Friday, November 26, 2010

My Repentance

This is going to be a very personal post. You see, this is my repentance for the sins I have committed. I wasn't aware of these sins until some time ago when I this Facebook exchange occurred between myself and one Kirk Bookmyer, a hyper-Calvinist who had been holding discussions with my brother in Christ Steven for some time now. Below is an image showing the entire conversation.
The truth is...I did love the music of the world, and I did embrace evil doctrines that were damning me to hell. Please, permit me to explain, and as you read know that I throw my judgment into the hands of the discerning reader...

The face of pure evil.
In February of 2009, I attended the Olivia Newton John concert being held in Norfolk, VA. I sat in among hundreds of people and, without any shock or horror, watched as Olivia Newton John proceeded to come out and kill babies. She then demanded we all worship a new god, and while singing "Xanadu" raised up altars on high places. Then, as she sang songs from "Grease," men with swords came about the audience and forced everyone present to say "Caesar is Lord."

I realize now that there is only one way a woman like her can look so beautiful at 60-plus-years of age and still be in top physical shape: Olivia Newton John is possessed by demons. Most likely Satan himself. I should have seen the signs before, but alas I was seduced by the nice singing voice and her desire to help causes like preserving the rain forests. Hey wait a minute...rain forests? We all know the rain forests are where demons go to spawn - why didn't I see it sooner?! Praise God for this new revelation, given by the Holy Spirit!

He probably has some damned souls under that hat.
Likewise, I had recently rediscovered my childhood love for 1990's country music, in particular Brooks and Dunn. After this brotherly correction from Kirk, I realized these men were perhaps worse than Hitler and quickly deleted all their songs from my iPod. That these two are really demonic is all too obvious: their initials are B&D...the same as Baal and Dagon! I am certain that Dunn is really Dagon in disguise, trying to get revenge on God's people for the ark smashing up his statue, and that he has asked his good buddy Baal to assist him in this unholy crusade. Despite songs such as "Believe" (about a young boy remembering a faithful old Christian man) or "Brand New Man" (about a promiscuous rascal who falls for a girl and enters a monogamous relationship), I could no longer be fooled. No doubt these songs were just a cover for their evil deeds; also no doubt that Brooks and Dunn read the Necronomicon to their kids at night.

His smile says, "I'm eating your soul. Om nom nom!"
Finally, I must confess the worst sin of all...and please, forgive me for this great, nearly unpardonable sin...

...I listened to Frank Sinatra...

Yes, Ol' Blue Eyes...or should I say Ol' Satan? With guidance from the Holy Spirit, I see his songs in a brand new light. Indeed, they're now so disgusting, I wondered why I hadn't seen the warning signs before. Metaphors in the lyrics displayed an obviously demonic and worldly agenda. One example is "touched your hair" in the crooner song "Summer Wind" (Disgusting! Touching a girl's hair?! That's pornographic!). Most of all, however, the song "Witchcraft" was a blatant attempt to promote New Age movements in America, and it seems to have done its work. Yes, I know that some will respond to that by saying, "But he's using witchcraft as a metaphor for what love for a woman can do to a man," but you're simply lost and doomed to hell. The lyrics are clear! Frank Sinatra was a messenger of Satan, and his songs were evil, vile, no good doctrines of death!

There are other examples I could give. For example, on my iPod is the Lynyrd Skynyrd song "Devil in the Bottle." I mean just listen to the title! Devil in a bottle?! Anything with "devil" in it has to be demonic right off the bat. Never mind the fact that the devil of the title is alcoholism, and that it ultimately ends with the singer overcoming it - the fact is it has the word "devil" in it, and so it's pure evil! And so must be Lynyrd Skynyrd! I mean c'mon, "Sweet Home Alabama"? Alabama is the devil's country. That's where devils go for their honeymoon after they spawn in the rain forests. I wouldn't be surprised if Olivia Newton John and Lynyrd Skynyrd had some evil agenda going on while the latter were still alive.

Perhaps the greatest sin is I have an Arminian song on my iPod. It's a remix of a song from an old Soviet cartoon, and...oh no wait, I'm sorry, it's an Armenian song. Well...still! That's too close to Arminian! Once you change that "I" to an "E," that's enough to let Satan just sneak in through the door! Then I'll be bowing to a crucifix with Jacob Arminius instead of Christ and praying to Saint John Wesley for guidance. I bet if I played the song backwards it says either "Man has a libertarian free will" or "Paul is dead" (the Beatle, not the apostle).

