-
A Significant Chronological Problem for Postmillennialism in Acts 3:21
Postmillennialism is trending upward on the eschatological popularity scale. It has many visible and popular adherents, such as Doug Wilson, Jeff Durbin, and more recently, James White. As postmillennialism gains popularity, many questions arise about whether it is an accurate view of the world’s future. One significant challenge postmillennialism has is a chronological issue in Acts 3:21. Postmillennialism teaches that, over time, the church will emerge victorious by progressively and gradually triumphing over the world. Eventually the whole world will embrace the gospel, times of immense blessings will flow, and then Jesus will return to receive the kingdom. A self-assessed optimism of the future marks this view. In contrast to postmillennialism, premillennialism teaches that the coming of Christ must precede the establishment of a peaceful earthly kingdom. When Christ comes, he himself will establish a thousand-year reign (millennium) on the Earth. There are many ways to assess the theology of…
-
Does Baptism Save You? Looking at Acts 2:38
There are a few texts that seem to indicate that baptism saves an individual. A few churches even teach that baptism is the timing and place one receives God’s grace, meaning that without baptism, one cannot be saved. However, Christians recognize Ephesians 2:8-9 and that salvation is not dependent on works. This puts us in a bit of a quandry. Does baptism actually save us? Does everyone need to be saved to be baptized? In order to work through the apparent contradiction in Scripture, many will cross reference other texts to explain away the passages which speak of the link between baptism and salvation. Although a noble effort, I have mentioned in the past that we need to be careful reading one passage over another. There is potential danger in cross-referencing. It can be helpful and should be utilized. But the key to understanding Scripture is identifying authorial intent. The…
-
Is the Book of Acts a Template for the Church?
Many readers struggle with the book of Acts because they assume that it has to be a model for us to follow. Reading through the book of Acts we might wonder why we don’t speak in tongues, perform miracles, or exercise control over demons. But even on the more practical level, some read the book of Acts as a pattern for church growth. Similarly, I once heard a well-known Christian speaker say that he was in the process of rethinking how his church operated because when he compared his church with the church of Acts, he didn’t see enough similarities. The problem with this view is that the book of Acts was not written to be a template for the church to follow. Rather, the book of Acts is a historical record of how the church developed. The Connection between Acts and Luke One of the ways we can tell…
-
Paul was (sometimes) against Circumcision
In Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas were involved in one of the biggest controversies of the early church. The issue was whether or not someone could be a Christian without circumcision. After much discussion, the Jerusalem Council affirmed the message of Peter and Paul, that God’s grace extends to Gentiles as Gentiles. In other words, circumcision was deemed as unnecessary to be a part of the church. This decision was confirmed by Paul in Galatians 5:2-3, 6: Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law…. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love. Earlier in Galatians Paul recounts how certain Jews compelled Titus to be circumcised (Gal 2:3). Yet, Paul would not…
-
Levites, the Land, and Acts 4:36-37
It is a well known fact that the Levites as a clan were not given their own land allotment amongst their fellow clans. The Levites were not left completely homeless however, for they were given cities to dwell in among their brothers (cf. Josh 14:4). One of the common conceptions is that this means that Levites never owned land. However, there are two passages in particular that seem to indicate that it was allowable for Levites to own land, as long as it was in the city (or part of the pasturelands of that city) which belonged to the Levites. The first text is Jeremiah 32:6-8 where the Lord himself tells Jeremiah (a priest himself, thus being of the tribe of Levi) to buy the field of his uncle in Anathoth. Now Anathoth is in the land of Benjamin, and according to Joshua 21:18 this specific land was given to…