|
Post by Admin on Dec 14, 2023 20:20:53 GMT -5
That is what we are trying to do here. I am gathering as many articles, sermons and links as basic source material. I post it first, go back and edit it, then read it and try and study it out, This is great God is blessing you. I want to help people. You see the level of resistance on the other boards .People would rather argue then edify. In time I believe God will bring many who can learn and contribute. Martin Marprelate is a pastor in England[Steve Owen]. He is very solid.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 21, 2023 9:48:25 GMT -5
Has the Modern Mind Lost Its Grip on Jesus’s Sacrifice? Share
g3min.org/has-the-modern-mind-lost-its-grip-on-jesuss-sacrifice/ VIRGIL WALKER
opened Bible
In his famous sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” eighteenth-century theologian Johnathan Edwards boldly proclaimed, “Almost every natural man that hears of hell flatters himself that he shall escape it; he depends upon himself for his own security; he flatters himself in what he has done, in what he is now doing, or in what he intends to do.”
According to Edwards, the natural man is engaged in a lifetime of struggle, ignoring the clear judgment of damnation. Imagine being at a funeral where the pastor boldly states that the departed, despite appearing outwardly “good,” was destined for eternal suffering in hell. This thought alone is shocking. Such a proclamation would cause outrage, confusion, and perhaps even fear.
Edwards was right. The natural man shies away from self-examination, honest introspection, and repentance. Many reject the truth of their inherent depravity and subsequent damnation. Denying this truth means ignoring the only message that saves, causing them to miss out on the hope found in the gospel.
We all possess an innate sense of something beyond this life. However, neglecting the gospel leads to creating false narratives about eternity. These assumptions ignore the need for Christ’s redemptive work on the cross, forcing some to believe that entering heaven requires a lifetime of virtuous behavior. Consequently, universalism—the idea that all souls will be in heaven—is becoming increasingly prevalent.
Our contemporary approach to faith has led to a prevailing culture of functional universalism, significantly impacting society and eroding the message of hope within Christ’s gospel. Has the modern mind lost its grip on the idea of Jesus’s sacrifice?
Celebrity Faith and Heaven’s Gate In a society that often avoids discussing weighty matters like hell, damnation, and the necessity of salvation, we tend to divert our attention to the spectacle of celebrities. As we near the end of 2023, it is customary to contemplate the lives of notable individuals who have departed from this world. Among the famous and infamous names that come to mind are the legendary rock-and-roll queen Tina Turner, late-term abortionist Leroy “Lee” Carhart, and the lesser-known, yet respected, rap artist David Jolicoeur of De La Soul.
“Almost every natural man that hears of hell flatters himself that he shall escape it; he depends upon himself for his own security; he flatters himself in what he has done, in what he is now doing, or in what he intends to do.” —Jonathan Edwards
During his eulogy for Tina Tuner, Pete Townshend, the renowned rocker from the band The Who, hailed her as an “astonishing performer, an outstanding singer, and an R&B groundbreaker.” Townshend shared that Tina had been battling illness for some time and expressed his heartfelt desire for her to finally “have some peace now” in death.
As the condolences regarding Tina’s death came in, many echoed the feelings expressed by Kristina Love. Love, a renowned actress from the West End Stage, portrays the indomitable artist in “Tina: The Tina Turner Musical.” Love passionately proclaimed during her address to the theater audience, “We’re here tonight because of one woman who boldly lived her life, from cotton fields to stardom. . . . So tonight we are going to party because we know there is a huge party in heaven right now.”
While some may argue in favor of rewarding Tina Turner with heaven due to the challenges she endured, applying the same standard to LeRoy Carhart becomes more complex. Carhart, a self-proclaimed abortion activist and one of the few remaining late-term abortionists, passed away in April. Throughout his lifetime, he terminated the lives of 30,000 unborn babies and trained 300 doctors in abortion procedures.
As an abortion abolitionist, I can recall spending numerous days outside Carhart’s clinic in my home state of Nebraska, providing alternative resources and choices that didn’t involve ending the lives of the unborn. On a few occasions, I had the opportunity to urge Carhart to seek repentance before facing God’s ultimate judgment for his actions. Unfortunately, my efforts did not yield a heart of repentance before Carhart’s passing.
The news of Carhart’s passing and the fate that awaited him deeply saddened me. However, to my astonishment, those closest to Carhart have a contrasting perspective on his eternal state. On October 28th, Janine Weatherby, Carhart’s daughter, shared her heartfelt birthday message for all to see. Weatherby took to Facebook to commemorate Carhart’s birthday, saying, “Wishing you a happy first birthday in heaven.”
Carhart lived a full life, but David Jolicoeur, also known as Trugoy the Dove, a rap artist and self-proclaimed free thinker who never embraced faith or religion, died at 54. Fun fact: Trugoy’s name is actually “yogurt,” spelled backward; the name is derived from his favorite food. He was a member of the famous hip-hop trio De La Soul. Known as the epitome of hip-hop hippy, they achieved massive success with their 1989 hit single, “Me, Myself, and I.”
On March 3, 2023, Amazon Music hosted a commemorative event for hip-hop artists, marking the genre’s 50th anniversary. The occasion became a heartfelt tribute honoring his life and musical legacy in light of David’s passing. Fellow artists expressed gratitude for his unforgettable music, feeling their words reached David in the heavens above.
“There is nothing between you and hell but the air; ’tis only the power and mere pleasure of God that holds you up.” —Jonathan Edwards
These three people—Tina Turner, a respected Buddhist; Leroy Carhart, a humanist; and David Jolicoeur, a self-professed deep thinker—were eulogized, remembered, and thanked for their contributions. Those expressing appreciation for their lives were filled with the idea that each person had crossed into eternity, receiving their heavenly reward.
Far be it from me to claim ultimate knowledge of anyone’s eternal destination. However, it is intriguing that, despite my insistence on humility in this matter, friends and family of the deceased firmly believe that their departed loved ones have found their place in heaven, apart from a salvific relationship with Jesus Christ.
Christianity Without Hell While those who do not profess Christian faith are susceptible to inventing their own ideas about heaven and hell, in our modern era, evangelicals appear to have a similar problem. The universalist idea that multiple paths lead to heaven and that hell does not exist is a relatively recent development. However, it’s gaining traction.
A recent Pew Research poll shows evangelicals shifting from clear distinctions regarding heaven and hell to embracing universalism. Upon close examination of the responses, the outcomes become clear. Of those born between 1940 and 1950, approximately 90% grew up in Christian households. Today, only 63% of households claim to be Christian; of these households, only 58% believe in hell.
If we seek further evidence that Americans are functional universalists, the poll showed that, among all Americans, about four in ten (39%) say that people who do not believe in God can go to heaven. By comparison, roughly a third (32%) say nonbelievers cannot enter heaven.
We must look no further than the pulpit to uncover the reasons behind this new reality. Here’s a question for you. When was the last time you heard a sermon about hell? Think about it. I’ll wait.
Ever since the 1970s and the rise of the church growth movement, there has been a shift in pastoral preaching. Essential doctrines have taken a backseat, with many pastors now prioritizing practical topics such as improving marital relationships, making strategic business decisions, and personal development. The message has become man-centered, and the days of understanding the wrath of God against sinners are gone.
The Exclusivity of Salvation through Jesus The pervasive functional universalism of our culture is readily apparent. As followers of Christ, we must firmly reject such notions in our hearts and minds. Throughout scripture, we see the recurring theme that Jesus Christ alone offers the hope of salvation. In John 14:6, Jesus Himself states, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” This statement is a statement of exclusivity; Christ alone offers salvation. Peter, in his inaugural sermon, stated plainly, “There is salvation in no other name but Jesus Christ” (Acts 4:12). The exclusive nature of salvation through Jesus is a cornerstone of the Christian faith, not to limit access to heaven but to provide a clear path to salvation and reconciliation with God.
The passionate pleas of Jonathan Edwards and others who preached about hell were not engaged in mere scare tactics to terrify listeners into submission; instead, they were highlighting the severity and consequence of sin against a holy and righteous God. The purpose of Edwards’s most famous sermon was to awaken individuals to the reality of their spiritual condition and to direct them toward the only path of salvation—Jesus Christ. Edwards emphasized the imminent danger of living in sin and the urgency of seeking salvation. His exclamation, “There is nothing between you and hell but the air; ’tis only the power and mere pleasure of God that holds you up,” is a stark reminder of the precariousness of life without Christ. Edwards’s message was a call to self-examination, repentance, and acceptance of salvation only offered through Jesus Christ, reflecting the profound biblical truth that salvation is found in no one else but Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 30, 2023 9:50:22 GMT -5
How Can We Do It?: A Call for Evangelistic Fervor Share
g3min.org/how-can-we-do-it-a-call-for-evangelistic-fervor/ BRUCE GALE
man in black crew neck t-shirt holding black tablet computer The call for effective evangelistic fervor within the local church is a more apparent need now than ever. Looking at history raises questions about the future of the local church. Sitting in Mission San Agustin de Isleta, one of the two oldest surviving mission churches in the United States, evokes awe, wonder, and curiosity. Most historians believe the date of the building was around 1610. There is awe in efforts to preserve the chapel, and those efforts have persisted to this day. There is wonder in the history of the chapel. Ultimately, the chapel is categorized as a historic landmark rich with a long-lived story. Finally, the chapel raises the curiosity of the minds that enter. Some questions that draw to mind are: to what end does the preservation of this chapel lead? What is the next chapter in the story of the chapel? Has the chapel lost its original purpose? If not careful, the local church can find itself faced with that last question. The church can be in the same precarious place, serving only as a historical marker of a once vibrant community living out its purpose. Mission San Augustin de Isleta can warn the modern church to be cautious against evangelistic apathy. The author of Hebrews warns, “For this reason, we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it” (Heb 2:1). There are three specific cautions to note from its example.
Challenges in Maintaining Evangelistic Fervor Beware of Isolation What once served as a Franciscan initiative to reach the Pueblo peoples with the Catholic faith now lives in isolation, whose primary purpose is tourism. Has the American Church not followed the same path? Are we not in danger of the same thing? If we take an honest look, we can identify the same natural progression in the local church. Churches typically launch with an external focus on reaching the community. Over time, however, a paradigm shift occurs. The local church enters what I call the “sustainment” mode. Within the leadership and the congregation, routines set in, the status quo is established, and complacency rears its ugly head. Ultimately, the church becomes isolationist over missional.
Beware of Secular Influence The secularization of the Mission San Agustin de Isleta left a lasting effect that slowly degraded their missional impact. In like fashion, the local church must be careful not to allow the influence of society to degrade its mission. Secularization is losing sight of the missional purpose of the church for the sake of cultural issues. This obfuscation leads to a gradual, or even swift, numbing of the congregants toward any evangelistic mobilization. The lull of maintaining relevance within society poses perilous dangers. The church’s focus can drift from the exaltation of a Holy God to the placating of self. Chasing secular whims leaves worship destitute of its biblically intended and mandated purpose—the exaltation of God. If our focus drifts from holy reverence to cultural relevance, then all we are left with is compromise. If we desire to see the lost saved, go to the lost; if we desire to worship God in church, then exalt Him and Him alone. The local church should strive to influence the culture around them. It should not be lulled toward complacency in its evangelistic fervor toward the lost. The church must not allow secular influences to compromise its chief purpose—to glorify God.
Beware of Immediacy Franciscan monks founded the Mission San Agustin de Isleta to spread Christianity among the local Native Americans. However, conflicts between church and civil officials undermined the mission. There was disagreement over the labor and loyalty of the native peoples and attempts to eradicate native religious practices. The Mission San Agustin de Isleta suffered through it all due to the Pueblo Revolt of 1680. The desire for immediacy in converting the Pueblo people resulted in religious dogmatics fracturing their effectiveness. The Mission San Agustin de Isleta imposed guidelines on issues unrelated to salvation to effect change. The local church must also be cautious in our zeal to see the lost won for Christ.
Warding off Isolationism in the Church Maintain an Upward Focus First, prayer should be at the forefront of any evangelistic focus. The Psalmist asserts, “Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain” (Ps 127:1a). Prayer alone lays the foundation of proclaiming the gospel. Prayer moves when people cannot—upon the hearts of mankind by the power of the Holy Spirit. Additionally, prayer has a way of reorienting the prayer with the will of the Father. To pray is to intentionally look beyond yourself toward the only One who can effect lasting change.
Maintain an Outward Focus Next, the local church should fight against isolationism. A church is isolationist when it emphasizes programs over relationships, budgets over impact, and consistency over compassion. When dealing with church programming, the church must strive to evaluate the value of influence. Rather than assessing attendance as the trademark for success, the church should strive to look for less quantitative measurements. Instead, look toward the community around you for opportunities to shower them with God’s love and mercy, thereby demonstrating the clarity of the gospel through you.
Maintain a Repentant Heart The glass in the windows within Mission San Agustin de Isleta is old and cloudy. Looking through the glass, you can make out people but lose the crisp clarity of detail. This dirty glass partly obstructs the light as well. Maybe glass like the kind at the Mission San Agustin de Isleta was what Paul looked through when writing the church at Corinth. He stated, “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known” (1 Cor 13:12). Pulling on the tangible to reflect the spiritual reality kept the point clear—our vision diminishes. Staying close to Christ is to stave off secular influence and see the biblical mandate for believers. Keep the gospel and the call to repentance close to our hearts and minds. The local church must continually seek God’s face to accomplish this focus. Without intentionality, we are prone to drift away by the currents of this world. Therefore, maintaining the centrality of the gospel is the driving force that brings into focus the lostness of the world and the hope of Christ. Preach Christ and Him crucified! Let the joy of salvation fill the hearts of the saints. At the same time, let the goodness of God be displayed on the cross and lead those far from Him to repentance and faith.