So, to all my readers, I ask for sincere forgiveness for all of this. Know that I am now cradling myself up into a little box and sucking my thumb while hoping the world out there doesn't get me. Thank you, and God bless.

Friday, November 19, 2010

The Misuse of Matthew 25

Over the past week, I've been hearing a lot of people use Matthew 25, specifically Christ's parable of the sheep and the goats. Taken from the section regarding the sheep and their question of where Christ was when they did charitable deeds, the quotation most often given by people is as follows:
"'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these...'" [Matthew 25:40; NKJV]
You can almost hear a tire screech as they stop right there. From this point, like a scriptural Pandora's box, the individual commentator produces a plethora of moral teachings. Everything from the validity of the social gospel to scriptural evidence for universal health care is put forth. I've even read some articles where the pundit quoted this section and declared, "This is the gospel!"

What is the biggest problem with this use of Matthew 25? It isn't the full quotation. In fact, a very important addition that relates to the context is left out. What is it?
"'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.'" [ibid; emphasis mine]
Let us now ask ourselves: what is the context of being a brother of Christ? Let's review the scriptural context, sticking first with the gospel of Matthew.
While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. Someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You." But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother." [Matthew 12:46-50; NASB; emphasis mine]
What makes one a member of Christ's "brethren" is doing the will of Christ's Father. Some might try to twist this into a works-based form of universalism, however let us not forget that part of the will of Christ's Father was the belief in He whom was sent, that is Christ Jesus. It is emphasized over and over again that embracing Christ is embracing the Father (Matt 10:40; John 13:20). Brethren, within the context of Matthew's gospel, are followers of Christ; remember that, as Christ spoke this line, He was gesturing towards His disciples.

Let us likewise review the definition of "brother" in the gospel of John, which goes into more detail than the others.
He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name... [John 1:11-12]
Being a child of God, and therefore being Christ's brethren, is not merely being "a good person," but being brought into the fold of Christ's flock as a born again believer (see also John 1:13). Therefore, the "brethren" mentioned in Matthew 25:40 are not simply random people in prison or off the street, but rather are Christians.

What is the fullest context of Matthew 25? The answer goes back to Matthew 24. The disciples had asked about the second coming of Christ (Matt 24:3), to which our Lord responds first with a discussion on the dire signs of the times (v. 4-29), then what will happen upon His return (v. 30-31). He then goes into a lengthy exposition of preparing for that day: He speaks of the time of Noah, where people laughed at Noah and his preparing for the flood (v. 37-41); He compares His return with a master returning to find some of his servants unprepared (v. 42-51); He tells the Parable of the Ten Virgins who were awaiting the arrival of the bridegroom and half were caught unprepared and thus left out (Matt 25:1-13); He tells the Parable of Talents, where the servants were held accountable for what they had earned while the master was away and one was punished for having wasted his time out of fear and apathy (v. 14-30). Then comes the parable of the final judgment (v. 31-46).

Some important factors regarding the few parables preceding the final judgment: they all dealt with servants and thus the entire body of self-professing Christians. In regards to the wicked servants, they represented supposed Christians who believed that it would be a long time before Christ, and therefore they could sin all they wanted; the good servants who were attentive were those Christians who awaited the coming of their Lord with eagerness. In regards to the ten virgins, the metaphors are obvious: the wedding feast was a continual symbol used by our Lord for the fulfillment of Christ's kingdom and the final judgment; the ten virgins were people expected to be ready; the five foolish virgins were those who were not ready and believed they could wait until the last minute to do so, only to be caught unawares and left out of the feast (in other words, damned); the five wise virgins were the ones who were prepared for the coming of the bridegroom (Christ) and were welcomed to the feast. In regards to the Parable of the talents, the two wise slaves were those who used the time they had to reap what they were given before the second coming; the one miserly servant was he who refused to reap and had nothing to offer but excuses when the master (again, Christ) returned, and therefore was punished.

Now we come to the final judgment with the sheep and the goats. The sheep and the goats make up one herd, and the King of the parable is separating them as shepherds would do. The goats are the false sheep who may have looked like sheep but were in actuality something else entirely; the sheep are those who are true Christians who sought to only please their shepherd. Most of all, the sheep were those who endured persecution like true Christians. Christ was well aware that great persecution would come to the church, and that many Christians would be poor, hungry, and in prison. There are many stories of Christians who risked their lives to visit their brethren who were in prison, or helped them hide during their travels, or to offer any kind of help for one another. It is these people who are the sheep spoken of here.

