Pilgrim-Platform

Antithesis

1 Corinthians 2:1-16
Paul did not preach with lofty speech or persuasive words of wisdom. The focus of Paul's preaching and testimony was not on the words he used, but on the content of the message he proclaimed. He wasn't trying to craft a good speech or a compelling testimony. He wasn't engaged in Classical rhetoric. He wasn't trying to win a debate, or to overpower the opposition. Nor was he trying to use a particular style of language in order to identify with his audience. He wasn't trying to move his hearers to an emotional or intellectual crisis that would result in new birth or conversion. The focus of his attention was not on his audience. Paul was not customer-centered or consumer-oriented.

Rather, Paul was God-centered and Christ-oriented. His focus was on the Lord, not on the Lord's people. His eyes were on the cross, not on the pew, nor on the pulpit. His intention was to communicate the gospel of Jesus Christ, crucified and risen.

He made a decision before he came to them to speak to them of nothing but Christ crucified. While he was a well-educated man, a Pharisee of Pharisees, a Rabbi of Rabbis, an intellectual of intellectuals, a teacher of teachers, he would speak of nothing but Christ crucified. He would build his case, or champion the cause of Christ on the basis of Scripture alone. He would not call upon the wisdom or literature of the world to bolster his testimony of grace alone through Christ alone on the basis of Scripture alone.

As Christians, as a church, we need to take our cues from Paul, from Scripture, and not from the world. We need to understand terms like faithfulness and success from a biblical perspective, and not apply ideas and/or programs of worldly success to the church.

Unfortunately, however, churches by and large have accepted and followed the ideas and values of the world for many decades. I'm speaking of the Church Growth Movement and its impact on denominations and local churches. The Church Growth Movement is transforming the Christian landscape through the development of large and mega churches. This fact is well documented in current literature and media – and the PCA is not exempt from its influence and impact.

Please understand that I am not against church growth. I do understand evangelism to be a central function of the church. Nor am I against the use of modern marketing and advertising technologies. But I am against using marketing and advertising technologies as the world uses them in the church. I am arguing for a more faithful and Christ-centered use of modern media. There is nothing wrong with modern media in and of itself. There is, however, a problem with using it to promote and encourage the values and aesthetics of sin in the name of Christianity.

Churches and denominations – Christians – need to heed and apply Paul's wisdom found here in Corinthians to the practice of evangelism, including and especially the use of modern media (marketing and advertising). We must not allow the wisdom of the world to determine the methodologies of the church. Do we do this? I believe that we do, that virtually all churches have been effected by the “success” of modern marketing and advertising practices.

I'm arguing here that such practices belong to what Paul calls the “wisdom of men” (v. 5) and the “wisdom of the world” (1 Colossians 1:20). I'm arguing that it is the current popular understanding of evangelism and the methodologies engaged to reach the lost that have been hijacked by what the business world calls “marketing creep.” Market-think has crept into the church and dominates our outreach efforts.

John Gage, Chief Researcher at Sun Microsystems Inc., warned software developers at the Global Grid Forum in Seattle in June, 2003, “everything we do gets hijacked by marketing.” His observation has application to more than software development. It applies to virtually every aspect of business. Allow me to explain.

It was Ralph Waldo Emerson who said, “Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door.” That sound advice has inspired entrepreneurs across the globe to make better products as the primary method of business success. The drive to make better products as the most effective avenue of business success is responsible for the development of modern technology, which has forever changed the way people think and live the world over. American entrepreneurs have led the way for centuries.

At the same time, modern marketing methods have also changed the nature of this formula for business success. How so? By changing the definition of the word “better.” The original understanding of “better” meant that a better mousetrap would catch more mice, or catch them more efficiently, or more humanely, or whatever. “Better” indicated an improvement in product function. The emphasis was on the improvement of the mousetrap (or product) itself.

The new definition of “better” is not about the mousetrap, but about mousetrap sales. It's about mousetrap (or product) marketing. Business success no longer means building a better mousetrap. It means selling more mousetraps than your competitors, or increasing the profit margin on your mousetraps, which can be accomplished in several ways. Again, this shift is the result of “marketing creep.”

Please be aware that there is nothing wrong with increased sales, nothing wrong with increased production efficiencies, nothing wrong with greater profits or increased revenues. But if there is nothing wrong with these things, then what am I talking about?

I'm talking about a shift in the purpose or goal of the business, which effects the purpose of the product produced, the purpose of the mousetrap. The original purpose or goal of the business was to build and produce a better mousetrap. The purpose of the business was product oriented.

The new purpose is to sell more mousetraps or to earn more money through the sale of mousetraps. The new purpose is not focused on the product, but on product sales. The new purpose is focused on sales and profits rather than on the function, design or usage of the mousetrap. It is a shift from being product driven to being financially driven. And again, there is nothing wrong with concern and control of finances. Any business that is not concerned about finances will fail.

The older purpose of the business was other-directed. It was focused on providing a social service, on identifying a need and producing something to meet that need. The new purpose of the business is self-directed. It is focused on company profitability. The new purpose is to make money for the business owners. Again, there is nothing wrong with making money.

But there is a problem associated with the new marketing-driven purpose, and that problem relates to integrity and the decrease in the quality of mousetraps when they are produced for sales as opposed to product function. The new emphasis eventually involves cutting production costs to increase profits, which involves less or cheaper materials and/or less time in production. To compensate for these measures a subtle kind of marketing deceit comes into play.

How does this happen? Rather than using stainless steel, for instance, producers will use iron that is chrome plated. And the marketing department will shift attention away from the disadvantages of such a change by conjuring up some new and improved element of the mousetrap. We are all familiar with this process.

But the point I want to make is the shift in purpose from function to finance, from performance to appearance, from essentials to periphery, from substance to style. Please understand that I am not arguing against profit or against marketing or against efficiency or against financial concern. All I am saying is that when a business shifts its purpose from production to marketing, the likelihood of an inferior product increases.

It doesn't have to, but it usually does. The concerns of marketing take precedence over the concerns of product quality and performance. There is a shift of concern from what is best for the customer to what is best for the business. It is a shift of priorities from other to self. This shift is evidenced in the wide-spread decrease in customer service that has happened across the board over the last twenty, thirty or fifty years.

So, how does this play out in the church? Worldly wisdom tells us that gospel success means more people in the pews. The emphasis is on the pew rather than on the Lord. Whereas, biblical wisdom tells us that gospel success results from the glorification of God (The chief end or purpose of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever, Shorter Catechism Question 1). The purity of the church requires the right people in the pews, people who are covered by the righteousness of Christ. The biblical emphasis is on right belief or right values, on the righteousness of Jesus Christ crucified and risen.

The traditional focus of the churches was Christ. The central focus of worship and evangelism was Jesus Christ. Churches and Christians were concerned about serving the needs and desires of Jesus Christ. Whereas the Church Growth Movement is concerned about serving the needs and desires of the people in the pews. Biblically, worship and evangelism are Christ-centered, and are understood to be byproducts of faithfulness. Biblical worship and evangelism are accomplished through faithfulness to Jesus Christ. They are not accomplished through the mechanics of marketing and advertising (human effort).

Again, marketing and advertising do have legitimate functions in the church. However, they are not to be self-centered, they are to be Christ-centered. Biblical marketing and advertising should not be about the church or about the people in the church. Rather, they should be about Jesus Christ – and Him crucified, as Paul said in 1 Corinthians.

Reformed Christians should understand that Christianity is not about us, it is about Jesus Christ. We don't bring salvation, Christ does. We don't produce sanctification, Christ does. Salvation is not about what we do or who we are, it's about Jesus Christ – what He has done and who He is!