Maintain an Eternal Perspective Just as Mission San Agustin de Isleta was built with a purpose, so was the local church—to make disciples. However, an adage is circulating among church leaders, “What you bring them with, you must maintain to keep them.” I contend that the implication is worse than that. Regarding a pragmatic, events-driven approach to church, I would argue that you bring them in with what you must continuously top to keep them. However, if we can return to the roots of the church’s existence, we can give that which eternally satisfies—Jesus Christ. The local church must capture our first love to point effectively to Christ. Cultural relevance must never replace missiological and evangelistic impact.
Maintain Evangelistic Intentionality My grandpa used to say, “If you aim for nothing, you are sure to hit it every time.” How true this statement is when discussing the local church’s evangelistic effectiveness. Can a church be effective if it lacks a clear and tangible goal? The short answer is no, and they cannot. Setting goals bolsters the intentionality of action. In its simplest form, intentionality with evangelism is the faithful declaration of the message of salvation through Christ, culminating in a request to respond. All evangelistic initiatives can be broken into parts, but each must contain this form to be genuinely evangelistic. For example, the local church attempting to reach out to the community but failing to present the gospel and a call to response has employed an ineffective evangelistic strategy. Their efforts may be building community relationships, meeting physical and emotional needs, or bolstering their church influence. Nevertheless, they have failed to be evangelistic without a gospel proclamation. Therefore, the local church must intentionally proclaim the gospel, calling unbelievers to repentance and faith in Christ. Evangelism will not happen accidentally and must be an intentionally thought-out approach to our daily lives.
Conclusion In light of the gospel, believers should embrace the call toward evangelism. Jesus’s final command in the Gospel of Matthew is clear, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19). The call was not to strong-arm or coerce but to make disciples. Discipleship begins with the declaration of truth—Jesus saves. Faith, then, comes from hearing the message of the redemptive work of Christ. Ultimately, a divine mystery transpires when a soul is saved. Although there is a mystery, we know that the believer’s role is obedience in a faithful proclamation. How can we do it? We can do it through Christological focus, compassion for the lost, living a life of repentance, maintaining an eternal perspective, and being intentional in our obedience to the Great Commission.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email AUTHOR man in black crew neck t-shirt holding black tablet computer Bruce Gale Bruce Gale serves as the Family Pastor at Paragon Church in Rio Rancho, NM. He is the husband to Shannon and the father to Caleb, Elias, and Joshua. He is passionate about equipping the local church for the furtherance of the gospel through evangelism and discipleship.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 6, 2024 13:40:15 GMT -5
he people came to Ezra (vs. 1) and they asked for the book of the law to be brought. It’s important to note, after the trials, troubles, and crises they encountered, the sure foundation was the words of the Lord. The Psalmist states, “How can a young man keep his way pure? By keeping it according to Your word” (Ps 119:9). He goes on to say in v. 25, “My soul clings to the dust; revive me according to Your word.” The problem with the modern-day emergent church, which has split into different factions, is that the Word of God is not the highest priority. The needs of the people, the comfort level of the people, the outside optics are most important.
When this type of approach is taken, the Word of God is used as a “tool” but not the foundation for growth. In the book Missions by the Book, the author established several marks of a good church, the first being the preached Word of God. He further notes, “The marks by which the true church is known are these; if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if it maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; and if the church is kept pure by disciplining sin.” He mainly focuses on the importance of church planting around the world by establishing local churches, pastored by local pastors, who are faithful to execute the truth of Scripture.
We don’t need hyped up “mission strategists” to come up with the newest techniques. We need men both local and abroad who will faithfully read the Word of God week after week, counsel, preach, proclaim, and stand on the riches of God’s Word.
The Reading of God’s Word Ezra simply read from the Word of God (vs. 3). He read from early morning until midday. It was a period of at least six hours. Imagine if we had such a hunger for the Word of God in our lives, but also a hunger to come hear the Word. I am sure some do, but how much more we treasure the Word when we don’t have access to it! We, like the psalmist, should be able to confidently say “I have treasured Your word in my heart, so that I may not sin against You” (Ps 119:11). You will need access to the Word at times and all you may have is what you have committed to memory.
They were attentive to what the law said. Only some—not all—could understand. The same exists in the church today. There are many who are learning and growing as the Word is read, preached, and taught, and there is joy.
The Importance of God’s Word Ezra was standing on a platform, a pulpit of wood, and the people stood as he read the Word. This is why some pastors I know will ask the congregation to stand as they read the Word. As he read, he blessed the great God for his Word.
The response of the crowd was the saying of amen, amen. They raised their hands together. They bowed down to worship. There were no theatrics, smoke, lights, or comforting commentary. It was the Word of God read aloud. It was the words of God that had the impact. You can be impacted by a performance, but it won’t last. You can be impacted by a church that is busy, but it won’t last. If you have a church that centers everything on the Word of God, it will drive you to say “amen” and joyfully participate in all aspects of worship.
The Explanation of God’s Word Ezra had men to explain (vs. 7) and to give sense so the people understood (vs. 8). The word expository means “a comprehensive description and explanation.” The reason we teach and preach from the Bible verse by verse is because it is a unique and biblical way to expound the text within the framework of context. You simply cannot pull a verse out and make it what you want. On the other hand, Christians grow greatly in the Lord as we study context, words, meanings, and get the setting of the text. It avoids us finding a point and then finding a text. In expositional preaching, the text provides the points.
The explanation of God’s Word to the people here brought them to worship, as does the faithful preaching and teaching of God’s Word in the church today. But something else happened here. The people were moved as we have seen. They didn’t read, they listened. Dan Dumas says, “The pastor should not be the only one working hard during the sermon.” James 1:19–25 puts great emphasis on focusing on the preaching of God’s Word in the worship hour.
It’s good and right to expect the church to have a high expectation of preaching, but they should also be ready and prepared to hear. The people here in Nehemiah were eager to hear the Word. In the text in James, he outlines six points to being an expository listener. First, open your ears. Second, close your mouth. Third, control your temper. Fourth, cleanse your heart. Fifth, mortify your pride. Sixth, move your feet. If you let pride go unchecked, you won’t hear the Word of God.
Hearing the Word of God requires attention. If you drift, the Word will sail over your head. If you aren’t prepared to hear, you will miss the Word. In Nehemiah, as Ezra and the elders were teaching, explaining, and proclaiming, the people listened.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 18, 2024 13:44:52 GMT -5
Out From the Prosperity Gospel and Into Biblical Christianity DoctrineDoctrineFalse ProphetsFalse ProphetsFalse TeachersProsperity Gospel Share
g3min.org/out-from-the-prosperity-gospel-and-into-biblical-christianity/ VIRGIL WALKER
selective focus photography of book Many of you are familiar with some of the most powerful Bible expositors within reformed circles, such as MacArthur, Lawson, and Baucham. Few of you are as familiar with Pearson, Thompson, and Dollar; well, maybe you recognize Dollar’s name. While many of you have experienced the sound Bible teaching of the former, the latter represents a shortlist of the prosperity preachers for which I was familiar long before I heard my first Voddie Baucham sermon.
For those unfamiliar with the latter list, I want you to imagine teaching so far from Biblical exposition that it’s associated with the false teachings of the word of faith movement. For the better portion of my Christian walk, I was an active participant in this false movement.
During the heyday of Bishop Carlton Pearson’s Azusa Street Conferences, I was in ministry at Pearson’s church—Higher Dimensions Evangelistic Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Pearson’s brand of Bapticostal expression served up large doses of experiential teaching which far too often was less than an inch deep on theology or doctrine. Most of the 30,000+ attendees at the conference were there for the concert like atmosphere and preaching, which was strong on homiletics, but weak on hermeneutics.
What God uses to move us away from false prosperity teaching to walk in the light of the true gospel may vary. However, the heart-piercing call of God on those who are His is consistent.
Over the past decade, as I’ve been in reformed circles, I’ve learned that my experience is not unique. I’ve talked to many people who were once involved in some form of the prosperity gospel. While my proximity to people like Oral Roberts, Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, and others might be different, the story from those who have experienced their false teaching is the same. My friend Costi Hinn, now solidly reformed in his theology, knows this all too well as Benny Hinn’s nephew. Costi’s book, God, Greed, and the (Prosperity) Gospel expresses the familiar story of those who have walked away from this false theology and into the light of the Gospel of Grace.
What God uses to move us away from false prosperity teaching to walk in the light of the true gospel may vary. However, the heart-piercing call of God on those who are His is consistent. Jesus expressed this truth to the Jews in this way, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand” (John 10:27–28 ESV).
The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith expresses the miraculous work of God in this way:
“Those whom God hath predestined unto Life, he is pleased in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call by his word, and Spirit, out of that state of sin, and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and Salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds, spiritually, and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his Almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his Grace.”
God chooses the means by which we come to a saving knowledge of His grace. As for my story, Salvation was apprehended despite the Prosperity Gospel and not because of it.
Doctrine informs how we live. Theology establishes our worldview and provides the lens through which we see every area of life. There is no aspect of our human experience that isn’t impacted by what we think about God.
As my wife and I wrestled through decades of false teaching, we would come into contact with a video by Justin Peters. I watched the 50-minute chapel talk that Justin delivered at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary with great interest. Afterward, I spent the next few weeks watching everything with the name Justin Peters on it. My wife and I would stay up late pouring through Scripture like the Bereans (Acts 17:11), trying to determine if what we heard from Justin was true. That was more than eight years ago.
Why Theology Matters
One of the things that my wife and I learned during this period was how much theology matters. Doctrine informs how we live. Theology establishes our worldview and provides the lens through which we see every area of life. There is no aspect of our human experience that isn’t impacted by what we think about God. False teaching perverts a clear view of the nature of God. The human heart’s sinfulness will frequently replace God’s centrality with man’s preeminence. In the prosperity Gospel, man is the center of creation, and God serves as a divine butler providing what we name and claim for consumption.
The key to replacing bad theology with solid Biblical theology was understanding the use of proper Biblical hermeneutics. Three basic ideas that helped us develop a solid grasp of Biblical theology were context, context, and context. Most straightforwardly, I learned never to read a Bible verse (alone). Instead, we spent time reading what came before and after the verse of Scripture being used so that we can understand what the writer of the text was saying. This process would clear up the vast majority of the false teaching we had been consuming for years.
Later, one of the best resources that we used was David Helm’s book, One to One Bible Reading. This small book helped us to understand how to study the Scripture by asking the right questions. I recommend his book to anyone learning how to study the Scriptures for themselves.
Finally, we tested what we learned systematically and historically. As we landed on sound doctrine, we studied to know if the whole of Scripture taught that same doctrine. We also wanted to examine historical theology to see if the same principle held throughout church history. We held tightly to the notion that if an idea was new, it probably was not true.
The most important thing we learned during those years was that this process takes time. We didn’t become theological experts overnight. The result was a growing understanding of who God is and this process deepened our worship of God in greater ways than ever before.
From the time my wife and I watched our first Justin Peters video many years ago, I’ve since had the unique privilege of meeting Justin Peters during the G3 Conference in 2018. During that time, I expressed a heart-felt and emotional “thank you” for allowing God to use him in such a profound way. I’m grateful for Justin’s continued work in this area and pray that others are impacted in the same way as they grow to understand, Theology Matters.
Print Friendly, PDF & EmailAUTHOR
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 22, 2024 10:54:07 GMT -5
Out of the Abundance of the Heart: The Fruitful Speech of the Christian Share
g3min.org/out-of-the-abundance-of-the-heart-the-fruitful-speech-of-the-christian/ JACOB TANNER
two men talking One of the reasons I absolutely love expository preaching and insist that pastors preach verse-by-verse through books of the Bible for their congregations is because the Word of God is always timely. Rather than preaching hobby-horses or tired and trite topics of interest, expository preaching, when done well, forces the pastor to faithfully handle the texts of Scripture as they come down the pipeline. There’s no guessing about what’s coming next Sunday for the congregation, either. They can rest in the assurance that—Lord-willing—the preaching will pick up in the text where it left off the previous Sunday.
Some, however, worry that expository preaching prevents pastors from engaging with pressing topics of the times. This, however, is hardly ever the case. Our sovereign God has a peculiar way of lining our preaching texts up with pressing events in often unexpected ways.
This was my experience very recently as I have been preaching through the Gospel of Matthew for nearly a year-and-a-half. Recently, there has been some talk about the use of vulgar language by certain evangelicals, and some in our congregation (and some friends outside of our congregation, too), have been asking me about how Christians should understand the use of language. As the Lord would have it, amid these questions, Matthew 12:33–37 lined up as my next sermon, and perfectly answered many of these questions. Below, I will share some highlights from this sermon about Christian speech.
Your Actions And Words Are the Fruit That Reveal Where You Are Rooted
Jesus makes the issue clear. Those who are in Christ ought to speak and act in a righteous way, because, as he plainly states in Matthew 12:33, “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit.”
Jesus uses the metaphor of the tree and its fruit on more than one occasion and it’s incredibly simple to understand. If I’m a branch on an apple tree, what kind of fruit will I bear? Apples. No one expects to find oranges on an apple tree because a tree will always bear fruit corresponding to the type of tree it is. If an apple tree bears oranges, something has gone horribly askew. It simply isn’t possible. It is, ultimately, against the nature of the branches to bear fruit differing from the rest of the tree.
