This is Sin

This was pretty convicting in my devotional time this morning:

"This is sin; a refusal to listen to the voice and to the Word of God. So that if you are living your own life in a very respectable manner, and are not listening to God, you are still a terrible sinner. If you are living that little self-contained, self-satisfied life in which you really only think of God now and again, and remember perhaps morning and evenings that there is a God, and you say your prayers; if that is your attitude to God, if you are not waiting upon Him and listening for His Word, and seeking it everywhere, and living to practise it, then you are as much a sinner as the drunkard or the adulterer; you are not listening to God. That is the essence of sin."

Lloyd-Jones, D. Martyn Romans Chapter 1 (Carlisle: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1985), 139.

Fruit in the Bible

Here's a little section of what I was teaching on a few weeks back regarding fruit of the Spirit at church. Unfortunately, because of time restraints I had to cut this, so I thought I'd post it here. It's just a short little biblical-theological meditation on fruit in the Bible. The question that we have to ask ourselves is, "What kind of fruit does my life bear?"

--------------------------------------------------------------

Fruit is an image that we are all familiar with. Fruit on a tree implies multiple things: health, fertility of the ground, growth, sustenance, and reproduction. The kind of fruit that a tree bears says something about the tree and all of the conditions that have combined to contribute to its growth. In the Bible we first see fruit in the creation in Genesis 1:11 when God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” After God created vegetation to bear fruit in season He said it was good (Gn 1:12). The Biblical idea of fruit was then applied to the blessing of both animals (Gn 1:22), and Adam and Eve to multiply (Gn 1:28). The blessing of children is called the “fruit of the womb” at least twelve times in the Bible as well(Gn 30:2; Deut 7:13; 28:4, 11, 18, 53; 30:9; Ps 127:3; 132:11; Isa 13:18; Lam 2:20; Luke 1:42).

Next we see fruit in the garden, when God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gn 2:16-17). We know that they disobeyed God in eating this fruit and it is through this disobedience of the heart that all fell into sin (Gn 3:6). It is in the fall then that bearing fruit from the ground would become difficult and it is through the fall that bearing children would be accompanied with a whole variety of pain. In fact in addition to cursing Satan, God directly cursed the ground saying, “cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life (Gn 3:17).” Despite this curse of the ground there is grace. Again and again in the Old Testament we see that God takes pleasure in His mandate for the creation to be fruitful and multiply by opening wombs and enabling women to have children. We see that God also owned the first fruits of the field, livestock and of children. One of the reasons that the promised land of Canaan was so desirable was because of the evident fruitfulness of it.

Capitalizing on the understanding of fruitfulness in the Old Testament, Psalm 1 applies the image of fruit to the life of a believer. David wrote:

Psalm 1:1 Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. 2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night. 3 He is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither. Whatever he does prospers. 4 Not so the wicked! They are like chaff that the wind blows away. 5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous. 6 For the LORD watches over the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.

This became an image that Jeremiah used to describe virtues of a wicked man and the man who has no other security in life but the Lord (Jer 17:5-8). This idea of fruitfulness manifesting in a person’s character is further developed in the wisdom books and the books of the prophets. Jesus picks up on this imagery as well, saying, “bear fruit in keeping with repentance (Matt 3:8),” also “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire (Matt 7:15-20),” and “make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for a tree is known by its fruit (Matt 12:33),” and there are many more examples of this.

The good news of the gospel is that even though we were trees planted in the soil of of this world bearing the rotten fruit of boasting in what we have and do, we can be grafted into the living vine of Jesus Christ. Believers have been given a new life of peace with God. Through being nourished from the water of life, and being grafted to the living vine of Christ by God's gift to us of repentance and faith we also see that we are given the Holy Spirit. As God sanctifies us progressively over time our lives will bear the fruit of the Spirit if we are believers. But this is a fruit that we have to fight for as well (there's a balance of God's sovereignty and our responsibility here). This is what Paul was getting at when he wrote that we should work out our salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in us both to will and work for His good pleasure (Phil 2:12-13). This is what James was getting at when he wrote that faith without works is dead (Jas 2:18-26). Likewise, this is what Peter was getting at when he wrote that we should make our calling and election sure (1 Pet 1:10). Paul's exhortation is still relevant that we "keep in step with the truth of the gospel (Gal 2:14)" and that we, "keep in step [or walk] with the Spirit (Gal 5:25)."

God's Happiness

I'm sure this has been quoted a million times all over the internet, but this is the first time I've read it. This is the first paragraph in Jonathan Edwards' "Discourse on the Trinity":

When we speak of God's happiness, the account that we are wont to give of it is that God is infinitely happy in the enjoyment of himself, in perfectly beholding and infinitely loving, and rejoicing in, his own essence and perfections. And accordingly it must be supposed that God perpetually and eternally has a most perfect idea of himself, as it were an exact image and representation of himself ever before him and in actual view. And from hence arises a most pure and perfect energy in the God-head, which is the divine love, complacence and joy.

Edwards, Jonathan The Works of Jonathan Edwards Vol. 21: Writings on the Trinity, Grace, and Faith ed. Sang Hyun Lee (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 113.

Truth, Charity, & Tolerance

This morning at theology breakfast we read John Owen’s A Country Essay for The Practice of Church Government There (Volume 8 of his works by...Banner). As Linds and I were headed home we were thinking about how the culture impacts people. We are truly children of our era. We have all thought this before… “How could our ancestors have tolerated slavery?” Well, the answer we often hear is, “Well, they were children of their time.” This did not make it just, but it did not make one hundred percent of their thinking about all things wrong. Many of our ancestors – not all, but many – had a wrong view of slavery. It was wrong, and it was a huge blind spot. This blind spot, however, should not keep us from going back to them for what they had correct. There is still much good that we can learn from their perspective on things.

Well, the truth that we are “children of our time” was hitting home as we considered this essay by a 17th century theologian and pastor. His was a time in which evangelism was a foreign thought (if you were born in England you were baptized into the Anglican “church” and therefore thought to be a Christian). In effect their perspective was one of, “What’s the need for evangelizing when everyone is a Christian?” This was also a time that ecclesiological decisions regarding church discipline were made by the civil magistrate (the government). There was an established religion (Christianity). This is the situation that Owen was writing to in this essay. His thoughts were revolutionary for his time, and they are for us as well as we try to figure out where our country is headed. Here’s an excerpt:

“Ignorance of men’s invincible prejudices, of their convictions, strong persuasions, desires, aims, hopes, fears, inducements, - sensibleness of our own infirmities, failings, misapprehensions, darkness, knowing but in part, - should work in us a charitable opinion of poor erring creatures, that do it perhaps with as upright, sincere hearts and affections as some enjoy truth.” 61

It is interesting that he says their ignorance played out in convictions (etc.) and that it should elicit charity from us in regard to their errors because they do it with upright sincere hearts and affections as some enjoy truth. They are ignorant of the full truth but we should be charitable because they perceive their error as truth. This doesn't mean that what people believe erringly is truth, however. Owen is clearly calling for charity in the midst of strong diverse opinions and convictions. Generally this is the definition of “tolerance”.