The Church Growth Movement and virtually all contemporary Christian marketing and advertising, while it pays lip service to Jesus Christ, is actually focused on the people in the pews. It is primarily concerned with noses and nickels related to particular institutions. It understands the purpose of evangelism to be to get people in the pews – and that focus lobbies against preaching or sharing any biblical truth that has a hard edge, that will make people uncomfortable, or that may be difficult to understand. And, like it or not, biblical truth will make us all uncomfortable. Various aspects of biblical truth are hard to understand – faith is required. All growth is painful at times.

Growing, or stretching our limitations, is often uncomfortable. Christian growth – sanctification – requires thinking outside of the box of our spiritual immaturity. It's hard. It's painful. And it will take us where we don't want to go. The Spirit opposes the flesh. “Those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit” (Romans 8:5). “For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do” (Galatians 5:17).

Go to the church page of any newspaper and you can see what I mean. The ads are church-centered rather than Christ-centered. The basic message is “come visit our church,” rather than extolling the excellencies of Jesus Christ. By and large the messages preached are about what Christ can do for you, rather than biblical exposition or extolling the excellencies of Jesus Christ.

As we go through our exegesis of First Corinthians I want you to look for Paul's invitation to visit the church at Corinth. You won't find it, but it is important that you see that it is not there. Why not? Because this is not an evangelism-centered book.¹ It is a sanctification-centered book. The focus is on the maturity of Christians. And then as now, the focus on maturity will not immediately increase local church membership, it will likely decrease it. Please understand that I am not suggesting that churches initiate programs in order to decrease their memberships. Rather, I am simply pointing to what Paul did, and his concern for Christian maturity and growth in grace.

There is an antithesis between Christian maturity and worldly wisdom. That means that they are mutually exclusive. They are opposed to one another. What serves to increase Christian maturity undermines worldly wisdom, and what serves to increase worldly wisdom undermines Christian maturity. And it is this antithesis that Paul highlights in these chapters of First Corinthians. It is precisely because of this antithesis that Paul has “decided to know nothing among you (the Corinthians), except Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (v. 2). Paul was not ignorant of Greek literature and philosophy. Rather, he didn't want them to undermine the gospel by bringing in non-biblical ideas, even when those ideas might seem to the Greeks to support the gospel. He knew that they would not, that they would dilute and undermine it.

But he was not opposed to wisdom, “among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away” (v. 6). Rather, Paul imparted the “secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory” (v. 7). Repeatedly, Paul says that God's wisdom is not available to the ungodly. The Westminster Confession teaches that “the inward illumination of the Spirit of God (is) necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word” (WC I, vi). Paul taught that “no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual” (vs. 11-13).

There is a gulf between the Godless and the Godly that can only be bridged by Jesus Christ. It cannot be bridged by human wisdom or human effort. Christians can understand the Godless because we were once Godless ourselves, but the Godless cannot understand Christianity unless and until they themselves are born again or become regenerate. “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (v. 14).

There is an important application of this concept related to church marketing and advertising that virtually no contemporary church marketer uses. Most contemporary church marketing programs are aimed at the Godless. What I mean is that they use the language and aesthetics of the Godless in order to appeal to the values or aesthetics of the Godless. They try to make Christianity appear to be hip or cool or in or popular. They try to make it appear to be worldly by copying the latest marketing fads and techniques in order to make Christianity more appealing to the worldly minded. But Paul clearly teaches that the truth of Christianity cannot be known to the Godless. It can only be discerned by the Godly.

In contrast, the biblical use of marketing and advertising will not clothe Christianity in worldly garb, hoping to make it appeal to the worldly mind, but will show the truth of Christianity from a purely biblical perspective. Biblical Christianity does not need to appeal to the Godless or look like the world. It doesn't have to pretend to be cool or hip or in or popular. Such practice is not authentic Christianity. The purpose of evangelism is not to make Christianity look like the world. Rather, it is to make the world Christian. Godless people need to understand that they are not Christian, and that they cannot bring their Godlessness into the church – not even in the name of Christianity.

There is a difference between the savable who are lost and the unsavable who are lost. We don't know exactly who is savable and who isn't, but God does. The Spirit of Christ speaks to the Spirit of Christ. The values of Christ resonate with the savable lost and draw them into the fold. The beauty of Christ reaches out to His lost sheep to guide them home.

We obscure the values and the beauty of Christ when we use worldly (Godless) aesthetics and values in our outreach. We shoot ourselves in the foot when we try to appeal to heathen forms of popularity to communicate the gospel. Such efforts obscure the truth of the gospel and disturb the purity and peace of the church. The whole world needs to see the antithesis between Christianity and the world in order to perceive the necessity of conversion. To blur the antithesis between the world and Christianity is to blur the necessity of the new birth and conversion.

The church will grow in faith and in numbers when it is seen as a viable option to the ways of the world. It will grow by differentiating itself from the world, not by trying to integrate itself into the world, or by trying to grow on a foundation of worldliness. This is an important application of Paul's central message of chapter two.

---

¹ For a discussion of Paul's evangelism method see, Acts of Christ: Kingdom Advancement, by Phillip A. Ross

posted by PARoss @ 5:41 PM 0 comments

Pride

1 Corinthians 1:17-31
Paul wasn't interested in baptism or fancy talk. He was not out to impress anyone with his knowledge or his communication skills. He didn't give a hoot what the world thought of him or of his preaching. This is a lesson that the church has yet to learn—particularly those who appreciate scholarship and credibility.

American Christians lost this battle before the founding of the United States. Harvard University was founded in 1636 by the Great and General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. To vote at that time required membership in a Congregational church. The Congregationalists of that day were consistent Calvinists, whose Puritan worldview was to be perpetuated in the institutions of higher learning in order to train future leaders of society in Christianity and Calvinism. They intended to build American society upon a Reformed Christian foundation.

An early brochure, published in 1643, justified the College's existence: “To advance Learning and perpetuate it to Posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate Ministry to the Churches.”1 With the dawn of the Enlightenment too many Christians in higher education began to believe that science and scholarship were leaving the church in the dust. And they scrambled to keep up with the latest scientific discoveries. Many, like Charles Darwin who wrote in the 1800s, worked to adapt the Christian faith to newly discovered “truths” of science. Those efforts pushed the church down the slippery slope of compromise with the world in the name of scientific scholarship. The church endeavored to impress the world with its ability to adapt itself in order to remain relevant.

Relevancy is a cry that we again hear in the contemporary churches. More and more people are saying that the church must be relevant to the people it is trying to reach. Of course this is true, but the question is, Who are the people the churches are trying to reach? Here is where Reformed theology plays a decisive role. Obviously, the churches are trying to reach the “lost.” But the lost come in two flavors—the unsavable lost and the not-yet-saved lost.

Paul notes this difference when he says that “the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1:18). In other words, there are some people who will not respond the grace of God, period. Others, of course, will respond. But we don't know exactly who will or who won't respond to the gospel. We don't know which individuals will respond and which won't. But we do know that some will and some won't, and that is very important information.

Knowing that some of the lost will respond to the gospel we must make our presentations of the gospel appeal to those who will respond, to those who will eventually recognize the truth of Scripture and grow in grace and godliness. By way of contrast, it is futile to make our presentations of the gospel appeal to those who will not respond, to those who think that the gospel is foolish.