So it is with people. If we’re saved and rooted in Christ, we’ll be marked by holy speech and righteous deeds. If we’re lost and chained to sin, we’ll be marked by evil speech and wicked deeds. Thus, Jesus said, “Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:4–5).
While we know we are not saved by our works, but by faith in Christ alone, yet it is true that a Christian is known by their speech and actions. Hence, there are evidences of salvation, and our speech is one major evidence of whether or not we’re saved and indwelled by the Holy Spirit.
What Fills the Heart Moves the Mouth
In Matthew 12:34, Jesus is speaking directly to the Pharisees whose pretense and facade of apparent righteousness fell apart when they opened their mouths. Jesus rebuked them and explained, “You brood of vipers! How can you speak good when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.”
Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. This is as straightforward as the previous verse. What you have been filled with will ultimately spill out of you. Whatever occupies your heart will control your tongue.
It would, perhaps, be simple enough to say that this verse simply warns us against foul language, swearing, and cussing. However, this verse means even more still. The context of this rebuke is the larger issue of how the Pharisees have blasphemed Jesus by accusing him of being demon possessed. Rather than praise Jesus for his miracles, the Pharisees blasphemed Christ by claiming “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons” (Matt. 12:24). What makes this language so wicked, sinful, evil, and blasphemous is that it lies about who Jesus truly is, while simultaneously ascribing the miracles he was performing to Satan. Such an accusation tried to rob God of his rightful glory while ascribing the glory to Satan instead. In the process of such a wicked accusation, the Pharisees revealed both their wicked hearts and their sinful allegiance to Satan.
Jesus, knowing this, said of the Pharisees in John 8:44 that, “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” Those who try to pretend to be righteous will, eventually, be revealed by their language. Their true colors will eventually show. They will, by mere words, reveal where their allegiance lies—whether they belong to Christ or Satan.
This is because, as Jesus puts it, “out of the abundance of heart, the mouth speaks.” What has filled your heart? If you’re a Christian, then the answer is simple: the Holy Spirit. As Paul asked in 1 Corinthians 6:19–20, “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.”
So, what does the Holy Spirit do when he begins to fill our hearts? He regenerates us, plants faith in us, seals us for eternal life in the presence of Jesus and leads us into holiness. That means that he also convicts us of sin so that we repent of our sinfulness, including our sinful language (cf, John 16:6–11).
Having been filled by the Holy Spirit, we are then called to “be careful to devote themselves [ourselves] to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people” (Titus 3:8). Devoting ourselves to good works and speaking from the abundance of our hearts means speaking as God teaches us to speak in his Word.
A good rule of thumb for the Christian, then, regarding speech, is to ask two primary questions: 1. Would Jesus say what I’m about to say? 2. Would I say this directly to, or in front of, Jesus? If you can’t answer “yes” to both questions, then it is not befitting of a Christian.
This is because:
A Man’s Speech Reveals Whether His Treasure Is Christ or Sin
As Jesus continues to explain how our language is the fruit that reveals where we are rooted, he goes on to say in Matthew 12:35 that “The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil.”
It’s as though we are treasure chests, or piggy banks, and the words we speak reveal what’s really been deposited inside of us. Every time we speak, it’s like we’re making a withdrawal from the deposit—the deposit never diminishes, of course, but our speech reveals whether the deposit was the Holy Spirit or sin. Our duty is to guard the good deposit. This is why Paul told Timothy in 2 Timothy 1:14, “By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you.”
God, through the Holy Spirit, made a deposit into us and that deposit consists of the confession, “Christ is Lord.” And, indeed, Christ is Lord of all! He’s Lord of our hearts, our minds, our actions, our families, our homes, our churches, our worship, our employments, our recreations, and—yes—our speech. After all, either Jesus is Lord of all or He’s not Lord at all. And, so, when we draw on the good deposit of this confession, we bring forth the fruit of the the Spirit of God: “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law” (Gal. 5:22–24).
Is your speech marked by the fruit of the Spirit? Does the way you speak reveal to others that you’re rooted and grounded in Christ, that the Holy Spirit has filled your heart, and that Christ is your great treasure?
We need not wonder what such speech might look like. The Bible is very clear about this fruit of the Spirit in our speech and tells us, in a very practical way, to, “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person” (Col. 4:6). Gracious and wise. This is what it is to have speech seasoned with salt; it is, primarily, speech that kindly and lovingly lifts our brothers and sisters in Christ, while also having the holy tenacity to tear down idols.
But, as Paul tells us in Ephesians 4:29–32, there are some prohibitions laid on the Christian when they talk. “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.”
So, with our mouths, we must worship God, proclaim the gospel, and make known the Lordship of Jesus. Our words are to build others up, offering grace to our hearers. It is to be marked by kindness, tenderness, and even forgiveness, while avoiding bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, slander, and malice. And, there is to be no corrupting talk, which is perhaps the most telling part of these verses. We ought not to sound like the world. This means no gossip, slander, unrighteous anger, lying, or blasphemous speech, but also that swearing and cussing ought to be off the table as regular patterns of life.
I’ve seen and heard some, very recently, suggest that Christians, and especially Christian men, ought not to make a fuss over language, like swearing and cussing. Some have gone so far as to say that if we want blue collar men to return to the church, we need to embrace swearing and get comfortable with cussing. Others have even suggested that advancing in certain occupations and keeping friends requires one learn how to “talk shop” with the boys. And, to make their defense, they appeal to men like Luther, who occasionally did swear, and prophets like Ezekiel who use the sort of language that might make your grandmother blush, as in Ezekiel 22.
I don’t deny that cussing can have an effect. I also don’t deny that men like Luther appear to have used very strong language. Prophets like Ezekiel and Elijah did the same. But, here’s the deal: We’re not Luther, Ezekiel, or Elijah. We are not called to be like them; we’re called to be like Christ. Our standard for holiness is Christ. So, while there may be times for strong language from Christians, does it not seem best to err on the side of caution here? I believe we can do better. I believe men can speak like men, valid points can be made, wisdom can be taught, idols can be torn down, and the sins of our culture confronted in brave, courageous, and tenaciously holy ways, devoid of vulgarity.
My own testimony of language is this: I used to cuss like a sailor. I knew every swear word in the book and then some. I used them in inventive ways. While Paul boasted in Philippians 3 about his Jewishness, I could have boasted about how much I swore. I was young at the time, but I doubt my parents ever even knew. I knew better than to do it in front of them or when at church.
But two things happened to me that changed this pattern of speech and behavior. One day, I remember my dad telling me that cussing never made anyone sound intelligent. And, secondly, I read these various verses and became quite convicted about my ungodly language. Over time, then, not only did my language change, but others took notice. I worked enough blue collar, secular jobs to know this truth: Even the unsaved will change their speech around Christians when they realize we talk in a holy manner. This, in turn, acts as an agent of conviction, opening the door for gospel conversations.
If that isn’t enough to convince you to speak in a holy and righteous way, consider this:
Our Language Will Be Judged Because It Reveals the Allegiance of Our Hearts
Jesus is incredibly clear in his warning of Matthew 12:36–37: “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
Even our careless words will be judged! That ought to make us pause. This means that the words we speak publicly and privately, carefully, intentionally, or even without thought, will all be judged. And, if you really want to know what treasure a person possesses, listen to how they talk the other six days out of the week; not just Sunday. If the regular pattern of their speech is to praise God, discuss Scripture, proclaim the gospel, pray, and is theological and commendable, you have your answer. That person is filled with the Holy Spirit. But, if not . . . well, they will be judged.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 25, 2024 9:41:07 GMT -5
William Tyndale, John Rogers, and the Bible Share
g3min.org/william-tyndale-john-rogers-and-the-bible/ Open-Bible-Wood-Desk Many people misunderstand the main point of the Reformation. It wasn’t a worship war between the Roman Catholic Church and those who were protesting. It wasn’t a mere protest. It was about God raising up faithful men who would protect the gospel of Jesus Christ from the perversion of the Pope and the false religion of the Roman Catholic Church.
How was this possible? It was necessary to bring the Bible out of the shadows. For ages, the Bible had been locked away in a dungeon and the religion of Rome insisted that people could only hear the Word of God spoken in Latin (even though people couldn’t understand it). They were certainly not permitted to have the Bible in their own homes. Therefore, the protection of the purity of the gospel came through a rediscovery of God’s Word.
God would raise up a monk named Martin Luther who would do far more than nail a document to the castle church door in Wittenberg. He would be used to translate the Bible into the German language. This would be how the five Latin slogans of the Reformation would eventually emerge to the surface.
Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) Sola Gratia (Grace Alone) Sola Fide (Faith Alone) Solus Christus (Christ Alone) Soli Deo Gloria (To God Alone Be Glory) Standing upon the shoulders of Luther was another man—William Tyndale. He was born in 1494 in rural western England. At age 12, he entered a preparatory grammar school at Oxford University. He learned grammar, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, music, rhetoric, logic, and philosophy. He had a gift for the languages and made great progress as he earned a bachelor’s degree in 1512 and his master’s degree in 1515.
While studying theology, he came into contact with the writings of Martin Luther. In 1521, Tyndale stepped away from academic atmosphere in order to pursue his thoughts on the Reformation. During this time, he would be called upon to preach in small churches. His beliefs were aligning with Luther and people were noticing it. He would have meals with priests often and he became appalled at their ignorance and false doctrines.
In 1523, Tyndale traveled to London to seek official authorization for a translation project. He was denied permissions. In 1524, Tyndale at the age of 30, started his translation work without consent—which was a breach of the law. In 1526, the English New Testament was printed.
In the spring of 1526, Tyndale was smuggling the Bible into England in bales of cotton. They were quickly circulated throughout England to students, brick masons, tailors, weavers, and peasants. All types of people were hungry for the Bible in their language. By the summer, just a few weeks after the Bible smuggling project started – the church officials found out. Both the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of London were enraged.
They condemned the Bible and confiscated as many copies as they could get their hands on. They called it a crime to read it, sell it, or even handle it. Bishop Tunstall preached a sermon against Tyndale’s New Testament at St. Paul’s Cathedral in London and burned copies of the Bible. The archbishop of Canterbury decided to purchase all of the copies of Tyndale’s Bible. He thought this would stop the spread – so he purchased them and quickly burned them.
The money went to Tyndale and actually allowed him to produce a second edition which included some necessary revisions for accuracy and a larger print font. Over the next 8 years, two revised editions followed. In May of 1528, Tyndale published his first major theological work The Parable of the Wicked Mammon. In it, he focused on the heart of the gospel – the theme of justification by faith alone. Sola Fide was a major drum beat of the Reformation.
On June 18th, 1528, the archbishop of York, Thomas Wolsey, dispatched agents to search for Tyndale. The arrest of Tyndale was a major work – but Tyndale had disguised his location by printing a false printer name in the front of the book along with a false location for the printing.
A man by the name of Henry Phillips, was hired by a church official of London to travel and find Tyndale. In 1535, he arrived in Antwerp. He located Tyndale (something nobody else was able to do) and befriended him. After earning his trust, he set a trap and lured him into a certain location where soldiers were waiting on him. They finally captured Tyndale after 12 years as a fugitive.
October 6th, 1536, Tyndale was taken to a place of execution outside the southern gate of the town. He was given a moment to pray. He was asked to recant. He refused. The guards tied his feet to the bottom of a cross and his neck was tied with a chain. They packed straw and brush around the bottom of the cross. They added gun powder to the brush pile. It was at this moment that Tyndale cried, “Lord, open the king of England’s eyes.”
The executioner tightened the noose around Tyndale’s neck, strangling Tyndale. They took a lighted wax torch and lit the brush and straw. The brush caught fire as Tyndale’s life was strangled from his body. As the fire grew – the gun powder exploded the body of Tyndale. The entire corpse eventually dropped into the glowing flames below. Within a few short moments, the English Reformer was gone.
The Providence of God in the Translation of the Bible
Coming in the wake of Tyndale was John Rogers who was born in about year 1500. After being educated in Cambridge, he eventually became a Catholic priest and was granted a position during the Reformation. In God’s providence, Rogers would move to Antwerp, Holland where he would become the chaplain for the Merchant Adventurers. This corporation was led by Thomas Poyntz, and as God would have it, William Tyndale was hiding out in his home to do his translation work of the Bible. It’s almost as if God brought John Rogers to the home of Poyntz and said, “John Rogers, meet William Tyndale.”
John Rogers and William Tyndale became friends, and it was through this friendship that Rogers started listening to the doctrine of Tyndale. Soon Rogers would renounce the Catholic faith and turn to Jesus Christ for salvation. After his conversion, he continued to grow in the faith, although he would not be able to sever himself fully from popery until after Tyndale’s death. One thing that certainly strengthened his faith was watching Tyndale, his friend, die for his faith and his work as a translator of the English Bible. Soon after Tyndale’s martyrdom, Rogers met a woman named Adriana de Weyden. They married and moved to Wittenberg.
In God’s providence, as Tyndale was finally located and arrested in the home of Thomas Poyntz, although his property was confiscated, his translation work of the Old Testament found its way into the possession of John Rogers. The details are unclear as to how Rogers ended up with this great treasure, but we can be sure it was nothing short of God’s meticulous providence.