In our era many say that tolerance means, despite differences of persuasion, one cannot say another’s conviction or persuasion is wrong or false (and if you do you better have scientific data provable by repeatable experimentation!). At least this is the general theoretical understanding of tolerance folks would articulate in our day. In real life this principle does not work itself out as neatly as they may articulate. Hence, we have two supposedly opposing political parties in our country (which I think is a false dichotomy of sorts), or the fact that we buy one product over another based on how they have pitched a convincing or unconvincing argument for “quality” or usefulness. Regarding the latter you don’t see companies that have decreasing sales figures yelling at other companies, “By you saying your product is superior to ours you are not being tolerant.” We all understand to a certain extent this is a dog eat dog world. Despite a push for strict egalitarianism across all diversity we all understand that that philosophy is a half-truth at best. Regarding the former you do see politicians crying fowl sometimes in regard to “tolerance” but generally we would all agree that they should try to be well educated in their decisions and if their solutions to problems are the best then by all means, persuade us! This isn’t a lack of tolerance. Why then do we point accusingly at people in religious and moral matters accusing them of a lack of tolerance? We need to practice charity as Owen is exhorting. His words of “charity” and of “tolerance” though old are fresh to our time. He doesn’t pose the perfect solution, but he does offer a different perspective that we should listen to which we may not have considered. (I disagree with him, however, that the civil magistrate should handle matters of discipline. I believe this is something given to the responsibility of a local church.)

Owen further speaks to the inclination our age has toward relativity in most if not all things:

“These things turn in a circle: what we are to ourselves, that he is to himself: what he is to us, that we are unto others that may be our judges. But however, you will say, we are in the truth, and therefore ought to go free. Now, truly, this is the same paralogism: who says we are in the truth? others? no, ourselves. Who says erroneous persons (as so supposed) are heretics, or the like? they themselves? no, but we: and those that are to us as we are to them, say no less of us. Let us not suppose that all the world will stoop to us, because we have the truth, as we affirm, but they do not believe. If we make the rule of our proceedings against others to be our conviction that they are erroneous; others will, or may, make theirs of us to be their rule of proceeding against us.” 62-3

He is addressing the fact that the magistrate in carrying out disciplinary actions on behalf of the Anglican “church” to those they believe are heretics, namely burning them alive, chopping heads off, etc. They weren’t barring them from the sacraments or taking their names off of member roles; they were killing people. He is encouraging more charity in church discipline based on the logic of Matthew 7:12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” Further, he later uses the logic that Gamaliel used in Acts 5:33-42 that if what dissenters in the churches believe and live out the validity of this (whether or not it is actually true) will be established by God: “But if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!” (Acts 5:39) May the Lord forbid our exercise of discipline in the form of killing if it only proves that we were in opposition to God. He is calling the church then to exercise charity in discipline. This is revolutionary! John Locke (one of Owen’s students at Oxford) had not come along yet to propose a separation between church and state. Even though Owen was a product of his era, here, in the middle of England's civil war, Owen is proving himself to be ahead of his time.

Toward the end of his essay he leaves us with two cautions:

“(1.) So to carry ourselves in all our censures, every one in his sphere (ecclesiastical discipline being preserved as pure and unmixed from secular power as possible), that it may appear to all that it is the error which men maintain which is so odious unto us, and not the consequent or their dissent from us, whether by subducting themselves from our power or withdrawing from communion. For if this latter be made the cause of our proceeding against any, there must be one law for them all, – all that will not bow, to the fiery furnace! Recusancy is the fault; and that being the same in all, must have the same punishment, – which would be such an unrighteous inequality as is fit for none but Antichrist to own.

(2.) That nothing be done to any, but the bound and farthest end of it be seen at the beginning, and not leave way and room for new persecution upon new pretences. ‘Cedo alteram et alteram,’ – one stripe sometimes makes way for another, and how know I that men will stay at thirty-nine? ‘Principiis obsta.’" 68

The first caution seems to be a warning against a mixture of church and state and that having the same punishment (death) for dissenters as all others who must be disciplined by churches was of the type of inequality the Antichrist would support.

The second caution seems to be a warning of centralization of power in one body, individual or otherwise without some kind of accountability. There should be some kind of limitation of power and of meting out punishments. Otherwise, new reasons will come to the surface that require new punishments (or persecution) and there is no accountability for how much punishment is given out.

"Oliver Cromwell at the Battle of Marston Moor, by an unknown artist. The Parliamentarians under Sir Thomas Fairfax defeated the Royalists at this battle in Long Marston, Yorkshire, on July 2, 1644. Cromwell commanded the Parliamentarian cavalry that defeated the previously invincible Royalist cavalry of Prince Rupert. Marston Moor was a turning point in the English Civil War, as it effectively lost the Royalists the north of England."

I am thankful for the Lord's work in the separation of church and state. May we take advantage of this and seek to share the gospel. Further, we may not always have this freedom...so lets take advantage of it as an opportunity given from the hand of God Himself!

Any thoughts?

A Divided Heart

I’ve been taking a class on the Gospel According to Matthew this week and between this class and the one I took last winter, the Sermon on the Mount, one concept (of many) has been fodder for a lot of thought. Particularly in regard to Matthew 5:8 and what Dr. Pennington refers to as “virtue ethics.” “Virtue ethics”, generally speaking, means a wholehearted mind and heart in what you think and do in your actions. So while there is certainly right and wrong things don’t always fit into a cookie-cutter formula regarding how they might be corrected. Heart issues are the main focus. While external actions are certainly involved the heart issue is the cause, and the solution isn’t always so black and white. It’s the complexity of the noetic effects of sin. So one of the things that Jesus kept coming back to in His ministry is that we should not be “double-minded” or “double-souled.” We must not be a divided soul. The book of James is thought of as an extended wisdom reflection on the Sermon on the Mount and it calls this a case of being “double minded” (Jas 1:5-8).

“If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.”

Jesus was addressing the issue of having a right heart or a right motivation of desires and affections working out in godly actions. So as James makes this point with a negative illustration we can infer the positive, namely, that personal holiness issues from a consistent stable mind, heart, and action (this is also clear in his point that faith without works is dead in 2:14-26).

This is Jesus’ beef with the Pharisees. They didn’t have a right heart, and this divided heart and mind resulted in the fruit of hypocrisy. This is the main point of Matthew 7:1, “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.” It’s not that we are never to make judgment calls on what is right and wrong but we are to do so with humility recognizing our sin. We must understand our rightful place before the God of the universe before we would think to look to others. Notice that Jesus says later in 7:5 that we need to deal with our flaws so we can help others deal with theirs. We need to be humble and recognize that we are not perfect so we can make judgment calls from a right heart.

This is also the main point of the language of cutting off the hand that causes to sin and cutting out the eye because of lust (Matthew 5:29-30). This is hyperbole…but we have to feel the rub of this. This should challenge us. That being said I am certain all have had lust before and most people have not gouged out their eyes. Are we then disobeying Christ? I would argue, “No.” As long as we are on this side of heaven and the new creation we carry sin. So our eyes and hands will be involved with it. We are not cutting our hands off because of our sin. Don’t get me wrong this should challenge us severely. If we are in sin we must take radical measures to mortify it, but it seems that Jesus’ main point is that our bodies are to be wholly directed toward a life of worship toward Him and we must do whatever we can to maintain this “undivided life” toward Christ.

So God is in the business of changing hearts James further draws this out by saying, “Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Be wretched and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you (James 4:8-10).” This passage is coming directly after his statement that we should, “submit to God,” and further that if we, “Resist the devil…[the devil] will flee from you (James 4:7).” So becoming whole hearted is linked to submitting to God and resisting the devil.