In other words, our presentation of the gospel and of ourselves as Christians must reflect the truth of the gospel. We must make our appeal by using the values and aesthetics of Scripture because it is precisely those values and aesthetics that will appeal to those who will ultimately respond to God's grace. Conversely, to use the values and aesthetics of the world in the presentation of the gospel is a waste of time and resources because those who see the values and aesthetics of Scripture as silly and irrelevant are exactly the people that Paul is talking about in this verse. They are or consider themselves to be “worldly wise,” and they consider the gospel in and of itself—without embellishment—to be foolish and powerless.

Christians don't need to make an appeal on the basis of worldly values and aesthetics because those who will respond will respond to the power of the gospel alone. They will not be dissuaded by what the world sees as a foolish and irrelevant message. In other words, it is a waste of time and resources to try to make the gospel appear to be wise and/or relevant to the world. It is in and of itself already relevant to those who will be saved.
Many very smart Christians get caught up in trying to impress the world with their learning, abilities and/or stylishness—scientists, scholars, theologians, musicians and artists. They are not trying to be unfaithful. Rather, they are trying to keep Christianity on the cutting edge, to keep it relevant in the face of astounding scientific discoveries, with advances in academic research, and with cutting edge anthropology, with new styles in music and art. We don't want to sell them short. They are trying to do what they think is right. Most of them are a lot smarter than we are. Nonetheless, the point to be made is that such Christians are chasing the culture, not leading it. They are following the world, not the Lord.

That is the point that Paul makes in the latter half of this first chapter of Corinthians. Paul said that the gospel of Jesus Christ is opposed to the wisdom (sohia) of the world—not intelligence per se, but wisdom that is based on the values and presuppositions of the world, apart from God. Paul did not say that Christians are not intelligent. Many are, and all should be. Paul said that the gospel needs to be preached “not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power” (1:18). In other words, the power of the gospel is lost through eloquence (sophia) and worldly wisdom. We can extrapolate and say that the gospel does not need to be couched in cutting edge musical forms or with the latest dramatic formulas, it does not need to fit into the latest anthropological theories about the origins of humanity, in as much as those things are driven by Godlessness. It does not need to be relevant to worldly Godlessness. That is not what will attract the not-yet-saved.

But this is not what most people in the churches today believe. This perspective goes against modern evangelism techniques (techniques, I might add, which are not really working very well. The church in America has not grown in raw numbers for decades.). Christians today want their preachers to be persuasive and powerful in their preaching. That's what it means to be eloquent. It was Aristotle who defined the art of public speaking. He called it rhetoric, and taught the skills of public speaking and argumentation (or persuasion). We might think of it as the art of story telling, both written and verbal.

For instance, public speakers are taught to tell the audience what you are going to tell them. Then tell them. And then tell them what you told them. Keep your messages simple and repetitive. It's a standard technique to make three points in any speech, and to repeat them three times. You are probably familiar with this wisdom. But is it biblical? Did Paul do this? How about Jesus? No, the Bible doesn't engage this bit of worldly wisdom.

There are many rhetorical devises—alliteration, allusion, analogy, hyperbole, metaphor, simile, and a host of others. These are the tools of the public speaker and the story teller. Are they biblical? The Bible is filled with such things. The Bible uses them. The Bible intends to persuade through story telling, the telling of His-story. So, is Paul saying that preaching should not use the tools of rhetoric? The issue for Paul is not rhetoric per se, but Godlessness. It is the Godlessness of the world that accounts for its academic folly. It is the effort of the Godless “who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth” (Romans 1:18) that is the problem.

The unrighteous suppress the truth. The church, then, needs to proclaim the truth boldly, without equivocation or eloquence, to speak the truth plainly, directly, and without embellishment. And by presenting the gospel as Scripture presents it—simply, plainly, clearly, without dressing it up in the latest worldly fashions, it becomes clear that it works by the power of God and not by the power of dynamic communication skills, rhetoric or marketing techniques.

Paul identifies two categories of people in verse 18: those who are perishing and those who are being saved. For the one, the “word of the cross (Scripture) is folly.” For the other, it is “the power of God” (1:18). These are two very different perspectives. Paul doesn't say that those who don't understand Scripture are lost, rather he says that those who are lost don't understand Scripture. Nor does he say that those who understand it do so because they are saved. Rather, he says that those who are saved are able to understand it. The difference here is critical. It is the difference between works-righteousness and salvation by grace. It is the difference between allowing the power of God to direct the not-yet-saved into salvation and directing the unsavable to go through the motions of religion for the appearance of success in evangelism and church growth.

Paul makes an astonishing statement, “in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom” (1:21). This essentially means that people cannot know God through their own efforts. God cannot be learned through study. God cannot be discerned through science. We cannot build a bridge to God. And that's exactly the way that God wants it! The only way that God can be known is by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8). If God doesn't provide it of His own free will, it can't get got.

Paul goes on to tell us that people make two kinds of foolish demands on the Lord. “The Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom” (1:22). He is talking about the two kinds of people—those in the family of God (the Jews), and those outside the family of God (the Gentiles). Now we know that there are two kinds of people in the family of God—the saved and the lost (Romans 9:6), but there are also two kinds of people not in the family of God—the unsavable and the not-yet-saved (Luke 2:32).

The Jews required signs or miracles to confirm the mission of the Old Testament prophets who were sent to them. That's the traditional way that they certified their prophets. So it was quite natural for them to insist on a sign to prove that Jesus was the true Messiah. Like the Jews of old, many people in the churches today are still waiting for a miracle to establish their faith. Jesus performed many miracles during His life on earth, and was resurrected from the dead and seated at the right hand of God as the ultimate miracle. Makes me wonder what people are waiting for today!

Paul also said that those outside the church, those who don't know the Lord seek wisdom—and not knowing the Lord, they seek worldly wisdom. Many of them seek it as a substitute for God, as a way of salvation. Indeed, Liberalism teaches salvation through knowledge or education. The state currently preaches salvation through education in their public schools. According to the state, education is the standard cure for everything—poverty, crime, drug abuse, domestic violence, etc. Again, it is not education per se, or wisdom or intelligence itself that is the problem. The problem is Godlessness. So, Godless education or Godless wisdom is futile. Only God can change the heart. Only God can change the mind.

I'm not trying to undercut the importance of education. It is very important. But it does not save people from sin. Everyone needs education, both categories of the saved and both categories of the lost. The saved need to be educated in Godliness for their own sanctification. The lost who are not-yet-saved need to be educated in Godliness in order to draw them into salvation and sanctification. The unsavable need to be educated in Godliness in order to keep them from being as evil as they can be. Even the unsavable benefit from a Godly education. They aren't saved by it, but they learn about the role of law and the fact that the state has been instituted to punish those who break the law, and knowing that contributes to their better behavior, which benefits everyone, including themselves. Conversely, there is no need for Godless education. It only serves to encourage Godlessness and sin.
Paul goes on to say that “God chose what is low and despised in the world … to bring to nothing things that are” (1:28). God did not choose what was popular. He didn't choose successful people, nor beautiful people, nor smart people. He chose what was despised—exoutheneō, that which is contemptible, least esteemed, most unpopular. Why would the Lord do that? Because Scripture teaches that people are sinners and that sin likes to be dressed in wisdom, intelligence, popularity and beauty.

Sinners are caught up in their own thinking, their own values. They are caught up in themselves, and will not yield to a superior wisdom. Sinners will not heed Scripture. They refuse to learn from history. They are unteachable because they think that they know better. They cannot escape the limitations of their own desires. They are proud of themselves, even when they are soft-spoken.