Rogers dedicated himself to completing the work of his friend William Tyndale. Two years later in the year 1537, after working under a pseudonym Thomas Matthew, the work was finished. The first printed English Bible of the Old and New Testaments translated from the original biblical languages was now complete. Although Miles Coverdale had completed the Coverdale Bible in 1535, the Old Testament was a translation from Martin Luther’s work and the Latin text, but not translated from the original languages. That is what set the Matthew Bible apart from the Coverdale Bible.
The Perseverance of John Rogers
Over time, John Rogers would continue to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. His positions, his doctrine, and his work in the Reformation was not appreciated by the Roman Catholic Church. After Queen Mary I came to power, the pressure was intensified upon anyone who preached and taught in opposition to the Roman Catholic Church. John Rogers was eventually arrested and sentenced to be burned at the stake. In 1555, as he was being led to the stake, his family was there on the street at Smithfield among other witnesses. As he passed by his family, he saw his youngest of eleven children for the first time as they marched him to the stake.
Although his friend Tyndale was burned for his work in the translation of the Bible into English, according to John Foxe, in his famous work known as Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, John Rogers stood firm when asked to recant of his rejection of transubstantiation. Mr. Woodroofe, one of the sheriffs, first came to Mr. Rogers, and asked him if he would revoke his abominable doctrine, and the evil opinion of the Sacrament of the altar. Mr. Rogers answered, “That which I have preached I will seal with my blood.” Woodroofe replied, “Then, you are a heretic. That will be known on the day of judgment.” According to Foxe’s record, when the flames were ignited, he washed his hands in the flames as he was burned. In a short time, this faithful Christian, Bible translator, husband, and father was gone. Rogers was the first martyr under the reign of Queen Mary I, known in history as Bloody Mary.
Sometimes great men offer great service to God and remain unnoticed throughout history. John Rogers is a name that some people know from history, but his name certainly is not well recognized. In God’s providence, John Rogers was used to bring about the printing of the first completed Bible in the English language (translated from the original biblical languages). The Bible is known as the Matthew Bible.
If you visit London today, you will find a small plaque on the wall outside of St Bartholomew’s Hospital. The plaque reads beginning with the arch above the plaque these words, “Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord. The noble army of martyrs praise thee!” On the plaque beneath the arch, it reads, “Within a few feet of this spot, John Rogers, John Bradford, and John Philpot, and other servants of God suffered death by fire for the faith of Christ in the years 1555, 1556, 1557.”
As I stood in that very spot, I thought about how dangerous it is to follow Christ. At certain times in history, it seems that it’s less dangerous, but there is always a danger, always a risk to follow Christ. Rogers remained faithful to the end and remains an example to us who walk in his footsteps. As I stood before the monument, I thought about D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones who studied medicine at St Bartholomew’s Hospital. What were his thoughts as he walked by this monument? Perhaps Rogers impacted Lloyd-Jones. We are all leaving behind a legacy to be remembered. Will we be found faithful in the day of testing? What will be the legacy that we leave to our family, friends, and our church?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 25, 2024 18:47:52 GMT -5
John Owen and a Warning Against Pagan Philosophy in Apologetics Share
g3min.org/john-owen-and-a-warning-against-pagan-philosophy-in-apologetics/ JACOB TANNER
man in black crew neck t-shirt holding black tablet computer Man is fallen in his mind. John Owen knew this. But Owen also recognized that there is a tendency within man to think more highly of himself than he ought to. While the Christian fundamentally recognizes that man is fallen in his reasoning, there is sometimes a disconnect in practice. Occasionally, Christians, who truly do mean well, introduce concepts into the Christian faith that are not found in Scripture. Owen, quoting first from the The Church’s Burden, warns that:
“Pagans . . . still seek to overthrow the evangelical rule of the gospel, and to this end the devil will sponsor new doctrines, and encourage professing Christians to discover them in the pagan philosophers of old, so that the dogmas of the gentiles are married to the pure principles of the faith, and at length the entire evangelical truth is exploded by these sophistic devices.” And, with this, agrees Erasmus, “All of the signs seem to indicate a new and most prosperous phase of the Church. One thing alone grips my soul, which is this, that pagan literature, under the guise of ancient wisdom, may again raise its head in the Church.”
And thus it has been since the beginning of the Reformation. A philosophical method of teaching spiritual matters is alien to the gospel! Christians were quite strangers to philosophy in the days of the Apostles. Let the surviving writings of the earliest Christians be consulted and they will be seen to have handled their theology in a quite different manner to our recent theologians. In this the ancient way is far better.1
The reader will note that Owen was not an enemy of theology or philosophy, often employing philosophy in his own writings. But Owen clearly understood the great danger of taking extra-biblical concepts, like those found in pagan philosophy, and attempting to join them to sacred Scripture. While many are aware that the Roman Catholic church had most heinously done this throughout the Medieval ages, it is a danger still pertinent to Christians today. While many examples of this danger may be given, perhaps the most contested battleground of the day is in the arena of apologetics.
Apologetics and Owen’s Understanding of the Inward Light Apologetics is that branch of theology that deals explicitly with the defense of the Christian faith. Though there have been various apologetic approaches over the centuries, with figures as varied as Anselm of Canterbury and Cornelius Van Til making their own contributions to the field, there are two main categories under which the various approaches to apologetics fall today: Classical Apologetics and Presuppositional Apologetics.
Classical Apologetics typically aims to first prove the existence of God through philosophical and natural arguments, explaining the need for the existence of God as the prerequisite for meaningful discourse and logic, before moving on to the Scriptures. Presuppositional Apologetics holds that the existence of God and the authority of the Scriptures must be presupposed as the basis for all meaningful discourse and logic, and so typically begins with the Scriptures, though it is no stranger to employing some philosophical and natural arguments as well.
Before deciding between the two, a question must be answered: What is the end-goal of apologetics? The answer is, of course, the salvation of sinners and the edification of the saints. Apologetics is really designed to serve evangelistic purposes and increase faith in the saints. If at the heart of the apologist there is no desire to see sinners saved, or the saints edified, then the apparent “apologist” is really a glorified debater who enjoys arguing. There is certainly a place for debating, but even those debates ought to be centered around the desire to see sinners drawn to salvation in Christ and the faith of the saints strengthened.
If the salvation of sinners is at the heart of the apologist’s desire, then one must consider what Scripture has to say about the means by which a sinner is saved. Thankfully, the Apostle Paul is quite clear on this matter when, in Romans 10:13–15, he writes:
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
We rightly conclude that sinners are saved through the preaching and proclamation of the Word of God, and no sinner has ever been saved apart from the Word of God. That is why it is essential for ministers of the Word of God to go forth and preach the gospel, and for all saints to proclaim the gospel. Apart from hearing God’s Word, no sinner can be saved.
Philosophical arguments ought not to become the basis for our evangelism. While something like the cosmological argument is essentially true (there must be an unmoved mover who moves the universe into existence), the argument is powerless to convert a sinner to Christ. Philosophical arguments have their place but typically serve to merely prove that some sort of ‘god’ must exist. This is not to suggest that philosophical arguments can never be used by Christians, or that philosophy must be avoided. It is to say that the philosophers’ words, writings, and arguments cannot save sinners. What the sinner needs is the true and unveiled Triune God, who is revealed through the gospel. As Owen himself wrote:
How marvelously is the inner voice of conscience quieted, and the spiritual sharpness which is part of evangelical truth blunted, as all should easily observe and confess, when minds are bolstered up with insuperable philosophical prejudices. In the place of spiritual wisdom is substituted I know not what varieties of barren and arid opinion, and so countless wicked, faithless, carnal, worldly men are held back from any saving knowledge of God in Christ. This we see happening all about us daily. The spiritual nature of the gospel is most wickedly eclipsed while multitudes of petty “scholars” fret themselves how they might best teach the faith within a rigidly structured, accurate, methodical-philosophical form!
What is more, a great multitude of errors have swarmed into the Church through the reception of philosophy . . . the clear fact is that the common, Aristotelian philosophy supplied sufficient material for an infinity of quarrels and useless disputes. The facts shout out to heaven that our little, witty, chattering sophists, in their endless wranglings over the “articles of faith,” are simply raking over the embers of Aristotle’s philosophy, and in so doing they “Irritate the throne of almighty God with legal quarrels and cheap tricks. They dissect the faith with a scalpel of ambiguity, and with words having no more substance than their own breath they tie and unite the chains of their complicated syllogisms!” as Prudentius once sang of the ancient philosophers.2
The problem is not the use of truth, but when pagan philosophy is elevated to equal footing with holy Scripture. Either the Scriptures are sufficient for salvation, or something else must be elevated to a place of power above them.3
A Fallen Man Needs the Perfect Word of God Despite the arguments some make, man is fallen in his faculty and incapable of coming to a true knowledge of God on his own. Man, of course, knows that God exists apart from the Word of God—Romans 1 makes this abundantly clear. The problem is that, in his sinfulness, man rejects God and His Word. This is because man is spiritually dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1). Just as dead men are incapable of doing anything, the spiritually dead man is incapable of coming to life on his own. What he needs is rebirth. What he needs is life breathed into him so that his dry bones will come to life (Ezek 37). What he needs is the grace of a sovereign God to draw him to salvation (John 6:44). What he needs, ultimately, is a merciful God who has elected him unto salvation.
The doctrine of election necessitates evangelism. Amongst the Reformed, there is little denial of this. While it is certainly true that God could, theoretically, save sinners apart from evangelism, God chooses to operate and accomplish his extraordinary purposes by ordinary means. As the Apostle Paul wrote in Romans 10:17, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Apart from the preaching and proclaiming of the Word of God to the elect, there would be no avenue for true saving faith to be expressed.
Again, Owen warns against the use of fallen man’s philosophical systems:
From this source are theological disputes generated and, once generated, perpetuated. How would all be silenced if Christian men would once but surrender themselves to the faith and direction of the divine Word, and of the Holy Spirit speaking powerfully in it! I Say “Christian man” because of their profession, although I am quite ashamed to use the word of many today. While the minds of most men who would concern themselves seriously with the subject of religion are still deeply embued with philosophy, even if that leaven stands not at the center of their thinking, disputes between believers will continue, and reconciliation between those who are really only kept apart by the most ridiculously small matters will be impossible. It is a result of this that our theological libraries are packed full of weighty tomes, and our disputes are without end, and the most about matters, assertions, and terms which the Christian world would have done far better never to have heard of—and would not have heard of it they had not happened to enter the fertile brain of Aristotle so long ago!4
Owen, of course, was right. The philosophy of Aristotle—though extremely helpful at certain points—has also become the source of much arguing among Christians. It is a sad reality that as long as pagan philosophy is elevated to the place of Scripture, “reconciliation between those who are really only kept apart by the most ridiculously small matters will be impossible.”
Theologians and apologists alike must conclude, then, that the philosophy of fallen men—no matter how often it happens upon the truth—is sometimes helpful, but ultimately insufficient to save. Only God’s Word, preached in the power of the Holy Spirit, can accomplish this incredible task.
We would do well to remember that Scripture alone is sufficient for salvation, and God has revealed all that we need to know within his Word. It is divinely inspired, inerrant, and infallible. It is perspicuous—that is to say, clearly expressed and easy to understand, for old and young alike. Can these same things be said about the syllogisms of philosophers?
Much of today’s fascination with pagan philosophy and classical argumentation is in danger of hindering the true work of apologetics, and what’s more, it can derail evangelistic efforts by seemingly offering argumentation as a competing force against the Scriptures. It is the duty of the apologist, the evangelist, and the Christian in general to keep the main thing the main thing, and the main thing is the gospel, as revealed in Scripture.
References
References 1 John Owen, Biblical Theology: The History of Theology from Adam to Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Soli Deo Gloria Publishing, 1994), 679. 2 Ibid., 680. 3 The Second London Baptist Confession agrees that Scripture alone is sufficient for salvation. “The whole counsel of God concerning all things9 necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture; unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the11 inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be12 ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. (Timothy 3:15–17; Galatians 1:8,9; 11John 6:45; 1 Corinthians 2:9–12; 121 Corinthians 11:13, 14; 1 Corinthians 14:26,40),” 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1.6. 4 Ibid., 681. AUTHOR
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 1, 2024 17:23:22 GMT -5
Life in the Face of Death Share
g3min.org/life-in-the-face-of-death/ R. D. NORMAN
grayscale photo of cross on grass field Death is scary. I do not know a single honest person who would say otherwise. Yes, that shrieking reality can be met with great faith and courage. Regardless, that does not change the fact that it is a horrifying thing to consider. The problem is not that we do not believe in Heaven. It is the fact that it takes faith to get us there. We cannot see beyond the shadowy veil until we are wrapped in its dark embrace. No matter our faith background, death is a dark, creeping mystery that awaits us all.
If we are honest with ourselves and accept this truth, then we can make progress towards dealing with death. Accepting that life ends in death helps us to deal with its frightful certainty. Only then can we know how to live our lives in the face of death.
Accepting the Facts Too often, I hear people claim that they are not scared of death. I used to believe this was great faith, however, I am not so convinced these days. Certainly, there will be some people who have amazing faith. They can settle their fate head-on. In general, though, most people have (at least) a lick of fear in the face of death.
John Bunyan addresses this fear in The Pilgrim’s Progress. At the point where Christian and Hopeful are ready to cross the river of death into the Celestial Kingdom, we see two responses to death. Hopeful seems to cross easily, without much trouble. Christian, on the other hand, begins to despair. He feels like the waters are overcoming him and that he is about to drown. Thankfully, he arrives at the other side and is able to enter into the Celestial Kingdom. This shows us that Christians, at least since Bunyan’s time, have struggled with the creeping shadow of approaching death. That must have been the case if Bunyan felt the need to write about it in his book.