Okay, so what does that have to do with Matthew 5:8, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” Well, we had a discussion about how this is linked to Matthew 6:22, “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light.” This should be read in light (pardon the pun) of the ancient near eastern theory that was prevalent during the time this was written that light is emitted from the eye (e.g. Plato and others argued this). One Old Testament example of this was Leah’s weak eye or “dim” eye in Genesis 29:17 may have been an indication that there was less light in her, which was part of the reason she was less desirable to Jacob. So if the heart is not “divided” among itself it will be more pure hence enabling light to emit from the eye in such a way that they might see God more wholly as well. The idea that many have had about the “evil eye” (in which one can give a curse by looking at someone in a certain way) is part of the same kind of logic. It’s really interesting that even science can’t really figure out what light is (It’s clear that light does not emit from the eye in the physical realm; although, this may be true in the spiritual realm in some sense). It seems that God’s word has an enlightening effect of bringing the Lord’s purity to our eyes and then it works itself out of our lives in a rejoicing heart (Psalm 19:8).

This all roots into the main thrust of the Sermon on the Mount that it is ultimately about heart issues. Actions were taking place coming from a poor condition and posture of the heart. This is the same reason why Jesus said, “Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, ‘Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?’ (Matthew 12:25-26).”

I have been thinking about how this plays itself out in regard to faith and works. Do my works then issue from a divided heart? If they do are my works hypocritical? Further, if I believe my heart is in a certain condition…do the works that issue out from my heart betray my perceived condition? It seems that a pure heart is God’s desire. A pure heart that is purely one hundred percent sold out to the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is clearly a theme in the Bible (Psalm 24:4; 73:1; Proverbs 20:9; 1 Timothy 1:5; 2 Timothy 2:22; Hebrews 10:22; and 1 Peter 1:22).

I pray that God would grant pure hearts to His people that we may be able to see Him and live lives that are one hundred percent for Him. May His people cry out to Him with Moses, “Please show me your glory (Exodus 33:18),” and may His people trust that, “Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2).” Ultimately, God changes hearts, and makes them whole. By our own will we cannot make our hearts undivided; we need the Lord Jesus Christ.

Just some thoughts.

Ordination & Theology Breakfast

Yesterday morning at theology breakfast Mark read a sermon and a few letters that C. H. Spurgeon wrote from his autobiography. It was really a great conversation, but I was struck by how engaging it can be to listen to someone read. I really need to start practice reading like this, but it was really helpful how he read the passage.

It was interesting to discuss the legitimacy of practicing an ordination of elders. Particularly, the misperceptions many have regarding what an "ordination ceremony" imparts from the agent(s) to the recipient(s), and the from where modern practices of ordination have derived. The implications that ordination in a denomination has for legal practice of licensing was interesting as well. I think it is wise to have "installation" services recognizing the congregations approval to install an elder to office. The congregational aspect of all of this was really helpful. The effect of this for accountability of an elder to a local congregation, shared responsibility of the members in appointing leaders, and traditions' role informing practice was helpful. It is important for elders to not necessarily have "tenure." If you are familiar with how some college professors have abused tenure in the university then you would understand why a "tenure" of elders is not wise and why some kind of structure of "meaningful" biblical accountability is in place.

I'm looking forward to theology breakfast next week on B. B. Warfield!

Sin & Hell Part 2

(you'll want to read my last post before you read this one)

Okay, then there is preparatory direction number 2 in chapter 10 in Owen's Mortification of Sin:

Get a clear and abiding sense upon your mind and conscience of the guilt, danger, and evil of the sin with which you are troubled. (pp. 65)

Crazy! In the last chapter he said to not fight sin with the law and alluded to the fact that if a man, “cannot fight against it with gospel weapons, it is very evident that sin has control over his will and affections, and has prevailed and conquered. (pp. 60)” It’s important for us to get a grasp on what this means. In the last post, consideration number 4, a dangerous symptom that accompanies a lust is fighting, “against a sin only because of the consequences or penalty of that sin. (pp. 59)” Notice the “only because”. Fighting sin because of its consequences ONLY because of the consequences is not a right and healthy way to fight sin. There are many factors at work. Once Owen lays out some of the complexities he comes back to considering how to fight sin in light of the judgment to come for sin. With that preface in view consider what he wrote in the following:

Danger 4 – The danger of eternal destruction.

To rightly understand this, consider two things:

First, there is a connection between continuing in sin and eternal destruction. God does graciously deliver some from continuing in sin so that they may not be destroyed. However, He will not deliver any from destruction that do indeed continue in sin! For any that lie under the abiding power of sin, the threats of destruction and everlasting separation from God should be held out (Heb. 3:12; 10:38). This is the rule of God’s proceeding – if any man ‘departs’ from Him, ‘shrinks back’ through unbelief, God’s ‘soul has no pleasure in him’; that is, God’s indignation shall pursue him to destruction (Gal. 6:8).

Secondly, he that is so entangled, as described above, is under the power of corruption, and has no clear evidence of participating in the grace of God. Such a one cannot claim any assurance that he is delivered from destruction. Destruction from the Lord should be an appropriate fear for him. Such a one should seriously consider this to be (pp. 72) the end of his course and ways. ‘There is…no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus’ (Rom. 8:1). True, but who shall have the comfort of this promise? Who can claim it for themselves? Those who ‘walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit’ (Rom. 8:4).

But you will say, ‘Does this not lead people away from faith? I answer, No. Whatever evidence we may have of our own salvation, we must acknowledge that an evil path leads to destruction. To believe otherwise is atheism. We are not throwing away the good evidence of a personal interest in Christ, but an evil path throws doubt upon the reality of it. We should surely fly from a path that leads to death! The realization that the end of such a path is destruction should move us to free ourselves from the entanglement of our lusts. (pp. 73)

This is difficult stuff. We all have sin. Even when we think we have conquered sin in our lives we still carry it with us. And yet he says, "He will not deliver any from destruction that do indeed continue in sin!" and, "Such a one cannot claim any assurance that he is delivered from destruction," and "Destruction from the Lord should be an appropriate fear for him." That is hard hitting stuff. We may be saved, but, "Whatever evidence we may have of our own salvation, we must acknowledge that an evil path leads to destruction." May we fight with the weapons of the gospel, not law...yet we have to realize that, "the realization that the end of such a path is destruction should move us to free ourselves from the entanglement of our lusts." So it's not a weapon of law per se. Considered in the context of the complexity of sin and all the weapons to fight sin we must consider the consequences or penalty of that sin. Doing this draws us to fight sin with blood wrought freedom in grace.

This is true! Don't you think? It seems that Christians constantly downplay the effects and destination that sin leads to. Some people that think they are Christians aren't. We can see that from Scripture passages like Matthew 7:21-23 that some will meet an end that they had no clue they were destined for. Yet, we know that if one is truly a Christian they cannot lose their salvation John 10:28-29.

I'm not being exhaustive by any means, but I'll cover more in a few more posts. Feel free to correct or just interact.

In Christ
Noah

Sin & Hell Part 1

I was hanging out with a younger brother and we were talking about sin and the destination it leads to. We are reading Mortification of Sin by John Owen. The following stuff stood out. In chapter 9 and 10 are two preparatory directions followed by a lot of considerations…

In Chapter 9 there is preparatory direction number 1:

Consider the symptoms that accompany a lust. If they are deadly and serious, then extraordinary remedies must be used. The ordinary course of mortification will not work. (pp. 54)

Further, number 4 in the considerations of the first direction stood out that, “A fourth dangerous symptom is when a man fights against a sin only because of the consequences or penalty of that sin. (pp. 59)” Later Owen also says the following:

“If a man is under the power of his lust to the extent that the only opposition to it is the law, and the arms of the law, hell and judgment, and cannot fight against it with gospel weapons, it is very evident that sin has control over his will and affections, and has prevailed and conquered.