Conversely, Paul tells us that God has arranged things “so that no human being might boast in the presence of God” (1:29). God alone “is the source of your life in Christ Jesus” (1:30). Everything in Scripture and history points to the fact that God is the author and finisher of human salvation, and that people are sinners and completely unable to save themselves. Salvation is by and through Jesus Christ alone, “whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption” (1:30). There is no salvation at all apart from biblical salvation in Jesus Christ alone.

Therefore, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord” (1:31). All pride is forbidden, except pride in Jesus Christ. We are not to take pride in anything—not in our favorite sports team, not in our own accomplishments, not in our abilities, not in our generosity, not in our Reformed theology, not in our church, not in our nation. The only pride a Christian has is pride in Jesus Christ, and the road to that kind of pride goes through the valley of humility.

posted by PARoss @ 11:37 AM 0 comments

Purity & Peace

1 Corinthians 1:1-17

Paul called attention to the fact that he was "called by the will of God" (1:1). He was called to be an apostle, to fulfill a specific role in the Early Church. We need to take care that we don't dismiss the nature and reality that all Christians are called into the church for particular reasons, and that every Christian has a particular role to play in the church. It is true that all Christians are not called to be apostles, all are not called to be deacons or elders, but all Christians are called to be something.

I am referring to the doctrine of vocation. Martin Luther is credited with reasserting the doctrine of vocation as a foundation stone in the Reformation of the church.

"Therefore I advise no one to enter any religious order or the priesthood, indeed, I advise everyone against it – unless he is forearmed with this knowledge and understands that the works of monks and priests, however holy and arduous they may be, do not differ one whit in the sight of God from the works of the rustic laborer in the field or the woman going about her household tasks, but that all works are measured before God by faith alone" (Martin Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 1520).

All Christians are called by God Himself to play a particular role, fill a particular office, and/or accomplish a particular task within the Body of Christ. However, it also needs to be noted that the Body of Christ is not coterminous with any particular denomination or 501(c)(3) manifestation of a local church organization. Rather, the Body of Christ includes what has been traditionally known as the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant. The church of Jesus Christ is in time and beyond time at the same time.

Just as you are members of the church Sunday when we gather for worship, we are still members of the church during the week when we are scattered for service. We gather for encouragement, instruction, fellowship and worship. Then we scatter throughout society for service in the name of Jesus Christ. The church is not a static institution, but a living being.

What is commonly understood as the "church" in contemporary society is a mere husk of the "church" in Scripture. The church of the New Testament was a vibrant fellowship of people from diverse backgrounds, traditions and ethnicities who celebrated, not their diversity, but their unity in Christ. They shared a common vision and purpose, communicated by Paul and the other apostles – not perfectly or without struggle, of course. But the power of their common vision and purpose overcame their differences.

We note several things. God calls all Christians to faithfulness where they are, in the midst of their current job, family, and neighborhood. And at the same time all Christians are called out of worldliness and into Godliness. We are called to abandon the immorality of the world and to practice the morality of the Kingdom, and to do it right where we are – in our current job, family and neighborhood. We are not called to create a Christian ghetto or to remove ourselves from our current obligations. Rather, we are called to be transformed people right where we are. We are not to run from the world, we are to be transformed in the midst of it.

Paul recognized the Christians in Corinth, those who were the immediate recipients of his letter, as people who were "sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints" (1:2). All Christians are called by the will of God to be saints. The Greek word translated as saint is hagios. The word means sacred, physically pure, morally blameless or religious.

Hagios is used throughout the New Testament to refer to God’s holiness. Christ is the Holy One of God. Scripture refers to the Holy Spirit, the Holy Father, holy Scriptures, holy angels, holy brethren, and so on. The secular and pagan use of the word pictured a person separated and dedicated to the idolatrous "gods" and carried no sense of moral or spiritual purity. The pagan gods were as sinful and degraded as the men who worshiped them. There was no sense of morality or righteousness associated with pagan worship. The worshiper of the pagan god celebrated and mimicked the character of the pagan gods and the immoral religious ceremonies connected with its worship. The Greek temple at Corinth housed a large number of harlots who were connected with the worship of the Greek gods. Thus, the character of the Greek worshiper was licentious, depraved, and abandoned to the celebration of raw emotion.

Paul's use of the word Hagios represented something filthy that had been washed and set apart for a completely different purpose. The traditional idea of a saint is a picture of salvation. Those who were filthy with sin were washed in the blood of Christ, and set apart from sin to serve God's purposes. The common understanding is that saints practice a superior morality, that being a Christian or being called by God resulted in moral growth or refinement. That common understanding is not wrong, but it is often misunderstood.

Christians are not perfect and never will be, apart from the fullness of the Kingdom of God in glory. Yet, it is common that non-Christians accuse Christians of thinking that they are better than everyone else. And Christians are too often infected with the pride of thinking the same thing.

There is a sense in which it is true, and a sense in which it isn't. Christians do in fact grow and mature in morality, so they do enjoy a kind of moral upgrade. Moral improvement is one of the benefits of Christianity.

At the same time it is a supreme folly and sin for any Christian to think that he or she is morally superior to anyone else. In fact, particular heathens are often morally superior to particular Christians. The point is not that Christians are morally superior to heathens, some are and some aren't. Rather, the point is that Christians grow in moral purity. A Christian should always be more moral, more honest, more righteous that he or she used to be. We are not to compare ourselves with others – Christian or heathen, but with Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ alone is our model.

Nor are Christians are saved by their moral growth. No one can practice moral improvement in order to become a Christian. It doesn't work like that. No matter how hard we try, we cannot measure up to the moral requirement established by God in the Old Testament. It cannot be done, and the fact that it cannot be done is one of the central lessons of the Old Testament. Israel failed to be what God called her to be, and the faithful in Israel were very righteous, very moral by any human standard – but not by God's standard.

While moral improvement is a fruit of salvation, it is not in any sense a cause or foundation of salvation. Rather, salvation is in Christ alone. At the same time, there is no salvation apart from moral improvement. Christians are "called to be saints" (1:2, Romans 1:7) who are "sanctified in Christ Jesus" (1:2). Christians grow in grace, grow in obedience, grow in faithfulness, grow in righteousness, grow in moral improvement. Christians are not necessarily better than anyone else, but they are necessarily better than they used to be.

And Christians cannot claim any personal credit (or glory) for their moral improvement. We are what we are, not because we have worked hard to become good Christians, but solely because Jesus Christ dispatched His Holy Spirit to us while we were still awash in sin and disobedience to grab us by the scruff of the neck and haul us aboard the life raft known as Jesus Christ. We had nothing to do with it until we found ourselves in Christ. Good thing, too! Because we, like Israel before us, are completely unable to be what God has called all people to be. Nor are we now what God has called us to be. But Christ has satisfied God's demands, deflected God's wrath, and provided a way for us to grow in Godliness.

And, Paul proclaims, it is the "Lord Jesus Christ, who will sustain you to the end" (1:7-8). Here is a clear expression of the doctrine of assurance. Our salvation is assured, not because of anything that we can do, but solely because of what Christ has done. Christ's grip on us is much stronger than our grip on Him.

Paul goes on to address divisions in the church. Why does he talk about divisions in the church? Shouldn't he be talking about love and unity among the brethren? Paul is committed to the truth. He believed Jesus when He said that "the truth will set you free" (John 8:32). The truth is that there are divisions in every church.

Paul went on to provide the cure for church divisions, "be united in the same mind and the same judgment" (1:10). He is talking about doctrinal unity, about everyone being on the same page doctrinally. That's a pretty tall order in today's world. Why? Because of the contemporary emphasis on diversity.