Knowing that we are not the first generation to struggle gives us hope. We do not need to hide what our forefathers have held in honesty. We do not like to admit that we are scared, because that sounds like we are unfaithful. So, instead of confronting our faithlessness, we hide and lie to ourselves about it. This is very unhealthy for our spirituality. If we hide our sins from each other, then how can we counsel each other (Gal 6:2)? No, we must learn to share our fears, concerns, and sins with one another so we can help each other grow in faith and overcome those issues.
The reality is as Martin Luther once wrote:
Death looms so large and is terrifying because our foolish and faint hearted nature has etched its image too vividly within itself and constantly fixes its gaze on it. Moreover, the devil presses man to look closely at the gruesome mien and image of death to add to his worry, timidity, and despair. Indeed, he conjures up before men’s eyes all the kinds of sudden and terrible death ever seen, heard, or read by man. And then he also slyly suggests the wrath of God with which he [the devil] in days past now and then tormented and destroyed sinners. In that way he fills our foolish human nature with the dread of death while cultivating a love and concern for life, so that burdened with such thoughts man forgets God, flees and abhors death, and thus, in the end, is and remains disobedient to God.1
We see that there is a great fight in our hearts to accept the fear we have over death. We are all prone to this and we must learn to admit it.
Do you struggle with the fear of death? Dear believer, please do not hide that from those around you. Hiding it will only aggravate its hold on your life. You will give it a foothold into your soul, which will constantly rattle your faith. Please be courageous enough to talk with those whom you trust. Seek comfort and counsel from friends and pastoral leaders. They may just help you to face death by grace. Doing this, you will then have the way opened to know how to live your life in the face of death.
How to Live in Face of Death The Apostle Paul once wrote: “We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain” (Heb 6:19). He is, of course, talking about eternal life in the hope of Christ’s sacrifice. Our hope in Him is like a steadfast anchor on the raging waves of the sea of life. Beyond the curtain of death, we know He awaits us with open arms to wipe away the tears of this life. As our boats begin to capsize into death, we have only one choice if we are to avoid being overwhelmed. Hold fast to the anchor. He is the only way to deal with the deluge of spiritual and physical difficulties that come upon us in face of death.
Clinging to Him is the only thing that will give us strength to face that day. What about today? If we are not on the point of death right now, how is this relevant to us?
Knowing that no matter what we do in this life everything ends in death is a sobering reality. Sobering enough to help us realize that none of our possessions or achievements will come with us to Heaven. Our money, trophies, and goods will be left behind as our souls depart our bodies in death. What remains? Paul tells us that there is a kind of gold that goes to Heaven: “Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done” (1 Cor 3:12–13).
Jesus Christ Himself is the foundation (v. 11). This means that, no matter what, if your foundation is Christ, then you are saved. The end of your life will come and you will be accepted into the Kingdom of God. Once you have come to this covenantal standing with God, what is left for your life? Paul has told us: what remains is what we build on the foundation.
Too many people today are highly focused on gaining wealth and possessions for their comfort. They invest as much money as possible in buying a house, an expensive car, and other luxuries. It is not wrong to provide for our families like this, but take a moment to think about something. None of that will remain in eternity. Our hard work for things in this life will not amount to anything in eternity. What will remain is what we build on the foundation of Christ. If we put all our gold into earthly possessions and give nothing but straw to Christ, then that will show in eternity. If, however, we give our money to Kingdom work, use our time for Kingdom ministry, and work hard to live holy lives, then that is what will remain in eternity.
The idea is that we might reward our hard work and financial ventures in this life with more stuff. Doing so, however, means that our reward in eternity will shine that little bit less brightly. Not that we will be unsatisfied when we get there. What it does mean though is that if we are not invested in eternity in this life, then that will impact our eternal reward. Surely it is better to focus on what we can gain in Heaven, rather than what we can gain in this life?
Thinking about this should motivate us to live properly in this life. We have a finite amount of time and nothing we amass here remains for eternity. That is why we should be willing to give our best to God, even if we have to sacrifice comforts in this life. Death is coming. What more can we do to be prepared than by clinging to Christ? How can we better cling to Christ than by giving our all to Him in this life?
I think Richard Baxter really nailed the point about our comforts in his Dying Thoughts:
Were it not for bodily interest and its temptations, how much more innocent and holy might I live! I should have nothing to care for, but to please God and be pleased in him, were it not for the care of this bodily life. What employment should my will and love have but to delight in God and love him and his interest, were it not for the love of the body, and its concerns? By this our mind is darkened, our thoughts diverted, our wills corrupted, our heart and time alienated from God, our guilt increased, our heavenly desires and hopes destroyed; life is made unholy and uncomfortable and death terrible; God and souls separated, and eternal life is neglected and in danger of being utterly lost.2
Baxter is certainly correct. We are reluctant to embrace death (and thus Christ), because we have too much pleasure in this life. We maybe even believe that the pleasures of this life are better than that which is to come. What a despicable lie we tell ourselves.
Let us learn to reflect as we traverse this life. Do I really need these things? Do I really need to spend my time on this thing? Is this representative of a holy life? Our time is limited. We must face that fact head on and live accordingly. The only way is to focus on Jesus Christ and live as He would have us live (Heb 12:2).
Have you accepted that death is coming for you? It might be tomorrow. It might be fifty years from now. Rest assured, however, it will come for you one day. Are you scared? Whom can you talk to about your fears? Are you utilizing this life as best as possible to build gold in Heaven? What more can you do to build into that glorious eternity?
Whomever we are, we will always have some fear of death. We can deal with this by regularly talking about our struggle with trusted believers. We can also all do better to live in the knowledge that this life is temporary. Is there anything you can give up so as to build better gold in eternity? Maybe you can give up some time to be used by your church? Or maybe you can give your money so that God’s work can be accomplished. We can all improve here, so it is worth the self-examination.
Looking for ways to improve and acting on them will help us a lot. Death will seem less like an enemy and only the gateway to our pleasant eternity. Our faith will increase and we will be better geared to serve the Lord as our doubts are defogged and our hearts more in line with how He would have us live.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email References
References 1 Luther. Martin, A Sermon on Preparing to Die in Luther’s Works. 42.55. Tr. Bertram. M. T. Fortress Press. Philadelphia: PA. (1969), 101. 2 Baxter. R. Dying Thoughts. The Banner of Truth Trust. Edinburgh: Scotland. (2016), 43–44.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 1, 2024 18:40:53 GMT -5
MAR 01, 2024 SEXUALITY Gay Weddings & the Christian Share
g3min.org/gay-weddings-the-christian/ TIM CANTRELL
selective focus photography white and pink isle flower arrangement Many have been asking lately, “Should a Christian attend a gay wedding?” The biblical answer is extremely nuanced and highly complex: Never, no, not under any circumstances. In the eyes of God and according to His Word, any such pseudo-wedding is an abominable, blasphemous profaning of marriage and a pagan celebration of the sodomy that destroys lives, ruins society, makes a mockery of Christ, and merits eternal punishment (Gen 1–2; 19; Lev 18; Rom 1:18–32; 1 Cor 6:9–10; 1 Tim 1:10; Eph 5:22–33).
None can dodge this as merely some “American fundamentalist” issue. Last Sunday in our church in Johannesburg, I asked for a show of hands from those who have been invited to attend an LGBTQ-affirming wedding or event of some kind, and easily half of our congregation raised their hands—some 100+ people. As Carl Trueman said, “You may not be interested in the sexual revolution; but the sexual revolution is very interested in you.”
As our local association of churches, Sola5, declares in Core Value #5 on Marriage and Sexuality:
God created mankind male and female, and ordained marriage as a life-long union between a natural man and a natural woman (Gen 2:18–25). . . . We further affirm that marriage is by nature heterosexual (Gen 2:24), and that any expression of sexual intimacy is holy only in the covenant of marriage (Exod 20:14; Heb 13:4). We deny the legitimacy and permissibility of homosexuality, lesbianism, fornication, adultery, pornography, paedophilia, bestiality, prostitution, incest and other forms of sexual perversion (Rom 1:24–27).
If we believe that statement is a biblical and unchanging truth from God, it cannot be diluted, softened, or weakened no matter how personal the matter becomes. If my precious grandchild begs me to attend their gay so-called “wedding” twenty years from now and I am tempted to compromise and capitulate, I may need you to send me this article I wrote long ago! Rosaria Butterfield gave a similar warning that if you attend your child’s gay wedding now, but God later answers your prayers and saves them, you will have to repent to them of your previous hypocrisy.
How in the world did the Church become so weakened and cowardly that we’re tired of pursuing holiness and separation from the world (1 Pet 1:13), and we’ve stopped defending marriage and have surrendered the culture war to secularism? Is marriage no longer worth fighting for, even though we’ve reaped untold benefits from it (Heb 13:4)? Have we grown so tired of being salt and light that we now succumb to the decay and darkness (Matt 5:13-16)? May it never be!
As Voddie Baucham once said: “There’s a difference between ‘eating with sinners‘ and solemnizing their sin in a ceremony that traditionally is characterised by phrases like: ‘We are gathered here today in the sight of God to witness. . . . If there is anyone here who can show just cause.’ That is not the same!”
In short, a Christian may attend any lawful wedding (according to God’s Law); but a Christian may not attend any unlawful, illicit, unrighteous, or false wedding. Examples of unlawful weddings would be: a Christian marrying a non-Christian (1 Cor 7:39); an unbiblically divorced person remarrying, which Jesus said is adultery (Matt 5:32; 19:9); a polygamous wedding; any homosexual pretend wedding, “gay mirage.” It is however, not wrong for a Christian to attend a wedding of two unbelievers, since marriage is not a church ordinance, but a “creation ordinance” (Westminster Confession 24.3). This position is what the Christian Church has always believed and never doubted until recently.
The division and confusion among believers over this is not coming from those defending traditional, biblical marriage; the schism is being caused by those spreading error. God’s Word makes clear that there are places that a Christian must never be seen (1 Cor 8:10; 10:14, 21). Attending a gay wedding is a twenty-first century version of a pagan worship ritual, an idolatrous ceremony at today’s LGBTQ altar.
How then do we reach our lost LGBTQ friends and loved ones, for whom our hearts break and our tears flow? We must reach them the same way we reach any lost soul—not by pragmatic compromise, but by faithful proclamation of both God’s Law and gospel, calling them to repentance and faith (Matt 3:2; 4:17; Acts 17:30; 20:21), and leaving the results in God’s hands.
While we cannot signify any approval of homosexuality, we can still prayerfully find dozens of ways to keep blessing, befriending, and loving our gay friends and family and seeking to tell them of the only Savior for sinners (Matt 9:36–38; Col 4:2–6). We must also take their questions sincerely and give them gospel answers with patience and respect (1 Pet 3:15).
If you would like my fuller explanation from which this article was taken, see here.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email AUTHOR selective focus photography white and pink isle flower arrangement Tim Cantrell Tim serves as Sr. Pastor of Antioch Bible Church and President of Shepherd's Seminary in Johannesburg, South Africa.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 4, 2024 10:25:46 GMT -5
One Kingdom or Two? A Review of Citizens & Exiles: Christian Faithfulness in God’s Two Kingdoms by Scott Aniol Share
g3min.org/one-kingdom-or-two-a-review-of-citizens-exiles-christian-faithfulness-in-gods-two-kingdoms-by-scott-aniol/ KEVIN COLLINS
Citizens and Exiles (Mockup) Before commencing a book review of Scott Aniol’s Citizens and Exiles: Christian Faithfulness in God’s Two Kingdoms, let me provide a brief backdrop and introduction to what led me to pick up this book.
I have long followed a paradigm known as one kingdom theology or sphere sovereignty. I was first introduced to it when I watched the 12-part worldview DVD series The Truth Project in the early 2000s when I was in seminary. I found the paradigm helpful for two main reasons. First, it guards against falling prey to tyranny on one extreme and anarchy on the other extreme. Second, it takes seriously the application of a biblical worldview to all of life.
Sphere sovereignty is the idea that God designed the social structures of the world in divided spheres of power or authority—at the very least the spheres of the family, church, and state. Each sphere has its own tasks or responsibilities, and each sphere has its own hierarchy of authority to govern over and carry out those tasks. No other spheres are to swallow up another sphere to take over or undermine another sovereign sphere. Anyone who tries to take over all undivided power is antichrist because only Christ can take all power and authority when he returns to set up His kingdom on earth over all. Therefore, sphere sovereignty guards against tyranny while also recognizing that we have an obligation to submit to limited powers of authority over us in the realms of family, church, and state. Each sphere has checks and balances in relation to the other spheres.
Sphere sovereignty is also the idea that God rules over all. Abraham Kuyper, the Protestant theologian most known for formulating this theology, is famous for saying: “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine.”1 In other words, God’s kingdom rule must be brought to bear in every sphere of life; there is no realm of neutrality free from His rule. The biblical worldview must be applied to all of life rather than dividing the world into sacred and secular realms—and leaving the secular realm to be run according to man’s ideas absent from any biblical or religious influence. Sphere sovereignty is meant to guard against secularism while also guarding against the church swallowing up the sphere of the state (as the Church of Rome had done previously).