There are many wonderful lessons to learn from this parable. One can learn humility: when the king tells the sheep of their good deeds, the sheep are clueless about them (Matt 25:37), and are a fine example of Christ's earlier command "do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing" (Matt 6:3); the goats, on the other hand, can number their good deeds, and therefore cannot comprehend how they were lacking (Matt 25:44). However, this is not a passage to be used to glorify personal deeds or to present evidence for the social gospel. One can also learn, for obvious reasons, the importance of hospitality within the Christian community and the need for strong brotherhood between believers. What cannot be taught is that this parable teaches being charitable saves, or that individuals performing charitable deeds was the only reason Christ came. We are not saved by our works, be they good or bad.

I realize that many reading this blog post are probably immediately reacting with, "Wait, are you saying the Bible doesn't teach we should help the poor in general?" Not at all. I affirm and affirm again that scripture teaches us to be charitable even to strangers and those outside the church. However, this is not the verse which proves it. That, alone, is my point. Those who would quote it to do so are not only being dishonest in leaving out an important part of the text, but are being erroneous in regards to the context of the entire sermon being given by Christ.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

The Traits of God's Will

The following is from Jonathan Edwards' Freedom of the Will.
The following things belong to the sovereignty of God: viz. (1.) Supreme, universal, and infinite power: whereby he is able to do what he pleases, without control, without any confinement of that power, without any subjection, in the least measure, to any other power; and so without any hindrance or restraint, that it should be either impossible, or at all difficult, for him to accomplish his will; and without any dependance of his power on any other power, from whence it should be derived, or which it should stand in any need of; so far from this, that all other power is derived from him, and is absolutely dependent on him.

(2.) That he has supreme authority; absolute and most perfect right to do what he wills, without subjection to any superior authority, or any derivation of authority from any other, or limitation by any distinct independent authority, either superior, equal, or inferior; he being the head of all dominion, and fountain of all authority; and also without restraint by any obligation, implying either subjection, derivation, or dependence, or proper limitation.

(3.) That his will is supreme, underived, and independent on any thing without himself; being in every thing determined by his own counsel, having no other rule but his own wisdom; his will not being subject to, or restrained by, the will of any other, and other wills being perfectly subject to his.

(4.) That his wisdom, which determines his will, is supreme, perfect, underived, self-sufficient, and independent; so that it may be said, as in Isaiah 40:14, ' With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and showed to him the way of understanding? —There is no other Divine sovereignty but this; and this is properly absolute sovereignty: no other is desirable; nor would any other be honourable or happy and, indeed, there is no other conceivable or possible: It is the glory and greatness of the Divine Sovereign, that God’s will is determined by his own infinite, all-sufficient wisdom in every thing; and in nothing at all is either directed by any inferior wisdom, or by no wisdom; whereby it would become senseless arbitrariness, determining and acting without reason, design, or end. [source]

Saturday, November 13, 2010

Charles Hodge and the Pope

In 1869, Pope Pius IX sent letters of invitation to various Protestant denominations and churches, inviting them to attend the First Vatican Council which would take place that year and end in 1870. One such letter was sent to Charles Hodge, at that time principal of Princeton Theological Seminary. Hodge, representing the two General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church in the USA, sent a letter back to the pope, as follows:
To Pius the Ninth, Bishop of Rome,

By your encyclical letter dated 1869 you invite Protestants to send delegates to the Council called to meet at Rome during the month of December of the current year. That letter has been brought to the attention of the two General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. Those Assemblies represent about five thousand ministers and a still larger number of Christian congregations.

Believing as we do, that it is the will of Christ that his Church on earth should be united, and recognizing the duty of doing all we consistently can to promote Christian charity and fellowship, we deem it right briefly to present the reasons which forbid our participation in the deliberations of the approaching Council.