To keep us from getting confused, we need to note that there are two kinds of diversity—ethnic diversity and doctrinal (or philosophical/theological) diversity. We know as a fact that Jesus gave the church incredible ethnic diversity. Simeon prophesied that Jesus would be "a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel" (Luke 2:32). Jesus commanded His people to go and "make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19). Paul said that the gospel was "the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Romans 1:16). Later he reminded the Galatians that "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). When the Holy Spirit poured out upon the saints gathered in the Upper Room there were "devout men from every nation under heaven" (Acts 2:5) dwelling in Jerusalem among the Jews. "And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language" (Acts 2:6). There can be no doubt that Christianity is for people of all ethnic backgrounds.

But Christianity is not doctrinally diverse. Of course people understand things differently. That's to be expected. But those differences in understanding are a function of our sin. They are not normative. Doctrinal diversity is not the ideal or the goal. Doctrinal unity is the goal. Paul says, "be united in the same mind and the same judgment" (1:10). This is no fluke.

Jesus prayed, "I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one" (John 17:11). Paul wrote to the Philippians, "Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel" (Philippians 1:27). And later in that same letter, "So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind (Philippians 2:1-2).

Ethnic diversity is the goal of the church, not ethnic purity. On the other hand, doctrinal unity is the goal of the church, not doctrinal diversity. In other words, Jesus wants all kinds of different people to believe the same thing. He doesn't want all the people who are already in the church to believe different things.

The PCA "requires believers to seek the peace and purity of the church, respecting the order and discipline Christ has appointed" (Position Papers: 1973 – 1993, 18th General Assembly, 1990,18-78, p. 170). This is no small task because sin has set peace and purity at odds with one another. Those who seek doctrinal unity or purity, those for whom truth is the primary category of faithfulness are often charged with disturbing the peace of the church because they meet with opposition when they teach or assert various unpopular doctrines. And those who seek peace, those for whom fellowship is the primary category of faithfulness are often charged with disturbing the purity of the church because they don't want to defend the truth against corruption.

Scripture, however, insists on both peace (or fellowship among the saints) and purity (or doctrinal agreement among the saints). Paul addresses this issue in its fullness in his letters to the Corinthians.

Note Paul's first defense of the gospel here in chapter one. His first attempt at telling the saints what they need in order to manifest both purity and peace in the church is very interesting. He spoke of baptism because that was the issue of presentation. People had been dividing themselves into groups based upon their baptism, upon who baptized them, upon who they were baptized into. It makes sense. Baptism is a mark of entry into the church. It is a common belief that how a person got into the church suggests his or her position in the church.

The Refored camp certainly understands this. We argue that people are brought into the church by the power of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, and not under their own power or by their own decisions to join or to be baptized. In other words, if you haven't been regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit, you are not really a church member, no matter what you or anyone else may think.

Yet, as much as we hold fast to this understanding of church membership, Paul brushes the issue of baptism aside, suggesting that the act of baptism is not in and of itself a sufficient indicator of church membership. In other words, baptism is not a magic action that opens the doors of heaven. Rather, it is a symbolic ceremony. The symbolism is important, but not so important that it should disturb the peace and purity of the church.

So, Paul's first defense of the gospel is not baptism. "For Christ did not send me," said Paul, "to baptize but to preach the gospel" (1:17). Paul will go on to say that the gospel is sufficient to defend itself, "for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes" (Romans 1:16). Paul's first defense of the gospel is this, "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power" (1:17).

In other words, Paul tells us that worldly wisdom is not sufficient to make any judgments about the gospel of Jesus Christ. He is saying that those who are wise in the eyes of the world are not able to think correctly about the gospel. And who are the wise in the eyes of the world? Professors, intellectuals, scientists, think tank scholars, university scholars, news anchors. There's nothing wrong with being a professor or an intellectual or a scientists or a scholar or a news anchor. The problem is that the tools of these professions, inasmuch as they are committed to the wisdom of the world—that is to say wisdom without God, or wisdom apart from the light of Scripture—will always fail to understand even the most basic things about God or Jesus Christ. They will always and consistently get it wrong. Oh, they may stumble over a true thing now and then, but they will themselves fail to understand the fullness of any truth they come upon.

Paul says it better, "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1:18). He means that Christianity will always look stupid to the world, to those who do not begin their thinking with the reality of God.

posted by PARoss @ 7:52 AM 0 comments

Marriage Amendment: On the Horns of a Dilemma

President George W. Bush has called for an amendment to the Constitution in order to stop the encroachment of those who want access to the various federal and state benefits that are accorded to married couples. Those benefits include various financial arrangements that were originally provided to encourage and sustain marriage in the United States, i.e., common ownership of property, insurance beneficiary defaults, taxation as a common unit or household, and default inheritance rights.

Those who are calling for marriage rights between same sex couples see it as a matter of equal rights, as a continuation of the civil rights movement and the fight against arbitrary discrimination against various classes or groups of people. “To discriminate socially is to make a distinction between people on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit. Examples include racial, religious, sexual, disability, ethnic, height-related and age-related discrimination. Distinctions between people which are based just on individual merit (such as personal achievement, skill or ability) are not discriminatory” (Wikipedia). This definition of discrimination is an expansion of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, which was itself the continuation of the emancipation of slaves following the Civil War, and contains the same seeds of conflict.

There are significant problems with this definition and the effort to eliminate all social categorization. This effort is the philosophical continuation of an historical movement known as the Levellers. This movement grew out of a secular misunderstanding of the Book of Acts and common property ownership, and is intent upon bringing about world-wide communism as the fundamental structure of human organization or society. But that is not the subject of this article, though this history provides the context for proper understanding of the same sex marriage issue. Here we are concerned simply with the definition of marriage.

Currently, civil marriage laws fall under the jurisdiction of the various states, not the federal government. Although, part of the federal union of the states requires that each state respect the marriage laws of the other states. The Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342 to 67, and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 14 in 1996. Similar defensive marriage laws were also passed in 38 states and express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the traditional (and in the case of the United States – Christian) institution of marriage.

The modus operandi of the various groups working to establish equal marital rights for same sex couples is to force all issues and disagreements into federal courts in order to play out the already established equal rights protection language in existence throughout the various elements of the federal government. The recent passage of same sex marriage laws in Massachusetts will bring the issue to federal jurisdiction for a settlement that applies to all states. Thus, while the issue of marriage is presented as a personal morality issue – with an emphasis on biblical morality on one side, and an emphasis on civil rights morality on the other – the as yet unspoken issues pertain to both state rights within the federal union and the continuing expansion of federal jurisdiction across the board.

There are two ultimate resolutions regarding the present concerns about marriage. One is to establish a Constitutional law that defines marriage nationally, the other is to eliminate the civil financial benefits that are currently associated with marriage. Neither resolution will benefit American society. Rather, the United States is in the process of being impaled on the horns of a dilemma that will result in disembowelment. This result is not unexpected because it is the goal of both Marxists and Leveller ideologies.

The problems with the establishment of a Constitutional amendment to define marriage pertain to the separation of church and civil governments (or state). How so? In every society and civilization marriage is associated with churches and religion because marriage is understood to have divine authority and associations. Thus, for the civil government to enact legislation pertaining to the definition of marriage is an encroachment of civil government into the jurisdiction of church or religious government. Were this Constitutional Amendment to pass, civil government would then establish the social foundation of churches and/or religions – and in particular, Christianity.

In order to see this more clearly, one needs only look at the language of the proposed Amendment, which reads “Marriage in the United States of America shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman” (emphasis mine). The problem with this definition is that it eliminates the role of God, church and religion with regard to marriage.

