I have found that in the modern church--the 21st century church--discipline is not really much of an issue. Most churches don't practice it and those who do are many times seen as legalistic. Why is it that churches don't like to practice discipline? It could be that in this day, were numbers means more than anything, pastors and members are fearful of running its members off. It could be that pastors and members lack the training on how to deal with the issue. It could be that pastors and members are so sinful themselves that they can't imagine judging another so as to say they need to be disciplined. Why is discipline in the church so important?
I will order them from least importance to most important. (3) The sake of the believer's testimony and his relationship with Christ. (2) The sake of the church's testimony and her relationship with Christ. (1) The sake of Christ testimony and His glory. So what is our first responsibility in administering church discipline?
Love! The church must love the believer enough to confront him of his error. Individuals of the church must love the church enough to keep sin out of it. And the church must love Christ enough to protect His testimony to the world. So why have we failed so miserably in the administering of church discipline? Because we lack the sort of love needed to discipline. It is easy for us to talk behind some ones back and make jokes about them and their sin. It is easy to scorn them and make them feel shameful. Is that any good though? Does it work? No. What it does is causes a fallen believer to fall away from the church because the ones who should be there to support him are cruel and insensitive.
How many people have left the church because they have felt betrayed and ridiculed, and eventually forgotten? The reason church disciple isn't done in many churches is because all the discipline they have seen was done without love. So how should we administer church discipline?
I won't go through all the steps here, but if you like, check out a previous post. Rather I want to stick to the heart of discipline--love. When we see a brother in sin we should not be filled with anger, but rather mercy. As a father disciplines his son so shall the church. A father doesn't discipline his son for his enjoyment, but for the good of his son out of love. When we see a brother sin or we have one sin against us we need to be filled with love. We need to think about the issue and decide if the issue needs discipline (Will it hurt the testimony of him, the church, and Christ? Some issues need to just be forgiven and left at that). If it does then we go to the brother humbly in love and tell him of his offence and hope for reconciliation. If the brother repents then Scripture tells us we have won a brother. Here is the hardest part. Out of that love, whether he repents or not, we must forgive him of his sin. That doesn't mean that you don't continue to discipline him if he fails to repent, but it means that you must give him mercy and grace--just like our Father has done for us.
Does not our Father discipline us when we are wrong, does He not do this out of love, but have we not been forgiven by His grace? We have been forgiven, and yet He disciplines us to lead us to reconciliation with Him, so that we might be more intimate with Him. That should be the desire we have when we see a brother sin. We should be filled with love and grace and go to him to reconcile him back to the church by disciplining him so that he can be intimate within the fellowship.
I wish that more of the flock had this sort of love. That one would be willing to go and tell another he is wrong for his sake, the sake of the church, and the sake of Christ. I have been extremely blessed to have others in my live that have disciplined me in spiritual matters. I haven't always listened at first and many times it has put a strain on my relationship with them; but praise God that I later saw my foolishness, repented of my sin, and asked for forgiveness from my brethren. The most joyful part of all of it was going to them and asking for their forgiveness and seeing that they already had. They had already forgiven me, before I even asked and they were just waiting for me to be reconciled back to them. This is brotherhood and friendship in the faith. This is love. And this is what we are all suppose to have for one another.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
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.
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
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
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
God bless
Thursday, February 23, 2006
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?
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
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,
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?
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?
Sunday, February 19, 2006
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?
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?
Friday, February 17, 2006
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,
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?
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?
Friday, February 10, 2006
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.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
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.
Friday, January 27, 2006
Sola Scriptura: Sow the Seed
3 And He [Jesus] spoke many things to them in parables, saying, "Behold, the sower went out to sow; 4 and as he sowed, some seeds fell beside the road, and the birds came and ate them up. 5 "Others fell on the rocky places, where they did not have much soil; and immediately they sprang up, because they had no depth of soil. 6 "But when the sun had risen, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. 7 "Others fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked them out. 8 "And others fell on the good soil and yielded a crop, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty. 9"He who has ears, let him hear." (Matthew 13)
Sow the Seed is the title of this post because I find that to be the most definite theme in the text. Jesus explains the different conditions of soil, but the purpose in this is above all is to encourage His disciples, both the original twelve, the others listening, and us. To start let us break down this passage so that we might better understand the text.
Jesus said, "Behold, the sower went out." Who is this sower? Christ was the sower. "The sower sows the word," Mark 4:14. Christ was the one who went out and sowed the seed. He was the original sower. He was the one sowing then. But we to are sowers also. As the ministry of Christ passed on to the Apostles, so it has passed on to us down through the generations. As we have received the seed, so now we are responsible for sowing. What then is the seed? "When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside" (Matthew 13:19). The seed is the word of the kingdom, the very Word of God, the message of Christ crucified in the New Testament church. And what is the soil? Look back at Matthew 13:19. It is the heart of the man? Jesus was sowing the word of God into the hearts of men. Now we know who sower is, what the seed is, and what the soil is. Now let us look at the different conditions of soil.
1 The Road: In Palestine the crops were done in rows and they were long and narrow. Along the borders there would be roads, or as the NKJ version says, "waysides." This soil here would be very hard, well packed from men walking on it and dry from the hot sun. Jesus says that when the seed landed here the birds came and ate it up. In verse 19 it says the "evil one comes and snatches away." Now we have seen this. How many have we talked to and when we tell them of Christ it just seems to bounce off, as if it had no effect at all. Jesus said as soon as it hit the surface the birds, the evil one, came and snatched in away, because it could not get through the surface.