It is not because we have renounced any article of the catholic faith. We are not heretics. We cordially receive all the doctrines contained in that Symbol which is known as the Apostles' Creed. We regard all doctrinal decisions of the first six ecumenical councils to be consistent with the Word of God, and because of that consistency, we receive them as expressing our faith. We therefore believe the doctrine of the Trinity and of the person of Christ as those doctrines are expressed in the symbols adopted by the Council of Nicea AD321, that of the Council of Constantinople AD381 and more fully that of the Council of Chalcedon AD451. We believe that there are three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are the same in substance and equal in power and glory. We believe that the Eternal Son of God became man by taking to himself a true body and a reasonable soul, and so was, and continues to be, both God and man in two distinct natures and one person forever. We believe that our adorable Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is the prophet who should come into the world, whose teachings we are bound to believe and on whose promises we rely. He is the High Priest whose infinitely meritorious satisfaction to divine justice, and whose ever prevalent intercession, is the sole ground of the sinner's justification and acceptance before God. We acknowledge him to be our Lord not only because we are his creatures but also because we are the purchase of his blood. To his authority we are bound to submit, in his care we confide, and to his service all creatures in heaven and earth should be devoted.

We receive all those doctrines concerning sin, grace and predestination, known as Augustinian, which doctrines received the sanction not only of the Council of Carthage and of other provincial Synods, but of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus AD431, and of Zosimus, bishop of Rome.

We therefore cannot be pronounced heretics without involving in the same condemnation the whole ancient church.

Neither are we schismatics. We cordially recognize as members of Christ's visible Church on earth, all those who profess the true religion together with their children. We are not only willing but earnest to hold Christian communion with them, provided they do not require, as conditions of such communion, that we profess doctrines which the Word of God condemns, or that we should do what the Word forbids. If in any case any Church prescribes such unscriptural terms of fellowship, the error and the fault is with that church and not with us.

But although we do not decline your invitation because we are either heretics or schismatics, we are nevertheless debarred from accepting it, because we still hold with ever increasing confidence those principles for which our fathers were excommunicated and pronounced accursed by the Council of Trent, which represented, and still represents, the Church over which you preside.

The most important of those principles are: First, that the Word of God, contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. The Council of Trent, however, pronounces Anathema on all who do not receive the teachings of tradition pari pietatis affectu (with equal pious affection) as the Scriptures themselves. This we cannot do without incurring the condemnation which our Lord pronounced on the Pharisees, who made void the Word of God by their traditions (Matt. 15:6).

Secondly, the right of private judgement. When we open the Scriptures, we find that they are addressed to the people. They speak to us. We are commanded to search them (John 5:39), to believe what they teach. We are held personally responsible for our faith. The apostle commands us to pronounce accursed an apostle or an angel from heaven who should teach anything contrary to the divinely authenticated Word of God (Gal. 1:8). He made us the judges, and has placed the rule of judgement into our hands, and holds us responsible for our judgements.

Moreover, we find that the teaching of the Holy Spirit was promised by Christ not to the clergy only, much less to any one order of the clergy exclusively, but to all believers. It is written, 'Ye shall all be taught of God.' The Apostle John says to believers: 'Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and know all things . . . but the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you; and ye need not that any man teach you; but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him' (1 John 2:20,27). This teaching of the Spirit authenticates itself, as this same apostle teaches us, when he says, 'He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself (1 John 5:10). 'I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth' (1 John 2:21). Private judgement, therefore, is not only a right, but a duty, from which no man can absolve himself, or be absolved by others.

Thirdly, we believe in the universal priesthood of all believers, that is, that all believers have through Christ access by one Spirit unto the Father (Eph. 2:18); that we may come with boldness to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need (Heb. 4:16); 'Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; and having an high priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water' (Heb. 10:19-22). To admit, therefore, the priesthood of the clergy, whose intervention is necessary to secure for us the remission of sin and other benefits of the redemption of Christ, is to renounce the priesthood of our Lord, or its sufficiency to secure reconciliation with God.

Fourthly, we deny the perpetuity of apostleship. As no man can be an apostle without the Spirit of prophecy, so no man can be an apostle without the gifts of an apostle. Those gifts, as we learn from Scripture, were plenary knowledge of the truth derived from Christ by immediate revelation (Gal.s 1:12), and personal infallibility as teachers and rulers. What the seals of apostleship were Paul teaches us, when he says to the Corinthians, 'Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds' (2 Cor. 12:12). As for prelates who claim to be apostles, and who demand the same confidence in their teaching, and the same submission to their authority, as that which is due to the inspired messengers of Christ, without pretending to possess either the gifts or signs of the apostleship, we cannot submit to their claims. This would be rendering to erring men the subjection due to God alone or to his divinely authenticated and infallible messengers.

Much less can we recognize the Bishop of Rome as the vicar of Christ on earth, clothed with the authority over the Church and the world which was exercised by our Lord while here in the flesh. It is plain that no one can be the vicar of Christ who has not the attributes of Christ. To recognize the Bishop of Rome as Christ's vicar is therefore virtually to recognize him as divine.