Traditionally, Christianity defines marriage as a three strand cord consisting of husband, wife and God. God is absolutely foundational to Christian marriage because it is God who provides the covenantal (or legal) foundation for marriage. Christian marriage is not merely a contract between two people, nor merely a contract between two people and a community. According to Scripture, it is a covenant with God that establishes the rights and duties that exist between a husband, a wife, and their children. This marriage covenant legitimates the issue of children.

The husband and wife make specific pledges or promises to one another, and they covenant with God to honor those pledges and promises. Scripture includes instruction regarding family inheritance rights and obligations. Part and parcel of the legitimization of family bonds are matters of property and inheritance rights. In other words, God provides the authorization and foundation of marriage, and will provide sanctions for dishonoring His covenant. In fact, the model of the Christian gospel itself is inextricably bound up with property and inheritance rights. The kingdom of God is the promised inheritance of the redefined family of born again believers. Inheritance policy is critical to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The problem is that the currently proposed Constitutional Marriage Amendment writes God out of the commonly recognized definition of marriage in America. Such an act will have serious long-term negative consequences for American society in that marriage will no longer seek nor be worthy of God's blessings or protection, and will utterly change the structure of American society. Such a change will have serious financial and social repercussions. We may argue the merits or demerits of the change, or the nature of the change, but structural change itself will be the inevitable result.

If the Marriage Amendment is passed, the primary foundation of Christian churches, which is the Christian family and the marriages that constitute Christian families, will accrue increasing disdain and discrimination in the wider culture. Why? Because the foundational covenant with God that establishes Christian marriage will not be recognized by civil governments. This will result in increasing ignorance of the biblical roots of the marriage covenant, which will be increasingly ridiculed as unnecessary – or worse as contrary to the well-being of civil governments by those who oppose Christianity. This in turn will encourage another form of discrimination – Christian discrimination – in the effort to correct the current discrimination against same sex marriage.

This is important because the only biblically legitimate – and the traditional – role of civil government regarding marriage is to recognize the social legitimacy of marriage, not to define or grant it. Marriage is not a right granted by civil government, but is a privilege, with ensuing rights and responsibilities, that is granted by God alone. Why? Because God claims ownership of the issue of marriage – the children produced by the marriage union. The concern is that the authority that legalizes (or defines) marriage has legitimate ownership rights of the children produced. Thus, it is not the church that legalizes marriage, but it is God Himself who defines and legalizes Christian marriage. And it is certainly not the civil government that defines or legalizes marriage.

The role of the civil government is to simply recognize the legality of marriage, and by doing so the civil government recognizes God's ownership of the issue (children), with all of the rights and duties pertaining thereunto. Thus, it is a very serious thing to write God out of the definition of marriage as recognized by civil governments.

Thus, a better approach to the resolution of unequal civil rights pertaining to marriage would be for the civil government to disestablish all financial benefits pertaining to marriage and to treat all individuals equally with regard to employment and taxation. All civil laws pertaining to financial benefits related to marriage should also be eliminated as a matter of equal treatment of all individuals. This will also harm the institution of marriage in America, but it will not redefine the institution.

Granting legality, rights and/or duties regarding marriage is not the prerogative of the civil government. In fact, all laws regarding marriage by the civil government constitute the encroachment of civil government into the jurisdiction of the churches. The civil government should not be in the business of legitimizing marriage because marriage is traditionally and biblically under the jurisdiction of church (or religion). That is the source of the problem. The state (civil government) continues to usurp the biblically mandated authority and jurisdiction of the church.

The removal of the special financial benefits granted by civil government to married couples will go a long way toward the resolution of the current problem by removing the special financial benefits accorded to married couples by civil governments. Unfortunately, it will also contribute to the continuing degradation of marriage and family in American society because marriage will no longer be financially encouraged across the board.

For more on Christian marriage see:

www.pilgrim-platform.org/marriage.htm

www.pilgrim-platform.org/sodomy.htm

posted by PARoss @ 7:26 AM 0 comments

Election

Election Made Easy

An Essay by David C. Brand dedicated to Sam and Steve, two ordinary men of simple but extraordinary faith of which Jesus is the Author. Having first met as professor and student in the classroom at Barrington College, these two men defied convention resulting in a partnership of theological training to prepare Congregationalists for Christian ministry.

Election is not a subject for the intellectually elite. Election is where the Extraordinary encounters the ordinary and vice versa. Election, in fact, is not an elitest thing at all–rather it is an incarnational thing. The heart of election is the Eternal God condescending to sinful men and accommodating Himself to their wretched and pitiful condition. “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21).

Election, after all, is in the Son, himself “a living Stone rejected by men, but in God’s sight, chosen and precious” (Ephes. 1:4; 1 Pet. 2:4).

... therefore thus says the Lord God,
"Behold, I am the one who has laid as a foundation in Zion,
a stone, a tested stone,
a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation:
'Whoever believes will not be in haste.'
Isaiah 28:16 (ESV)

If election is not an elitest thing, neither is it an arbitrary or whimsical thing.

... even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love [5] he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, [6] to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved (Ephes.1:4-6 ESV).

Election is not a “stand-offish” thing whereby one person snubs another or one group looks down in disdain upon another. In the Incarnation the only group from which the Son stood apart or resisted was the group which itself was “stand-offish” looking with disdain upon others (Mark 1:15-17; Luke 18:9-14). Election, therefore, is not God catering to the proud and elite, or to those who imagine that they have it all together by comparison with other men.

For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. [27] But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; [28] God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, [29] so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. [30] He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption. [31] Therefore, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord" (1 Cor. 1:26-31 ESV).

Election is a gift–it is not earned. Yet it is to be appreciated as something to be honored and confirmed by practical obedience and submission to the known will of the Grantor (2 Pet. 1:10).

Election is not just about Divine Sovereignty–it is about Divine Accessibility. Election is actualized among fallen humans in space and time through the preaching of the Gospel (Ephes. 1:11-13). God has chosen to save men “through the folly of what we preach” (1 Cor. 1:21). The Gospel is designated “the word of faith” (Rom. 10:8; Deut. 30:14), and through that “word” a righteousness that is “based on faith” from start to finish is revealed to fallen humans (Rom. 1:17; 10:6). The Incarnation was the Word made flesh–it was God Himself preaching the Good News to us and laying the foundation of it (John 1:14; Heb. 1:1-2; 1 Cor. 3:11). In the Incarnation God and men are “sat down together.” For how can “two walk together, unless they have agreed to meet” (Amos 3:3)?

We contemplate our election in the face of Jesus Christ in whom we are chosen through faith in his Name. Election is not a subject for dispute in the church. It is a glory to behold! For in Jesus we find that from which we have fallen and are restored to that to which we desperately need to be conformed (Col. 1:15; 2 Cor. 3:18; Phil. 3:21).

At that time Jesus declared, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; [26] yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. [27] All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. [28] Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. [29] Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. [30] For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light" (Matthew 11:25-30 ESV).

Election does not make us a man proud. On the contrary, it humbles the man and causes him to utter such expressions as are contained in the following hymn:

When I survey the wondrous cross
On which the Prince of glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss,
And pour contempt on all my pride.

Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,
Save in the death of Christ my God!
All the vain things that charm me most,
I sacrifice them to His blood.

See from His head, His hands, His feet,
Sorrow and love flow mingled down!
Did e’er such love and sorrow meet,
Or thorns compose so rich a crown?