Although I had seen the benefits of Sphere Sovereignty over the years, I also began to see dangers or problems, if not in the system itself then, in the misuse or misapplication of this paradigm. Whether postmillennialists or progressive dispensationalists who went too far with an over-realized eschatology, efforts to “redeem the culture” led to a socio-political approach that wanted to shift the mission of the church and change the church’s approach toward culture, undermining antithesis to the culture. Although I maintain that the Creation Mandate is a mission for humans until the consummation of all things (Gen 8–9), it is not the mission of the church per say (institutionally gathered or even organically scattered). Certainly, when the church scatters into its weekly vocations, these redeemed humans ought to be equipped by the church to live faithfully in all of life. But the mission of the church is to be a light in the midst of darkness as a faithful witness until Christ returns to redeem the culture. The church will not triumphantly transform the culture before His return even if Christian influence may produce glimmers of successful impact on the culture in certain limited ways for which we can praise God. The church (gathered and scattered) must stay on mission, keeping its priority fully on the Great Commission. This includes both evangelism and discipleship (living faithfully in all of life—which impacts how Christians live within all of culture). But the Great Commission cannot be forced fit to expand beyond the breaking point to include a triumphalist transformationalism that forwards a mission of the church to take over and redeem the culture itself before Christ returns. This grates against all that the New Testament teaches about us being foreigners in a kingdom of this world in which we do not belong.
It is at this point that I became interested in two-kingdoms theology. Although a quick look at the outset of VanDrunen’s Living in God’s Two Kingdoms left me unconvinced, it seems as if there are variations of two kingdoms theologies. What I did know for sure was that the Bible speaks of the kingdom or kingdoms of this world as well as God’s kingdom. We were translated out of the kingdom of darkness and into the kingdom of light (Col 1:12–13). The Prince of the Power of the Air rules in some respect on this earth (Eph 2:1–3). The nations currently rage (Ps 2). And we are pilgrims on this earth living as foreigners during this age because Christ’s kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36; 1 Pet 2:11). Yes, God is sovereign over all (His universal kingdom) and a biblical worldview must be applied to all of life if we are to be faithful. We can bring to bear biblical principles in the public square. Yet, we should not expect to triumph in any kind of permanent way before Christ Himself returns to vanquish His enemies. We must face up to the reality that we live in opposition to the kingdom of darkness in this world.
One of the greatest dangers or misuses of Kuyperian theology is the idea that the church’s mission is to triumphantly transform the culture (not just individuals who may influence it) before Christ returns. And in its efforts to gain success, the church accommodates itself to the world to appease it in order to gain influence and power. In order to profess progress, the church begins to ape the world; the world transforms the church. It doesn’t want an “us against them” mentality.
Recognizing that Christians are called out of this world to live for a kingdom that is not of this world demands an antithesis with this world—not just in personal piety but also socio-politically. As long as the church drifts from the Great Commission—failing to confront an idolatrous, godless world to repent and to submit to the rightful King—it will compromise by trying to accommodate and appease the godless kingdom. The church needs to be called back to its courageous mission. Success will not be found in a social gospel likableness but in storming the gates like the strong man in Matthew 11:12.2
I don’t think it’s contradictory to recognize that God rules over all so that the biblical worldview is applied to all of life by Christians seeking to be a faithful witness in all of life (even socio-politically in the public square) and on the other hand to recognize that Christians have a higher priority to live for a future eternal kingdom rather than for this temporal world. And this does call for a more narrow fulfillment of the Great Commission—evangelism and discipleship of the nations that is truly gospel- and eternity-driven in contrast to those who redefine the gospel in new left social justice or liberal social gospel ways or Christian Nationalism efforts—shifting the gospel work of the church to social renewal.
It’s not that the true gospel doesn’t impact society—for if people truly repent, they will demonstrate that in all of life. And the more people who do so can then have an impact socially. However, this is an after-effect that results from faithful evangelism and discipleship of individuals. It is not the front-end priority, goal, and focus that drives our work. Christians can be just as faithful under persecution with zero cultural capital or influence or power socio-politically and that takes nothing away from successfully fulfilling the Great Commission because the Great Commission is about saving souls not cultural renewal. This world is headed for zero cultural power for Christians with the rise of anti-Christ followed by perfect cultural renewal at the return of Christ when He takes all dominion. In the meantime, we may perhaps be able to exert some influence for a moral society. And we should always stand for that. But our priority due to our mission is an eternal city while we sojourn as strangers here on earth.
With that backdrop and those presuppositions, I picked up Scott Aniol’s Citizens and Exiles: Christian Faithfulness in God’s Two Kingdoms. I want to begin by summarizing the thrust of each chapter of Aniol’s book and simply allow it to speak for itself. Then, I will summarize some of my reflections and conclusions. Since the introduction and first two chapters set up the whole system, I will provide a more detailed summary of those chapters.
Foreword Citizens and Exiles begins with a brief foreword by Owen Strachen who like me is coming from a Kuyperian framework. But he has also grown to appreciate some strands of Two Kingdoms theology. At the same time, he recognizes the pitfalls from those who seek to use Kuyper to redeem the culture or Christianize society in ways that do not rest on New Testament support.
Introduction The Introduction reckons with the deplorable state of our culture, including the church. Aniol zeroes in on multiple approaches of the church in response: 1) Christ Against Culture pietistic isolationists who withdraw from and ignore culture in favor of spiritual only pursuits; 2a) Christian Nationalism Transformationalists who want to forward an external Christianizing of nations enforced by the Mosaic law; 2b) Integrationist Transformationalists who want to accommodate the current culture to gain power and influence so that the world will respect, like, and accept the Christian agenda for redeeming the culture; 3) an antithesis between the common kingdom of this world in which Christians live as exiles and the redemptive kingdom in which Christians are citizens of Christ’s redemptive kingdom.
The key to keep the church on mission is to recognize and order one’s responsibilities in both the common kingdom (God’s sovereign rule delegated to the first Adam) and the redemptive kingdom (God’s sovereign rule delegated to the Second Adam). This framework guides Christians to properly engage culture in the common kingdom while staying on mission as a church in relation to the redemptive kingdom over which Christ rules. Yet we await His return to reign eternally and we live in an age between these two Adams and thus with these two kingdoms.
Chapter One Chapter one explains the two kingdoms (how God sovereignly reigns over all) and summarizes the biblical support. Aniol begins by laying out three ways that the Bible makes use of kingdom language: in reference to 1) the universal kingdom (Ps 103:19; 145:13); 2) God’s rule over His redeemed people; 3) the literal earthly kingdom to come at Christ’s return.
All humans have been delegated dominion as sub-rulers and priests under God’s universal rule (Gen 1:27–28; 2:15; Ps 8). This was granted before the Fall, and now the Fall has affected the carrying out of this human mission (Heb 2:8). Originally, man/Adam was supposed to serve God in one unified kingdom as a priest/king who perfectly represented God. Now the Second Adam would have to come to restore this unified kingly/priestly rule (Gen 3:15).
Here is the key thesis:
God intended for there to be one kingdom/temple on earth, an expression of his sovereign rule over all things that was a union between man’s dominion over creation—that is, culture—and man’s relationship with God—that is, religion. Adam failed the requirements to rule that one kingdom, and so between his failure and the Second Adam’s success, God separated the two aspects of his united kingdom into two realms of his sovereign rule.3
The common kingdom (established by the Noahic covenant) and the redemptive kingdom (established by the Abrahamic covenant) divide how God rules this earth under the curse corresponding with common grace and special grace (Gen 9:1–7; Rom 2:15; Matt 5:45). The common kingdom can be constrained by government that enforces the common grace given to image-bearers. But the redemptive kingdom is made up of people who worship God by faith according to His special grace. They have been called out and stand in antithesis with those who still serve the god of this world (Gen 3:15; 1 John 3:12). God’s people are always called out to be distinct and to be sojourners (Heb 11:10, 13, 16). The earthly kingdom is temporal; we’re called to live for an eternal, heavenly kingdom. Only when Christ returns will these two kingdoms be united again in a literal kingdom on earth (Isa 11:9; Ps 72:8; Dan 2:44; Ps 110; Rev 11:15).
Therefore, Christians await the return of Christ to reign with Him in accordance with the reunification of these two kingdoms. But now we live as faithful sojourners. We do not try to unite the two kingdoms ourselves in an attempt to Christianize or redeem the culture—every attempt will fail as it did with Israel. We must avoid an over-realized eschatology.
Chapter Two Chapter two explains our dual citizenship: citizens of this world (the common kingdom) and citizens of a heavenly or redemptive kingdom. This is due to Adam failing to rule well so that God administers His one rule over all in different ways as we await the Second Adam. The Noahic and Abrahamic covenants represent these different administrations of the common and redemptive kingdoms respectively. In addition, the nation Israel under the Mosaic covenant foreshadows what the union of God’s two kingdoms rule was supposed to look like.
This understanding of our dual role as citizens of distinct kingdoms impacts our engagement with culture—especially if our responsibility no longer centers on taking dominion of the common kingdom but awaiting the Second Adam to do so at His return.
However, before dealing with our engagement with culture as dual citizens, culture must be biblically defined in contrast to evolutionary ideas of culture leading to multiculturalism. The chapter goes on to define culture as group behavior, the expression of underlying value systems that are never neutral: either borrowing from or opposing the biblical worldview. Christians’ orientation toward the eternal kingdom should direct how they live in the common kingdom; they should be holy and set apart from the depravity of this world’s system.
Christendom seeks to unite the common and redemptive kingdom in an effort to redeem the culture. Positively, we can applaud any moral influence in the production of cultural artifacts. Negatively, this approach tends to produce both nominal Christianity that’s not genuine and worldly Christians who don’t behave as exiles but accommodate this world to gain influence and power.
The chapter concludes with historical and biblical support and recognition of distinctions in God’s kingdom administrations.4
Chapter Three This chapter answers how we should live in the culture around us. We should live based on how God works in the world in two distinct kingdoms. We are dual citizens in these two distinct kingdoms.
1 Peter 2 explains how we are to live in the common kingdom: as sojourners and exiles (1 Pet 2:11ff.) because we are citizens of the redemptive kingdom (1 Pet 2:9–10). Our ultimate citizenship determines how we live in the common kingdom. Therefore, we don’t separate sacred and secular and relegate this temporary world to meaninglessness or neutrality.
After some general teaching on how to live in the common kingdom (1 Pet 2:13, 18; 3:1, 3, 7–8), 1 Peter 2:11–12 directs how we carry out the specifics of this general philosophy: applied to government, family, vocation. Our living distinctly in all of life compared to others should not engender pride because we received mercy. We live distinctly for others’ good in society (Matt 5:16). Our witness may convert others (1 Pet 2:12; 3:1–2).
The chapter goes on to reinforce the distinction between the common and redemptive kingdom based on what guides our living in the common and redemptive kingdoms: general and special revelation respectively (Ps 19). On the one hand, the beauty and order of God’s creation reveals God to all people universally (Rom 1:18ff.). General revelation may guide some ethical living in the common kingdom—universal principles for image bearers. On the other hand, the specifics about the true God and redemption through His Son (redemptive kingdom) must come through special revelation. Special revelation gives more wisdom in how to live in this world. Only citizens of God’s redemptive kingdom will benefit from special revelation: it is the guide we submit to. We live distinct and as exiles because we submit to God’s Word.
Although we strive to live peaceably even with outsiders in the common kingdom (Rom 12; 1 Pet 3:8; 1 Tim 2), we also ought to expect to be persecuted (2 Tim 3:12; 1 Pet 3:16).
Chapter Four This chapter begins a more specific focus on directions for living in the common kingdom—specifically related to family and vocation.
What does it mean to serve the Lord? Serving the Lord entails more than full-time Christian service. Wives, husbands, children, and fathers can all serve the Lord in various capacities (Col 3:17ff.). Citizens of the redemptive kingdom need to know how they should live in every-day life. Col 3:1–2 guides how we live in this world. We serve Christ within our every-day duties and responsibilities. Christ is both at work in His redemptive kingdom as well as the common kingdom and we can serve Him in both.
God works through all professions (Ps 147:13) and providentially assigns us to our roles where we can serve Him (1 Cor 7:17) in order to preserve order and peace in this world. Whatever your work, do it to the Lord (Col 4:1, 23).
Chapter Five This chapter continues a more specific focus on directions for living in the common kingdom—specifically related to government.
God established human government in Genesis 9:6. Government is an extension of God’s universal rule, granting sub-rule to it (Rom 13:1). Human government is subject to the moral law of God since it was instituted by God and its rulers are God’s servants (Rom 2:14–15).
Even when they don’t properly account for morality, successful governments borrow from transcendent biblical morality if they are to be successful. There is no neutrality—either conform or oppose God’s law.
In response to the claim that there can only be two options (Christ or chaos), this chapter summarizes three options and supports the third option:
Christ/a theocratic kingdom (Christendom/theonomy, Christian nationalism versus awaiting Christ setting up His kingdom at His return) Chaos (anarchy) Common Grace: borrowing from Christian morality by common grace in the common kingdom The chapter goes on to enunciate the common grace understanding of government within the common kingdom.
First, government jurisdiction is limited: Its task is to protect human life and to uphold good and punish evil. The key to this common grace approach is that fulfilling its task is guided by the second table of the Ten Commandments to love one’s neighbor. The first table of the law is governed by the church for the saved and redemptive kingdom. In the common kingdom the goal of government is preservation of human life and safety in a sin-cursed world.
