all of us when he sinned in the Garden of Eden, and ever since, humanity has had a genetic disposition towards sin. Our nature loves sin and hates God.
One should note that Total Depravity doesn’t teach that we’re all as bad as we can be. This is a case where the phrasing of the doctrine can be a little misleading. Many read “Total Depravity” and understand it to refer to the extent of one’s sinfulness. This is clearly not the case. Anyone, even Hitler, could conceivably be eviler. I believe it was the late R.C. Sproul, the Presbyterian theologian and pastor, who said he preferred the term “radical corruption.” I tend to agree. This wording more aptly describes the meaning of the doctrine.
Having said that, the severity of this depraved reality cannot be overstated. In a spiritual sense, we all are born dead in sin. When Adam, our federal head sinned, we died in the garden with him, and outside of God’s regenerative works, we do not inherently possess the ability to do good. Genuine piety, faith, repentance, and the like are completely foreign to our natures. Naturally speaking, we want nothing to do with God.
Consider this for a moment: have you ever had to teach a young child to be naughty or do they simply come by it naturally? Any parent will tell you that a kid’s nature is prone to disobedience, selfishness, and disrespectfulness. They must be taught how to behave. Like you and I, their hearts are enslaved to the power of sin and radical corruption. This is what the bible refers to when it speaks of us being slaves to sin (Romans 6:6).
Read More
Related Posts:

Defending the inerrancy of scripture can be a challenging task for the unprepared Christian. In the world today, there is no shortage of critical voices speaking out against the authority of scripture. Even within Christendom, some seem determined to undermine the bible’s inerrancy in every instance. Therefore, Christians need to be equipped to defend, not only their faith but also the scriptures on which the only true, ancient religion is based upon.
Due to the narrative-centric nature of the gospels, seeming contradictions can be troublesome for even the most devout of believers. The gospels give us 4 different representations of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Because of this, the same event can be recorded multiple times. What do we do when there appears to be a contradiction between two or more narratives?
A notable example of this can be seen in The Centurion Servant.  If we compare the narratives in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10, questions can be raised between the two accounts. Most notable is the role of the “elders of the Jews” and the centurion’s “friends”.  As Vern Sheridan Poythress, Westminster Theological Seminary Professor, rightly points out in his book Inerrancy and The Gospels, “Luke does not indicate that the centurion meets Jesus face to face. By Contrast, in Matthew 8 there is no mention of the intermediaries. What do we say about this difference?” (pg. 19).
Poythress goes on to point out the possible explanations for this seeming contradiction. He guides the reader to think critically about the texts, nuances, authorship, and literary features. He points out that, due to the author’s background and objective, certain emphasis may be added in specific areas. Such instances are not meant to contradict but complement one another. Citing South African Theologian, Norval Geldenhuys, Poythress explains that likely “there were several stages in the encounter between Jesus and the centurion. The centurion first sent elders of the Jews, then sent friends, then came in person (pg. 19). Luke was led to emphasize different aspects of the narrative when compared to Matthew. The example sets the stage for the entire book.
I don’t often read a theology book in a single sitting. However, I did just that with Inerrancy and The Gospels. I highly recommend Poythress’ book to anyone desiring to understand the harmonization of the gospels better. The book is largely broken up into two sections. The first is centered on the basic principles for studying harmonization, and the second examines specific gospel problem texts. I found the principles section to be the most useful part of the book. It creates a brilliant groundwork for the reader to approach the gospels in a logical, practical, and faithful way.
Read More

John Calvin’s works are a true gift to the church. If you have never read anything he’s written, I encourage you to try using one of his commentaries in your private studies. They often read like a devotional and can be wonderfully helpful for the Christian.

