The Church’s Greatest Flaw

In my study of the New Testament, I find men who wrote about the greatest and most serious issue facing humankind. They wrote with great diligence to display their thoughts about this problem and the only means to overcome it. Interestingly it had nothing to do with immortality, poverty, slavery, or global warming. The problem understood to be the greatest is still the same today. Yet the church has over looked it in its attempt to reform society. What is the great problem that plagued the world so much that it required God to inspire twenty-seven letters in the first century?

Sin. The entire New and Old Testament is dedicated to the means by which God would deal with this issue of sin. The Old Testament points toward God’s promise to reconcile His people to Him and the New Testament shows the means it took to accomplish this. As much as the Scripture points to Christ, it also points to our sin. Some would say this takes the importance off Christ. However, that is not the true. If anything, it disciplines our focus on Jesus. If it had not been for sin, God’s Christ would never have come to this place to suffer from our disobedience.

Why is it that Jesus, God in flesh, did not try to reform Roman rule? Why did He not even redeem His people, Israel, from Rome and establish His earthly kingdom? Everyone wanted it. It was not His purpose. Then He commissioned His Apostles to preach the truth, giving them signs to confirm their message. Oddly, neither in the Acts of the Apostles, nor in the letters they penned was social reform mentioned. Why did these men, of great power, not try to change the culture through political means?

The church’s greatest flaw has been its political agenda of morality. The church has diligently attacked or supported homosexuality, capital punishment, war, slavery, and other moral issues. Yet the New Testament never prescribes such an action. The Apostles and local churches were a very small minority in the Roman Empire. Even with the sign gifts given to the Apostles, they did not have much influence outside of the church. Some say this is the reason they did not reform society. Scripture is in disagreement with that. Even in the local churches, social reform was not an issue. The issue at hand was the sin of the believers and Christ’s redemptive work. It was though Jesus that men and women were able to life faithfully, morality was never the issue.

Did not Jesus and the Apostles establish social reform among the believers? Yes and it is in the two commandments: love God and people. It is wrong to force this on a society of non-believers who can never live up to it. It is because of God that we are able to love.

Look at some social issues during the time of Christ and the Apostles and see how they dealt with them. Jewish legalism was a major threat to the people of God. Jesus spoke boldly against the legalism of the Pharisees and scribes and proclaimed that one would have to be more righteous then these to see the kingdom of heaven. Jesus’ call for people to turn away from their self-righteousness was done on a private, individual, level. He taught though parables so that peoples’ eyes could be opened to the truth.

Sexual immorality was horrible in first century Rome. Fornication, homosexuality, and prostitution were common and not seen as wrong by the normal citizen. Imagine if Paul would have gone to Caesar and suggested that social reform needed instituted. Not only was homosexuality common, but it was a respected way to satisfy elders as young boys gratified these passions. Prostitution was not only like we have in modern society, but also it was a part of many Roman religious ceremonies. Temple priestesses were prostitutes and orgies were a form of worship to the gods. Paul, as Apostle to the gentiles, had to deal with this in gentile churches. He commanded them to no follow in the lustful passions of the pagans, but he did not tell them to hinder those outside the fellowship from committing immorality.

Slavery has been a major issue for the American church because of our past, which resulted in a civil war. Many have claimed that Scripture forbade slavery, but a closer look shows differently. In Old Testament Israel, a man who had slaves was required to release them on year of Jubilee, but a slave had the right to remain with his master under his own will. Rome was different. Israel’s slavery resulted from a debt owed or one would surrender himself as a slave to preserve his life. Roman slaves were mostly captives of war. As Rome spread, more and more became slaves. Evidence shows that fifty percent of Rome was slaves. Why did the New Testament writers not attack slavery? It was not an issue to them. The New Testament never tries to reform the social classes between master and slave; rather it reformed the relationship between them. Slaves should be obedient and masters should be just. Paul never calls for freedom of slaves. Not even among brethren.

The church is not God’s means of political reform. The church is to proclaim the message of man’s sin and Jesus’ redemptive work. That is the good news. In recent years, the church has made valiant efforts to save the morality of America, but all it has done is alienate us from our world. Individuals can do as they feel let to do, but it is not a ministry of the church. The society we are trying to save through morality knows that conservative Christians think homosexuality is an abomination, that capital punishment is good, the war in Iraq is just, and abortion is murder; but what good is that? In our attempt to save America from immorality, we have turned them over to sin with no escape. Morality proclaimed, Jesus forgotten…that is the Church’s Greatest Flaw.