Such a person has cast off, in this respect, renewing grace, and is kept from ruin only because of restraining grace. He has fallen a great way from grace and returned under the power of the law. Must this not be a great provocation to Christ, that men should cast off His gentle yoke and rule, to cast themselves back under the iron yoke of the law, merely because of their lusts?

Examine yourself also by this: When you are tempted, and must decide whether you will serve sin and rush into folly, like a horse into battle, or fight against it and suppress it, what do you say to your soul? Is it only, ‘Hell will be the end of this course; vengeance will meet with me and find me out!’ It is time for you to look about you; evil lies at the door. Paul’s main argument that sin should not have dominion over believers is that they are ‘not under law, but under grace’ (Rom. 6:14). If your battle against sin is only on legal principles and motives, what assurance do you have that this sin will not have dominion over you, leading to your ruin? (pp. 60)”

I've read this before, but this time I really thought this piece was particularly interesting. Sometimes we start to try and fight sin with the law, when really we should be fighting sin with grace. If we cannot fight sin effectively with grace they we must look into our heart to consider if we are in the faith. If Romans 10:9-10 is still our confession of faith then we must continue to repent and walk in belief trusting that the Lord will bring to completion the work He has begun in us.

[There's more so I'll save it for another post!]

Mitzvah, Kosher, Heaven, & Hell: Part 2

[FYI...I edited this a little today out of respect for the folks I was speaking with 5/21/07. I'm afraid I was cynical in my original post. I'm sorry.]

My conversation with the rabbi…

The couple I was speaking with earlier (on 5/16/07) left and I walked into the rabbi’s back room and said, “I think that couple I was talking with out there was explaining things to me wrong.” He said, “Well, what did they tell you?” So I proceeded to tell him how they said that basically when we sin against God there are no repercussions, “He’s just bummed a little.” I asked him if that’s correct in his view.

At first he started to discuss how if we break kosher or mitzvah (commands) then we are sinning against God. I was assuming this meant what Scripture teaches about the fact that since God is an eternal God a sin against His holiness would mean that it is an eternal sin that merits eternal punishment…but that’s not what he meant.

I said, “Then when we sin against God and break His commandments then we merit eternal punishment in hell, right?” He said, “No!” So I asked if Judaism believes in a heaven and a hell. He said, “Not in the same way that you do.”

So I asked in what way does Judaism believe in heaven and hell? What he described was interesting to say the least. He didn’t describe either in regard to places that one goes to either be with or without YHWH. I’ll try to explain what he described.

Heaven…he didn’t have much to say other than that democracy as it exists in the U.S.A. is built on torah (laws of God). Seems like it’s a concept that by following the torah we can achieve a God pleasing society?? I asked about the afterlife and he didn’t have much to say at all. This was difficult for me to understand! From what I understood the rabbinical worldview believes in an almost post-millenial view of the kingdom of God (only without Jesus)…that God’s kingdom is being built on earth now through us. I haven't had the opportunity to ask how they believe the mosiach (messiah) will come...but hopefully I will. I pray I can share the gospel clearly, somehow.

Hell…this was interesting. He went back to the parent analogy that the couple I was speaking with early alluded to. He said that God loves and is merciful…why would he create children and then send them to a place like Christians envision hell to be. I said, “Well, we believe that when we sin against God’s holiness and justice it merits eternal punishment…that’s not what you believe?” He said that God’s not like an angry parent handing out punishment for something His children couldn’t control. (It seems that he considers all humanity to be children of God. I thought Jews would not consider all humanity as children of God…only Jews as chosen children of God maybe this is just my misunderstanding.). He described that God isn’t just an angry being handing out condemnation eternally. He drew another analogy to nakedness. He said that to a Jew being seen in your true essence of nakedness is the ultimate shame. I started to relate that to Adam and Eve’s response to God when they were ashamed of their nakedness (Gen 3:7, 10-11) and Noah (Gen 9:22-23), but he didn’t have much to say about this. He proceeded to tell me that in Jewish culture that if he was to see me naked in the shower that is the ultimate shame and ignominy that could happen and we very well may never speak to each other for the rest of our lives. I was trying to understand what this had to do with hell…so I said, “So if you break the mitzvah (commands) and torah (laws) of God then you will suffer in hell eternally.” He said, “No!” I asked with him to explain clearly what they believe. So he said that when we don’t follow God’s commands it is sin. These sins get in the way of us being able to please God, and be happy ourselves. As we miss these “opportunities” to experience God in His law they pile up like garbage in the essence of who we are…he said it’s like, “being filled up our clouded with sin.” The punishment for sin is basically the consequences of not being able to please God and experience punishment on earth for sin. He talked about the soul as being free from the sinful body by following God’s laws…sounds similar Gnosticism to me. Like murder (another analogy)…he started to tell me about Jeffrey Dahmer and how his punishment or hell was the terrible things in life that he experienced and the punishment that he experienced in jail and the death sentence. He told me that he believed that the Christian view of hell is why people are leaving the Christian churches. He said, “I can’t tell you the countless number of women that come into my deli afraid of God…and His wrath and punishment.” I said, “But the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (Prov 1:7), the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Prov 9:10).” And he said, “Yeah, but not that kind of fear.” When I read the interactions of the Old Testament between God and humanity it seems that they were pretty AFRAID, TERRIFIED, and SCARED. Just seems wrong to say that…

There was almost no reference to the afterlife in our discussion regarding heaven and hell. It was hard to understand. I don’t know how one can come to these conclusions with an honest measured and rational reading of the Hebrew Scriptures. In the future I will try to understand more by reading the Scriptures instead of talking philosophically like we were.

We’re not meeting next week, but I’ll be sure to post more of our discussions in the future. Interesting stuff. If you have the opportunity please pray for these folks. Please pray that they might be receptive to the gospel.

Mitzvah, Kosher, Heaven, & Hell

I had a fascinating conversation with a couple before I met with the local rabbi last night.

We were talking at the kosher deli and a woman came over to get some chocolates. She was pretty upset because they were out of non-dairy chocolates. The couple I was discoursing with was explaining to me that they have to wait six hours before and after eating meat to have dairy products.

I have known a lot of Jews that don’t follow this mitzvah (command) so I started asking a lot of questions, because I honestly am trying to understand what their perspective is and where they are coming from.

I asked, “What happens if you don’t follow the mitzvah and you break kosher?” They said really nothing happens. They said it was a command from God and if you follow it then you make God happy, but if you don’t follow it then God in His mercy is just a little bummed. So I said, “I bet you have to be really careful to eat at a restaurant other than here.” And they told me that they can’t in order to keep kosher. I said, “Is it because there is blood in the meat?” (thinking of Gen 9:4; Lev 3:17; 7:26; 17;12, 14; 19:26; Deut 12:16, 23, 27; 15:23; 1 Sa 14:34; Psalm 50:13; Ezek 33:25). They said, “No!” They explained that it’s only because of the manner in which the meat and food is prepared. I always thought kosher meant the food was blessed by a Jewish priest, but from their perspective it’s just the ritual preparation of the meat.