Government enforced religion is dangerous—we should not desire theocracy. Obedience to the moral and spiritual law of God only comes from the Spirit’s empowerment after true repentance and salvation—theocracy or Christendom has always failed.
However, one can see some benefits of Christendom”
Freedom to worship and practice Christian living Allowed Christian morality to flourish with biblical norms carrying great influence—Judeo-Christian ethic influenced laws Cultural production rooted into in God’s ordered world—comes from a value system that made it possible The harms of Christendom outweigh the benefits:
A cultural Christianity forced on others is not genuine Christianity and produces externalists and hypocrites making evangelism difficult Nominal “Christians” Instead of leading people to Christ they can be desensitized and apathetic People don’t realize the need for personal regeneration A form of legalism and Pharisaism follows—externalists God instituted human government as a common grace institution to help preserve peace and order in a sin-cursed world, not as an institution tasked with enforcing external conformity to all of God’s moral law.
Aniol. 107 We should support Christian involvement in every sphere to promote righteousness and oppose evil (second table of the law in the public square), but we must also understand that in the age we are in we are exiles who will be persecuted without the power and influence (1 Tim 3:1, 12).
Our response to human government is marked by submission (Rom 13; 1 Pet 2:13–17; Matt 22:21; 1 Pet 3:16), but this submission is limited by its jurisdiction since God administers His justice in two kingdoms (Matt 22:21; Acts 5:29; see also 1 Tim 2:2). Different jurisdictions are given to family (education, health, etc.) and to the church (doctrine, enforcing church discipline, etc.). This is where sphere sovereignty comes into play. It’s important to note that government is limited both by its God-given task and its jurisdiction: it cannot command us to go against God’s law nor can it force us beyond its jurisdictional powers. And in our context, submission is ultimately governed by the constitution that our leaders are also subject to.
Chapter Six This chapter continues a more specific focus on directions for living in the common kingdom—specifically related to Culture making.
Since we are made in God’s image and blessed with the task of the Creation Mandate, we produce culture. Culture making begins with properly interpreting and communicating God’s general revelation through His special revelation in order to present proper conclusions about God’s reality to others through various forms. Art is an interpretation of God’s world.
Truth, goodness, and beauty correspond with and reflect God’s knowledge and character and loves. Culture is not neutral but communication of interpretation of God’s world. It presents and interprets experience. Does this interpretation of reality conform to sound doctrine? This chapter reinforces then that beauty is objective—a reflection of God.
We are also shaped by what we consume so that we will perceive beauty based on what has shaped us (Phil 1:9–11). Our loves/delights should be informed by knowledge and discernment—what we love will guide our subjective perception of art and whether it reflects truth, goodness, and beauty.
Art should embody sound doctrine—reflect truth. Art is human expression —an interpretation or perspective on reality and truth—so it should be critiqued.
Chapter Seven This chapter begins a more specific focus on directions for living in the redemptive kingdom: the Church.
There are distinct missions and responsibilities as a gathered church and as individuals (redemptive and common kingdom distinctions). Jesus’ authority and Commission directs the Church. His rule over all is not currently realized and won’t be until He returns to vanquish His enemies (Heb 2:8–9). We do what Christ has commanded and this is enunciated in particular by the apostles in the epistles to direct our work as a church. The only authority to guide how the church should operate is found in the epistles.
Our mission is to make disciples—what that means is specified by the other phrases:
Go proclaim the gospel, baptize, and teach to observe all things—and the epistles emphasize what these “all things” are.
The mission of the Church is exclusively redemptive in nature. Our mission is not cultural or social transformation. The church’s mission is spiritual—how to live regardless of the social situation you find yourself in. It is true that churches should instruct individuals on how to live Christianly in all of society. But our job is not to transform society, but to best influence the word by making disciples who live faithfully to God in all of life.
Chapter Eight This chapter focuses in on worship and highlights the aspect of warfare—commitment to God and His things means we must fight sin. That means there is a place for the church to confront sin in this world. Confrontation begins with compassionate appeal (2 Cor 10), and confrontation demands courage to take a stand when appeals are rebuffed.
We have enemies in the flesh, but our warfare is ultimately spiritual: ideas contrary to God. All we need to properly fight this warfare is the armor of God not human philosophy. When we see the problems of this fleshly world, we will find peace in the sanctuary of God (Ps 73:16–17). We need an eternal focus to persevere through persecution (2 Cor 4:16–18).
In the appendix, Aniol provides a detailed response and review of Doug Wilson’s Mere Christendom.
Reflection Upon reflection, I would like to highlight just a few things. Previously I had blogged (here and here) that ministry stability and progress require unity in vision, mission, philosophy, and doctrine. I believe that Scott Aniol’s book, Citizens and Exiles, provides valuable and clear direction for bringing about such unity by clarifying an appropriate mission and cultural philosophy that is much needed for the church in our day. Much of the disunity that can be observed in the church today (whether in conservative evangelical circles or fundamentalist circles) can be explained by variant cultural philosophies and understandings of the mission of the church. Therefore, I highly recommend Aniol’s book as a biblically sound portrayal of the mission of the church and a cultural philosophy for the church.
Of course, such mission and philosophy will be built off doctrinal and theological commitments. And one of the chief challenges one may have to reconcile is a one or two kingdoms theology. Like Owen Strachen, who wrote the forward to Scott’s book, I have historically followed a Kuyperian (one-kingdom) framework. But I find myself in agreement with the cultural philosophy and mission of the church for which Scott Aniol contends. At the same time, I often find myself disagreeing with other Kuyperian’s who tend toward an over-realized eschatology and a transformationalist approach to culture, misdirecting the mission of the church.
The main criticisms of two-kingdoms theology of which I am aware tend to be along the following lines:
Relegating the public square to neutrality (constrained at best by natural law alone), resulting in a dualism that divides the sacred and the secular, leading to an isolationist approach to culture that so focuses on the spiritual and eternal that it neglects God-given tasks in all of life now. Certainly, if you read Aniol’s book, I believe you will see not only that he guards against such things but also how a two kingdoms theology can legitimately avoid such criticisms. In Aniol’s presentation of a two-kingdoms theology, God still rules over all even if He administrates that rule in distinct kingdom administrations. And the redemptive kingdom does interact with and affect the common kingdom. Therefore, the distinction does not lead to absolute disjunction that undermines the God-given human mission of the Creation Mandate. At the same time, it rightly guards the mission of the church to be exclusively redemptive in nature (the Great Commission) rather than misdirect it to cultural or social transformation.
For all the criticisms of two-kingdoms theology, I don’t find those above criticisms the most concerning in our age at least. I find most concerning the transformationalist approach to culture and the over-realized eschatology that characterizes so many one-kingdom practitioners. As I reflected on why so many Kuyperian’s (one-kingdom theology) tend toward transformationalism and an over-realized eschatology (but some like me do not), I tried to put my finger on whether it is the framework itself, a misapplication of the framework, or another theological factor that often accompanies the framework.
The framework itself could be the culprit that necessarily requires transformationalism and an over-realized eschatology if it necessarily implies that God’s rule over all must be already renovating the fallen creation in all spheres without any necessary qualitative future intervention by Christ’s return to accomplish such renovation. Some might argue that this is indeed the intended underlying theology of this paradigm. And I can see how it could be. But if it is, those assumptions were not clear to me as I made use of it for many years (focused primarily on the benefits of sphere sovereignty rather than God’s ONE rule over all). Therefore, I tend to see the culprit as a misapplication of the framework due to another theological factor that often accompanies the framework: a certain kind of progressive dispensationalism that tends toward an over-realized eschatology or a certain kind of covenant theology that tends toward postmillennialism.
The classical dispensationalist will be a hardliner for an absolute disjunction between the Noahic covenant (common kingdom) and the Abrahamic covenant (redemptive kingdom), which was only brought together in theocratic Israel under the Mosaic covenant and which will only be brought together again in the New covenant instituted after Christ returns.5 Currently, there is an absolute disjunction and no covenant; the church is a parenthesis. So, God’s kingdom rule is completely delayed in regard to the physical restoration of this world. None of it is occurring right now.
Progressive dispensationalists will see a distinction but not an absolute disjunction. They believe the New covenant has already begun with already/not yet fulfillments of God’s kingdom rule in both the common and redemptive realms. Thus, they will tend toward transformationalism based on an over-realized eschatology. Though they’ll see some distinctions (different spheres of sovereignty), they highly prize restoration beginning in this age. They may not go as far as postmillennials in the success of the renovation before Christ’s return, but they still forward a twin emphasis of the mission of the church: the Creation Mandate (social transformation) alongside or as a part of the Great Commission. The restoration begun now will be transferred into the future kingdom because the work of restoration occurring now is successful to some extent.
However, to be fair, some progressive dispensationalists will emphasize the “not yet” and avoid an over-realized eschatology. To them, the “already” is focused on New covenant spiritual redemptive benefits with the physical and social being in the “not yet.” Jesus will vanquish His enemies at His return; we do not accomplish this to usher in His return; our job is to call the world to repentance. Any Creation Mandate contribution is subject to the common kingdom realities—Noahic covenant common grace and not a part of the New covenant restoration yet. They don’t believe the current renovation of the temporal world is permanent or significant in comparison to the rightful focus on the spiritual redemptive aspect of restoration that occurs now in the church—limiting the mission of the church to the Great Commission. Even if it values Creation Mandate efforts (as a part of the human mission), these efforts are ultimately futile in this fallen world—though still worthy contributions for constraint in a fallen world. Thus, not all progressive dispensationalists should be treated the same. Some are very much concerned about limiting the mission of the church as are classical dispensationalists while others are much more closely aligned with the efforts of postmillennialists.
In conclusion, whether one approaches Aniol’s book from a one-kingdom (Kuyperian) or two-kingdom background, with progressive or classical dispensationalist or other theological presuppositions and persuasions, this book will challenge you to make theological applications to your cultural and church mission approach. And if you’re concerned about church mission drift and cultural compromise, you will find this book helpful as a bulwark against such drift and compromise.
I greatly appreciate Aniol’s careful treatment of a Christian response to the cultural compromises and mission drift of the church rampant in our day. He carefully navigates between Christian nationalism on one side and moderate accommodation to progressives on the other side—both sides of which are guilty of the transformationalist error. This book rightfully guards against an over-realized eschatology that underlies the cultural compromise and mission drift undermining the unity of the church today. May conservative Christians find unity by rallying around many of the ideas helpfully enunciated in this book.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email References
References 1 James D. Bratt, ed., Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 488 2 cf. Pilgrim’s Progress: Interpreter’s House and the Man Who Storms the Palace 3 Aniol, 16; this seems to correlate with the long-held belief of separation of church and state or Sphere Sovereignty’s recognition of different spheres of divided sovereignty for church and state. 4 See, for example, the John Calvin quote on pages 44–45; Baptist separation between church and state; Jer 29:4–7; Ps 137; render to Caesar and to God what is due; 2 Tim 2:1–2 5 see Snoeberger’s chart in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views, 166
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 4, 2024 23:08:26 GMT -5
NOV 17, 2023 CHRISTIAN LIFE Lord, “Increase Our Faith” Share
g3min.org/lord-increase-our-faith/ ROGER SKEPPLE
green plants on soil Our expectations as Christians are not easily fulfilled; often we feel outmatched by what God has called us to be. The disciples faced such a situation at the beginning of Luke 17 after Jesus called them to a particular point of faithful living while in a broken world. Jesus indicated to them that they had to come to grips with the fact that they could not right every wrong in such a world; but they must have faith in the Savior who can (17:1–2). The nature of that faith is the point of the rest of the story.
Although the disciple of Christ is not to go about seeking to rectify all of the world’s brokenness, we are to work hard at dealing with manifestations of that brokenness within the boundaries of the Christian community. Sin will take on various forms among believers and the disciples’ response is both a readiness to confront it, and a willingness to forgive it. In this case it means going through a cycle of confrontation, repentance, and forgiveness seven times in one day with the same person, if need be, according to Christ (17:3–4).
Anyone ministering within the church for very long can identify with the disciples’ reaction. Luke 17:5 expresses our prayer when repeatedly dealing with the sins of others, “And the apostles said to the Lord, ‘Increase our faith!’” This response is straightforward and simple. It reveals the disciples’ inadequacy in the face of Jesus’s high demand. They honestly exposed their need.
Not only do we resonate with that response, but we might also imagine a dear sister or brother responding this way after hearing a difficult sermon. They also might wonder if they had a big enough faith for various situations in life. When difficulties mount, “Increase our faith” seems to be an appropriate prayer of Christian concern regarding spiritual matters.
Moreover, one would think such a humble response would be embraced by Jesus. Yet Jesus surprises us by saying, “If you had faith like a mustard seed, you would say to this mulberry tree, “‘Be uprooted and be planted in the sea;’ and it would obey you” (17:6). Far from commending their humility, Jesus rebuked them and went on to demonstrate to them that their request revealed a misunderstanding of faith and its potency.
While seemingly harsh, Jesus’s response may not be as stern as it first appears. You see, faith does actually increase. In 2 Thessalonians 1:3 the apostle Paul laid out three reasons he always gave thanks for the believers at Thessalonica. Interestingly, these same three things were the same three he gave thanks for in his previous letter to the Thessalonians—faith, love, and perseverance (1 Thess 1:3). He wrote that he gave thanks for their faith, “because your faith is greatly enlarged” (2 Thess 1:3).