We must stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free. We cannot forfeit our salvation by putting man in the place of God, giving one of like passions with ourselves the control of our inward and outward life which is due only to him in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and in whom dwells all the fulness of the Godhead.

Other and equally cogent reasons might be assigned why we cannot with a good conscience be represented in the proposed Council. But as the Council of Trent, whose canons are still in force, pronounces all accursed who hold the principles above enumerated, nothing further is necessary to show that our declining your invitation is a matter of necessity.

Nevertheless, although we cannot return to the fellowship of the Church of Rome, we desire to live in charity with all men. We love all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. We regard as Christian brethren all who worship, love and obey him as their God and Saviour, and we hope to be united in heaven with all who unite with us on earth in saying, 'Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen' (Rev. 1:6).

Signed on behalf of the two General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church in the US of America

Charles Hodge [source]

Monday, November 8, 2010

The Strength of the Lord in the Righteous

The following is from John Owen's sermon Righteous zeal encouraged by divine protection (source).
Nebuchadnezzar sets up his great image, and the next news you hear, the saints are in the furnace (Dan 3:20). You seldom see a fabric of human-invented worship, but either the foundation or top-stone is laid in the blood of God’s people. “The wisdom” (religion, or way of worship) “that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy” (Jam 3:17); — when the other is “earthly, sensual, devilish, bringing along envying, strife, confusion, and every evil work,” verse 16. Persecution and blood is the genuine product of all invented worship. I might from hence name and pursue other observations, but I shall only name one, and proceed.

Observation. When false worship, with injustice by cruelty, have possessed the governors of a nation, and wrapped in the consent of the greatest part of the people who have been acquainted with the mind of God; that people and nation, without unprecedented mercy, is obnoxious to remediless ruin...

Observation. God will certainly give prevailing strength and unconquerable defence unto persons constantly discharging the duties of righteousness, especially when undertaken in times of difficulty and opposition.

The like engagement to this you have made to (Eze 3:8-9). Neither was it so to the prophets alone, but to magistrates also. When Joshua undertook the regency of Israel in a difficult time, he takes off his fear and diffidence with this very encouragement (Jos 1:5). He saith, he will make them a wall, — the best defence against opposition; and that not a weak, tottering wall, that might easily be cast down, but a brazen wall, that must needs be impregnable. What engines can possibly prevail against a wall of brass? And to make it more secure, this brazen wall shall be fenced with all manner of fortifications and ammunition; so that the veriest coward in the world, being behind such a wall, may, without dread or terror, apply himself to that which he findeth to do. God will so secure the instruments of his glory against a backsliding people, in holding up the ways of his truth and righteousness, that all attempts against them shall be vain, and the most timorous spirit may be secure, provided he go not out of the Lord’s way; for if they be found beyond the line, the brazen wall, they may easily be surprised. And, indeed, who but a fool would run from the shelter of a brazen wall, to hide himself in a little stubble? And yet so do all who run to their own wisdom, from the most hazardous engagement that any of the ways of God can possibly lead them unto. It is a sure word, and forever to be rested upon, which the Lord gives in to Asa (2 Chro 15:2), “The Lord is with you, while ye be with him.” An unbiased magistracy shall never want God’s continued presence. Very Jeroboam himself receives a promise, upon condition of close walking with God in righteous administrations, of having a house built him like the house of David (1 Kings 11:38). What a wall was God to Moses in that great undertaking, of being instrumental for the delivery of Israel from a bondage and slavery of four hundred years’ continuance? Pharaoh was against him, whom he had deprived of his sovereignty and dominion over the people. And what a provocation the depriving of sovereignty is unto potentates needs no demonstration: to the corruption of nature which inclines to heights and exaltations, in imitation of the fountain whence it flows, they have also the corruption of state and condition, which hath always inclined to absoluteness and tyranny. All Egypt was against him, as being by him visibly destroyed, wasted, spoiled, robbed, and at length smitten in the apple of the eye, by the loss of their first-born. And if this be not enough, that the king and people whom he opposed were his enemies, — the very people for whose sakes he set himself to oppose the others, they also rise up against him, yea, seek to destroy him. One time they appeal to God for justice against him, (Exo 5:21), “The Lord look upon you, and judge.” They appeal to the righteous God to witness that he had not fulfilled what he promised them, — to wit, liberty, safety, and freedom from oppression; but that rather by his means their burdens were increased: and in this they were so confident (like some amongst us), that they appealed unto God for the equity of their complaints. Afterward, being reduced to a strait, such as they could not see how possibly they should be extricated from, without utter ruin (like our present condition in the apprehension of some), they cry out upon him for the whole design of bringing them into the wilderness, and affirm positively, that though they had perished in their former slavery, it had been better for them than to have followed him in this new and dangerous engagement (Exo 14:11-12); — that generation being, as Calvin observes, so inured to bondage, that they were altogether unfit to bear with the workings and pangs of their approaching liberty. Afterward, do they want drink? — Moses is the cause. Do they want meat? — this Moses would starve them (Exo 15:24, 16:7). He could not let them alone by the flesh-pots of Egypt; for this they are ready to stone him (Exo 17:3). At this day, have we too much rain, or too short a harvest? — it is laid on the shoulders of the present government. It was no otherwise of old. At length this people came to that height, as, being frightened by the opposition they heard of and framed to themselves in that place whither Moses would carry them, they presently enter into a conspiracy and revolt, consulting to cast off his government, and choose new commanders, and with a violent hand to return to their former condition (Num 14:4) — an attempt as frequent as fruitless among ourselves. When this would not do, at length, upon the occasion of taking off Korah and his company, they assemble themselves together, and lay, not imprisonment, but murder to his charge; and that of "the people of the Lord" (Num 16:41). Now, what was the issue of all those oppositions? what effect had they? how did the power of Pharaoh, the revenge of Egypt, the backsliding of Israel prevail? Why, God made this one Moses a fenced brazen wall to them all; he was never in the least measure prevailed against; — so long as he was with God, God was with him, no matter who was against him.