So back to mitzvah (command). I said so if you break the mitzvah of kosher then God is upset with you? They explained that if you break a mitzvah God isn’t upset He’s just bummed a little. So I said, “Then if you break God’s mitzvah He’s not pleased with you.” The woman looked at me and said, “Well, everything is relative…isn’t it?” I was a little confused what she was talking about, but I asked her to explain. She said that it does bring God pleasure when we follow His mitzvah, but if we don’t it’s no big deal, you can just do what you want to do, it’s a pretty diverse approach. Then the gentleman looked at me and said that they don’t look at God the way Christians do. I asked him to explain. He said that I have the wrong perspective on God and that there really is no consequence if we don’t follow God’s mitzvah, but that we just miss opportunities to connect with God when we don’t follow His commands…that we basically do things to make God happy, but if we don’t it’s no big deal. He said that it’s like parents. Parents don’t have children to punish them, rather to love them. When the kids do bad things against the command of their parents the parents are just a little bummed, that’s all.

Then I asked, “Do you believe in heaven and hell?” And they said yes, but not in the way Christians do…

I was really confused…and they left shortly after all of this. If you are a Jew and can clarify some of what I understood, or support what this couple was telling me that would be great. Is this what all Jews believe, or just this couple? If yes, think we disagree on the interpretation of the Hebrew Scripture. Stay tuned, in my next post I’ll write a little about my conversation with the rabbi that flowed out of this conversation.

What is the Church? 1.1

Below are a bunch of quotes regarding different aspects of what the church is. As a segway into what the church is the Larger Catechism from the Westminster Confession is great! I'll probably write some of my thoughts in a post on what the church is next week. Have a good Lord's Day!

I. Westminster Confession [Westminster Confession of Faith. Free Presbyterian Publications Copyright 2003. Printed by Bell and Bain Ltd., Glasgow]

Questions 60-61 are good regarding what it means to be a Christian, and 62-65, 69 are helpful regarding the church (pp. 157-160, and 163).

Q. 60 Can they who have never heard the gospel, and so know not Jesus Christ, nor believe in him, be saved by their living according to the light of nature?
A. They who, having never heard the gospel, [Rom 10:14] know not Jesus Christ, [2 Thess 1:8-9; Eph 2:12; John 1:10-12] and believe not in him, cannot be saved, [John 8:24; Mark 16:16] be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, [1 Cor 1:20-24] or the laws of that religion which they profess; [John 4:22; Rom 9:31-32; Phil 3:4-9] neither is there salvation in any other, but in Christ alone, [Acts 4:12] who is the Saviour only of his body the church. [Eph 5:23]

Q. 61 Are all they saved who hear the gospel, and live in the church?
A. All that hear the gospel, and live in the visible church, are not saved; but they only who are true members of the church invisible. [John 12:38-40; Rom 9:6; Matt 22:14; 7:21; Rom 11:7]

Regarding what the church is...

Q. 62 What is the visible Church?
A. The visible church is a society made up of all such as in all ages and places of the world do profess the true religion, [1 Cor 1:2; 12:13; Rom 15:9-12; Rev 7:9; Ps 2:8; 22:27-31; 45:17; Matt 28:19-21] and of their children. [1 Cor 7:14; Acts 2:39; Rom 11:16; Gen 17:7] (To the children part of this I would argue that at a certain point in their life they must respond, by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, in repentance and faith. Until that point in time they would be a part of the visible church in that they are with their parents, and they are being brought up in the teaching and admonition of the Lord. But this is for a discussion on another day.)

Q. 63 What are the special privileges of the visible church?
A. The visible church hath the privilege of being under God’s special care and government; [Isa 4:5-6; 1 Tim 4:10] of being protected and preserved in all ages, notwithstanding the opposition of all enemies; [Ps 115:1-2, 9; Isa 31:4-5; Zech 7:2-4, 8-9] and of enjoying the communion of saints, the ordinary means of salvation, [Acts 2:39, 42] and offers of grace by Christ to all the members of it in the ministry of the gospel, testifying, that whosoever believes in him shall be saved, [Ps 147:19-20; Rom 9:4; Eph 4:11-12; Mark 16:15-16] and excluding none that will come unto him. [John 6:37]

Q. 64 What is the invisible church?
A. The invisible church is the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ the head. [Eph 1:10, 22-23; John 10:16; 11:52]

Q. 65 What special benefits do the members of the invisible church enjoy by Christ?
A. The members of the invisible church by Christ enjoy union and communion with him in grace and glory. [John 17:21; Eph 2:5-6; John 17:24]

Q. 69 What is the communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ?
A. The communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ, is their partaking of the virtue of his mediation, in their justification, [Rom 8:30] adoption, [Eph 1:5] sanctification, and whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him. [1 Cor 1:30]

II. Westminster Confession [Westminster Confession of Faith. Free Presbyterian Publications Copyright 2003. Printed by Bell and Bain Ltd., Glasgow]

Chapter 25: Of the Church (pp. 106-108)

25.1. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all. [Eph 1:10; 5:23; Col 1:18]

25.2. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; [1 Cor 1:2; 12:12; Ps 2:8; Rev 7:9; Rom 15:9] and of their children: [1 Cor 7:14; Acts 2:39; Ezek 16:20; Rom 11:16; Gen 3:15; Gen 17:7] (again I partially disagree with this part) and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, [Matt 13:47; Isa 9:7] the house and family of God, [Eph 2:19; Eph 3:15] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. [Acts 2:47]

25.3. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto. [1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11; Matt 28:19; Isa 59:21]

25.4. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. [Rom 11:3; Rev 12:6] And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them. [Rev 2 and 3; 1 Cor 5:6]

25.5. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; [1 Cor 13:12; Rev 2 and 3; Matt 13:24-30] and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. [Rev 18:2; Rom 11:18] Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will. [Matt 16:18; Ps 72:17; Ps 102:28; Matt 28:19, 20]

25.6. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; [Col 1:18; Eph 1:22] Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof. [but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God. [Matt 23:8; 2 Thess 2:3; Rev 13:6]

III. The Glorious Body of Christ by R. B. Kuiper

“Christian theology generally says that the church originated in the garden of Eden immediately after the fall of man, when God promised a Saviour and man accepted that promise in faith. On the other hand, many take it for granted that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, a little more than nineteen hundred years ago, marks the birthday of the Christian church. (pp. 21)”

"[The church] consists of many widely differing members, all aiding one another, the quality of harmony is outstanding. There is much diversity among the members of Christ’s church. Some have five talents, others but one. Some have attractive characters, others are relatively unattractive. Some are leaders, others followers. Some are rich, others poor. Some are highly educated, others unlearned. Some are strong in the faith, others weak. But each needs all the others. They complement one another. They co-operate with each other. Collectively they constitute on body. And all are bound together by the greatest of Christian virtues – love. (pp. 101)"

IV. John Calvin Insitutes Bk IV.17 [edited by John T. McNeill]

"Because they also allege that the church is not without basis called holy, it is fitting to examine in what holiness it excels lest, if we are not willing to admit a church unless it be perfect in every respect, we leave no church at all . . . the church’s holiness is not yet complete. The church is holy, then, in the sense that it is daily advancing and is not you perfect: it makes progress from day to day but has not yet reached its goal of holiness, as will be explained more fully elsewhere. (pp.1031)”

V. The Glory Of Christ John Owen Works Vol. 1 [Banner]

“His person, therefore, is the foundation of the church – the great mystery of godliness, or the religion we profess – the entire life and soul of all spiritual truth – in that all the counsels of the wisdom, grace, and goodness of God, for the redemption, vocation, sanctification, and salvation of the church, were all laid in him, and by him were all to be accomplished. (pp. 64)”

I know it's a ton of stuff...but it's good, eh?