This interesting term is only used here in the New Testament. Within Paul’s culture, this unique word, “greatly enlarged,” described growing “to the extreme limit, to attain great power or authority, or to achieve the highest position or status.”1 In such cases, the word was not limited to a previous absence of size. In other words, the thing being described did not have to be small before it grew bigger but could have been large, in the first place, and expanded from there. For example, this word could be used of “a fish which was already big,” that grew even bigger.2 Therefore, Paul was already thankful for their work of faith, but he could pray for expansion and even greater heights of faith.
In 1 Thessalonians 3 Paul was thankful that they already possessed faith; yet he also had some concerns that lead him to send Timothy to check up on the Thessalonian congregation. Timothy was “to strengthen and encourage you as to your faith” (3:5); moreover, Paul was concerned about the Tempter working against them, so he wanted to “find out about your faith” (3:5).
Upon his return, Timothy was able to bring back “good news of your faith and love” (3:6). Therefore, the mission team of Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, was “comforted about you through your faith” (3:7). The robust nature of the Thessalonian faith was the key to the praise.
Finally, Paul indicated that the three men wanted to see the Thessalonians again so that they might, “complete what is lacking in your faith” (3:10). When the courier returned from delivering Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians, he was happy to hear that they had matured greatly in their faith. In fact, their faith had increased.
Though it doesn’t seem like it, Paul’s experience with the Thessalonians dovetails with Jesus’s statement in Luke 17. Jesus’s response indicated that the disciples’ request for more faith evidenced a misunderstanding of faith. They believed that the possession of faith made it effective; particularly in regard to the quantity one possessed. Of course, this would mean that a slightness of faith would be barely functional. Lots of faith was needed for great things.
However, Jesus notes that it was not the quantity of faith that created its potency; but that the potency was in the One on whom the faith depended. Faith does not work to accomplish the intent of faith; but God, the one in whom the faith was directed, is the one who works. Thus, faith’s potency is unlimited because the God in whom the faith trusts is unlimited. The request for more revealed a failure to grasp faith’s real effectiveness or potential.
Yet, if texts like 2 Thessalonians 1:3 demonstrate that faith can increase, why would Jesus respond negatively to the disciples’ prayer? Doesn’t Paul indicate this very thing was happening among the Thessalonians?
The problem with the disciples was that they were hoping through some supernatural, immediate act, to gain what could only be gained through a life of living faithfully with the Savior. They wanted immediately what God gives in a mediated manner.
It was like a child whom upon hearing from his father what it takes to be a husband, frets over his inability to fulfill those lofty demands. Now, the son could ask for some type of miraculous intervention to equip him instantly for the role, but such an intervention would never happen. The son needs to live a life practicing godliness as a son to his father. Over time, he will grow into the very things he senses he lacks.
The disciples needed not a supernatural infusion of a matured faith. They need to live obediently to their Savior’s demands, which is what Jesus exhorted them to do. In that manner, they will find their increase—just like the Thessalonians did. However, genuine faith does not have to wait for maturity to be effective, for its object and source is unlimited.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 13, 2024 12:07:10 GMT -5
Godly Male Friendships Share
g3min.org/godly-male-friendships/ TAIGEN JOOS
G3_Tuesday-1 We men are generally not as good at cultivating good friendships with other men as women are with other women. We don’t usually have a problem with watching a football game together or doing some kind of sporting activity together. Those are fun and they have their place in the cultivation of friendships. But I’m talking the kind of friendship where spiritual conversations take place, where mutual encouragement happens, and even where faithful and loving rebuke occurs.
Yet this is the very kind of friendship modeled for us in the Bible by David and Jonathan. Reading the book of 1 Samuel reveals that their hearts were knit to one another because they had mutual goals and a heart to honor God. They had significant conversations with each other, often about life and death kinds of matters. Jonathan was especially used to encourage David’s heart in the Lord when David was on the run from King Saul. When Jonathan died, David’s heart melted in grief. This rich friendship is worthy of our consideration.
Perhaps one great example of this kind of male friendship in literature is the friendship between Frodo Baggins and Samwise Gamgee in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy. These two spent months together on the epic journey to try to save Middle Earth, and throughout the story face many great difficulties. Yet through it all, they stick together, encourage one another, and help each other face the battles before them.
I am thankful to have had several godly male friendships in my saved life since high school. They have challenged me spiritually, prayed for me, encouraged me, and even confronted me in my error. I hope that I have done the same with them.
Men must work harder at this kind of relationship than women do. Women are more naturally relationship-oriented than men are. Even in marriage, this is the case. It is more difficult for us as men—generally speaking—to speak openly with our wives about our feelings, our weaknesses, our struggles, and spiritual things in general. We have to work at this kind of communication with our wives. But my contention is that we also need to cultivate this kind of friendship with other godly men such as we see between David and Jonathan or Frodo and Sam.
We cannot live life on our own. We need the encouragement of others. We need the friendship of a godly, faithful man who will pray for us, listen to our concerns and struggles, keep us accountable, and encourage us to pursue God even more. The man who believes he can survive without such kinds of friendships is not strong, but weak; not wise, but foolish; not humble, but proud.
David had his Jonathan; Frodo had his Samwise. To whom can you be this kind of friend, and have them strive to be this kind of friend to you? May God help us to humble ourselves and admit our need for strong, godly, faithful male friendships.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 16, 2024 19:38:06 GMT -5
Thoughts on Ministerial Humility Share
g3min.org/thoughts-on-ministerial-humility/ DAVID HUFFSTUTLER
man wearing blue plaid dress shirt and blue jeans Wouldn’t it be great if every pastor could look back at his ministry and say as Paul did to the Ephesian elders, “You yourselves know how I lived among you the whole time from the first day . . . serving the Lord with all humility” (Acts 20:18–19).
That’s amazing—serving with all humility.
Paul commands humility of every Christian time and again: “In humility count others more significant than yourselves” (Phil 2:3); “Walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility” (Eph 4:1–2); and “Put on . . . humility” (Col 3:12). Peter commands the same: “Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another” (1 Pet 5:5).
With this instruction, Scripture provides excellent examples of humility. Along with Paul above, John the Baptist expressed his humility in these words about Jesus and himself: “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30).
Hebrews 13:7 commands, “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.” Whether we remember Paul, John the Baptist, or any other humble Christian leader, we must recall how they spoke the Word of God (humbly pointing away from self to preach the Savior instead), consider the outcome of their lives (they are in heaven), and imitate their faith (we must preach with humility as well). Our role as pastors is to preach Christ with all humility in order to glorify Him and never ourselves (cf. Col 1:28–29).
It also helps to remember that any glory we receive from men is only short-lived anyway. A great quote to go with this reminder comes from Mark Garcia, commenting on 1 Corinthians 3:5–23:
In the final order of things, when grace finds full expression in glory, there will be only one Pastor, One Shepherd, not many. All who are currently ministers and elders in the church will step back from their roles and find their place within the glorified body of Christ, the church [or, as others might put it, among the saints from every age], alongside their brothers and sisters in the holy household. This ‘recessive’ reality, in which leaders of the church will ‘recede’ into the background when Jesus’s shepherding is finally and fully visible, anchors a deep-running humility on our part in all our churchly endeavors.1
“Leaders of the church will ‘recede’ into the background” for all to see the Chief Shepherd in His full and unveiled glory—this promise should produce in pastors “a deep-running humility . . . in all our churchly endeavors.”
One last thought—if you’re looking for some glory, remember this—the greatest glory comes from Christ alone who lived with the greatest humility of all (cf. Phil 2:1–11). If we have made Him known so that others might see His face forever, He will reward us with an unfading crown of glory (1 Peter 5:1–4). And the dear saints who see His face will be our crown as well (1 Thess 2:19–20). What more glory must we seek?
Self-glorification is sinful, temporary at best, and finds no reward at Christ’s return. The glory is all His, always was, and shall always be. So, serve Christ with all humility, and as you do, you can know that He will share His glory with us all forevermore!
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 27, 2024 22:42:48 GMT -5
The Shaping of My Conservatism Black ConservatismblacksConservatismEthicsurban Share
g3min.org/the-shaping-of-my-conservatism/ DARRELL B. HARRISON
(Pictured above: Dixie Hills housing projects on the west side of Atlanta where I grew up.)
There is a great misnomer among black liberals that black conservatives, simply because they are conservative, all come from privileged, well-to-do backgrounds and, as such, desire to be rich and white in order to be “accepted” into the Republican party.
Let me share something very personal with you.
I grew up in the housing projects of Dixie Hills in inner-city Atlanta in an apartment where my mother and father were both alcoholics. Growing up, I never lived in a house. Every address my family lived at was an apartment number.
I literally hated weekends, because it was on Friday and Saturday nights that my parents would invite their co-workers over and they would play cards and drink all night long to the loud and incessant refrains of Al Green and the O’Jays. To this day, I still loathe the sight of that green Bacardi Rum bottle. Being the middle child, it was I who would normally play the role of peacemaker in breaking up the physical altercations my parents would regularly get into with one another after having had too much to drink. Many nights I would never get to sleep from hearing them argue until they both would finally fall asleep.
As a child, I never had my own bedroom, but shared a small one with my now late-older brother until I was 18 and entered the military after graduating high school. I can still recall the images and sounds in my mind of the mice and rats that would walk along the tops of the trash cans in our back yard. When I was 9-years old, I literally cried while standing in front of my parents as they told me I’d be getting a bicycle for Christmas. They were tears of happiness, of course, but also of sadness as I knew my parents couldn’t afford it because as a child I had never had any possessions of my own to begin with. During my sophomore and junior years of high school, I worked summers with my father, waking up at 5:00 in the morning and taking two buses (my family never owned a car) to get to work by 7:00 at a warehouse sweeping floors, stacking pallets and breaking down cardboard boxes.
I was once robbed at gunpoint, along with others, by a black male while sitting in a barber shop on the south side of Atlanta (College Park) while waiting to get a haircut. My brother died of HIV-AIDS at the age of 34, and my father of a massive heart attack at 64 while using the bathroom at home. My mother, who’d gotten off work that day to find that my father wasn’t there to pick her up like usual, walked home from work to find him slumped over the bathtub. My father’s death taught me in very real terms that regardless where you are or what you’re doing, when the appointed time arrives for God to call you into His presence, you are going to go. Period. No discussion. No negotiations.
For nearly four decades, my mother worked as a cafeteria cook in the Atlanta Public School system, and today her knees still bear the scars of standing on her feet for hours on end for so many years. Oftentimes, she would have to bring home leftover food from what was served at school so that we could have something to eat. My father left me his work ethic. My mother taught me about Jesus Christ and of the importance of going to church. It is because of them that I ascribe to principles of hard work, personal responsibility and a strong Christian worldview.
I don’t say any of this to exalt myself above anyone or to engender pity. Those who know me personally – in real life – know I would never do such a thing and that I fully accept the path of life upon which God has graciously and mercifully brought me. However, as a conservative who is black, I am often confronted by black liberals with the assumption that people like me, who happen to espouse a socially and fiscally conservative ideology, have absolutely no clue what it means to have suffered in life or to done without materially; that I’ve always “had it made”; that I’ve always had a good job, driven a nice car and lived in the suburbs with all my needs met. For those who think that way, I doubt that any of what I’ve said here will change their minds, but that’s not the intent of this commentary anyway.
The point I’m making here is that my being conservative (socially and fiscally) is the direct result of life-lessons taught to me growing up in the projects of Dixie Hills, not out of some warped, insecure desire to be accepted by a particular person or group. In fact, most conservative blacks I know have backgrounds and experiences similar to my own in that there was no “silver spoon” or wealthy benefactor on whom they could rely to make life more comfortable for them. But even if there were, it shouldn’t be held against them that it somehow disqualifies them from being able to relate to the so-called “black experience” (whatever that means), as if being brought up in material poverty is the requisite “street cred” one needs in order to be considered “truly” black.
God bless my fellow black conservatives who cannot relate to what I’ve had to go through and experience. God bless them! That there should be such an ethnic litmus test as a black person being deemed “genuinely black” because of what he or she has had to do without in life is absurd to begin with! That so many black liberals consistently view abjection and pauperism as badges of honor is puzzling to me. In their minds it’s okay for a black person to “make it” in life, just don’t make it so well that you “forget where you came from” or we’ll “take away your blackness card”.
I thank my mother and father, as imperfect as they were, for instilling within me the ideals that faith in the God of the Bible and perseverance through Him are what really matter in life, and that where I come from isn’t nearly as important as where I’m headed.
Darrell
Print Friendly, PDF & Email AUTHOR The Shaping of My Conservatism Darrell B. Harrison Lead Host Just Thinking Podcast Darrell is is a native of Atlanta, Georgia but currently resides in Valencia, California where he serves as Dean of Social Media at Grace To You, the Bible-teaching ministry of Dr. John MacArthur. Darrell is a 2013 Fellow of the Black Theology and Leadership Institute (BTLI) of Princeton Theological Seminary in Princeton, New Jersey, and is a 2015 graduate of the Theology and Ministry program at Princeton Theological Seminary. Darrell studied at the undergraduate level at Liberty University, where he majored in Psychology with a concentration in Christian Counseling. He was the first black man to be ordained as a Deacon in the 200-year history of First Baptist Church of Covington (Georgia) where he attended from 2009 to 2015. He is an ardent student of theology and apologetics, and enjoys reading theologians such as Thomas Watson, Charles Spurgeon, and John Calvin. Darrell is an advocate of expository teaching and preaching and has a particular passion for seeing expository preaching become the standard within the Black Church.
|
|