Saturday, November 6, 2010

Relationship-Driven Christianity and Evangelism

Over the past few months, I've encountered many instances of what I'd like to call "relationship-driven Christianity." That is, the belief that Christianity is a relationship not only between us and Christ, but ourselves and others. Therefore, the correct way to spread the gospel is to form relationships with others over a period of time, giving them encouragement and essentially "enticing" them into a life with Christ. You don't have to present the Law to them, or convict them of their sins; simply show them that a God-loving community makes one feel loved, and therefore they will hopefully join in. In fact, any attempt to use the Law is seen as harsh, and those who do open-air evangelism are often mocked by those who prefer the relationship-driven approach.

Before I continue, it might be best if I elaborate on what this line of thinking does not get wrong. Part of the Christian lifestyle is indeed a relationship not only between believer and Savior but fellow believers. A person who hates his brother cannot sincerely love His God, just as the beloved apostle John wrote: "the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen" (1 John 4:20). It is likewise not a bad thing for a believer to become friends with an unbeliever, but it should be emphasized that this is done along with the evangelism.

Where this mindset conflicts, then, is that it takes an addition to evangelism, makes it the sole methodology of evangelism, and essentially falls into the trap of being seeker-sensitive. I've heard those who follow this relationship-driven mentality say that the Law offends, and therefore you cannot win anyone honestly with it. Therefore, one essentially skips Law and runs to Grace, displaying the affects of it by example and inviting others to join in. Christianity essentially becomes a better way of life, no different than a vegan diet or a therapeutic medicine.

The greatest fault in this mindset is that part which says the preaching of the Law offends - to this I answer: of course it does. By the Gospel's very nature, it offends. As the apostle Paul wrote: "the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing" (1 Cor 1:18). Part of the Gospel message is that mankind is in need of God, for "there is none righteous, not even one" (Rom 3:10). All are under Law, and the only difference between a Christian and a non-Christian is that the Christian has been given the righteousness of God apart from the Law (cf. Rom 3:21). However, how can a perishing individual come to know this unless they are first taught the truth of the matter? Without the Law, one cannot know sin. This is why the apostle Paul likewise wrote, "I would not have come to know sin except through the Law" (Rom 7:7). This is where, having realized the depths of our sin, we come to know Grace: "what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 8:3).

Those who would propose skipping the Law and running to Grace seem to forget that, as we've seen here, the two go hand in hand. The Law might be "bad news," but it is necessary to show just how good the "good news" truly is. Those who think we should simply skip the bad news seem to forget that in the epistle to the Romans - one of the greatest expositions of salvation - Paul spends three-and-a-half chapters of bad news before finally getting to the good news.