What is the church? Part 1.0

This question cannot be separated from what it means to be a Christian, so I’ll answer this question “What does it mean to be a Christian?” first. The following is a modified outline of a lesson I taught almost a year ago on April, 9 2006 called What Does It Mean To Be A Christian. Please bear in mind that this is not the exhaustive meaning of what it means to be a Christian. This merely scratches the surface...

In Christ
Noah

I. Secular Dictionary Definition

a. Christian: (1) Professing belief in Christianity (2) Of or derived from Jesus’ teachings (3) Christianity or its adherents (American Heritage Dictionary)

b. Christianity: (1) The Christian religion, founded on the life and teachings of Jesus (2) Christendom (3) The state of being a Christian. (American Heritage Dictionary)

II. The Bible’s Definition

a. Acts 11:25-26: “So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians. [emphasis mine]” (ESV)

b. Acts 26:28: “And Agrippa said to Paul, ‘In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?’ [emphasis mine]” (ESV)

c. 1 Peter 4:16: “Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. [emphasis mine]” (ESV)

III. Implications Of the Bible’s Definition

a. It seems that the way Christian is used in these passages shows that Christians were those who heard, believed, and assented to the teachings of Jesus as carried along particularly by Peter and Paul. So that means that at least the epistles of Peter (1 Peter and 2 Peter. Also, Mark see Eusebius 2.14 & 5.8) and Paul (Romans, 1 &2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon. Also, Luke & Acts see Eusebius 5.8) contain what the early Christians would have believed. So believing what the New Testament and the Old Testament teaches through the lens of Jesus Christ would have been the foundation of Christianity.

IV. Misuse Of The Title “Christian”

a. C. S. Lewis: “Now if once we allow people to start spiritualizing and refining, or as they might say ‘deepening,’ the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone (Mere Christianity pg. 10)”

V. Effectual Call (God’s Call!)

a. Romans 8:30: “And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” (ESV)

i. So Christians are foreknown (8:29), predestined, called, justified, and will be glorified.

b. This is a calling which God brings and summons people unto Himself.

i. He called them out of darkness into His marvelous light (1 Peter 2:9)

ii. He called them “into the fellowship of his Son” (1 Cor 1:9; Acts 2:39)

iii. He called into His own kingdom and glory (1 Thess 2:12; 1 Pet 5:10; 2 Pet 1:3)

iv. He called them to “belong to Jesus Christ” (Romans 1:6)

v. He called them to “be saints” (Romans 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2)

vi. He called them to have hope (Eph 1:18; 4:4)

vii. He called them to Holiness (1 Thess 4:7)

viii. He called them to be patient in endurance of suffering (1 Pet 2:20-21; 3:9)

ix. He called them to eternal life (1 Tim 6:12)

VI. General Call (Hearing The Word From Born Again Christians)

a. The Gospel Paul and the disciples were preaching.

i. 2 Thessalonians 2:14: “To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (ESV)

b. It is important that we boldly proclaim the gospel message, trusting that God will, through His effectual call, do what he did with Lydia in Acts 16:14: “The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.”

c. Romans 10:13-14: “For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?” (ESV)

VII. 4 Key Elements Of the Gospel Call

a. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)

b. The penalty of sin is death (Romans 6:23)

c. Jesus Christ died to pay the penalty for our sins. (Romans 3:24-26; 5:8)

i. Our sins imputed to Jesus on the cross (1 Pet 2:24; Gal 3:13)

ii. His righteousness imputed to those who believe (2 Cor 5:21), through baptism believers put on Christ (Gal 3:27).

iii. Accomplishing justification of believers propitiating God’s wrath in the atonement. (Ro 3:23-25; Heb 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10)

d. Invitation to respond in repentance and faith (Acts 20:21)

VIII. Continual Repentance And Faith Are Signs Of General And Effectual Call

a. Acts 20:21: “of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” (ESV)

b. Hebrews 6:1: “Faith toward God” (ESV)

c. This initial repentance and faith continue for the rest of a Christian’s life. As Paul writes in Colossians 2:6: “As you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him.”

IX. Therefore You Are a Christian...

a. If you know that you were saved by grace through faith, and not by works. (Eph 2:8-9) And…

b. Romans 10:9-10: “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” (ESV)

c. If you believe the following. Acts 4:12: “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (ESV)

Please leave a comment with any thoughts.

Church Membership Series

To bring some of the readers of this blog up to speed…I’m going to start a series of posts on Church Membership. This is really an extension of a post I did a while ago here, and two different comments I wrote at Justin Taylor’s blog: Between Two Worlds here and here. My hope is to have a clear line of thought regarding this issue.

In an effort to work through some of these issues I figured I would do a series on it to directly focus on some of the questions and arguments some people have for and against church membership. I’m doing this to think through “church membership” particularly to figure it out a little more for myself. These are my questions…and it’s my hope that I can discuss a bunch of them:

(1) What is the Church?

(2) What is the difference between the “visible” and “invisible” church?

(3) Can [or should] we attempt to practice the realities of the “invisible” church in the “visible” church?

(4) Is church membership biblical? [the concept…not the word (although the word “members” of the body of Christ is used in the Bible, particularly regarding the “invisible” church).]

(5) What are the biblical requirements for church membership?

(6) What is a “regenerate” church membership?

(7) What are the pros of practicing a “regenerate” church membership?

(8) What are the cons of practicing a “regenerate” church membership?

(9) Is it wrong to practice a “regenerate” or a “non-regenerate” church membership?

(10) How do a few different churches practice church membership? Are some practices extra-biblical? (I.e. can churches require baptism by immersion, require a certain % for a tithe, affirming certain doctrinal positions such as no drinking of alcohol/predestination/perseverance/etc.), etc. for consideration for church membership]

(11) What role has church membership played in the different types of church governments? [Episcopacy, Presbyterian, and Congregational]

(12) Can a church affirm covenantal aspects of the body of Christ while attempting to practice a “regenerate church membership”?

(13) Do the malpractice, misuse, and abuse of church membership negate its practice?

(14) Has pragmatism replaced biblical faithfulness in regard to “church membership”?

(15) Does any of this matter? Why?

I am not a theologian. I am a husband, student at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and I work full time at an insurance company in Des Moines…so between marriage, school, and work I’ll try to post thoughts as much as possible. I may not have answers for all of these questions, but hopefully someday (Lord willing) I’ll have more clarity.

Lastly, if you have any other questions that you think a discussion about "church membership" should address please let me know…maybe we can discuss a few of those too.

I hope you will join the discussion!