His dying crimson, like a robe,
Spreads o’er His body on the tree;
Then I am dead to all the globe,
And all the globe is dead to me.

Were the whole realm of nature mine,
That were a present far too small;
Love so amazing, so divine,
Demands my soul, my life, my all.

Election, practically speaking, makes a man more human, not less human, and more humanitarian rather than less so. While on the one had, election destroys the common ground the man once had with a fallen race (Gen. 1:15; Ephes. 4:17; 1 Pet. 4:4), on the other hand it establishes more common ground by making the man secure enough to face his own sin openly removing his pretentiousness as though he were something which he is not. The elect, as they progress in their cognitive and experiential knowledge of God’s grace, have no need to impress others as though they are something in themselves when in fact they are nothing (Rom. 7:18-20). They are what they are “by the grace of God” (1 Cor. 15:10) and have neither right nor need to boast about it (1 Cor. 1:28-31; 2 Cor. 3:5). For this reason they are free to expend themselves for others leaving in God’s hands the ultimate question of whether those they serve are elect or non-elect (2 Cor. 12:15).

Certainly, in consideration of a person’s confession and the fruit of his life, they charitably judge him to be one of God’s elect and embrace him as such (1 Cor. 12:3; Matt. 7:15-20). And while they recognize that ultimately God alone can judge the secret hearts of men (2 Tim. 2:19, 23-26), they have no further need to occupy themselves with such matters that are too great for them but have contented themselves as a weaned child is content (Psalm 131).

Dave,

Let me again try to provide some input to your article on election. I am not arguing with you as much as I am looking at it from a different perspective.

First, are the elect elite? According to Webster's Dictionary elite means 1 a singular or plural in construction : the choice part. Indeed, the elect have been chosen by God, which is the definition of the word. The Greek: ek-lek-tos' From G1586; select; by implication favorite: - chosen, elect. It appears that the biblical term elect does in fact refer to a subset of humanity that have been chosen by God for His purposes. And part of God's purpose is to bring the elect to perfection through sanctification -- not complete sanctification in this life, but progressive sanctification nonetheless. While perfection is beyond the scope of this worldly life, moral improvement is the necessary result of election.

I understand the desire for egalitarianism. And I understand that God's election is not based upon anything that the elect are in and of themselves or on anything that they have done or are able in and of themselves to do. From our human perspective there is nothing unique about the elect that sets them apart from anyone else, except the fact of God's election. However, God's election does in fact separate them from the nonelect. If it didn't, election would be meaningless.

This raises the issue of whether the elect are in any way superior to the nonelect. And the traditional answer is that they are not in and of themselves superior to anyone else. However, being elect means that God has chosen them to be the recipients of salvation through the power and presence of His Holy Spirit. And God's Holy Spirit is indeed superior. Thus, God has chosen to bestow his superior Holy Spirit upon those who are otherwise not superior. Thus, it does appear that the elect, while not being any different from anyone else in and of themselves, are in fact superior to the nonelect because of the superiority of the Holy Spirit, who incarnates however imperfectly in them. As God accommodates Himself to the wretched and pitiful condition of humanity, the elect are given an improvement in righteousness and a promise that one day that very righteousness that has so freely and graciously been given to them will reach full flower in glory (2 Cor. 5:21). That improvement in righteousness is completely due to the influence and power of the Holy Spirit. Yet, it has been engrafted onto the souls of men.

However, the superiority of the elect is not superiority as men understand superiority. It gives the elect additional privileges and additional responsibilities. The privileges pertain to communion with Jesus Christ and fellowship with His people. The responsibilities pertain to service to Jesus Christ and to the world. But they are nonetheless additional privileges and responsibilities that are not shared with the nonelect.

And you are correct that election is not arbitrary. It unfolds according to the decree and plan of God from before time began.

Election produces extraordinary compassion that perceives those who are still lost in sin to be in a pitiable state. But the elect do not glory in the misfortune of others. Rather, they are motivated to greater service to reach the lost with God's Word of salvation, trusting in a fuller understanding of God's amazing grace, and His desire to save the bulk of humanity.

The elect go to extraordinary measures to reach the lost, crossing every kind of boundary because they know that God's mercy knows none of the boundaries that people erect -- geographic borders, socio-economic status, education, intelligence, class, sex, etc. None of these boundaries mean anything to the mercy of God's salvation.

But there is one border that is significant to God -- sin. God's purpose is to separate humanity from sin, to root out sin from this world. God demands that His people repent of sin, not perfectly, not entirely in this life, but at the same time repentance must be real and it must be significant. The border between righteousness and sin must be clearly defined. And the elect must be able to discern that border with increasing clarity over time.

As God's people grow in faithfulness they become better able to discern the boundaries (distinctions) between righteousness and sin. This growth comes in part from conversations with other believers, and at times such conversations will be heated -- must be heated because they involve closely held beliefs and important values. Christians are called to argue (in the philosophical sense not the emotional sense) the cause of Christ among themselves and among unbelievers. That is what evangelism is, and it is what Paul did in the book of Acts. He argued for the cause of Christ against the world, against the Jewish synagogues and against the Roman empire. Paul was very much "in people's faces" arguing against their assumptions, presuppositions, interpretations and traditions.

Paul's service was for the elect and for the nonelect -- both, but he served them in different ways. First, understand that the unsaved come in two flavors: the elect and the nonelect. We don't always know which is which, but there are nonetheless significant differences between them.

Maybe it will help to suggest that there are four groups that we are to work with as Christians: 1) fellow Christians who are elect, 2) unrepentant sinners who are not elect, and never will be, 3) sinners who do not yet know themselves to be elect, and 4) sinners who think they are Christian but are not elect. Each group requires a different offensive.

Fellow Christians who are elect will continue to grow in faithfulness and righteousness. Thus, we must facilitate such growth by arguing (discussing) increasingly subtle aspects of faithfulness and righteousness. And because our sin will continue, errors will continue. Thus, disputes and argumentation must be engaged to root out error so that righteousness may increase among the elect (1 Cor 11:19).

Unrepentant sinners who are not elect must be discouraged from falsely thinking that they 1) are not sinners, 2) don't need to repent, or 3) can be Christian on some other basis. The whole world must understand that unrepentant people will not be saved because God cannot tolerate sin, and that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. We must couch the gospel in such a way that unrepentant sinners understand themselves to be excluded, and that their exclusion serves the glory of God. It is not my decision or your decision or the decision of the church or any synod to exclude unrepentant sinners from salvation. It is God's decision to do so, and it magnifies the glory of His righteousness.

Sinners who do not yet know themselves to be elect are the easiest targets for our evangelistic efforts. Because God's election precedes birth, these people will in fact be saved. But they will not be saved apart from God's means of salvation -- the preaching of the gospel. Some of these people will be attracted to a winsome presentation of the gospel, and others will flee from God's threats of damnation into the arms of Jesus. But both must understand that there is a significant difference between the righteousness to which they are called and the sinfulness in which they are living.

The fourth group consists of those whose belief is false. They either believe what is not true or their belief itself is false. These are the Matthew 7:21 Christians, who think that they believe in Christ, who think that they work miracles by the power of Christ, yet are rejected by Christ -- not because they didn't know Him, but because He didn't know them (a reflection on the importance of election). These people must be purged from the church for the sake of the unity and purity of the church.

Matthew Henry says that we should use Psalm 131 "to teach and admonish ourselves, and one another, what we ought to be, with repentance that we have come short of being so, and humble prayer to God for his grace to make us so." The Psalm suggests that we should be content with what we have been given, but not that we can rest on our laurels. David was not to fret that he was called to be king, but to be content in it. Nor was he to think too highly of himself because of it. God had called him to it, not because of who he was in himself or because of anything that he would become in himself. God would accomplish it, not David. Rather, David was to be content to be used by God, and not make a big fuss about it, not to cry and fret like a hungry baby.