February at Georgetown

I am now in my seventh week at Georgetown College. It has been a good six weeks completed and spring break in coming up in just two weeks and I am excited about returning home to see everyone.

Georgetown College has been a great experience thus far. I have enjoyed most every aspect of the college life. I at this point have A's in all my classes: New Testament I 97%, Principles Sociology A-, New Testament II 94.5%, Old Testament Law and History 90%, and History of Philosophy I 90%. I am right on the border of many of them and do not expect them to stay A's, but I'll do my best to keep them that way.

Now I have extremely enjoyed my Religion classes, along with the others, but I do have major differences with there understanding and approach to Scripture. For this reason, I have decided to leave Georgetown College and attend a school more dedicated to defending the infallibility of Scripture. Nevertheless, this is not an attack on Georgetown College or my professors. I still affirm that the two men who I have as Religion professors are Christians. However, one might be considered a heretic by of my fellow conservatives.

It is important however to understand that God has brought me here for a reason. Before my coming here, I considered myself a conservative Christian according to the Protestant Reform. However, I did not loathe the liberalism of the Church. Now by my coming here I loathe the liberal view of Scripture. Do not misunderstand me though. I loathe the liberal view of Scripture (one that does not view it as and the inerrant and infallible Word of God), but I do not call all who hold this view heretics, nor do I doubt their faith in, love for, and fellowship with Christ. However, this experience has given me a drive to be a better student of Scripture so that I can defend the faith once and for all delivered to the saints.

Because I am unable to go home every weekend, I have started attending Georgetown Baptist Church, which is about a ten-minute walk from my dorm. It is a wonderful little church with a desire to serve God. Pastor Ken has been very welcoming, as has the rest of the fellowship. I have started to work with the R.A.'s (1st-6th grade boys). It is a new and exciting challenge that I look forward to.

God bless

Is There Only One Way?

Last night I was reading some old transcripts from CNN segments with Larry King. The first was after the September 11th bombing of 2001 and the second was after the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The panel for the first discussion was Deepak Chopra (spiritual adviser, best-selling author of "How to Know God"), Rabbi Harold Kushner (a leader in Judaism and author of "Living a Life That Matters"), Bruce Wilkinson (an Evangelical pastor and author of "The Prayer of Jabez"), Dr. Maher Hathout (a scholar of Islam and senior adviser to the Muslim Public Affairs Council), Dr. John MacArthur (an Evangelical pastor and president of The Master's Seminary). The only change in line up for the second segment was Bruce Wilkinson did not attend and Father Michael Manning (a Roman Catholic priest and host of the international TV show "The Word in the World") did.

Now the discussion was suppose to be about the jihad bombers of September 11th and whether or not the war in Iraq was just. The discussion however took a different turn and went in the direction of the different faiths. In both of the discussions, the men on the panel said that there are many ways to God and that all the faiths were appropriate ways to God, except Dr. John MacArthur and Bruce Wilkinson (who would not speak against this notion but did not affirm it either). MacArthur was asked on whether or not he felt the men who crashed the plains into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were going to heaven and he said no. Then He went on to explain that they would go to hell because they did not have faith in Christ—which was evident by their works. Then the other, non-Christian, panelist became upset with this blanket statement—which condemned them to hell also.

What surprised me was that in the second discussion, which turned out to be much the same in reference to who can be saved was that Father Michael Manning also agreed that one could reach God through other means then Christ.

Now I know that I am a fundamentalist in my thoughts and I strongly believe that Dr. MacArthur is right in saying that no one goes to God, but through Jesus Christ. Yet, even in the Christian world—Evangelical and Catholic alike—people are saying that God can be reached through many portals of faith…and faith in what is not as important as faith itself.

Where do you guys stand on this? Is Christ the only way or not?

Lordship Salvation Part 2

In my last post I defined Lordship Salvation and asked what people thought of it. Those who answered agreed that some sort of change must happen for a person to be saved (or at least I understood it that way) or that if some one is saved this that some sort of change would happen. Then in my discussion with Josh I asked in what way do you approach someone who does not appear to have any sort of change in his life. This is Josh's comment,

I'd say we approach the person you speak of as, simply, a person. We cannot reconcile them to God but only to the Church. Only God can reconcile the person to God, but we as the Body of Christ can reconcile this person to ourselves as the Church.