2 Rocky Places: Now these can be deceiving. Here is a seed that springs up fast and looks great. It is very likely that this seed will spring up faster then the rest. Why? "[T]hey did not have much soil" (13:5); this soil was not rocky in that it has rocks in it. Rather, in Palestine there is a rock shelf underneath the soil. Either the plower of the soil would be unaware of this or maybe it is too thick and strong to break. This is why the plant sprouts up quick. Because when it begins to grow it is unable to go down so all of its growth is up. It has no root and when the sun comes it withers away. These are deceiving to the sower because he might expect this seed to spring up and produce the best crop and he is saddened when it withers away. Have we seen this in the church? Jesus says this about this soil, "this is the man who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he falls away" (13:20-21).
We have to be extremely cautious about this in the church; cautious of the ones, who receive the gospel with great joy, immediately, with little thought, highly emotional, a sense of euphoria, excitement, and without counting the cost. They look good, and usually exceed above others who are responding to the message of the cross, but they lack any root. The rock bed is still there. They have not truly repented, turned away from their sin. It is a superficial joy and when persecution comes they fall away. So look out for the ones who are all smiles and joyous when they hear the message of Christ crucified, and don't receive the gospel with morning over sin or a hunger for righteousness. If ones confession of Christ does not come from a deep conviction over sin and since of being lost, a desire for His cleansing and righteousness imputed, and a desire for self-sacrifice, a willingness to suffer for His sake then there is no root, no true salvation. There is nothing and it is a matter of time till the sun comes and so will death. If one is not willing to take up the cross and follow Christ he is not worthy to be His disciple.
3 Among the Thorns: Now I find this to be the most dangerous condition of soil. Jesus said this is the soil that has thorns in it. These are the soils infested with weeds. I have a friend named Lance and early in his academics he was going to be a lawn specialist. Now that isn’t what it is called, but he would have worked on golf courses, athletic fields, and private lawns also I assume. But one of the classes he took was Weed Science. We use to give him a hard time about it. It turned out that he enjoyed the class and learned a lot in it. Now he has changed he major and this information might not do him much use, but he claims he will have one of the best, if not the best, yards in town, no matter where he lives. I bring that up because we were talking about weeds and their great durability. The seed of a weed can out last any other seed, such as that of wheat and barley. That is why a sower has to sow yearly, where as the seed of a weed never needs sown, but persist to come back. Much technological advancement has taken place in the agricultural industry to deal with this. They now use herbicides to kill of the weeds.
But the heart of the man is far beyond the instruments of technology. This is the heart of the man who has the "worry of the world and the deceitfulness of wealth" (13:22). The worries of the world are security, power, and popularity, and deceitfulness of wealth is "the love of money," which "is a root of all sorts of evil" (1 Timothy 6:10). These are men who are double minded. They want to have the seed, the Word of God, but don't want to give up the things of the world. They want the Word, but don't want to follow it. Christ said this seed is choked out and "becomes unfruitful" (13:22). This is why I say it is the most dangerous. Where as the first soil totally rejects the seed, and the second lets it fall away, the third lets it remain, but because it doesn’t have the nutrition to support both seed and thorn, the seed is unable to produce fruit. It is the church member who fills the pew and does nothing more. There is no fruit, only foliage.
4 Good Soil: But there is some good soil, which "yielded a crop, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty...this is the man who hears the word and understands it; who indeed bears fruit and brings forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty." (13:8,23). Notice that the man who understands it (the one who receives it, grows roots in it, and fully accepts it and does away with all other) is the one who bears fruit. Now we are told that a good crop would bring in sevenfold, so tenfold would be a great crop. We are told that the least of any crop would be thirty fold. We see here that Jesus is showing that salvation is not judged on initial reactions to the gospel, but on the fruit that comes from it. Now this is not supporting a legalistic approach that says we earn our salvation. Actually it is supporting just the opposite; that it is only through salvation that we are capable to do good works, to bring forth fruit.
So we see that the first three soils were not ones able to adequately receive the seed, the gospel of Christ crucified. Only the fourth was able to receive the gospel and bring forth fruit, showing evidence that it was well rooted and nourished. All the others failed, showing that it was never genuine.
I entitled this "Sow the Seed" because I think this was more than just an explanation of the soils, but an encouragement to Christ's disciples to preach the word of the kingdom. Notice, in none of the examples was their ever anything wrong with the seed. Neither was there ever anything wrong with the soil. It was all the same soil, but the condition of the soil was what posed a problem. The truth be said about the human heart. We all have the same heart, though some are hard on the surface, others are shallow, and others care only of the world, but we can rejoice that there are hearts that will receive the message and bring forth fruit. We are simply called to sow the seed, preach the message. This is not dependent upon us. If a father and son were sowing a field, yes the fathers throw would be more precise and more would hit the good soil, but the seed that hit good soil by the child would still grow and bring forth fruit. So many say they would witness more, but they feel inadequate. No one is inadequate if they have received the grace of God (1 Corinthians 1:7).
Yes, we will have resistance from some, short term converts, and double minded men because of the evil one, the flesh, and the world, but let us not lose focus that there is good soil out there, there are good hearts out there and the more we sow the more likely we are to hit it. So go...sow the seed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