In Christ
Noah

For the Ladies

Check out these talks from CHBC. They are especially geared toward women. It may be weird, but I’ve listened to almost all of them. They are quite good;)

(1) Mary Mohler The Beauty of Women series [3/24/2007]

Part I: The Beauty of Women
Part II: The Vanity of Worldly Beauty

(2) Christian Sexuality: Women’s Talk Lecture and Q & A [With Michael Lawrence, Mark Dever, Matt Schmucker, and Scott Croft] [3/2/2004]

(3) Biblical Modesty [Lynette Smith, Careen Behrens, Debi Simons, Shelly Pelletier] – Lecture and Q & A [5/11/2004]

(4) Ed Welch Does Thin Equal Beautiful – Lecture and Q & A [2/3/2006]

(5) Albert Mohler The Nature of True Beauty – Lecture and Q & A [11/14/2005]

In case you’re interested the following talks regarding sex are also very good even though they aren’t particularly for women. Sorry for the bait and switch from the title of the post;)

(1) Michael Lawrence The Beauty of Intimacy: Sex, Marriage, and the Gospel [12/5/2006]

(2) Christian Sexuality Men’s Talk [With Michael Lawrence, Mark Dever, Matt Schmucker, and Scott Croft] – Lecture and Q & A [2/17/2004]

(3) Albert Mohler’s series Naked and Not Ashamed: An Evangelical Theology of Sex

Part 1: The Mystery of Marriage [11/11/2001]
Part 2: Reproductive Techniques and Contraception [11/11/2001]
Part 3: The Family and the Culture War [11/11/2001]

Q & A for messages 1-3 [11/11/2001]

Part 4: Homosexuality: Does Gender Matter? [11/12/2001]

Q & A for part 4 [11/12/2001]

A Response to Timothy (regarding a comment from my last post)

[This is a response to a comment on my last post...if you're interested check it out first . . . I'm afraid this may not make sense if you don't:)]

I have been out of town for the last couple days . . . so I apologize for my delinquent response.

Anyhow, thanks for the thoughts; however, I still disagree with you.

We're probably going to have to agree to disagree on this one. But here is a little bit of a defense of my view:

I agree that Matt 16:18 is inseparable from 16:19, but it is also inseparable from 16:16..."You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." This is what I believe Jesus is referring to as the rock... the faith in Jesus Christ that Peter had just confessed. The division between faith and apostasy is belief in Christ . . . the foundation of the church. Why would Jesus make the division between heaven and hell a foundation of the man Peter? Also, how does the "foundation" of the church built on Peter harmonize with Ephesians 2:19-20 "citizens of the household of God are built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone."

Earlier Jesus had already given Peter the new name…John 1:42 makes it clear that Jesus gave Simon the name Peter when he called him to be a disciple…not later at this point in Jesus’ ministry.

Regarding the keys to the kingdom, I believe this means a confirmation of Peter’s apostleship. The keys are as John Calvin would say, “Applied to the office of teaching. [John Calvin's commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 2 pp. 180]” The knowledge is Peter’s confession of Jesus being the Christ, the Son of the living God (Luke 11:52 “key of knowledge”). However, this is a difficult phrase. To build one’s theology of the “foundation” of the church solely off of this passage that is highly contested would be an error (in my opinion). See other New Testament references to Christ as foundation (Luke 6:48-49); also, Paul speaks of building not on other’s foundation (Ro 15:20; 1 Cor 3:10-12) [possibly similar to when the Word says foundation of the world partly meaning Christ as the cornerstone and partly the beginning, in one sense Peter’s confession is the beginning of the gospel confession of the church, but I don’t believe Matt 16:18 refers to the cornerstone/physical weight bearing foundation of the church. I believe that is faith in Jesus and Jesus Christ Himself.] He is calling Peter to be the steward of the kingdom.

Regarding the “keys to the kingdom” William Barclay has a pretty good description of my view:

“In actual usage in the New Testament, this phrase is regularly attached to Jesus. It is in His hands, and in no one else’s, that the keys are. In Revelation I:8 the risen Christ says: ‘I am He that liveth and was dead; and, behold, I am alive forevermore, Amen; and have the the keys of Hades and of death.” Again in Revelation 3:7 the Risen Christ is described as, ‘He that is holy, He that is true, He that hath the key of David, He that openeth and no man shutteth; and shutteth and no man openeth.’ It is clear that this phrase must be interpreted as indicating a certain divine right, and whatever the promise made to Peter was, that promise cannot be taken as annulling, or infringing, a right which belongs alone to God and to the Son of God.

All these New Testament pictures and usages go back to a picture in Isaiah (Isaiah 22:22). In that picture Isaiah describes Eliakim, who will have the key of the house of David on his shoulder, and who alone will open and shut. Now the duty of Eliakim was to be the faithful steward of the house. It is the steward who carries the keys of the house, who in the morning opens the door, and in the evening shuts it, and through whom visitors gain access to the royal presence. So then what Jesus is saying to Peter is that in the days to come, Peter will be the steward of the Kingdom. And in the case of Peter the whole idea is that of opening, not shutting, the door of the Kingdom. And indeed that came abundantly true (then he cites Acts 2:41, Acts 10, 15:14) . . . The promise that Peter would have the keys to the Kingdom was the promise that Peter would be the means of opening the door of God for thousands upon thousands of people in the days to come. The plain fact is that it is not only Peter who has the keys of the Kingdom; every Christian has; for it is open to every one of us to open the door of the Kingdom to some one, and to enter into the great promise of Jesus Christ.” [pp. 155-156 of William Barclay's commentary on Matthew Vol. 2 of the Daily Bible Study Series]

Also, if Peter is the cornerstone of the church the other synoptic gospels don’t speak to this citing the same confession of Peter [Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20]. I believe the whole counsel of God [particularly Eph 2:19-20] must be taken into account regarding this “foundation” of the church the “household of God”.

Regarding your citing of Tertullian in church history . . . I’m afraid that argument is not a very good one. Tertullian’s dates are approximately 160-230 A.D. I believe you may have stated his view correctly, but what are we to make of an earlier writing of Ignatius of Antioch approximately 35-107 A.D regarding this text. I will quote early church fathers' views that John Owen cites earlier on pgs. 6-7 of his preface to the book I quoted in the last post:

Ignatius (35-107 A.D.)

“‘He’ (that is, Christ) ‘is the way leading unto the Father, the rock, the key, the shepherd.’”

Origen (185-254 A.D.)

“If you shall think that the whole church was built on Peter alone, what shall we say of John, and each of the apostles? What! [S]hall we dare say that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Peter only?”

Eusebius (c. 275-5/30/339 A.D.)

“ Praeparat. Evang., lib.i. cap. 3 . . . He proves the verity of divine predictions from the glorious accomplishment of that word, and the promise of our Saviour, that he would build his church on the rock, (that is, himself,) so as that the gates of hell should not prevail against it.”

Hilary de Trin. (I don’t know his dates)

“This is the only immovable foundation, this is the blessed rock of faith, confessed by Peter, Thou are the Son of the living God.”

Epahianius (I don’t know his dates)

“Upon this rock” of assured faith “I will build my church.”

Augustine (354-430 A.D.)

“He (Christ) meant the universal church, which in this world is shaken with divers temptations, as with showers, floods, and tempests, yet falleth not, because it is build on the rock (Petra) from whence Peter took his name. For the rock is not called Petra from Peter, but Peter is so called from Petra the rock; as Christ is not so called from Christian, but Christian from Christ. Therefore, said the Lord, ‘Upon this rock will I build my church;’ because Peter had said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Upon this rock, which thou hast confessed, will I build my church. For Christ himself was the rock on which foundation Peter himself was built. For other foundation can no man lay, save that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

Unfortunately, your argument that the “true historic Christian interpretation” is not the same as the “400 year-old post-Reformation Protestant interpretation” doesn’t completely hold up. Besides the interpretation of Scripture is not substantiated by the interpretation of man, rather through the commentary of the entire counsel of God. Unfortunately, I don’t see your interpretation being confirmed by the rest of the Word. Therefore, I don’t think it would be wise to base the foundation of the church on a man other than the God-Man Jesus Christ.