As for the welfare of souls, the Church does not redeem anybody but redemption is often found through the Church.

As for the "new creation," I believe that this is a difficult passage to consider. Often, we immediately assume that the "new creation" is some sort of post-conversion-person. As if a magical and instantaneous conversion has occurred turning the person totally from sin to total purity. However, the passage simply says that "there is a new creation." It doesn't explicitly say that this creation is this new person. It is through our interpretation that we arrive at this point.

As for the individual of our consideration, I believe that we must attempt to reconcile them to the Church so that the practices and actions of the Church can have some redemptive presence in their life. Furthermore, this reconciliation will result in further discipleship and education. We should not, immediately, leave them to their own devices but, rather, invite them to act in and be part of the Church. But, we must not compel them to do so. It is only valuable that they make this decision for themselves.

When we say that we are "saved," I think it might be better to say that we "have faith that we will be redeemed from ourselves and sin and have eternal life hidden in God." "Saved" seems so "past-tense."

To me this makes great since. You are bring the sinner, who may or may not be a believer, back into the church, or at least attempting to, so that he can be further discipled and educated in the ways of God. And previous Josh suggested if such a person was in the church that he should be disciplined (I suggest the way Matthew 18 prescribes). In the end you are leaving the decision up to the person who is in sin and God. I like this thought. What do you think?

Lordship Salvation

For this discussion I want to talk about something that many agree with (such as me), many hate, and many don't really know what it is talking about. I will define it according to the way I see it and then I look forward to seeing what some of you think about it.

Lordship salvation is the teaching that a man is saved by Christ after receiving Him as Savior and submitting to His Lordship (Lordship-Christ is Lord, whether or not one believes it or not). It states that a man is saved by grace through faith alone and should not be confused with legalism. It states that the man who is saved will gradually digress in sin. It states that the man who is saved will gradually progress in good works. It states that the man who does not have these two characteristics is carnal (carnal-unregenerate). This statement does not state one is capable of loosing salvation, but might suggest that salvation was never genuine. (Please don't be nit picky or my defination, but try to go with the general meaning of it)

In laymen terms it means that if God saves one and His Spirit indwells one, one will begin to live according to the commandment which Christ gave. If one doesn't have any change in his conduct then there was no salvation.

What do you all think? Can a person be saved and remain in sin? Or does one have to have a change in character if saved? Can one have Jesus as Savior and not have Him as Lord?

Scripture: Is it that Important?

In my study of the Scripture I have learned many things and much of what I write about comes from the things that I have learned from it. But I also value the study of things outside of Scripture. One of the things I have studied lately in the Emergent Church, because of my lack of knowledge about it. I have been helped by some blog-friends who have tried to point me in the right direction (as they see it). I have also read a great deal by some who are anti-Emergent.

Now what I have found claims one thing to be true about the Emergent Church, but before I go there let me make a brief statement. After reading a blog by Kyle I understand that the movement of emerging is not united and therefore the spokesman of one group is not the spokesman of the whole. So for this blog I am not attacking the movement of emerging, but rather the Emergent individuals who discuss what I am about to talk about.

In my study of the church over the past decade or so there have been some major developments in the idea of what Scripture is. There was a time when a group of people, and these people still exist, came out and said that the Scripture is not inerrant. They were attacking the claim that Scripture is 100% truth without any error. Now this movement was refuted and among most of the church, at least American, it is no longer a major issue to deal with (though it still plagues liberal universities). Then there was the movement which said, "yes, Scripture is 100% true, but it isn't enough." This movement was headed up most by the charismatic movement which claimed new revelations. It had a major force behind it and even though it still has a large following, most have seen that the claimed miracles were fakes and Scripture once again stood as inerrant, infallible, authoritative, and sufficient.

Now comes the new movement of the Emergent Church. Now on the surface of this movement it looks like a group who wants to reach Christ with the Gospel. The problem with this is that they are attacking the Scripture. How are they doing this. They are calling it unclear. They aren't saying that it isn't true, simply that we don't have the means to fully understand it. Maybe that is why Brian McLaren, a leading spokesman for the movement said this "Welcome to our world. Being "right" isn't enough. We also need to be wise. And loving. And patient. Perhaps nothing short of that should "seem good to the Holy Spirit and us" (in the context of this article he discusses a couple who came to him to discuss homosexuality and he was unable to give an answer because of what might lie beneath the question. Then he suggest that a major study over the next five years be done by many different disciplines to see if we can come to an agreement). But I find the Scripture to be very right, and have no problem asserting that rightness. Moses had no problem telling Israel what was right, neither did the prophets. Then we come to the New Testament, the testament of grace, and Jesus tells us what is right as well does His follower who wrote the New Testament. Yet, McLaren says we need to do better then knowing what is right.