Van Till says that the knowledge that God has given us in Scripture is real knowledge, both true and reliable. But it is not complete knowledge. Thus, what we know about God is reliable, but not comprehensive. We can trust what we know to be true, though it is not comprehensive.

Phil

posted by PARoss @ 8:16 PM 1 comments

Judge John Roberts

John Roberts, who is being considered for Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, is believed to be a faithful Christian. He is a Roman Catholic. The political right loves him for his reputed faithfulness, and the political left fears him for the same reason. Both sides agree that he is a faithful Christian. The primary concern of both sides is whether or not he will engage his faith as he sits on the bench.

Here's where I fail to follow the argument for his faithfulness. Roberts said, "There's nothing in my personal views based on faith or other sources that would prevent me from applying the precedent of the Court faithfully under the principles of stare decisis." And later, "I do know this: that my faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role in judging. When it comes to judging, I look to the law books and always have. I don't look to the Bible or any other religious source" (Footnote).

Excuse me!? Isn't faithfulness defined as adhering firmly and devotedly to a person, cause, or idea. Doesn't Christianity effect every aspect of human life -- and particularly the making of judgments. Shouldn't the judgments of a Christian reflect Christian values in every aspect of his or her life? Indeed, they must! The degree that one's decisions and judgments do not reflect the values of Jesus Christ is a measure of unfaithfulness.

There are only three possibilities that can explain such statements from Judge Roberts. 1) He is lying in order to hide his values from the unfaithful people who have the power to put him into office. 2) He is not a faithful Christian to the extent that he does not employ Christian values in the making of decisions and judgments. 3) He is very confused about Christianity.

Personally, I don't like any of the above options and am interested in attaining a better understanding. If you have another way to understand this issue, please let me know.

Phil

posted by PARoss @ 9:59 AM 2 comments

Christian Dogma - The 21st Century Perspective, by Barry E. Blood

I just received an email from Barry E. Blood, Sr. Mr. Blood describes himself: “grew up in a Christian family in a small town in Southern Indiana. As an adult (living in Florida) he has continued to live a Christian life, serving his local church in several administrative areas. He has been a Worship Committee chairman, President of the congregation, Chairman of the church board, Sunday school teacher, an Elder of the church, and served for several years as a Lay Minister.

For the past nine years, Mr. Blood has done extensive study of the history of religion and the Christian church. His primary concern is the survival of the Church in the intellectual society of the post modern world.”

It is reviewed by G. Richard Wheatcroft on the Center for Progressive Christianity website:

The author introduces himself by stating that he has been a Christian all his life and has served in many leadership roles in the Church during his adult years. He began what he calls his “journey toward religious maturity” at age fifty-nine. Now, he considers himself a Christian-in-exile. His purpose in writing this book is to help other people avoid a self imposed exile by introducing “to the laity of the Christian religion - people in the pews - some intellectual facts about their religion that are not being presented to them from the pulpit.” For it is his conviction that if the Church is to survive in the twenty-first century, “a comprehensive review of the traditional dogma of the Church is in order.” The book in unique in using a combination of fiction as the story line and nonfiction articles and excerpts from books inserted into the story at intervals.

The story begins on a stormy night. Tom Porter and group of people waited in the lobby of the First Citizen’s bank building hoping for a break in the storm so that they could reach their cars and head home. After some time of waiting, Tom decided he would make a run for it. As he stepped off the curb he was struck by a mini van and knocked into the ground. The Emergency Medical Service arrived and Tom was placed in the ambulance. One of the medical personnel asked if anyone knew him. Barbara MacIntire, who worked as a receptionist in the insurance office where Tom worked, said that she did, so she was asked if she would like to accompany him to the hospital. When they arrived she telephoned Tom’s wife Janet. After days of anxiety over Tom’s survival and his weeks of slow recovery he was released and returned to work.

On the day of his return, after a warm, “Welcome back!’ by his fellow workers, Barbara MacIntire called to ask if she could say “Hello.” After greeting each other she shared with him that during her conversations with Janet she was shocked to be told that she and Tom did not believe in God. Tom replied, “If you’re speaking about the Christian God, the God of Abraham, yes, that’s true. I don’t believe in that God.” Barbara replied that she is saddened by this revelation and wants to talk to Tom about it. They agree to meet for lunch soon.

This brief exchange sets up the format for the development of the story. As a committed Christian, Barbara feels called to witness to Tom and Janet that they may recover their faith. And Tom, in response to her concern, feels a responsibility to share his journey. The heart of the matter is that Tom and Janet have ceased to believe in supernatural theism - God ‘up there’ or ‘out there.’ They also have difficulty continuing to express Christian faith in terms of a three thousand year old mythological world view and “outdated dogma.” At each of his meetings with Barbara, before or after their exchanges, he leaves with her an article or an excerpt from a book to help her understand how he has come to his present understanding. Included is material from Bishop John Shelby Spong, Sigmund Freud, Bertrand Russell, Bishop John A.T. Robinson, H. A. Overstreet, Karen Armstrong, Peter Berger, Paul Tillich and Lloyd Geering. As the conversations continue, Barbara shares some of the material with her husband. She also seeks the counsel of her minister who listens to her struggles and concerns. He admits to her that when he attended seminary thirty years ago, he was “privy” to the point of view expressed in the material Barbara has read. But he admits he is afraid that if he shared what he knows he would be “run out of town before the day ended.”

The final chapter contains an address given by Lloyd Geering in Christchurch, New Zealand, in 1998, “ Being Religious in the Twenty-First Century.” He highlights the issues Tom and Barbara have discussed, using the pre-European Maori culture as an example of the necessity of coming to terms with cultural change. He points out that for the past three hundred years, Western culture has been engaged in finding a new conceptual language to describe and interpret reality, which is the issue facing the Church today. Using Paul Tillich’s description of religion as “ultimate concern” he suggests that being religious in the twenty-first century is a matter of being ultimately concerned about the population explosion, the exhaustion of the earth’s non-renewable resources, accelerating air pollution, the destruction of the rain-forests, the depletion of the ozone layer, the fragile global economy and the “increasing competition among individual, classes, cultures, corporates and nations, coupled with the quite unequal use of the earth’s limited resources.” He writes, “In other words, the God-symbol, if we still choose to use it in the twenty-first century, will refer to the sum total of those things which will concern us most and which call forth from us the same gamut of emotions of awe, wonder, gratitude and obligation as they did in the past when our forbears had a different view of reality and used a different conceptional language.”

Gag! Bishop John Shelby Spong, Sigmund Freud, Bertrand Russell, Bishop John A.T. Robinson, H. A. Overstreet, Karen Armstrong, Peter Berger, Paul Tillich and Lloyd Geering Gag! Blood has found significant Christian doctrine in the writings of Spong, Freud, Russel and Tillich? These men hate Christianity. Anyone who “understands” Christianity with help from these people has either denied or never understood the faith. I think I'll save the $13.00 and the discouragement of reading another liberal who wants to kill the church in order to save it. There are better options.

The Center for Progressive Christianity is another attempt to bring unity to the church through a liberalism that, though is speaks with biblical words, does not employ biblical definitions or doctrines. You will find the CPC to be the darling of those who love the United Church of Christ. Need I say more? I think not.

Phil

posted by PARoss @ 3:00 PM 0 comments