I believe this is the truth.

Soli Deo Gloria
Noah

John Owen Laying an Axe to the Root of Roman Catholicism

From John Owen [From The Glory of Christ pg. 32]

Here’s a brief introduction to the context of this quote. Owen is talking about how Roman Catholics are wrong in their claim that Peter is the foundation of the church from Matthew 16:18 . . .

“How they bring in the claim of their pope by Peter, his being at Rome, being bishop of Rome, dying at Rome, fixing his chair at Rome, devoting and transmitting all his right, title, power and authority, every thing but his faith, holiness and labour in the ministry, unto the pope, I shall not here inquire; I have done it elsewhere. Here is fixed the root of the tree, which is grown great, like that in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, until it is become a receptacle for the beasts of the field and fowls of the air – sensual men and unclean spirits.”

Owen then says, regarding this root of Peter being the foundation of the Roman Catholic church . . .
“I shall, therefore, briefly lay an axe unto the root of it, by evidencing that it is not the person of Peter who confessed Christ, but the person of Christ whom Peter confessed, that is the rock on which the church is built.”
Wow! I have to say that I agree with the protestant reading of Matthew 16:18.

Affirmations and Denials; Articles I - III

Over the next couple weeks I'm going to blog through the affirmations and denials that were written in conjuction with the Together for the Gospel conference last year. I'll do a few articles every few days. I'm curious to see what any of you think regarding this.

Is this something you could sign?

Here are the first three articles

Article I

We affirm that the sole authority for the Church is the Bible, verbally inspired, inerrant, infallible, and totally sufficient and trustworthy.

We deny that the Bible is a mere witness to the divine revelation, or that any portion of Scripture is marked by error or the effects of human sinfulness.

Article II

We affirm that the authority and sufficiency of Scripture extends to the entire Bible, and therefore that the Bible is our final authority for all doctrine and practice.

We deny that any portion of the Bible is to be used in an effort to deny the truthfulness or trustworthiness of any other portion. We further deny any effort to identify a canon within the canon or, for example, to set the words of Jesus against the writings of Paul.

Article III

We affirm that truth ever remains a central issue for the Church, and that the church must resist the allure of pragmatism and postmodern conceptions of truth as substitutes for obedience to the comprehensive truth claims of Scripture.

We deny that truth is merely a product of social construction or that the truth of the Gospel can be expressed or grounded in anything less than total confidence in the veracity of the Bible, the historicity of biblical events, and the ability of language to convey understandable truth in sentence form. We further deny that the church can establish its ministry on a foundation of pragmatism, current marketing techniques, or contemporary cultural fashions.

Projects on the Docket!

• Infant Salvation: As always, I collect articles and mark up books where they discuss infant salvation. I’m curious what folks have thought throughout history about this. One area that I need to dig more into is the Jewish thought regarding the topic.
• The Repentance of God [Term Paper for SBTS]: To what extent linguistically or philologically do anthropomorphisms apply to God. When the Bible uses these descriptors of God do they place all the implications on God that they would when they are used in regard to man? [e.g. anger, lying, repent, etc.]
• The Development of the English Reformation [Term Paper for SBTS]: What primary influences caused the “Church of England” to break away from Roman Catholicism. [I’m not going to write about the inclination of the Anglican Church today to seek communion with the Roman Catholics…but I am curious what the cause of the split originally was (I'm assuming it's the gospel...which the Anglican Church in England has largely lost). It’s amazing how few generations there are between a split and an ignorance of why the split happened…and ultimately falling into unbelief can occur.]
• Book Review on John Piper’s Counted Righteous in Christ [Book Review for SBTS].

If you have any ideas of some good sources for these topics…please let me know. I’m open to any commentary or sources! As I get some of this done I'll post some of the ideas:) It won't be right away though.

Have a great blizzard...I mean day!

La Ma'an Shmo

Noah

Why Do We Go to Church?

Hebrews 10:23-25
"Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near."

Mark 18:20
"For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."

1 Corinthians 5:4
"When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus..."

Acts 20:7
"On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight." [Notice what else happened on the first day of the week...the resurrection of our Lord! (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19)]

1 Corinthians 16:2
"On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come."

[All this Scripture is from the English Standard Version of the bible.]

From the above passages I believe we have a precedent that the disciples/apostles and early Christians gathered together on the first day of the week...the day of the resurrection. We commanded to not neglect meeting together. Where 2 or more are gathered there Christ is with us. Also, how are we to live out the love one another passages if we never see each other? [John 13:34-35, etc.] Also, we're to worship in spirit and truth [John 4:23]. No church is perfect, but when you no longer feel that you can worship the Lord in spirit and truth you need to seek fellowship, accountability, and worship with another group of believers somewhere.

Something to think on...

[I know this is a simplistic answer to why we go to church, but I believe these are pretty good simplistic answers...what do you think?]

When It Rains It Pours!

Wow...what a week...sheesh!

Bible study @ work Friday 2/09/2007...I talked to my boss about the "political correctness" of doing a bible study at work. She got back to me later in the day and told me it would be cool if I did. And she told me how I can do it following company guidelines. Pray for her...she's been a great help. Also, a co-worker that is a sister in Christ has set up a conference room for the future after this week. This was a huge help. Praise the Lord for her.

Evangelism @ Post Office Saturday 2/10/2007...I had a 40 minute discussion with Tom at the Waukee Post office about the gospel. We talked about everything from substitutionary atonement to how Christianity helps the government. He wouldn't repent and believe in Jesus, but I made it clear that that is what he must do. I made it clear the Jesus is exclusive in order to experience heaven with the Lord [I posted about it here]. Please pray for him.

Evangelistic Bible study @ work Monday 2/12/2007...I asked around 8 guys to do a Bible study with me here at work. Some were more interested than others...I don't know if most of them are Christians or not...but I felt like God would want me to do this. So it will be an "Evangelistic Bible" study. We will study Mark...and hopefully they will come...and hopefully they will be confronted with who Jesus Christ is. Please pray for them to come and be open to talking about the gospel.

Evangelism to Neighbor Tuesday 2/13/2007...I was out shovelling after work and I got into a conversation with my neighbor. He is Hindu. Anyhow, once again we talked about everything from substitutionary atonement [I didn't use this word though] to whether or not the Hindi faith is exclusive or not. I gave him a Tim Keller talk "Who Is This Jesus" and he wouldn't take it. I explained how I'd listen to anything he would give me. But he kept refusing. The conversation wasn't abraisive but he didn't really respond favorably when I started to explain that the only way to heaven is through Jesus. He said Hinduism believes in Christianity, but I told him it didn't. He didn't like that. Please pray for him and me...that he'd be softened and I would be humble.

Sharpening by/with a Brother Wednesday 2/14/2007...I was involved in a pretty intense discussion about election/predestination with a fellow Christian at work. He clearly doesn't agree with what I have read in the Bible...but that's okay. We're here to sharpen each other...him me, and I him. Please pray for us.

Evangelistic Bible study @ work Thursday 2/15/2007...We start the evangelistic Bible study at work [I'll post more later as to how I came to the conclusion of doing this]. Please pray for us.

Tonight we celebrate Valentine's Day and then I study Hebrew, have a writing assignment to do, etc. This week has been crazy! I've been emotionally high, low, have felt spiritual warfare...and am tired. Praise God for a week well spent!

Soli Deo Gloria
Noah