Those who would likewise propose a relationship-driven evangelism seem to forget that there is no scriptural model for this. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles was not followed by the apostles slowly making relationships with various people in Jerusalem; instead, they preached to those gathered there and told them to repent (Acts 2:38). Paul, traveling throughout Asia Minor, often began ministry in a town by going to the nearest synagogue and opening debate with those who were inside. Likewise, the first act of Paul upon entering Athens was to invite everyone to the Areopagus, say their beliefs were wrong, and tell them to repent (this often doesn't get covered because, as we've seen, Acts 17:22-23 gets quoted in isolation).

Personally, I believe much of this comes because of the condition of health and lifestyles in the western world. That is, the average person in the western world lives to about 80-years of age, and unless you die in a car crash or some other unforeseen accident, death doesn't become an immediate concern until much later on in life. Is it any wonder, then, that we think we can slowly convert people with relationships, since in our own minds we believe we have all the time in the world? There is no sense of urgency because our lives, as a whole, do not feel urgent.

In the olden days, things were far, far different. Up until perhaps 150 years ago, there was a very good chance you would die of one reason or another. It was very rare for a person to die of natural causes after a long life. Certainly many great theologians passed away due to reasons beyond old age: John Calvin burst a blood vessel in his lungs from which he died a slow death, and Jonathan Edwards died of an infection from inoculation. The common man was simply prone to death. During the Black Death, one out of three people in Europe died, so that even those who were left alive had a sense of what it meant to be mortal. Man's temporal nature was ingrained on the minds of those who had eyes to see.

Is it any wonder, then, that some of the most fiery preachers to ever live come from this time period? John Wesley, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards...all preaching to the common man as if they were soldiers about to go off into battle and may not be alive come dusk. They understood full well that life was not eternal, and that God's judgment should always be on one's mind. Edwards, in fact, took the funeral of one of his daughters as a chance not to talk about how sweet her temporal life had been, but as a chance to remind the community that death could come at any moment, and after death we will have to stand before our Lord and Creator. These great Christian men would be shocked to hear the current mode of evangelism in many western churches, which seems to instead preach: "Form a relationship with a person first, share the Gospel later."

The other major issue that may be causing this is the decreased understanding of just what that judgment will entail: that is, those who reject Christ will in turn be rejected by Him (Matt 10:33). While I fully believe that Christ knows His sheep (John 10:14) and His sheep cannot be lost (John 10:28), how would it seem to our conscience if we meet a person who does not know Christ, forgo the Gospel out of fear of offending, and then later that day the person were to die by some unforeseen circumstance? How would we be able to stand before the Almighty God and confess that we were too ashamed of His words (cf. Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26) to share the good news of eternal salvation with an individual? How can we, like the slave who hid the mina and did not invest in it (Luke 19:11-27), hide this salvation given to us as a gift from our Lord and meant to be shared with others?

The fact is, we are taught to preach and evangelize to others, and part of sharing the Gospel is sharing the Law and the condemnation which all mankind finds itself under (Rom 3:9). Many will be offended, but the pleasure of man should not be in the forefront of our thinking. Our priority is to spread and nurture the seed; God will cause the growth (1 Cor 3:6). We are to become the instrument by which the Good Shepherd calls out to His sheep, and His sheep will hear His voice and follow (John 10:3). We should treat every encounter as a chance to preach, and treat every instance with a person as if we will never see them again, and this is our one opportunity to let them know about the glory and majesty of God. Amen.

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Self-Examination and Scripture

The following is from Jonathan Edwards' Christian Cautions; Or, The Necessity of Self-Examination.
Evermore to join self-reflection with reading and hearing the word of God. When you read or hear, reflect on yourselves as you go along, comparing yourselves and your own ways with what you read or hear. Reflect and consider what agreement or disagreement there is between the word and your ways. The Scriptures testify against all manner of sin, and contain directions for every duty; as the apostle saith, 2 Tim 3:16. "And is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." Therefore when you there read the rules given us by Christ and his apostles, reflect and consider, each one of you with himself, Do I live according to this rule? Or do I live in any respect contrary to it?