Then we have John H. Armstrong who speaks of the West as a post-Christian world and how we need to adjust out way, form a new church to fit into this world,

I am quite convinced that what we have is a "new" world. Christendom is plainly
dead, at least as we have known it for centuries. The West is secular and
post-Christian. If I am right about this then we need a "new" church to reach
this "new" world. Note that I did not say we need a "new" gospel. We need a
"new" church, one that is a clear embodiment of the gospel. This church needs to
re-imagine its identity as the "sent people of God." This "new" church calls for
"new" leaders. These leaders must be able to:
1. Read culture2. Model the mission 3. Empower others
Lest you think this is easy to do please think again. Few pastors are taught to read culture but rather to build institutions that reflect Christendom's ideals. And almost no boomer churches "model the mission," preferring rather to serve the needs of their narcissistic seekers in some way. And empowering others is not what most seminaries teach future pastors. We have our work cut out for us friends. This will demand a new kind of leader and a new kind of mission, which is why I borrow the word missional to describe what the church really needs. If I said "mission" a whole generation would think programs and professional pastors and evangelists. This is exactly what the church must give up if it is to reach the new world with the old
gospel.

He claims that pastors should be taught about culture and that the church should be built on the ideals of culture instead of Christendom's ideals. What does this mean? Do we do away with what the faith is built on and just teach feel good ideals? He says that seminaries aren't teaching future pastors to empower others. Now that might be true of some. My question is whether or not he is empowering anyone? He seems not to care at all about righteousness, simply pragmatic means of gathering followers in this new day.

Here are my questions. Is the world that much different from the days of our past? Are we that much more sinful/sinless? Did Jesus and Paul formulate their methods to the people? Most importantly, does the Scripture really even matter?

I think this comes down to the core of what Christianity is founded on...what do you guys think?

Calvinism (Predestination) and Arminianism (Free Will)

This week, on the Georgetown College Campus on the 7th and 9th, we had a discussion on the topics of Calvinism (Predestination) and Arminianism (Free Will). These discussions were very good and thought provoking. Now, as most who read know that I am a Calvinist, therefore I hold to Predestination. I am wondering what you are and if you could give a short statement, with biblical support if possible, why you hold to this complex idea--in either direction.

Karl Barth and Reform Evangelical

I'm not real familiar with Karl Barth, but according to quizfarm I am most in line with his theological stand point because we believe that the revelation of Christ is the starting point for all interpretation and theology. What I could find in the internet says he was claimed to be a neo-orthodox because he didn't hold to Bible inerrancy. Which theologian are you?

The daddy of 20th Century theology. You perceive liberal theology to be a disaster and so you insist that the revelation of Christ, not human experience, should be the starting point for all theology.

Karl Barth 100%
Martin Luther 100%
Anselm 100%
John Calvin 67%
Jonathan Edwards 67%
Charles Finney 67%
Friedrich Schleiermacher 67%
Paul Tillich 33%
Augustine 33%
J Moltmann 33%

Here is my theological worldview.
Check out your theological worldview.

Reformed Evangelical 79%
Neo Orthodox 71%
Fundamentalist 71%
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 57%
Classical Liberal 29%
Roman Catholic 14%
Charismatic/Pentecostal 14%
Modern Liberal 0%
Emergent/Postmodern 0%

It is odd that in one one moment I am like Karl Barth because I view Christ as the starting point for all study of Scripture, but then I'm more in line with Reformed Evangelical because I find that Scripture to be inerrant. But I guess I'm close to neo-orthodox.

Final one...I'm a Dispensationalist in my eschatological beliefs. Now I know something about this one and I'm really not. You might say I'm a breed in between dispensationalism and covenantism. But I'm not really hard pressed to be called either of these. See what you are if you like.
Dispensationalist 90%
Premillenialist 90%
Left Behind 85%
Moltmannian Eschatology 75%
Postmillenialist 30%
Preterist 25%
Amillenialist 25%

Okay, hope you guys try to see what you are according to svensvensven, who ever that be.

Also, I don't believe that this test will truly judge everything about some one and therefore is not able to made definite statements.