When it comes to Christianity, few theological subjects are more controversial and polarizing than Calvinism. Since the time of the Reformation, Christians, historians, and theologians all over the world have fiercely debated these doctrines. Subsequently, this has created all kinds of claims about what Calvinism teaches (some accurate and some not). Having been a Calvinist for almost 20 years, I have experienced this firsthand; I have heard it all. From robot analogies to man-worship, to even gross misunderstandings about God’s love and justice. In turn, I thought it would be useful to directly address some of the common misconceptions about the Doctrines of Grace.
This article is intended to be the first in a series on the topic of Calvinism as a whole. As stated, I will begin by addressing many of the misconceptions, then in future articles. I will build scriptural cases for several of the core doctrines represented within Calvinism.
Misconception #1: Calvinism is the Worship of John Calvin
To some (me) this might seem silly, however, I have heard the misconstruction dozens of times. I gather it is rooted in the thinking that because Calvinism is named after a specific man (John Calvin), then this implies some innate level of worship or veneration for the person. At face value, I suppose I can understand this. After all, the term “Christian” is used to describe people who worship Christ.
To put it bluntly, Calvinism does not teach the worship, adoration, or veneration of John Calvin. Rather, I would strongly argue that it teaches the exact opposite! The term “Calvinism” exists because the doctrines contained within gained popularity under the writings of Calvin. However, Calvin did not create them. His teaching large mirrors concepts taught by Saint Augustine, and the Apostle Paul before him. If anything, Calvin rediscovered scriptural truths once suppressed by the Roman Catholic Church.
Contrary to this common misconception, at the heart of Calvinism, is a principle wholly focused on the glory, holiness, and worship of God alone. Reformed Theology teaches that man is completely devoid of being worthy of any type of worship. Additionally, John Calvin never sought any worship or any type of adoration; his focus was fully on directing all praise and honor to God. If you have met a person who seems to carry some undue adoration for Calvin, this is that person’s error and has nothing to do with the person or the theology of John Calvin – he taught the opposite.
As a type of exclamation point to this misconception, I will offer a small anecdote. When Calvin was dying, he requested that his grave be unmarked. He did so because he did not want people making pilgrimages to his burial site to pay him homage. Calvin never sought the attention he has received. His concern was only to honor God through the faithful teaching of Holy Scripture.
Misconception #2: People are Robots/God’s Sovereignty Undermines Man’s Responsibility
I have heard many times this notion that if God is completely sovereign then people are like programmed robots. Implied in this accusation is that because God is sovereign man is not responsible for his actions. This is simply not true. Any casual reading of God’s Word demonstrates that man is an independent moral agent completely responsible for their actions; Calvinism would agree. However, moral responsibility does not always automatically equate to ability.
In John 6:44, our Lord Jesus Christ said, “no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him”. He is effectively saying that no one, outside of the working/drawing of God, has the ability to come to Christ. Christ also taught condemnation for those outside of Him. Both are true. Paul makes this point extensively in Romans 1-5. All men are dead in sin because all men are naturally in Adam. At the same time, God is completely sovereign in salvation. Both realities are true.
Undoubtedly, there is an element of deep mystery in this. That’s OK. God never promised that we would know everything in this life. Rather, such mysteries allow us an opportunity to die to ourselves and trust God’s Word/truth to be correct even if we can’t fully grasp it. Likely, this relationship (God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility) is some of what Paul had in mind when he exclaims in Romans 11, “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” (11:33).
Humans are not robots controlled by God. Instead, we are moral agents made in the image of God. We live, move, and act according to our natural ability (more on this when I come to Total Depravity).  Yet, in all of this, God remains sovereign and just; He uses our brokenness and sin to accomplish His purposes. Perhaps one of the best examples of this in scripture comes to us in the last chapter of Genesis. Joseph, when confronting his brothers on their sin against him, famously says, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today” (50:20).
Misconception #3: Calvinists Don’t Believe in Evangelism
This claim is rooted in some faulty logic that suggests since God elects those whom He wants to save, there is no need for Christians to evangelize. What’s the point? God will do it and save anyway. This thinking is not merely wrong, it is heretical (Hyper Calvinism). Scripture is clear: Christians are called to evangelize and share the truth of God’s love with the world; it is a fundamental role of the church.
Read More
Related Posts: