Skip to main content

A New Kind of Liberalism

Written by Rick Shrader

A New Kind of Liberalism

by Rick Shrader

Christianity Liberalism

 

 In 2001 Brian McLaren wrote A New Kind of Christian1in which he made bold statements against orthodox Christian beliefs.  He proposed that heaven and hell are really the same place which some will enjoy and some will not;2 salvation belongs to everyone because God loves everyone and, therefore all will eventually be reconciled to God;3 evolution is “one of God’s coolest creations;”4 and that most of Christianity is steeped in modernistic thinking and it is time we all adapted to the new postmodern world.5

In 2011 Rob Bell updated McLaren’s beliefs with his more shocking book, Love Wins.6 This has received a lot of attention because Bell’s message has also been played on YouTube and has been reviewed quickly by many good men.  Bell also denies that God will send anyone to hell forever, and redefines most of Christianity as we have known it.

However in 2010 McLaren had struck a harder blow at orthodox Christian beliefs with his book, A New Kind of Christianity7 (by the same publisher  as Love Wins). This builds on his previous book (ten years earlier) and gives an even fuller explanation of why he and others are attempting to totally redefine the faith that Christians have known for two thousand years.  The sub-title to the book is, “Ten questions that are transforming the faith.”  Before jumping into these, McLaren takes the reader through 30 pages explaining how he came to his current belief system.  It’s not an uncommon story of how a man gradually became disappointed and disillusioned with his evangelical faith and those who practice it.  McLaren grew tired of the “us and them” attitude which categorized the world into saved and lost and, worse, made God into a Bully Who loved one but would punish the other.

It is also typical of writers like McLaren and Bell to make broad generalizations and caricatures especially of fundamentalists and even evangelicals, while at the same time bemoaning (what he sees as) the name-calling and ridicule toward liberal Christians.  The conservative reader will just have to put up with this in order to get to the heart of the matter.

After having read McLaren and Bell for a while, I would say that the most striking protest they want to make is against the orthodox Christian view of an eternal hell, and of a God Who would put human beings there.  As Bell wrote,

And that is the secret deep in the heart of many people, especially Christians: they don’t love God.  They can’t, because the God they’ve been presented with and taught about can’t be loved.  That God is terrifying and traumatizing and unbearable.8

McLaren puts it this way,

Yes, I find a character named God who does a good bit of smiting, but those who are smitten are simply smitten and buried, and that’s it.  They are not shamed and tortured for a while by the ‘godly’ before death and then shamed and tortured by God after death—forever and ever, without end.9

It seems to this reviewer, that these men (and others) begin with what to them is an unacceptable teaching—a loving God who sends people to a horrible place like Hell forever!—and proceed from there to dismantle this doctrine in whatever way they can.  Whereas Bell’s book is short and shocking, McLaren’s newest book is more methodical and detailed.  I intend to let him speak for himself about his 10 questions.  To anyone who is even moderately familiar with Biblical doctrine and content, McLaren’s own words are revealing enough.

1. The Narrative Question

McLaren starts with questioning the basic understanding of the story line of the Bible.  Rather than seeing innocence in the garden, followed by a fall into sin, followed by a history of condemnation, followed by either salvation and heaven or no salvation and hell, he believes that all of that is read into the Bible through western, Greco-Roman eyes.

“What we call the biblical story line isn’t the shape of the story of Adam, Abraham, and their Jewish descendents.  It’s the shape of the Greek philosophical narrative that Plato taught!” . . . . “Now the god of this Greco-Roman version of the biblical story bears a strange similarity in many ways to Zeus (Jupiter for the Romans), but we will name him Theos.”10

From there he constantly criticizes “Theos” for being a mean and vicious God who only wants to hurt and punish people.  His point is that we got this idea of God, from reading our Bible backwards through the lens’ of the Greeks and Romans.  He doesn’t consider whether he may be reading his Bible from the wrong direction!

2. The Authority Question

This section reveals McLaren’s unorthodox view of revelation and inspiration.  Our problem has been, he says, that we take the Bible literally or as a “constitution” from which we get categorical statements rather than as a “library” which is more like an ongoing conversation.  The reader must remember that McLaren was a literature major in school whose favorite writers are men like Gustavo Gutiérrez and Hans Küng.11 McLaren believes that the Bible writers matured over the years.  The early writers wrote what they knew about God but they didn’t know very much so they described a God according to their backward, violent culture.  As time went on the Bible writers matured and God was able to use them to show His true character.  He writes,

I am saying that human beings can’t do better than their very best at any given moment to communicate about God as they understand God, and that Scripture faithfully reveals the evolution of our ancestors’ best attempts to communicate their successive best understandings of God.  As human capacity grows to conceive of a higher and wiser view of God, each new vision is faithfully preserved in Scripture like fossils in layers of sediment.  If we read the Bible as a cultural library rather than as a constitution, and if we don’t impose a Greco-Roman plotline on the biblical narrative, we are free to learn from that evolutionary process—and, we might even add, to participate in it.12

This is why he also can say, “To say that the Word (the message, meaning, or revelation) of God is in the biblical text, then, does not mean that you can extract verses or statements from the text at will and call them ‘God’s words.’”13

3. The God Question

The traditional understanding of God is a real problem for McLaren.  To take the Bible as it is leaves us with a God Who does things that seem (to him anyway) wrong and distasteful.  In speaking of the Genesis flood, for example, McLaren says,

In this light, a god who mandates an intentional supernatural disaster leading to unparalleled genocide is hardly worthy of belief, much less worship.  How can you ask your children—or nonchurch colleagues and neighbors—to honor a deity so uncreative, overreactive, and utterly capricious regarding life? . . . . Now remember, in making this contrast, I’m not trying to defend the view of God in the Noah story as morally acceptable, ethically satisfying, and theologically mature. . . . I’m recommending we notice the theological progress the story demonstrates instead of simply condemning it for not having progressed more.14

He means that the Genesis story is an improvement on the older Gilgamesh story which really portrayed God as unkind.  It’s just that the Genesis story hadn’t come nearly far enough to show us a better picture of God.  Also keep in mind that none of this means that McLaren takes the flood story literally.  He does not believe God actually did that.  This is just how the Bible tells the story so we can progress in our understanding of God.

4. The Jesus Question

To McLaren, Jesus is the only reality in Scripture.  Whether creation, history, or prophecy, only Jesus can be taken at face value.  But, it seems, even Jesus must fit McLaren’s preconceived “three-dimensional biblical paradigm” of creation, liberation, and peace-making.  He sees the Jewish point of view (rather than what he calls the old “six-line narrative”) as these three themes taken from Genesis, Exodus, and Isaiah (for no apparent reason other than his agenda).  Yet while criticizing everyone else for fitting their point of view into a preconceived perspective, McLaren forces everything in the life of Jesus (and beyond) into his three-fold mold.

In these two chapters McLaren renders all prophecy, whether in Isaiah 4 (discussed in length) or Revelation 19 (also discussed in length) as allegory and merely pictorial language of peace that Jesus brought to us in the gospels.  Dealing with no theology or theologians and using only online fanatics as examples, he ridicules those who believe Jesus came “to save us from hell.”  He says,

But even these few examples, selected from so many more, make it clear that Jesus, contrary to my dear loyal critic’s assertion, did not come merely to “save souls from hell.”  No, he came to launch a new Genesis, to lead a new Exodus, and to announce, embody, and inaugurate a new kingdom as the Prince of Peace (Isa. 9:6). Seen in this light, Jesus and his message have everything to do with poverty, slavery, and a “social agenda.”15

McLaren calls his new perspective a “renaissance” of new understanding currently taking place.  But it seems much closer to the old “liberalism” of the nineteenth century and beyond.

5. The Gospel Question

The reader may hope that in this fifth question he would see a clear gospel definition, but that hope will not be realized.  McLaren tries to blend his previous thoughts with the gospels and the book of Romans but his attempt is less than satisfying.  Noticeably, his previous reference to N.T. Wright and James Cone (p. 46) as two of his favorite authors, might give a hint to finding a gospel somewhere between the New Perspective on Paul and Liberation Theology.

McLaren starts with the gospels and their frequent “gospel of the kingdom” being “at hand.”  He defines this as a kingdom that Jesus began that is not the old Jewish idea nor the traditional Christian idea nor an eschatological idea, but “God’s new benevolent society [which is] already among us.”16

A new kingdom is much bigger than a new religion, and in fact it has room for many religious traditions within it.  This good news wasn’t simply about a new way to solve the religious problems of ontological fall and original sin (problems, remember once more, that arise centuries later and within a different narrative altogether).    It wasn’t simply information about how individual souls could leave earth, avoid hell, and ascend to heaven after death.  No, it was about God’s will being done on earth as in heaven for all people.  It was about God’s faithful solidarity with all humanity in our suffering, oppression, and evil.  It was about God’s compassion and call to be reconciled with God and with one another—before death, on earth.  It was a summons to rethink everything and enter a life of retraining as disciples or learners of a new way of life, citizens of a new kingdom.17

In the second chapter of this section, McLaren presses this definition of the kingdom of God into the book of Romans.  He describes inspiration as a “wonderful dance of the Spirit of God and the mind of a man in the context of a community in crisis.”18 He then gives seven “moves” that Paul makes as he writes this book by the Spirit.  In the end, McLaren tries to force Romans to mean that the gospel is the message that God has reconciled the world (though he often contradicts himself by referring to “everyone who believes” and similar statements) or has already finished the “justification of all humanity.”19 The invitation, evidently, is “to share a common life and mission—living out the restorative justice, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit that constitute the kingdom of God.”20

Book Two:  Emerging & Exploring.  That is what McLaren titles the second half of his ten questions.  These are shorter, outgrowths of the first five.  Therefore, and for space, I will give brief summations.

6. The Church Question 

Since the kingdom of God includes all people, churches exist to train people how to become profitable members of this kingdom.  To save someone is to rescue them from uselessness.

7. The Sex Question 

In this longest chapter of the section McLaren OKs nearly all sexual life-styles, or at least says they should be open and not condemned.  The real culprit here is what he calls “fundasexuality,” the “brand of religious fundamentalism that preoccupies itself with sexuality.”21 That is, any who still condemn homosexuality, even premarital sex,22 are the real anti-Christians who are keeping the church from being all it should be.

8. The Future Question 

McLaren unequivocally rejects a second coming of Christ (in any literal sense), especially a dispensational approach which he calls a conventional, “flatline,” deterministic view.  His view is a “3-D participatory eschatology” which defines the “parousia” (presence, specifically not an “apousia” or absence) as Jesus being present in the world since His resurrection.

If McLaren does not subscribe to an Open Theism approach to the future he subscribes to its twin.

In this 3-D view, God is not in control in the sense of being a machine operator pulling levers or a chess master moving bishops and pawns.  Nor is the universe out of control in the sense of being chaotic, random, and purposeless.  Instead, God and the universe are in relationship.23

Final judgment (he calls “reconciling”) is redefined as the time when God finally reconciles all of creation back to Himself.

 

9. The Pluralism Question

By cleverly explaining away John 14:6, McLaren does away with evangelizing non-Christians.  His new evangelism “would celebrate the good in the Christian religion . . . Just as it would in every other religion, calling people to a way of life in a kingdom (or beautiful whole) that transcends and includes all religions.”24

 

10. The What-Do-We-Do-Now Question

According to McLaren we quit the old and start the new.  He calls this “ubuntu, from Africa, a rich word meaning one-another-ness, interconnectedness, jointed-in-the-common-good-ness, and profound commitment to the well-being of all. . . The transformation of ‘the other’ into ‘one another.’”25

 

And So . . .

So much more could and needs to be said.  This is liberalism whether short-lived or long-lived.  God will see to its end either way.

 

 

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

The Highways and Hedges

Written by Rick Shrader

The Highways and Hedges

by Rick Shrader

I found the joy of the salvation of others.  Oh, the privilege, the blessed privilege, to be used of God to win a soul to Christ, and to see a man or woman being led out of bondage by some act of ours toward them.  To think that God should condescend to allow us to be coworkers with Him.  It is the highest honor we can wear.1

 Such was the compassion of D.L. Moody, a compassion that we have largely lost today!  Jesus anticipated the future evangelizing effort of the church when he described, in a parable, the great supper invitation:  “And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and the hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be full” (Luke 14:23).

H.A. Ironside said of that early church, “It is a wonderful testimony to the devotion of the early believers that even within one generation after our Lord’s ascension the evangel had been carried throughout the known world.”2 But the commission of our Lord was not finished with that first generation.  As William Carey argued to his hyper-Calvinistic brethren, the Lord’s commission was not finished with the apostles.  If we still baptize and teach in our churches, then we must still preach the gospel to all the world.  We don’t have two-thirds of a Great Commission!3

We have always had to guard against by-passing the hard work of evangelism.  The cults merely indoctrinate people into a system; the Roman church went over the whole world and baptized the nations, not gospel converts; Liberalism sought to redefine the whole world into the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man; similarly, the ECT document (Evangelicals & Catholics Together) invented a sort of “redefinition evangelism” by simply declaring all Catholics saved, supposedly accomplishing by the stroke of a pen what missionaries could not do in 2000 years!  The current climate of emerging churches (especially in the wildly popular writings of Rob Bell and Brian McLaren) has grown so tired of evangelization and seeing the world as “us and them” (i.e. saved and lost) that it has invented a new universalism where all will be saved in the end anyway. So just relax and stop feeling guilty that you are not evangelizing at all.  As John Rylands, Sr. told young William Carey, “If God wants to save the heathen, He’ll do it without your help or mine.”  How we have come full circle from his day to ours!

A.W. Tozer wrote a generation ago,

God’s invitation to men is broad but not unqualified.  The words ‘whosoever will may come’ throw the door open, indeed, but the church is carrying the gospel invitation far beyond its proper bounds, turning it into something more human and less divine than that found in the sacred Scriptures.  What we tend to overlook is that the word ‘whosoever’ never stands by itself.  Always its meaning is modified by the word ‘believe’ or ‘will’ or ‘come.’4

We must not excuse our own fundamental churches from abuses even though we faithfully witness, win souls, and give invitations.  We too have often looked at winning souls as simply obtaining a notch on our gospel gun-belts.  The sinner’s prayer is not a magic formula that only needs repeating with no personal commitment.  If all of the “souls saved” which have been reported in the last fifty years were genuine, America would be saved twice over.  The hindrance this has caused becomes obvious.  One commonly hears, in witnessing to a worldly, uninterested person, “Oh, I did that when I was a kid going to such and such church.”

Whatever the abuses of the gospel have been or the obstacles in the way today, the Word of God stands as a megaphone sending the believing child of God out into the world “that my house may be filled” (Luke 14:23).  We need not be discouraged by the slow progress or the faint-heartedness of some or the persecution of others.  L.S. Chafer wrote, “When a soul has received the redemption which is in Christ and is saved, that one is then privileged to suffer with Christ in a compassion for the lost; being prompted, in some measure, by the same divine vision and love, through the presence and power of the indwelling Spirit.”5 This is still our calling today as much as it was to those first century believers.

The world as it was then

Paul affirmed to the Galatians that Christ came into the world “in the fullness of the time” (Gal. 4:4).  Consider what advantages and help God gave to those first Christians.  The Roman roads and sea-ways provided nearly worldwide access to all people groups.  Merrill Tenney wrote, “The rule of Rome over the provinces was greatly facilitated by its excellent system of roads, which, until the recent era of the automobile, were the best that the world had ever seen.”6 In the book of Acts Luke seems almost thrilled to describe his travels with the great apostle as much as a modern traveler would be today.

The Greek language provided crucial understanding for the gospel almost everywhere it went.   Thanks to Alexander’s conquest directed by God’s providence, the Jews and Gentiles alike understood in one language.  William Ramsay wrote that “Greek was the language of all even moderately educated persons,” and that, “Graeco-Roman manners and ideas were being actively disseminated and eagerly assimilated by all active and progressive and thoughtful persons.”7 Conybeare and Howson wrote, “The Greek language had already been prepared as a medium for preserving and transmitting the doctrine; the Roman government was now prepared to help the progress even of that religion which it persecuted.”8

The Diaspora, that great dispersion of the Jews from their homeland, also took the early Jewish Christians to every part of the world.  The Jews established synagogues in most cities and kept the Sabbath and most Mosaic Laws.  This afforded the Jewish believers in those areas a ready pulpit for the gospel.  Philip Schaff described this particular advantage, “Jesus and the apostles availed themselves of this democratic privilege to preach the gospel as fulfillment of the law and the prophets. . . . Paul preached Christ in the synagogues . . .  Which furnished him a pulpit and an audience.”9

Paul used his Roman Citizenship as an access to gospel opportunity.  The provincial system of annexation by conquest gave Roman citizens liberties in areas such as Achaia, Pontus, Cappadocia, Galatia.  “The Romans never interfered with the religious freedom of the subject peoples.”10 Paul often appealed to his Roman citizenship if it helped his purpose of preaching the gospel.

Even the Bema seats of the Roman Empire helped the spread of the gospel.  Paul was helped by Gallio’s Bema judgment in Acts 18:12 when he would have otherwise been beaten and run out of town.  It was Herod’s Bema in Caesarea that allowed Paul to appeal to Caesar and be transported duty-free to Rome so he could fulfill a long-time desire to preach there also (Acts 23:35).  It was Nero’s Bema in Rome that allowed him to preach while in prison waiting for sentencing (Acts 23:11; 25:10).  Even under Rome’s own persecution, the Bema “was to give shelter to the infant church, with opportunity of safe and continued growth.”11

Persecution itself sent the infant church into all parts of the world fulfilling the great commission.  Acts 1:8 outlines Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and then the uttermost parts of the earth as the road map for the gospel dissemination.  This becomes the outline for the book of Acts.  Even the apostolic gifts were exercised in this order to help the witness of the apostles.12 Beginning with the stoning of the first martyr, Stephen, the church was forced to spread out in these four areas.  “And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at [1] Jerusalem; and they were scattered abroad throughout the regions of [2] Judea and [3] Samaria” (Acts 8:1).  “Therefore they that were scattered abroad went [4] everywhere preaching the word” (Acts 8:4).

The divine wisdom of the local church itself was a great advantage for the spread of the gospel.  This simple form of Christian gathering was flexible enough and mobile enough to be practiced in any locale where God’s people were scattered.  It was not only “multi-cultural” in that, by conversion, it was made up of Jews and Gentiles, bond and free, it was also “omni-cultural” in that it could exist in many places and circumstances.  The great Ephesian church began this way.  “But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he [Paul] departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.  And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks” (Acts 19:9-10).

The World as it is today

God has not left Himself without witness today nor without the availability of the gospel to all people.  Travel today is nearly a miraculous thing compared to world travel throughout history and until just a hundred years ago.  Today’s missionaries can come and go from and to the fields of the world in a matter of hours rather than weeks and months.  In addition  there are amazing internet and satellite communications that allow instant audio and visual communication anywhere in the world.

For centuries English has been the most common language for travel and has allowed an English-speaking traveler to navigate through almost any location.  And now, because of technology, languages are learned quickly and Bible translation is done easier and is therefore traveling  faster to every part of the globe.

American citizenship has helped the gospel go around the world since WWII.  Many missionaries in the 40s and 50s were GIs who went back to the land of their military service.  Yet in most advanced countries, like the United States, the mission field is coming to us.  Immigration, the ease of world travel, and commerce, bring people to our shores that we cannot reach in any other way.

The local church is still God’s divine agency in this dispensation of grace.  By its amazing adaptability, it continues to spread and preach the gospel in all parts of the world.  Though we see the number of volunteers needed to go into all the world and the funds needed to send them waning, the possibilities are still numerous.  Churches at home will trim their appetites if necessary in order to find missionary money.  Bible colleges and seminaries will find ways to operate more leanly in order to continue to train young men and women who are willing to go.  God’s people will see the crisis coming that would result if we do not sacrifice, and they will adjust their lifestyles in order to continue supporting God’s work.

Most of all, the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is still the only hope of the world.  It does not need updating nor refining.  It has gone through rough waters before and still stands.  Paul’s anathema upon any who would change it is still in effect today (Gal. 1:8-9).  We are sent to evangelize the world even though we will not be able to convert it.  It is not ours to help the gospel by making it more palatable to those who don’t want it.  Ours is but to offer the great love and forgiveness of Christ.  And “as many as received him, to them gave he the power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” (John 1:12).

We are still to go to the highways and hedges of our world.  Wherever our “synagogues” or “temple steps” are today we must go with the good news that Jesus saves.  Let us not forget to shod our feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace.

O Zion haste, thy mission high fulfilling,

To tell to all the world that God is Light;

That He who made all nations is not willing

One soul should perish, lost in shades of night.

Give of thy sons to bear the message glorious;

Give of thy wealth to speed them on their way;

Pour out thy soul for them in prayer victorious,

And all thou spendest Jesus will repay.

Publish glad tidings, tidings of peace;

Tidings of Jesus, Redemption and release.

 

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Does Love Win?

Written by Matt Shrader

Does Love Win?

by Matt Shrader

Recently, there has been an explosion of attention focused on Rob Bell and his new book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, which was released in March 2011 by HarperOne. The buzz surrounding this book began when Bell posted an introductory video to his book which contained strong statements concerning heaven, hell, and the love of God. The blogosphere has exploded; responses have been written and given via video; conferences have had panel discussions to discuss Bell’s book and the related issues; and Bell has appeared on various television talk shows discussing his book and the huge attention it is receiving.

With the publication of Love Wins Bell has been accused of many things including being a universalist, preaching a false gospel, and ultimately serving a false god. Bell pastors in Grand Rapids, Michigan a church which averages 10,000 attendees per week. It is reported that up to 50,000 receive Bell’s sermon podcast each week. Love Wins has become a New York Times bestseller (this is not the first successful book Bell has written). Also, Bell has helped to produce a series of popular short films on issues of spirituality. Bell has considerable influence and attention directed toward him which warrant, at the least, that we take a closer look at what he is saying and make a few decisions concerning his claims.

 

Summary of Love Wins

Bell writes his book for those “who have become acutely aware that Jesus’s [sic] story has been hijacked by a number of other stories, stories Jesus isn’t interested in telling” (vii). Bell says he is writing  “for all those, everywhere, who have heard some version of the Jesus story that cause their pulse rate to rise, their stomach to churn, and their heart to utter those resolute words, ‘I would never be a part of that’” (viii). So, what is it that has been  hijacked? Bell answers:

A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better. It’s been clearly communicated that this belief is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’s message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear (viii). 

Bell wants to give responses to the questions that are asked about salvation. Many of these questions are real and difficult, but important. Bell wants to know what is heaven; what is hell; the kind of God who is behind that; how salvation ought to be understood; how exclusive is Jesus; and what is the gospel.

What is heaven? Bell sees the word “heaven” as a substitute for the name of God. Bell also sees heaven as the future reality of the age to come. Bell’s third conception of heaven is his focus. It is the idea of heaven as a present reality. It is “our present eternal, intense, real experiences of joy, peace, and love in this life, this side of death and the age to come” (58-9). Bell has defined eternal life in a very specific way: “Eternal life is less about a kind of time that starts when we die, and more about a quality and vitality of life lived now in connection to God” (59). So, heaven and eternal life are referring to the possibility of a certain kind of experience now and in the age to come.

When Bell talks about hell he refers to the times when love, grace, and humanity are rejected, whether in this life or the next. For Bell, hell is not a place of torment, it is not final, and it is not eternal. Bell summarizes what he means by hell:

We need a loaded, volatile, adequately violent, dramatic, serious word to describe the very real consequences we experience when we reject the good and true and beautiful life that God has for us. We need a word that refers to the big, wide, terrible evil that comes from the secrets hidden deep within our hearts all the way to the massive, society-wide collapse and chaos that comes when we fail to live in God’s world God’s way.

And for that,

the word “hell” works quite well. Let’s keep it (93).

Bell asks the question: “Does God get what God wants?” (95). Bell presents a view of God which says that because God is loving, all will be reconciled to him. Without that reality, God would be less than great. Bell says that God gets what God wants and we get what we want. If we want hell or heaven, it is ours because we are completely free.

Salvation, for Bell, has to be cosmic in scope and is essentially the new creation. Bell argues that the metaphors of salvation (reconciliation, redemption, etc.) are merely ways that first century believers described the cross and the resurrection. They tried to describe the “epic event” (129) of Jesus making all things into the new creation. Jesus has started the ball rolling toward the reconciliation of all things which is a restoration of the original plan of creation.

So, if God is undoubtedly reconciling all to him and Jesus has started this at the cross, is Jesus the only Savior? Bell claims that he holds to an “exclusivity on the other side of inclusivity” (154). Bell explains John 14:6:

What [Jesus] doesn’t say is how, or when, or in what manner the mechanism functions that gets people to God through him. He doesn’t even state that those coming to the Father through him will even know that they are coming exclusively through him. He simply claims that whatever God is doing in the world to know and redeem and love and restore the world is happening through him (154).

So, Jesus is the way, but you may not understand that it is Jesus you are coming though. You may come through the mechanism of Buddhism or Hinduism or anything that actually teaches any part of the truth. There is a “mystery present in all the world” (157), Christianity merely names it correctly.

What then is the gospel? Bell argues that it is not about entrance into heaven but about joyous participation in it. Bell does not want to frame the gospel in terms of entrance because this a “destructive, violent understanding of God” (183). Bell argues that when we make God to be one who determines (based on a decision) who enters where, then God becomes  a terrible slave driver who demands sin to be punished by his wrath (183). Bell says: “We shape our God, and then our God shapes us” (182-4). The gospel is not about how to gain entrance because that contains connotations that God would become all that Bell has just called bad. As Bell says: “The good news is better than that.” Grace and love, for Bell, simply are (187-91). The gospel is that all are forgiven. What we believe or do does not get forgiveness, “it just is.” Salvation is becoming aware of the forgiveness that is already yours.

Bell ends his book with this invitation:

Whatever you’ve been told about the end–

the end of your life,

the end of time,

the end of the world-

Jesus passionately urges us to live like the end is here, now, today.

Love is what God is,

love is why Jesus came,

and love is why he continues to come,

year after year to person after person.

Love is why I’ve written this book, and

love is what I want to leave you with.

May you experience this vast,

expansive, infinite, indestructible love

that has been yours all along.

May you discover that this love is as wide

as the sky and as small as the cracks in

your heart no one else knows about.

And may you know,

deep in your bones,

that love wins. (197-8)

 

A Short Response:

It is difficult to critique Bell’s writings because there is so much with whichto disagree. Kevin DeYoung has written a very helpful review of Love Wins (“God is Still Holy and What You Learned in Sunday School is Still True,” available at: 

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/03/14/rob-bell-love-wins-review/). 

Love Wins. The theology is heterodox. The history is inaccurate. The impact on souls is devastating. And the use of Scripture is indefensible. Worst of all, Love Wins demeans the cross and misrepresents God’s character” (Ibid., 2). DeYoung goes on to spend 20 pages meticulously showing the faults of Bell’s book, and even he admits that he is selective in his critique. To pick and choose what to talk about is very difficult. However, a few general issues are worth considering. 

The Importance of Context. It is possible to pick up Love Wins and read something out of it that sounds very good. Bell is quite adamant that he is orthodox. If you read Love Wins you ought to read the entire book and understand what he is saying in light of the context of the book and how he has defined words and concepts (that advice transfers to his videos). For instance, Bell denies being a universalist. He would argue that there is a real hell that people go through if they reject Jesus. But, what he means is that rejecting Jesus is simply not realizing that you are already forgiven and not living like it. So, hell can be now or in the next life. It is not a place of torment. Also, hell is not final and does not last forever (88-93). He believes you do not have to believe in Christ in this life in order to get past hell (110). In the end, God will reconcile all things. Somehow everyone will accept their forgiveness and God’s love and will move past their self-inflicted hell. In other words: Love Wins! Bell denies that hell is everlasting for anyone. He affirms that everyone will eventually become saved (which is simply to realize you are already forgiven). While Bell contends that he is not a universalist (because he has redefined it), how can he not be considered one?

Unfounded Claims. If you read Love Wins you need to take Bell’s own advice: wrestle with it to see if it is correct. A major frustration I have is that the majority of the book makes claims which are not founded, and yet many will simply accept as true! As DeYoung highlights in his review, Bell makes unfounded assumptions on issues of evangelicalism, history, exegesis, eschatology, Christology, the Gospel, and God. Bell misrepresents positions such as the nature of traditional evangelicalism and the major positions of historic Christianity concerning the redemption of all things. Bell argues: “At the center of the Christian tradition since the first church have been a number who insist that history is not tragic, hell is not forever, and love, in the end, wins and all will be reconciled to God” (109). Bell may be able to find a few who take these positions, but the reality is that Bell’s version of universalism is nowhere near the center of historic orthodoxy! Bell also provides questions which misrepresent a certain position and make it sound absurd. For instance, Bell asks: “Does God punish people for thousands of years with infinite, eternal torment for things they did in their few finite years of life?” (2). Bell questions on what basis God would choose these people and then questions what kind of God that is. Bell continues his questions page after page. Through similar questioning tactics, Bell misrepresents many viewpoints. 

Essential Beliefs. When Bell presents his views of the gospel, of Jesus, of God, and of the nature of Christianity (which are far removed from orthodoxy), he proves to be heterodox. What you believe and teach is essential because it does impact people for good or for ill. Bell’s gospel teaches an errant path to God which has massive consequences for the souls of those who accept it.

Many have been enraged that Bell is labeled as a universalist and that his teachings are called heretical and heterodox. They argue that Bell is trying to be a good Christian and love people. This response to Love Wins is not an attack on Bell as a person, it is an exercise of calling false what is not the truth. True love will tell a person the truth. The truth is that sin is real. Hell is a real place of torment. Jesus makes exclusive claims (Acts 4:12). The wrath of God does abide on those who do not believe (John 3:16, 36). There are areas of belief where charity is important, but there are also areas where lines must be drawn. When faith, God, and the gospel are redefined and re-explained the line has already been drawn. It is truth that is at stake! 

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

A Word About Small Churches

Written by Rick Shrader

A Word About Small Churches

by Rick Shrader

There is no more satisfying statement to the New Testament believer than John’s on the Isle of Patmos, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day” (Rev. 1:10).  That says everything to us.  John was a believer who possessed the Holy Spirit, who, though no one else cared what he did that day, made special effort to prepare himself for worship on the day commonly recognized by believers as the day of Christ’s resurrection, or the Lord’s Day.  The circumstances of his confinement on Patmos had been of God’s providence.  He was there “for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ” (1:9).  But circumstances, whether difficult or easy, do not detract from the believer’s primary focus, that of worshiping God through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  And this John was determined to do!

Would I be far off if I surmised that most Christians today, faced with the same circumstances as John, would not have “been in the Spirit on the Lord’s day?”  It would have been bad enough knowing that no one else was going to be at church except you, but add to that the fact that there would be no coffee and donuts (in itself enough to stop many Baptists); no tailor made class time to be led through an easy five-step lesson; no praise team to give a mini-concert in the main service; no power point presentation; not much of anything except you, your Bible, and the Lord.  And I am inclined to believe that John had attended many services already on Patmos with no other added attraction than that.  John’s Lord’s Day service, however, was more profitable than any before because the Lord Himself was there in person and John fell at His feet as dead in reverent worship.

It has been an observation of mine for some time now that if we reduced church services to the irreducible minimum of what a service could be, few would be interested in it at all.  If we were forced by circumstance to experience Jesus’ hypothetical, “Where two or three are gathered together in my name” (Matt. 18:20), I’m not sure that many would still attend even though they believed the related promise, “there am I in the midst of them.”  Would we be truly warmed and filled in a church service with two or three people singing a simple song, having a time of prayer, and someone bringing a lesson from God’s Word?  I’m not saying that we should only create such a format, I’m saying that if we are true worshipers of Jesus Christ, we should be satisfied if that’s all we have.  Sure we would like to have some more things going on, but do we attend for those “things” or for the pure worship of the Lord?

Not long ago I read an article from a man who makes it his ministry to revitalize “dead” churches.  What is usually meant by “dead” is that there is little else going on there besides simple (pure) worship.  If the church once had 200 and now it only has 50 attendees; if the church building once looked new but now it looks run down; if there were more visitors in the past than now come; if the average age has gone from 35 to 55; and if the pastor still preaches 45 minutes without any electronic help in what amounts to a long lecture, then that church is a “dead” church.  Evidently, in this definition, fewer can’t worship as well as more; older aren’t as valuable as younger; up-to-date trumps out-of-date; and visual experience is always better than audio experience.  This is why many of our rural churches are looked down upon and why few young ministers would consider pastoring in such a setting.  It is also why many so-called revitalizing ministries make grand assumptions as to what the church needs with little thought of mere worship.

Recently I had a wonderful lunch with two young brothers, Dan and Ben, who are both seminary graduates and are both now pastoring small rural churches in Iowa and loving it.  They didn’t grow up there, but God led them both to their respective churches and they have grown to love the people and are working hard in both shepherding and evangelizing.  I thought to myself, “how many young people would even consider such ministries?”  I can imagine it at my age (61) because I have come to a place where I no longer care about the bells and whistles of larger ministries, but for these young men to be satisfied with Jesus simply being “in the midst” was truly refreshing.

Jesus commissioned John to write to seven churches in Asia which were probably very similar to our rural churches.  At least they weren’t mega churches by any stretch of the imagination.  In fact, the Jerusalem church, due to its unique history and geography, seems to be the only really large church in the New Testament.  Yet these Asian churches were important to Christ and became the examples (positive and negative) for all churches in the coming church age.  Here are a few observations about these churches.

Size was not important

We cannot know the exact size of these churches but we do know that John places no emphasis on it.  Wm. Ramsay, in one book, describes the cities as “spots here and there, showing only as dots on a map, small islets in the great sea of stagnant, unruffled, immovable Orientalism.”1 In all of the Lord’s admonitions to these seven churches, nowhere does He speak of their success or failure due to the size of the church.  He does, however, encourage faithfulness regardless of the amount of opposition.  “and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine” (2:24); “Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments” (3:4).

Maybe it is just our human nature to measure success by size.  I remember being very happy when my home church was listed as one of the ten largest Sunday Schools in America by Elmer Towns!  But we were more like Vance Havner said, “The church has moved from the catacombs to the Coliseum in its emphasis on size.”2 Yet still today the first question a pastor is asked is, “how large is your church?”  Jesus never asked that question.  The Bema may inquire “how” but not “how much?”

Notoriety was not important

Laodicea was perhaps the richest and therefore most well-known city, but this surely wasn’t an asset to the church of Laodicea.  Smyrna and Philadelphia are the only two churches which receive no rebuke, and to Smyrna Jesus says, “I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty (but thou are rich)” (2:9).  They were rich in spirituality, though poor in earthly goods.  To Philadelphia He said, “For thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and not denied my name” (3:8).  Notoriety with the Lord has to do with faithfulness, not with worldly popularity.

Paul reminded the Corinthian church that, “we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise” (2 Cor. 10:12).  Paul told Timothy that some think that “gain is godliness” (1 Tim. 6:5), or literally, “godliness is a means to gain.”  If the pastoral ministry becomes only a road to success, then we have our reward.

Busyness was a side issue

Too many times we associate busyness with ministry or worship.  We get so intent on making sure that everyone has a place of “service” that no one is going to church!  In fact, I think we have forgotten how to just go to church.  It ought to grieve us that it takes so many helpers to put the average church service together.  The number one intention of every church attendee ought to be—to be in church!

To every church in Asia Jesus said, “I know thy works.”  Yet five out of those seven times He also says something like, “nevertheless I have somewhat against thee” (2:4), or “But I have a few things against thee” (2:14).  A.W. Tozer wrote, “Our meetings are characterized by cordiality, humor, affability, zeal and high animal spirits; but hardly anywhere do we find gatherings marked by the overshadowing presence of God.”3

Purity was important

For some reason we tend to think that purity, holiness, or righteousness are enemies of a “revitalized” church.  But the fact is,  “vital” means “life” and there is no life for the church without holy life.  For the true worshiper of Jesus Christ, no amount of people, activity, or possessions can take the place of a pure walk with God.  And this pure walk ought to be manifest in church as well as anywhere else.

Nothing stands out in these seven letters more than the Lord’s scathing rebuke for the intermingling of ungodliness within the church.  Pergamos had within it the doctrine of Balaam and of the Nicolaitans, “which thing I hate” says the Lord (2:15).  Thyatira had allowed a prophetess He calls “Jezebel” to seduce God’s people yet Jesus is the One Who “searches the reins and hearts” (2:23).  Laodicea needed to buy white raiment (purity) “that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear” (3:18).  It seems the lack of separation from the moral evils of the world began early in church history.

The Word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ were central

Not only was John on the isle of Patmos for this reason (1:2, 9), the churches are either commended or reprimanded for the same reason.  Philadelphia was a good church with an open door from the Lord, “for thou has a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name” (3:8).  To them He also said, “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth” (3:10).  The promise of rapture is to those who know and hold the Word of God.

What could be more central to local church worship than these two things?  It was all John had on Patmos and those in prison at Smyrna had little else except the expectation of a martyr’s death (2:10).  Could we come to church week after week just to sing a hymn about Jesus Christ and to hear a message from the Word of God?  Would our kids come for the same reason?  Would the youth group be as large?  Or would we just have a few older saints who would be seen as a “dead” church?

A fortress mentality was commended

It is interesting how we have twisted such wording today and made it a bad thing.  We seem to think that a church cannot “hold the fort” and also keep the faith; that we cannot be a “holy huddle” and also a city set on a hill.  I think such thinking reveals its own narrowness.  If our churches cannot be strongholds of safety for believers, and shelters in which we can hide from the world, then we certainly cannot be Biblical churches.

To the church in Philadelphia Jesus said, “Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown” (3:11).  To the church at Thyatira (at least to the “rest in Thyatira”) Jesus said, “But that which ye have already hold fast till I come” (2:25).  We still have P.P Bliss’ song in our song books, “Hold The Fort” and it is in the same section as Luther’s “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God,” both in the Christian Warfare section.

And So . . . .

I have been in John Bunyan’s church building in Bedford, England.  I have seen the roll sheets of services in his day:  Twenty five, maybe thirty names.  Yet no man was ever so glad to meet with those few precious saints as the man who had been in jail for his faith.    He once wrote, “When a company of saints are gathered together in the name of Christ to perform any spiritual exercise, and their souls be edified, warmed and made glad therein, it is because this water, this river of water of life, has in some of the streams thereof, run into that assembly.”4

I have seen similar roll sheets for William Carey’s church and even John Newton’s.  I doubt that any of those attendees believed their churches were in need of revitalization!  And indeed, they were not.

 

Notes:
1. Wm. M. Ramsay, The Letters to the Seven Churches (New York:  Hodder & Stoughton, nd) 134-135.
2. Vance Havner, Hearts Afire (Old Tappan:  Fleming H. Revell, nd) 113.
3. A.W. Tozer, Worship and Entertainment (Camp Hill, Penn:  Christian Pub, 1997) 30.
4. John Bunyan, The Water of Life , 60.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

In The Law of Christ

Written by Rick Shrader

In The Law of Christ

by Rick Shrader

 When Paul wrote that if we walked in the Spirit we would not fulfill the lust of the flesh (Gal. 5:16) and that if we bore one another’s burdens we would fulfill the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2), he was lifting us to higher ground than we commonly know.  To the Romans he wrote, “for the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2).  We are usually more aware that the law of sin and death has ended than we are that the law of the Spirit in Christ Jesus is now operative in us.  However, we really cannot know one without the other, or at least we shouldn’t.

For that reason I want to walk the long way around the barn to get to the door.  A full and sure grasp that we are no longer under the law will set us free from the works of the law but then, being set free, we need a new compass that will direct us to a greater, even higher, law of love and of the Spirit.  When Jesus was giving kingdom principles to the Jews in what we call the sermon on the mount, He used the formula, “Ye have heard that it hath been said . . . . But I say unto you” (see Matt. 5:21-48).  His words lift us from mere non-violence to right thinking; from avoiding fornication to avoiding thinking about fornication; from not swearing in anger to not swearing at all; and from not hating our enemies to loving our enemies.  With the completion of the New Testament canon these principles will also be seen in the transition from law into grace, from flesh into Spirit, from the law of Moses into the law of Christ.

To understand our position in this law of Christ we must clearly see this dispensational transition.  The following progression of thought will help clarify that change.

The Mosaic law is only one expression of the law of God.

We should not think that “law” has only existed from Moses to Christ.  God said to Isaac, hundreds of years before the law, “Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws” (Gen. 26:5).  Paul reminded his readers in Rome that Gentiles, who have not had the Mosaic law, nevertheless have “the work of the law written on their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness” (Rom. 2:15).  God gave Adam and Eve laws to keep which had eternal consequences for obeying and disobeying.

In a Faith Pulpit article, Dr. Myron Houghton listed nine ways in which the Bible can refer to law.1  These range from the Ten Commandments to any statement in Scripture that condemns or makes a person feel guilty.  This is important because some may think that if we believe that we are no longer under the law, then we are guilty of lawlessness.  But man has never been without a law from God though it may not have been the Mosaic law.  The word “dispensation” literally means “the law of the household” and there have been dispensations before and after the Mosaic period, each containing specific revelation incumbent upon those believers living at that time.

The Mosaic law had a definite beginning and ending.

Paul wrote, “Wherefore then serveth law?  It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made” (Gal. 3:19).  The Abrahamic covenant (Gal. 3:18) was in effect before Moses and remains in effect after Moses (Gal. 3:17) as an unconditional covenant.  But the law, given through Moses at Mt. Sinai, was given to Israel alone for a specific time as a conditional covenant.  Alva J. McClain wrote, “Viewed as a law code, it was given to Israel because of sin.”2  L.S. Chafer wrote, “The Law which came by Moses is declared to be an interim dealing which served its purpose during the interval of 1,500 years extending between its enactment and the death of Christ.”3  The law began at Sinai when God made a covenant with the nation of Israel (Ex. 24:8; Deut. 29:1) and ended when Christ finished His redemptive work on the cross.  “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (Jn. 1:17).

The New Testament gives specific statements that the law ended with Christ.  “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for you are not under the law, but under grace” (Rom. 6:14).  “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.  But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster” (Gal. 3:24-25).  Paul often uses the word katarge?, meaning to put away or abolish in describing the ending of the law:  “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances” (Eph. 2:15; see also 2 Cor. 3:7, 11, 14, “done away;” 3:13, “abolished”).

Paul is very specific that the law ended with Christ.  “For Christ is the end [telos] of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth” (Rom. 10:4).  Douglas Moo writes, “Paul’s use of telos points to a meaning that is perhaps best translated in English as ‘culmination,’ combining the ideas of both goal and end.  In other words, Paul is saying that Christ is the one to whom the law has all along been pointing—its goal.  But now that goal has been reached, the regime of the law is ended, just as a race is ended once the finish line, its goal, has been attained.”4

Mosaic law is still a large part of the Scripture.

The period covering the law of Moses takes up most of the Bible.  It starts in Exodus and goes until the cross of Christ.  Because the law has been abolished, does that mean it no longer has a place in the Word of God?  No.  Again, all dispensations are found somewhere in the Bible but we only live in one of them (for us, of course, the dispensation of grace).   Since all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16-17), so also is the Mosaic law.  I can learn, be admonished, be warned, and even grow in my Christian walk from reading the law portions of the Old Testament.  But that is not to say that I live under the Mosaic law any more than that I live under the dispensation of Innocence in the garden of Eden just because I read about it in the Bible.

In fact, Arnold Fruchtenbaum (a converted Chasidic Jew) points out about the law, “Nearly all the regulations of the corpus—over ninety-five percent—are so culturally specific, geographically limited, and so forth, that they would be completely inapplicable, and in fact unfulfillable, to Christians living throughout the world today.”5  Yet because the Mosaic law is a large part of Scripture, I read it and profit from it continually.

Since God’s laws are always in existence, today’s church lives under whatever commands exist for her at this time.

This same reasoning has always been true for any believer of any age.  God reveals Himself to His followers with various instructions, commands, or prohibitions (see again Gen. 26:5), and those followers follow Him by keeping His laws.  I don’t have to build an ark just because God commanded Noah to do so.  I don’t have to keep the Sabbath just because God commanded the Israelites to do so.  Nor do I have to go to Jerusalem to see the King once every year just because that is what we will do in the millennial reign of Christ.  But I do have to be baptized (1 Pet. 3:21) and attend church regularly (Heb. 10:25) because these are specific commands given to me for this age of grace.  These, and many other things, become God’s law to us who live in the present age.

Many worry when we say that the Mosaic law is completely abolished because there are many good things in it which we still follow today (most of the ten commandments, for example).  But we do not keep the ten commandments because they are in the Mosaic law but because they are reiterated for us in the New Testament.  Charles Lee Feinberg (in a 1938 article) pointed out specifically where all of the ten commandments are repeated in the New Testament with the notable exception of the fourth, keeping the Sabbath day.6  It is nowhere reinstituted in the New Testament.  That means, then, that for the New Testament believer, these nine things are specific laws for us in this age of grace, but that Sabbath keeping is not.  I don’t look to be commanded to stop specific Mosaic laws since the whole law was annulled, I look for specific laws to be reiterated for the age in which I live.

The church is a new body in Christ and under the law of Christ.

Those who have believed on Christ since the Day of Pentecost (and until the rapture of the church) have been baptized by the Holy Spirit into the new body, the church.  This new body is being formed by the regeneration of the Spirit which includes Spirit baptism (1 Cor. 12:13) into the body of Christ.  It is a Spirit circumcision of our old life (Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11) rather than a physical circumcision of the Mosaic law.  This new body (the very Bride of Christ) lives in a heavenly presence before God because, in this spiritual salvation, Jesus Christ has brought us through the veil of His flesh into the very presence of God (Heb. 10:1-25), and we are seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:6).

The believer in this age, therefore, is not under the law of Moses (a law for an entirely different age) but is under the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2).  The believer now has the Holy Spirit living in him and therefore this law of Christ can be called “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:2).  As God has given us the law of Christ (the “New” Testament), we live by it in the power of the Spirit to fulfill that law which is a fulfillment of all righteousness (Rom. 8:4).  This is seen specifically in our love for the brethren, “for love is the fulfilling of the law” (Rom. 13:10).

D.R. de Lacey writes, “That the ‘law of the Spirit of life’ is not the Torah in other guise is evident from the fact that it achieves precisely what the law could not do (Rom. 8:3).  Here as before (see on 7:25) ‘law’ represents the controlling power over a man.  For the Christian it is supremely that of the Spirit of life, whose working transcends the law, for as well as fulfilling the law’s requirement, it provides life and peace.”7  The book of Galatians has been called the “Declaration of Independence” of the New Testament.  In it Paul proclaims “liberty” from the law of Moses (2:4, 5:1) and reminds us that “a man is not justified by the works of the law” (2:16).  But neither does Paul want us to be born of the Spirit and then live by the law of Moses.  In that case we would be “a debtor to do the whole law” (5:3) and “fallen from grace” (5:4) as a way of life.  In addition, just as the “works of the flesh” (6:19-21) are natural for the unbeliever, the “fruit of the Spirit” (6:22-23) is natural for those who possess the Spirit.  “If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit” (6:25).  That is, if we have been born again by the Spirit of God and have been brought into this new relationship with Christ, if the “love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us” (Rom. 5:5), then we can live in a way which the law of Moses could never produce.  We can be filled with the Spirit.

Paul, then, begins the sixth chapter by addressing “ye which are spiritual” (6:1) and admonishes us to “bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (6:2).  He will end this concluding chapter by writing, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature” (6:15).  This is what we are when we know Christ by faith.  We are new creatures in Christ and old things have passed away and all things have become new (2 Cor. 5:17).  We worship God in a new way, on a new day, with a new law, and with a full assurance of faith.

Notes:

1. Myron Houghton, “Distinguishing Law and Grace,” Faith Pulpit, June/July, 1998.

2. Alva J. McClain, Law and Grace (Chicago:  Moody press, 1967) 33.

3. L.S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. IV (Dallas:  Dallas Seminary Press, 1969) 159.

4. Douglas Moo, “The law of Christ as the fulfillment of the law of Moses:  A modified Lutheran view,” Five Views on Law and Gospel, Stanley Gundry, ed., (Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 1999) 359.

5. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Israelology:  The Missing Link in Systematic Theology (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1989) 663.

6. Charles Lee Feinberg, “The Sabbath and the Lord’s Day,” Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1938.

7. D.R. de Lacey, “The Sabbath/Sunday Question and the Law in the Pauline Corpus,” From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, D.A. Carson, ed., (Eugene:  Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1982) 172.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Why We Love The Brethren

Written by Rick Shrader

Why We Love The Brethren

by Rick Shrader

Love is one of those things that almost all people think they possess.  Brotherly love is something that almost all believers would say they possess and practice as well as most Christians.  We know God has loved the world of people, that believers ought to love other believers, and yet we also know that there is a lot of hypocrisy hidden behind hand shaking, back slapping, and the common, “God bless you.”  

The fact is, this is a broken world!  We are very aware that it is God’s world in the sense that He is the Creator and Owner, but sin has made it a fallen world with Satan as the god of its commerce and culture, who has taken over and usurped the Owner’s position.  The longer time rolls on since that fateful day of Adam’s choice, and the longer the Lord delays His coming, the more broken it will become.

God has a plan, however, for the future of this world and for eternity.  Through redemption that is provided by faith in Jesus Christ, His Son, God is taking the world back one person at a time.  Eventually, Christ Himself will return and finish the takeover and bring in everlasting righteousness and peace where these redeemed ones will reign with Him in the “kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him” (Jas. 2:5).  The present evangelistic enterprise has both a broad and narrow scope to it.  Whosoever will believe the message of redemption and future reward may become a part of this great company of saints (Jn. 3:16).  Yet, no one may come any other way (Jn. 14:6).  Those who do come have a distinguishing mark upon them from public baptism, the confession of their new-found faith and their change of allegiance.  They also have a retreat center called the church, where they meet weekly and sometimes daily to strengthen their resolve and to make plans for the continuation of their mission.

These believers find themselves in stark contrast with their former comrades.  In an almost surprising realization, they find that their former friends resent their conversion and the change that has come over them and they “speak evil” against them (1 Pet. 2:12; 3:16; 4:4).  But no wonder!  These converts have experienced a new birth that has made them new creatures by a wonderful regeneration performed by the Holy Spirit of God (Tit. 3:5).

Out of love, these converts speak to their former comrades of a coming day of wrath and judgment from God upon those who refuse to accept the proffered salvation.  But this only brings more resentment and even retaliation from these former friends.  They do not believe that a God of love can also be wrathful, even over outright sinfulness and unrighteousness.  They are usually the same ones who have a hard time with the “rule of law” in their own civil society.  For them, law and love just don’t go together.

So the feud between families continues, sparked by Satan himself who has “blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them” (2 Cor. 4:4).  Satan is “the accuser of the brethren” (Rev. 12:10) and keeps this war stirred up, even to a fever pitch at times, while the saints continue to speak what the worldlings consider “hate speech.”  Though this “gospel” continues to make Satan angry and many of his worldlings hateful, many are also converted by its wonderful message of redemption and they return to their rightful Owner.  With children and future generations at stake, believers continue their weekly retreats and the waging of their holy war to rescue more of Satan’s captives.

The preceding is a depiction of spiritual life for the believer while still on this earth.  It is a reminder of how badly we need the local church and how we need local churches to remain faithful to their purpose in Scripture.  While doing some reading recently I was reminded of a Barna survey in which he found that Christians don’t live any differently than non-Christians.1 The problem is that Barna assumes that anyone who says he’s a Christian really is a Christian, and if that person doesn’t live differently because of his faith, then evidently the Christian faith doesn’t really change people.  Barna should have concluded, of course, that if a person makes a profession of faith in Christ and his life doesn’t change, he should seriously question whether his faith is real.  That would be the Biblical way to look at it because the Bible definitely tells us that salvation changes a person.

 

 

Some Immediate Changes

One of the major changes that takes place in a person’s life when he becomes a believer is his view of other believers.  The immediate common thread that exists among believers is that they have all come out of darkness into light (1 Pet. 2:9).  If they understand the Bible at all they realize that they were under the condemnation and righteous wrath of God, and now have been delivered by God’s grace.  They have become members one of another in the family of God (Eph. 4:25).  This love for the family of God is shed abroad in the hearts of believers  from the moment of spiritual conception (Rom. 5:5).  This new love of God’s family is called “love of the brethren” (1 Jn. 3:14), the “brotherhood” (1 Pet. 2:17), or just “brothers” and “sisters,” “fathers” and “mothers” (1 Tim. 5:1-2).  Jesus first called His followers “brethren” on the day of His resurrection (John 20:17) and early in the church’s life the whole group is addressed the same (Acts 6:3).  Acts 15 has eleven references to the same wording.  It is a family relationship.

A second major change that takes place when anyone is converted from Satan’s lordship to Christ’s is that they are no longer part of the old way of life, or what the Bible calls the “world.”  Immediately the Holy Spirit begins changing them from the inside out.  Because they are “new creatures” (2 Cor. 5:17) in Christ, Holy Spirit conviction and instruction from the Word of God begins changing their mind and heart.  They are uncomfortable in the old worldly settings.  The very language that used to flow so easily from their mouth now offends themselves!  The sins that were so easily committed and enjoyed by the flesh now bring conviction and a desire to be removed from them entirely.

A third change comes especially on Sunday.  This used to be a day off, or a day to sober up, or a day to sleep in.  Now the new believer learns that this is the day when, from the very beginning (John 20:19, 26), believers have met together, yes, are commanded to meet together (Heb. 10:25; 1 Cor: 16:2; Acts 20:7).  In fact, these believers love and enjoy these meetings so much that they meet twice on Sunday and then again on Wednesday evening, and fill their calendar with various other meetings!  The new convert cannot miss the fact that he should be in church with the other brethren, especially on Sunday.

Some Expected Changes

As the new believer grows in Christ and time allows him to observe a few things, he learns for the first time what many of us take for granted.  He learns that the church is made up of Christians, that is, people who have been converted as he was.  It is not just a place for religious-feeling people who like to make a show of religion on Sunday.  These are truly born again people who have been changed from their old lives also.

He also finds that the church has two obligations (we like to call them ordinances) to which he is being orientated.  He finds that baptism is not only  a pattern in Scripture (Acts 2:41, 8:36; 9:18; 10:47; etc.) but it is something he must do immediately for the sake of his own conscience (1 Pet. 3:21).  The other ordinance, the Lord’s Supper, now becomes a significant and rewarding experience, and something graciously shared among other believers.

The new believer also begins an immediate but life-long study of the Bible.  In fact, his hunger for the Word of God is like a baby who desires milk (1 Pet. 2:2), he cannot get enough of it.  Yes, he is discouraged by the time wasted in his life, and he realizes how far behind he is from other believers.  But the great advantage he finds is that the Bible is a book!  His knowledge is only limited by himself.  He can read to his heart’s content and study so that he is no longer ashamed by his lack of knowledge (2 Tim. 2:15).  Best of all, he finds that the Bible is a powerful sword in his struggle for the mastery of his own life and passions (Heb. 4:16).

As a believer begins studying the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit, he is going to find an intense urging toward holiness.  From the fact that his Heavenly Father is holy (1 Pet. 1:15,16), to the fact that His Savior is holy (1 Pet. 2:22), to the fact that the Spirit within him is holy (1 Thes. 4:8), this believer knows he is also called to holiness (1 Thes. 4:7).  This intense desire to be like the One who saved him will grow naturally within him like a branch which reproduces the qualities and fruitfulness of the vine (John 15:1-8).

Some Gradual Changes

As anyone grows in Christ and becomes mature in his Christian walk, certain realities of the Christian life become clear.  Sin is real, and forgiveness is real.  Deciphering how sin remains in the believer even though Christ has justified him from all sin, past, present, and future, can become a daunting, even discouraging task.  It can be a defeating experience if the new believer falls under bad theology.  But gradually the believer learns that he is secure in his salvation by the blood of Christ and yet his sin can be confessed boldly at the throne of God because he is God’s child (1 John 1:6-2:2).

Sooner or later the new believer will realize that there are tares among the wheat, wolves among the sheep, false belief among the true.  Hypocrisy is not primarily the failure of Christians (he already has learned about his own sin) but is the presence of unbelief among true belief.  How is it that someone could make a claim of being born again and not really be born again?  With a little thought, however, this can be a liberating new truth, not a discouraging one.  It is not that the claims of Christianity are not true (as Barna mistakenly concluded) but that the false claims about Christianity are truly false.  An unbeliever cannot live as a Christian and a Christian cannot live as an unbeliever.  Sooner or later the oil and water will separate.

The new believer may be surprised at his new desire to see his old friends saved.  He still remembers the anger he felt when Christians tried to witness to him and how he despised them for pushing their religion on him.  Now he feels the need to do the same!  This comes partly out of his new understanding of their spiritual condition, but also out of his natural love for people who are in danger (Jude 22-23).  This will probably be a school of hard knocks.  His first attempts at sharing his faith will be rough.  But then he will find a most satisfying feeling come over him.  He will realize that he is engaged in the most wonderful work in the world.  There is nothing he could be doing that would be more helpful to his fellow man in this world or the next (1 Tim. 4:8-10).  This understanding will cause him to withstand the most brutal opposition, such as he himself used to dish out.  What if those believers had given up on him!

A true believer will also learn to love the brethren.  This is not just an empathy for some individual believer who is having a rough time of it, though that is a vital part also.  Loving the brethren means to love who brethren are.  It means to love what brethren ought to be.  It is to learn from the Scripture what Christians would be like if they lived totally for God and to want to be like that!  It is this love that brings the believer to church.  It is this love that causes the backslidden, discouraged believer to come back into fellowship.  The love of the brethren is the love of Christ.  The brethren were first called “Christians” at Antioch because they were like Christ (Acts 1:26).  Brotherly love is Christian love.

And So . . .

“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold all things are become new.  And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:17-18).

Notes:
1. D.A. Carson (The God Who Is There) reminded me of this old survey and made the same comment about it I’m making.
 

 

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

In Jesus’ Name

Written by Rick Shrader

In Jesus’ Name

by Rick Shrader

12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever.

John 14:12-16

 

Jesus has admonished us to bring our petitions before God in His name.  The pronouncing of the words “in Jesus’ name” at the end of our prayers has become a proper and common ending.  Though I want us to rethink what these beautiful words mean, I will not at all argue for the removal of them from our prayers.  There is no doubt that they are used carelessly, maybe even most of the time.  But that is a matter of inattentiveness, not profanity.  I love to hear my young grandchildren pray their prayers as they rise to the final crescendo, “In Jesus’ name, Amen!”

The words, no doubt, are sometimes used as a sort of “abracadabra” as if, in just repeating the sacred line, our prayers must be answered in just the way we want.  Others may look at it as a blank check from the Savior Who, evidently, was asking us to fill in the blank because He had already signed the bottom line.  Even though we often pronounce the words without thinking, we are aware that such is not the meaning of our Lord.

I believe all of our prayers are answered because they are always heard (1 Jn. 5:15).  However, few of them are answered in the way we ask because our prayers are usually selfish.  “Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts” (Jas. 4:3).  I believe God even hears the profanity of the lost as they ask God to “damn” this or that because Jesus said, “But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment” (Matt. 12:36).  Yet Peter reminds us from the Psalms that “the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers” (1 Pet. 3:12); and James also says, “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much” (Jas. 5:16).  A lost man cannot pray in Jesus’ name because the Holy Spirit is not his Advocate, but any believer can and should.

Jesus reminded His disciples of the great miracles which He had done (vs. 12).  These apostles would also do miracles, albeit lesser than those of their Lord.  What were the “greater works” (lit. “things”) they would do specifically “because” Jesus would return to the Father?  These must be related to the Holy Spirit Who would come to the believers (at Pentecost) in exchange for Jesus returning to heaven and His place at the Father’s right hand.  That is why the subject in the remaining of this chapter is the Holy Spirit’s dwelling in believers.  When Jesus is gone, He cannot do works on earth except through others.  The vine does not bear fruit but the branch.  The head does not do work but the body.  The disciples are left to do Jesus’ work on the earth in His absence.  But, oh, what a daunting task!  How can they do such a thing?  They will do it by asking the Father to do it through them for Jesus “that the Father may be glorified in the Son” though He will be in heaven.  And, in addition, Jesus will leave the believers with a double Advocacy:  Jesus in heaven, at the right hand of God, and the Holy Spirit (“another Comforter”) on earth, actually indwelling the believer.  A “near” and a “far” Advocate.  The gospel era would see souls saved that could not have happened unless Jesus ascended back to heaven to intercede with His blood and the Holy Spirit descended to earth to convict the world of sin and judgment.  And in addition, these souls would not be saved without a preacher who will work with both Advocates.

Greater Works?  “What St. Peter did at Pentecost, and St. Paul did throughout the world,—what a simple preacher, a simple believer effects in causing the Spirit to descend into a heart—Jesus could not do during His sojourn on earth.”1 Yet these greater things are precipitated on the possessor of the Holy Spirit asking them to be done “in Jesus’ name.”  If this is not a simple polite closing on a prayer, then what is it?  The answer may have many facets.

 

 

In His Place

The first way in which we ask in the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, is that we simply ask from earth where Jesus no longer dwells.  We ask in His place.  But Jesus is also where we cannot yet be—in heaven.  “Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us . . . Come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need” (Heb. 4:14, 16).  In the same way, Paul said that “we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20).

We are now the ones doing the work of Christ on the earth.  God still intends this work to go on even in Christ’s absence and He is eager to help us since we are doing it in the place of Christ.  I once attended a meeting for my father-in-law and introduced myself as coming in his place.  I was welcomed by all and was accepted as if my father-in-law had been there himself.  I would not say I did as good a job as he would have, but that was my lack of expertise, not his.

 

By His Merits

The second way in which we ask in Jesus’ name is to ask that the merit or moral authority of Jesus be applied to our prayers.  When Jesus gave the disciples the great commission, He said that “all power” (lit. “authority”) had been given to Him (Matt. 28:18-20).  He then instructed them to disciple, baptize, and teach under that authority.  Baptism was to be done, “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”  This authority to baptize was carried on in the name of Jesus throughout the book of Acts.2

Answered prayer isn’t my reward for proper living.  Prayer is the proper appeal that the righteousness of Jesus Christ be allowed to work through me.  Yes, He lives forever to make intercession for us (Heb. 7:25), but this is so that His holy work will continue. “For such an high priest became us (was becoming of us, magnified to us) who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens” (Heb. 7:26).  As in my justification where God looks beyond me and sees the righteousness of Christ, and on THAT basis treats me as “accepted in the Beloved” (Eph. 1:6), so when I pray in Jesus’ name, God looks beyond me and my faults and hears me by the merits of Christ’s own righteousness.  How sad, then, to pray by my own merits rather than by His glorious grace and peace.

For His Benefit

The third way in which we pray in Jesus’ name is what Jesus emphasized in verse 13, “that the Father may be glorified in the Son.”  How can prayers be answered that are prayed for the glory or recognition of the one praying?  Why pray at all if that is the motive?  But notice that God will be glorified through the Son when we pray in the Son’s name.  These kinds of prayers are done for the glory of God alone.  God is glorified through  the continued testimony of Jesus Christ, which is carried on in this age through the believer possessed by the Holy Spirit.  Every work that we do ought to be designed as part of Christ’s work.  If it is, God will be glorified because the Son is magnified.

When Jesus taught His disciples to pray, He began and ended the model prayer with glory to God.  “After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. . . . And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.  Amen” (Matt. 6:9, 13).    In Paul’s appeal to the Philippians to pray for his release, he reminded them, “For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, According to my earnest expectation and my hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death” (Phil. 1:19-20).  How often we pray for our own benefit without thinking of what would glorify God if He answered our prayer the way we prayed it.

Not what I wish, but what I want,

O let Thy grace supply;

The good unasked, in mercy grant,

The ill, though asked, deny.

William Cowper

 

With His Knowledge

The fourth way in which we can pray in Jesus’ name is to pray as one who loves to keep His commandments.  Doesn’t it seem odd that Jesus would include that 15th verse at that point?  It is almost as if the verse was lost from some other context.  But a moment’s thought may restore it properly in our minds (which is the only place verses can get lost).  We are to be the mouth and feet and hands of Jesus while we live on this earth.  His work must be done through us.  And how can this be done except by obedience?

We have two great motivations in keeping His commandments.  The first is that we love Him.  “If ye love me,” Jesus offers, then you will keep his commandments. “He acknowledges no love which does not find its expression in the observance of His laws.  These cannot be separated from the person.”3 The second motivation is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit who is “the Spirit of truth” (vs 17).  “He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance” (vs. 26).

How could we petition the Father to answer our prayers in Jesus’ name and disobey the same Lord Jesus Christ?  John repeats this same imperative in his epistle, “And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight” (1 Jn. 3:22).  “And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: and if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him” (1 Jn. 5:14-15).

The Word of God will tell us what pleases the Lord and what is in His will.  Knowledge always follows purity in the Scripture (2 Pet. 1:5; Jas. 3:17).  When we love the Lord we will want to know what pleases Him.  We add to our virtue, knowledge, and to our knowledge, perseverance.  Even our meals are “sanctified by the Word of God and prayer” (1 Tim. 4:5) because the Scripture has informed us that we can eat without condemnation and therefore we give thanks.

And So . . .

We ought to keep saying “in Jesus’ name” when we pray, but we ought to really mean it!  We rush in and out of our prayers without thinking of the great work we are doing.  Whether in a great Christian gathering or at a simple meal, let us invoke that name which is above every name and come boldly before the throne of grace!

Approach my soul, the mercy seat,

Where Jesus answers prayer;

There humbly fall before His feet,

For none can perish there.

Thy promise is my only plea;

With this I venture nigh;

Thou callest burdened souls to thee,

And such, O Lord, am I!

Bowed down beneath a load of sin,

By Satan sorely pressed,

By war without and fears within,

I come to Thee for rest.

Be Thou my shield and hiding place,

That, sheltered near Thy side,

I may my fierce accuser face,

And tell him Thou hast died.

O wondrous love! To bleed and die,

To bear the cross and shame,

That guilty sinners, such as I,

Might plead Thy gracious Name!

John Newton

Notes:
1. F. Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John , vol. II (New York:  Funk & Wagnalls, 1886) 276.
2. The formula for triune immersion remained the same, the authority to carry it out was done by the merits of Jesus Christ.
3. E.W. Hengstenberg, Commentary on the Gospel of John , vol. II (Edinburgh:  T&T Clark, 1865) 209-210.

 

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

The Providence of God and why we are tha...

Written by Rick Shrader

The Providence of God and why we are thankful

by Rick Shrader

“In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you” (1 Thes. 5:18).

“Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph. 5:20).

One of the most difficult things for us to do is to give God thanks for everything. How can we do that? Especially when we see all around us a broken world that appears to be at odds with its Creator. Yet God commands us to be thankful for all things. Some reflection on God’s very nature will help us here. We forget that God is in control and at the same time He cannot be changed by sin, brokenness, or difficulty. Whatever God does is good and perfect, and even the seeming contradictions in life are working together for the ultimate good in His plan.

We often thank God for His creation. “O LORD, how manifold are thy works! In wisdom hast thou made them all” (Psa. 104:24). “The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens” (Prov. 3:19). We also thank God for His special acts by which He has shown us His mercy and grace. “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness neither shadow of turning” (Jas. 1:17). We also know that God displays His common graces to all the world. “For he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust” (Matt. 5:45). “Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness” (Acts 14:17).

“Providence” comes from two Latin words, pro, meaning “before,” and video, meaning “to see,” and therefore often carries the meaning of “foresight.” In the doctrine of providence, however, we speak more of God’s “oversight” and control. Because God is omniscient and omnipresent, He is everywhere overseeing everything. We may think of controlling all things in some chronological order and therefore having to run from place to place. But God sees all of history like one snapshot, all at once.   “Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world” (Acts 15:18). J. Oliver Buswell rightly said, “The universal providence of God is the basic assumption of all Scripture.”1

Two old but ongoing errors regarding providence are deism and pantheism. One sees God too distant and the other sees God too close. Deism teaches that God created the world and then left it to run on its own without His interference, like winding up a clock and letting it run. Many deists have believed in God’s control and praised Him for His providence but only meant that He made a wonderfully exact time piece! Pantheism, on the other hand, teaches that everything is in fact God and therefore the world keeps itself going because it is one big universal being. Louis Berkhof wrote, “Christian theism is opposed to both a deistic separation of God from the world and a pantheistic confusion of God with the world.”2 More modern errors are panentheism, or process theology, which views God as getting smarter and more involved as time goes on. Another error is openness theology which teaches that God doesn’t know the future and can only control things by calculating what, in all probability, will happen. In contrast to these is the God of Scripture “who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will (Eph. 1:11).

Most theologies call the subject of God’s control over the world providence and some have called it preservation. Common grace is very similar but is usually dealt with separately (see Rolland McCune and Wayne Grudem). The usual way this subject is divided is into three categories: preservation, concurrence, and government. In all of these we find ourselves thankful to a great and mighty God who never leaves us nor forsakes us.

Preservation: Being thankful for all God created and maintains.

Heb. 1:3, in describing the divine attributes of Jesus Christ, says that He “upholding all things by the word of his power” sat at God’s right hand after finishing His redemptive work. The word “upholding” is from pher? meaning “to bear” or “carry.” God, in the person of Jesus Christ, continually bears or carries the whole creation along by the very word of His power. Col. 1:17 says, “And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” “Consist” (from sunistemi) gives the meaning of being framed and held together. Peter uses this word in 2 Peter 3:5, “by the word of God the heavens were of old” (lit. “were sunistemi,” were held together). God not only created the world but holds it all together by the very word of His power.

It appears from these verses that the world could not continue to operate or even exist without God’s steady hand upon it. Solomon said, “The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens. By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew” (Prov. 3:19-20). We can thank God for the dew because it comes when God wills it to come. The Psalmist writes, “He sendeth the springs into the valleys, which run among the hills. . . . He watereth the hills from his chambers; the earth is satisfied with the fruit of thy works. . . . He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down. . . . O LORD, how manifold are thy works!” (Psa. 104:10, 13, 19).

It should not be thought that God leaves no room for secondary causes (as we will see in the next point) but that He oversees everything that happens for the best possible result, considering the fallen nature of man and the brokenness of this world. It is not like the cruise control on your car which can be set at a certain speed and then the foot can relax. It is like the gas pedal that needs a constant pressure so that you don’t go too fast or too slow. God knows exactly (precisely, minutely, explicitly) how the whole universe needs to run and always applies the right amount of pressure at every instant.

Concurrence: Being thankful for all God does with us and through us.

“Concurrence” means agreement or union in action. God also works with His creation, especially His sapient creatures, to perform His providential work. So Psalm 104 also says,   He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and the herb for the service of man” (14). God makes the herb to grow but man has to till the ground if it is going to become food. “The trees of the LORD are full of sap, the cedars of Lebanon, which he hath planted; where the birds make their nests: as for the stork, the fir trees are her house” (16-17). God makes the trees to grow but the birds are busy making nests.

Charles Hodge likens this cooperation to the sun, “which affects different objects in different ways. The same solar ray softens wax and hardens clay. It calls the germinating force of all seeds into action, but does not determine the nature of that action.”3 This is partly why good and bad happen under God’s providence. God makes a tree and one man makes a boat that floats and another man makes one that sinks. God causes fire to happen because He has made the elements of His creation to combust, but one man warms himself by his fire and the arsonist burns someone else’s home with his fire. One man makes a bullet from God’s raw material for food and protection, but the murderer uses it to kill. And in it all, God holds each one responsible for how he has used, or cooperated with, God’s provision.

Without this concurrence within God’s providence there would be no science, for man could not make experiments that could be tested with the same criteria again and again. Technology would not be possible if man did not know that raw materials will respond the same way each time they are molded or formed. We easily recognize the secondary causes in these things because we see the materials or watch the construction and testing and sometimes witness the tragedies or failures. But we often forget that the primary cause is God though His hand is invisible to us. I may plant a garden but I would still have no food if God had not created the herb yielding seed after its kind.   Believers who have the eyes of faith should, of all people, be thankful “always for all things.”

Government: Being thankful for all God plans and brings to completion.

This third division differs from the first two in that we also see God using His creation and His providential hand to bring about His will and to bring all of creative history to its appointed end. As with concurrence, God uses even imperfections and evil to bring about good purposes. Joseph’s brothers thought to do evil when they sold him into slavery in Egypt, but Joseph reminded them of God’s providence, “But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive” (Gen. 50:20). God used Babylon to punish Israel and called that wicked nation “the sword of the Lord” because it served His purpose with Israel. Paul said in prison, “For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:19).

Sometimes God’s governmental providence is called His “secret will” as opposed to His “revealed will.” We all do difficult things that no one sees or notices in order to bring about a greater good or a long range plan. So God works in ways that seem mysterious to us but in the end will bring about His eternal good.

Not long ago I showed Samantha, a young Sunday School girl, how the word “history” could be divided into “His-story.” She looked at it and said, “cool.” Yes! and that is why we all love Rom. 8:28, “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” This is how we can understand David in the 103rd Psalm, “The LORD hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all. Bless the LORD, ye his angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word. Bless ye the LORD, all ye his hosts; ye ministers of his, that do his pleasure. Bless the LORD, all his works in all places of his dominion: bless the LORD, O my soul.”

 

And So . . . .

Even more could be said about God’s miraculous interventions into His creation, those special providences where the very “laws” of nature were broken for His purposes. It is generally agreed that providence, like common grace, does not lead the sinner to Christ. It witnesses (Acts 14:16-17) and informs (Rom. 1:20) but it takes the preaching of the gospel for conversion to take place (Rom. 10:14). We can wrestle with supposed “accidents” or “chance” happenings or even the problem of evil. Yet the believer will never lose faith even when bad things occur. He knows that Almighty God maintains His creation and holds His children in His hand. Our life is hid with Christ in God (Col. 3:3) and that is all the comfort we need.

____________________________________________

Notes:
1. J. Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980) 174.
2. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapdis: Eerdmans, 1977) 165.
3. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol I (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) 599.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Apostasy, Then and Now

Written by Rick Shrader

Apostasy, Then and Now

by Rick Shrader

I think we have finally gotten over any love of Halloween in our churches.  That pagan holiday with its ghosts and goblins, witches and broomsticks, can thankfully be gone from our church calendars.  I don’t know of any Christian church that celebrated it this year.  When the origins of customs remain unknown and harmless (such as birthday cakes or where the days of the week got their names) we may use and enjoy without offense.  But when the pagan and anti-Christian meanings reappear we must set them aside.

But in this holiday season, indeed in the end of this present age, I fear a deeper and far more deceptive danger lurks within our churches.  From my periodic reading of the book of Jude as well as 2 Peter 2, I was struck by the reality that in the last times there will be false prophets among the people (2 Pet. 2:1) and certain men crept in unawares (Jude 4) who will do irreparable harm to the churches.  We usually call such people apostates, people who are pretenders and not real believers yet who stay among the believers and lead them astray into much unchristian belief and activity.  We have known these prophecies of Jude and Peter but it had not struck me in such a way that if we are indeed in the end times we must be seeing the very fulfillment of these predictions.  We could call this the great apostasy that will come at the end of the age.  We might call this the signs of the times.  But by whatever description, Scripture often says that such times will come when the end of the age of grace is near.  Paul tells Timothy, “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils (1 Tim. 4:1).  In the second epistle he says again, “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come” (2 Tim. 3:1).  And again, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears” or who tickle the ears (2 Tim. 4:3).  In both the book of Jude and Second Peter, these apostates come into the churches, among God’s people, therefore before the rapture of the church, and draw away the disciples after them.

I’m certainly not a date-setter nor do I believe that anything yet has to happen before the rapture may occur, but I can still believe that these verses speak of a phenomenon that is happening in our day and age.  Or I might say it this way, that even if this isn’t THE end of the age, the same things are happening now in our churches that will happen when THE end of the age comes.  Either way it is not very pleasant to see the effects of apostasy on the Lord’s churches.

The Lord had very stern words for the churches at Pergamos and Thyatira for allowing teachers to come in and destroy the flock like Balaam allowed Balak to “cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols and to commit fornication” (Rev. 2:14), or like Jezebel who seduced Israel to do the same (2:20). If our shoe fits the description of Jude and Peter we will have to wear it also.  Jude wanted to write of the common salvation (Jude 3) but this danger is so destructive that he was led by the Holy Spirit to change his subject matter and deal with this error.  He urged the believers to “earnestly contend for the faith” and not just sit by and let this cancer progress.  But I wonder, at the end of the age, if we will let the disease go or if we will purge it from our bodies.  Will the true believers be removed and the apostate church be left to the antichrist?  Will the true church remain faithful to the end?  Time will tell.

I find at least twelve damaging characteristics of end-time apostates in Jude and Second Peter.  One doesn’t have to look far to find parallels in the churches today.  In fact, they are so common I don’t even need to find examples to prove my point.  The reader, no doubt, will know of many himself.

 

Unsaved

The most profound characteristic is that these apostates are not even born again.  Jude says they deny “the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 4).  Peter says they are “false” prophets (1), reserved for the day of judgment (9), will “perish in their own corruption” (12), and for whom “the mist of darkness is reserved forever” (17).  A hypocrite in the Bible (contrary to popular belief) is usually a lost person.  He is not a true believer living poorly but is a poor unbeliever pretending to live truly, and can’t.

 

Among us

Jude says they “crept in unawares” (4) and feast among the believers “without fear” of reprisal (12).  Peter says they are “among the people” (1) and “feast with you” (13).  Imagine!  Like Judas, they have given some testimony of salvation and received baptism.  Paul told the Galatians they were “false brethren unawares brought in” (Gal. 2:4).  All of these descriptions come from words that mean to come in stealthily, falsely.

We don’t have an “easy believeism” problem today, we have a “no believeism” problem!  We may have made our mistakes in the past by promoting too many quick salvation decisions but even that was better than requiring no specific decision or experience.  Today a person is received in the church with a personal angel-sighting story!  And they feast among us without fear of conviction.

 

Ungodly

Jude uses the word “ungodly” six times in this short one-chapter book, four of those times in verse 15.  In verse four he simply says of these men that they are “ungodly men.”  Peter compares them to the ungodly in Noah’s day and those in Sodom and Gomorrah (5-6).  “Ungodly” (a-sebes) is the opposite of “pious” (eu-sebes).  The ancient name Eusebius comes from the latter.  The root (sebos) means to venerate, to reverence, to worship, to stand in awe.  With an “eu” prefix it means that such people do these things well and are “pious.”  With an “a” prefix it means they do not do them at all.

Is it possible to have people in our churches who do not truly worship God; who do not stand in awe of Him; and who do not show reverence to Him?  Jude says that the apostles “told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts” (18).  Jude’s readers evidently knew these kinds of apostates were there and had done nothing about it.  Maybe like the Corinthians (and many today), they boasted in their broad-mindedness (1 Cor. 5:6).

 

Disrespectful

“Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities” (Jude 8).  Peter adds that they are “presumptuous” and “self-willed” (10).  Disrespect has fallen into disrepair today.  In those days, however, it was a matter of utmost importance.  A man could not hold church office if his children were disrespectful or disobedient (Tit. 1:6).  Both Jude and Peter use Michael the archangel as the example of showing respect to authorities, even to Satan, the former Lucifer himself!  (Jude 9, 2 Pet. 2:11).  But, says Peter, these disrespectful church members are acting like brute beasts (12) who have no conscience of right and wrong and are destroyed without a second thought.  These apostates will truly act like “animals” even in the churches.

 

Lustful

In both chapters under consideration, more space is given to this vice than any others.  Believers who have the Restrainer living within them struggle enough with this sin, but unbelievers who have only the common graces of the world to restrain them, will fall to this sin overtly.  These hypocritical apostates turn “the grace of our God into lasciviousness” (Jude 4), “defile the flesh” (8), “walk after their own ungodly lusts” (18), and are “sensual” (19).  Peter says they have “pernicious ways” (2), have “eyes full of adultery” (14), and “allure through the lusts of the flesh” (18).  And all of this within the local church!  Peter’s statement about adultery may be translated “having eyes for an adulteress” or someone who is always looking for his next victim.

Our churches have to take extra precautions because of liabilities as it is.  But I wonder if the performance mentality coupled with self-centered immodesty doesn’t also feed this sin of lust.  Most modesty is seen as old-fashioned prudishness and even in-house directives for modest dress on the church platform is seen as some kind of legalism.  Then we wonder why so many of our own Christian kids have fewer moral standards than the world’s kids.  This apostate characteristic will grow worse and worse as the age draws to a close.  There will be more “lovers of pleasures” than “lovers of God” (2 Tim. 3:4).

 

Make Merchandise

Apostates are in it for what they can get out of it.  Jude says they have “men’s persons in admiration because of advantage” (16).  This literally means they “admire faces for advantage.”  Peter says, “through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you” (3).  The words “shall make merchandise” come from emporeuomai from which we get our word “emporium.”  They made God’s house into an emporium, a house of business, or a market place.  Jesus used this same word when He  aggressively drove such moneychangers from the temple because they had made God’s house of prayer into a house of “merchandise” (Jn. 2:16).  Paul told Timothy that some perverse men think that “gain is godliness” (1 Tim. 6:5) or, literally, “that godliness is a means of gain.”

Surely we have many today that are using the church to make a lot of money.  Like lust, this has always been a problem in ministry, but the avenues for revenues are broader than ever.  Dan Lucarini, in his new book (see my review above), says of the contemporary Christian music business,

Now you know the truth about the images you are ‘allowed’ to see.  There are powerful and prideful creative forces at work behind the scenes, spending enormous sums of money, time and talent and using all the tricks of the trade.  The sole purpose is to manipulate the images of the same artists and worship leaders who are supposed to lead us in authentic praise and worship.  No matter what compromised excuse they may give for this, it is no less than ‘Christianized’ idol worship and the marketing of worship for a profit.1

Whether it is the health, wealth, and prosperity gospel or the snake-oil healer, we should say with Peter, “Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.  Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God” (Acts 8:20-21).

Promise Liberty

Peter says that, “while they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage” (19).  Jude refers to the same when he says that these apostates turn “the grace of God into lasciviousness” (4).  Paul said that in the last days these will have “a form of godliness” but will deny “the power thereof” (2 Tim. 3:5).  Peter ended his chapter with the sad words about many being led down a false path to liberty but finding servitude to the world and the flesh to which they return like a dog to his vomit (20-22).  Many years ago J. C. Ryle wrote, “I should like to know what doctrine of the Gospel has not been abused.  Salvation by grace has been made a pretext for licentiousness.”2 The abuse is abundantly apparent in our day.

 

And So . . . .

I could add many more to the list from these two chapters.  Without a doubt our day fits the end time scenario described by Jude and Peter.  We cannot know if this is THE end time or whether our time is just amazingly similar to that time.  In either case, the situation for the church is dire.  Yet for every Pergamos and Thyatira there is a Smyrna and a Philadelphia.  For every Balaam and Jezebel there is a Daniel and an Esther.  Even if we have left our first love we can remember, repent, and redo so we won’t be removed.  May God give us grace to that end.

 

Notes:
1. Dan Lucarini, It’s Not About The Music (England & USA:  Evangelical Press, 2010) 129.
2. J.C. Ryle, “Watch”, Our Blessed Hope, Joseph Seiss, ed. (Philadelphia: Garner, 1884) 47.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Is Holiness A Doctrine?

Written by Rick Shrader

Is Holiness A Doctrine?

by Rick Shrader

I was born in 1950.  The last half of the twentieth century and now into the first half of the twenty first has been an interesting time to be alive.  In addition to the fast and ever-changing world in which we live, I think the church life of the average American believer has been an interesting phenomenon.  Seeing the change in what was expected of a Sunday School boy in the 1950s to what the average boy in church may experience today is different to say the least.  I can vividly remember the turbulent 60s and the sudden change that came to my high school, my friends, and to the American culture in which I had grown up.  The church wasn’t the same either.  Going through Bible College, Seminary, Graduate School, church staff positions, teaching positions, and then pastoring since 1985 has painted a diverse picture of ministry during those years as well.  Many of my earlier peers and friends in ministry are now 180 degrees from where I am in philosophy of ministry.  Others that were very different then are very similar to me today.  I’m talking about our fundamental Baptist churches and schools.

I was reminded of these things a few days ago while having lunch with the son of an old college friend.  He and I obviously differed on philosophy of ministry, especially in the area of worship style, music, and other “contemporary” trends.  I liked the young man.  What’s not to like?  He was articulate, nice looking, polite, technologically astute, and interested in conversation.  As with most discussions around these topics, the question came down to music and worship style and why we all can’t have common ground in ministry causes.  His most specific point was that he didn’t see these things as fundamental doctrines.  He didn’t see chapter and verse, “black and white” reasons for making an issue over the differences.  Though we talked about a number of topics, my primary reason for disagreement was “the doctrine of holiness.”  His response was that he didn’t see holiness as a doctrine, at least not like the trinity, or the virgin birth, or the second coming of Christ.  These have black and white parameters.  Holiness is a word that needs to be defined.   We eventually ended our lunch on a good note and parted better friends than when we had begun.  But we were certainly no closer together on philosophy than before.

I have thought about my answer  for a while.  It didn’t seem very convincing to him but it was truly my very reason for not liking the contemporary approach to worship.  I had the same feeling last summer when my wife and I, with my sister and brother-in-law, attended Andy Stanley’s church while visiting in Atlanta.  To me there was a definite lack of reverence.  It felt more like attending a sporting event than a church.   Why is it that I (in this case, we) feel that way but, obviously, many others do not, especially younger people?

Is holiness a doctrine?  Is it something I can nail down and practice in my life or is it something nebulous that defines itself according to every person’s point of view?  We have created this wall between interpretation and application of biblical texts.  In this issue I’m reviewing a book on music by Scott Aniol.  He uses the term “encyclopedic” to describe the view that imperatives only come by specific wording of Scripture (“chapter and verse”), but applications made from the existing text (what he calls the “encompassing view”) cannot and should not become moral imperatives on any believer.  He says,

Some argue that if the Bible does not address a particular moral issue, believers have complete liberty to do as they please.  In other words, absence of biblical directive implies moral neutrality.  If God had an opinion on a particular issue, they argue, He would have given His people instructions.  Rather, morally neutral actions matter only with regard to the subjective motive or conscience of the individual.1

In other words, “if you can give me chapter and verse which says contemporary music is wrong for church use, I’ll agree.  Otherwise don’t appeal to mere holiness as a reason.  Holiness is just a word after all.  What one person thinks is holy another person thinks it is not.  Holiness is too subjective of a reason upon which to base moral decisions.”

Now, it is true that we have to be careful with our biblical application because history tells us surely that many wrong practices have been based on wrong application of Scripture.  This is why we take so much time with biblical interpretation.  If we interpret those applicational passages correctly, we build a proper foundation upon which to apply principles.  Keeping the passage in context means to follow grammatical, historical, and theological guidelines.  How else could we follow Paul’s admonition to avoid the works of the flesh which include, “envying, murders, drunkenness, reveling, and such like” (Gal. 5:21).  What is “such like?”  Can we really know, since that takes proper application of the text?  He did the same thing to the Ephesians when he described the church as “not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing” (Eph. 5:27).  What is a “such thing?”  That takes an application of the Scripture to supply the proper “such thing” in that blank spot (see also Rom. 1:32; Heb. 11:14).  If I put in there “anything that would be a moral spot or wrinkle in the church,” would that be correct?  How about anger?  How about cursing?  How about pride?  Don’t I have an obligation from this text to apply something that fits the context?  And when I read “But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation (anastrophæ, conduct)” (1 Pet. 1:15), I have to put something in that spot called “all manner of conversation or conduct.”  I am saying that I think music that is designed by the world, and which we have borrowed for the church’s use, cannot fit the requirement presented by this verse for holy conduct.

This line of reasoning may sound subjective, and I believe it is.  But it is subjective in a necessary way.  My application of holiness will depend on how I have applied myself to the things of God; how I have read and understood His Word; how I have walked by the leading and conviction of the Holy Spirit; and whether I desire to please God or men.  To use an extreme example, I remember a Christian college student, away from home living in a secular college dormitory, telling me that his lustful thoughts were all right because God made him with those physical and emotional urges.  His problem was his walk with God, not his physical make-up.  Therefore he could not apply biblical principles to his everyday situation.

A quick perusal through my systematic theology bookshelf quickly confirmed to me that theologians think holiness is a doctrine.  In fact, it is the first attribute of God listed in most of them and usually receives the most space.  Strong says, “Here we have an ultimate reason and ground for being and doing right, namely, that God is right, or, in other words, that holiness is his nature” (Systematic Theology, 302).  Berkhof (who calls this attribute of God “majestic holiness”) says, “The fundamental idea of the ethical holiness of God is also that of separation, but in this case it is a separation from moral evil or sin” (Systematic Theology, 73).  Ryrie insightfully says, “The holiness of God becomes the standard for the believer’s life and conduct (1 Jn. 1:7).  This should put to an end the often useless discussions over what is permitted and what is not in the Christian life.  Proper conduct can be tested by the simple question, Is it holy?  This is the believer’s standard.  While he does not always measure up to it, he must never compromise it” (Basic Theology, 39).

In 2003 R. Kent Hughes wrote a book titled, Set Apart: calling a worldly church to a Godly life. In the preface he wrote, “Among evangelicals, there is a great disconnect between (on the one hand) what Christians believe and assimilate from sermons and Christian sources and how (on the other hand) they actually live.  It is this very disconnect that is the subject of this book.”2 Holiness is a setting apart to God.  We have lost this as a doctrine because we only assimilate teaching that fits our agendas and no longer strive for teaching that stretches our spirituality.  We want to say we are doctrinally sound yet we do not want our doctrine to change our lives.  We want to appear sane to the world yet we don’t want to be set apart from the world.  To be set apart means to be separated.  Even the very sound of those words brings negative thoughts to believers today.  While I am familiar with (and have heard most applied to me) all of the pejorative descriptions that have been given to separation (“holy huddles,” “head in the sand,” “hide in your office”), the fact is they are wrong and the Scripture is right and I must live by the Scripture.

First of all, holiness is a witness to a lost world.  Jesus said that to be persecuted for righteousness’ sake should make us rejoice because men will see our good works and glorify our Father which is in heaven (Matt. 5:10-12).  Peter echoed the same sentiment.  When we are reproached for Christ we are happy “for the Spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified” (1 Pet. 5:14).    The idea of holiness as a means of witness to the world has completely turned around in my life time.  Today, believers are more apt to think that assimilation in the world is a better witness than separation from the world.  Have we forgotten that to be a friend with the world is to be the enemy of God (Jas. 4:4)?

Second, holiness ought to come from an urging within our souls.  God “hated” the deeds of the Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:6, 15).  His holy nature could allow no other feeling.  But Paul had to tell the Thessalonians that they were called to holiness and that if anyone despised holiness he “despiseth not man but God, who hath also given unto us his Holy Spirit” (1 Thes. 4:8).  How can we say we love God and despise holiness?  I love my wife and keep myself pure for her because of a deep desire within me.  Could it be less with my love for God?

Third, holiness is a means to power with God.  The Corinthian believers had lost their power with God because of their worldly ways.  They were unequally yoked with all kinds of ungodly things.  Paul, therefore, urged them to come out from among those things and be separate.  Then they would know God as “the Lord Almighty” (2 Cor. 6:14-18).  Scripture is full of stories about God’s people who lost their power because they lost their close walk with God (e.g. Adam, Achan, Sampson, Hezekiah, et al).

Fourth, holiness is a natural reaction to this world.  That is, for the Christian, it is a natural reaction.  John can command us not to love this world (1 Jn. 2:15) because that is what the Christian ought not to love.  Peter can remind us that the time past in our lives was plenty of time to live in the flesh (1 Pet. 4:3) and that now it is time for holy living.  Paul reminded us that we had no fruit in those things for which we are now ashamed (Rom. 6:21).

Fifth, holiness is an anticipation of heaven.  Paul was jealous for the purity of the Corinthian church because he wanted to present them as a chaste virgin to Christ (2 Cor. 11:2).  The same was true of the Colossians (Col. 1:22) and all of his churches (2 Cor. 11:28).  He reminded the Philippians that their “conversation” ought to be in heaven, not on earth, “from whence also we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like his glorious body” (Phil. 3:20-21).  If we have the hope of heaven in us, we purify ourselves as He is pure (1 Jn. 3:2).  When we study the throne room of God in Ezekiel’s prophecy, or the millennial reign of Christ in Isaiah, or the New Jerusalem in John’s Revelation, how can we not respond with a holy life in anxious anticipation for those future rewards?

 

And So . . .

Yes, I think holiness is a doctrine.  If the first of two great commandments is to love the Lord our God with all our heart, and soul, and strength, and mind (Lk. 10:27), then surely we will present our bodies a living sacrifice which is holy and acceptable to God (Rom. 12:1).  Isn’t that our reasonable service?

 

Notes:
Scott Aniol.  Worship in Song (Winona Lake:  BMH Books, 2009) 4.
R. Kent Hughes, Set Apart (Wheaton:  Crossway Books, 2003)  10.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More