When you read in the historical parts of Scripture an account of the sins of which others have been guilty, reflect on yourselves as you go along, and inquire whether you do not in some degree live in the same or like practices. When you there read accounts how God reproved the sins of others, and executed judgments upon them for their sins, examine whether you be not guilty of things of the same nature. When you read the examples of Christ, and of the saints recorded in Scripture, inquire whether you do not live in ways contrary to those examples. When you read there how God commended and rewarded any persons for their virtues and good deeds, inquire whether you perform those duties for which they were commended and rewarded, or whether you do not live in the contrary sins or vices. Let me further direct you, particularly to read the Scriptures to these ends, that you may compare and examine yourselves in the manner now mentioned.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

The Golden Chain of Redemption

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. [Romans 8:29-30]
Many people exegeting this passage hone in on the word "foreknew." In fact, I've seen blog posts which will put the word in bold and go on for paragraphs about it while seemingly forgetting everything that comes after. "Foreknew," however, is not said in isolation, and in fact is said in a series of verbs in what is known by many as "the golden chain of redemption." The order is:
  • Foreknew
  • Predestined
  • Called
  • Justified
  • Glorified
The first question to bring forward: does God truly know foreknow what will come? The easy answer is: yes, God does know what will come, having perfect knowledge of all that has been, is, and soon will be. All knowledge, wisdom and understanding comes from the perfect knowledge, wisdom and understanding of God (cf. Prov 2:6). This is why the blessed apostle begins this section of his epistle with "those whom He foreknew." Those who jump to this word immediately argue that God already knew what was going to unfold, and therefore conclude that God merely reacted to the libertarian free will of man. However, no where does this text say that God reacted to that which the person did, only that He foreknew their existence beforehand.

What the synergistic conclusion also forgets is that the apostle Paul moves on from this perfect knowledge of God to God acting upon that knowledge. Those "whom He foreknew, He also predestined." God, seeing Person A and Person B, both of whom He knew would be in the fallen state of Adam, predestined Person A to "become conformed to the image of His Son." Note this: if God simply foreknew Person A would become a Christian, there would ultimately no need for this predestination, for it was already known that Person A would, in the far future, become a Christian.

After this, we have a further procession: from this predestination for conformation comes the order of how this conformation comes about. That is: "these whom He predestined, He also called," then "these whom He called, He also justified," and finally "these whom He justified, He also glorified." We have here four actions - predestination, calling, justifying, and glorifying - overlapping one another in a true chain. One thing is absolutely certain in this case: those God has predestined will in the end be glorified. Nowhere in this entire chain is it ever suggested that those predestined would not end up being called, nor that any of those called would not be justified, nor that any of those justified would not be glorified. Those God had chosen through predestination to be called and justified will in the end be glorified. A perfect case, if any, for Perseverance of the Saints.

Many would still interject here with: "But the word foreknew! God foreknew all this would happen, which means He simply reacted to the free will!" I reiterate again, however, that if God already had perfect foreknowledge of what the person was going to do, then there would be no need for predestination to conformation. If the person was already set in stone to be conformed into the image of Christ, God would not have to predestine the matter. If we argue that he was conformed because of God's predestination, then the argument for libertarian free will is simply turned on its head. That is, if we say God foreknew He would predestine the person, then that leaves God in complete control of the situation. If we say God foreknew they would become Christian, and so he predestined, but he foreknew because of the predestination...then we simply argue in circles. To even suggest the foreknowing is from God's foreknowledge of His predestining is likewise still placing the authority upon God.

In this regard, it must be noted that God is said to be the only active party here. By that I mean that God is the enabler and causation of all the actions. The apostle Paul writes: He predestined, He called, He justified, He glorified. Everything happens because of God and God alone. This is not man acting down the corridor of time and God merely reacting. This is God carrying out His divine decree.

Many reacting to this conclusion will jump to the assumption that this exegesis essentially turns God into a great puppeteer with mankind nothing but marionettes, and others will claim that it turns mankind into robots. However, this is not the case. It is not that a man's actions are controlled completely by God's will, but that God's will is sovereign to mankind's free will. The man going through the golden chain of redemption will be free to do whatever he pleases, but only within those parameters. A man predestined cannot refuse the call; a man called cannot deny himself justification; and a man justified cannot forsake glorification.

Many more will call this unfair, as anyone glorified cannot resist God's will, while those left perishing are not able to receive that glorification. Ironically, this was precisely the argument Paul posed later on in the same epistle...and then answered:
You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. [Romans 9:19-24; NASB]
Mankind is in a perishing state, and no one does what is right in the eyes of God. That God chose to save any of us through His Son is enough of a sign of mercy. If our Lord were "fair" in the strictest human sense, then we would all be in hell. God, however, as Potter, is the Perfect Artist, and the Golden Chain of Redemption is but one example of the Perfect Artist going about His handiwork with His glorious creation.