Skip to main content

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

Things that Peep and Mutter

Written by Rick Shrader

Things that Peep and Mutter

by Rick Shrader

“And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?  To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isa. 8:19-20).

 

The problem of believers seeking information from extra-biblical sources is certainly not new.  About a hundred years ago, chief of Criminal Investigation of Scotland Yard, Sir Robert Anderson, wrote, “Tidings reach us from all lands that earnest and spiritual Christians are being deluded, and thrown into a frenzy of exultation, by the meaningless mutterings of what is called the ‘gift of tongues,’ or by other proofs of a spiritual presence from the unseen world.”1 Nor do such conclusions about the canon of Scripture come from one particular denomination or theology, and certainly not just from fundamentalism or dispensationalism.  In the early 1800s Andrew Fuller wrote, “I concluded that we ought not to look for any new revelation of the mind of God, but to rest satisfied with what has been revealed already in his Word.”2 Around the same time John Newton wrote, “Now as God only thus reveals himself by the medium of Scripture truth, the light received this way leads the soul to the Scripture from whence it springs, and all the leading truths of the word of God soon begin to be perceived and assented to.”3 Jonathan Edwards wrote, “But now, when the true religion is long since introduced and the canon of the Scripture completed, the use of miracles in the church ceases.”4 Charles Spurgeon wrote, “The canon of revelation is closed: there is no more to be added.  God does not give a fresh revelation, but He rivets the old one.”5 And many more such quotes could be added.

Today we have the same problem with a more “Christian” dress.  The longing for more revelation from God is not limited to the cultic writings of self-proclaimed prophets such as Mohammad or Joseph Smith, nor to the flippant emotionalism of Pentecostals, Charismatics, and Third Wave experientialists. Now this hankering for a fresh word from God is quickly becoming the norm in main stream Evangelicalism.  Fundamentalists play with the same language but usually lag a few years behind until it is accepted well enough not to be criticized.

The new peeping and muttering comes from phrases like casting a vision, hearing God’s whispers, having the gift of prophecy, or experiencing God’s miracles.  The use of these has gone beyond the innocent everyday language of years gone by.  Most Christians have probably used such words to describe a spiritual moment or leading of God.  But it is becoming obvious that many authors mean something different when they use these terms.  A writer may use  terms such as “I have a vision” or “God told me” and the reader thinks he merely means spiritual understanding or human insight, but these days the writer may mean much more than that.  While using a common expression he is probably referring to a more supernatural communication with God.

A recent Barna poll6 confirms these concerns.  American believers believe God communicates with them in the following ways.  52% by connecting with their emotions; 41% through a Bible passage; 36% by providing a sign; 34% through a sermon; 31% through miraculous or inexplicable circumstances; 31% through someone speaking for God; 18% through secular material; and 16% through an audible voice or whisper.

In a recent series of articles on the differences between cessationists (those who believe miraculous gifts have ceased) and continuationists (those who believe they continue today), Central Seminary President Kevin Bauder rightfully comments,

Once an allowance is made for the continuation of phophecy, how can anyone say whether any particular prophecy is actually from God, short of its explicitly contradicting Scripture?  This is not merely a hypothetical question.  In 2009, David Wilkerson prophesied that an earth-shattering calamity was about to engulf New York City, spilling over into New Jersey and Connecticut.  In response, John Piper opined that Wilkerson’s prophecy ‘does not resonate with my spirit,’ that it doesn’t ‘smell authentic,’ and that elements of it seemed ‘too prudential.’  These words exhibit the kind of dilemma in which some continuationists find themselves.  On the one hand, they cringe from crediting this kind of prophecy.  On the other hand, they cannot simply dismiss it.  The result is that their criteria for judging prophecies give every appearance of being made up for the occasion.7

This same dilemma is forced upon all believers when they have to decipher common language used in equivocating ways.

 

The Whisperings of Bill Hybels

In a 2010 book titled, The Power Of A Whisper:  Hearing God.  Having The Guts To Respond,  mega-church pastor and author Bill Hybels claims that God has always whispered answers, directions, and words of encouragement to him.  At times Hybels seems only to mean what anyone may mean when they think God is directing them.  For example he says, “Although I hadn’t heard an audible voice, the refrain of that impression washed over me again and again that day.”8 Yet on the next page referring to the same incident he says, “What we did have was the confidence that stems from receiving a clear whisper from God” (94).

At one point in the book where Hybels is explaining whispers, he says plainly, “God Speaks.”  This is followed by these words, “Not only does God draw near to his children and seek them out when they’re having a rough go, but also he speaks words to them—words of comfort, insight and peace” (156).  Two pages later he says, “I received my begged-for direction in ten profound but simple words.  Syllable by syllable, here is precisely what the Holy Spirit laid on my heart that day:  ‘You are a treasured child of the most high God’” (158).  The book is filled with such ambiguous statements.  At one moment it is just a “prompting” or something that he “sensed.”  At another moment it is something God “revealed” or specifically “said” to him.

Chapter 4 of the book is titled, “How To Know When You’re Hearing From God.”  Here he gives five “filters” for discerning whether your whispers are really from God.  #1, “Is the Prompting Truly from God?”  seems like a bit of begging the question!  #2, “Is It Scriptural?”  would appear to be the most important.  However, later in the book Hybels tells of the process his church went through when the leadership decided to allow women ministers.  Two hundred families were leaving the church over it.  But the example is used in the book because in the midst of this controversial time he records, “God whispered a much-needed message my way,  ‘You might take a hit for what you’ve advocated, Bill, but every little girl growing up in Willow’s family for generations to come will be the beneficiary of your strong stand.’” He then adds, “It was precisely the assurance I needed, from the only One whose approval I sought” (151).  Of course, my own thoughts went directly back to filter #2, Is it Scriptural?  But what we learn is that to the person receiving these kinds of “revelations,” their experience takes immediate precedence over any other revelation God has given (a Christian version of the Islamic rule of abrogation—the last thing that was said is the most authoritative).

The concern here is the mixture of traditional Christian ways of saying that they felt “led of God” or similar things, and the crossing over the line of the supernatural reception of revelation from God.  If God has actually spoken in whispers or by other means, we may have to apologize to Joseph Smith, Muhammad, and the rest.

 

The Visions of Andy Stanley

In the same vein as whisperings, I have had a long time concern with the newer uses of the word vision.  I was first alarmed in reading George Barna’s many books where he would urge leaders to seek their own personal vision from God for their ministry.  In Andy Stanley’s 1999 book Visioneering:  God’s blueprint for developing and maintaining personal vision9, the case is made for leaders to seek a “personal vision” from God which will be that person’s special direction from God for his ministry.  The handy thing about this new doctrine is that the leader can’t be judged by any other authority including chapters and verses.  If God has given him his own personal information, who can disagree or oppose him in his ministry?

As with Hybels’ whispers, the word vision has been used in many ways by God’s people.  Generally it has been used to mean an idea or a plan for a certain project.  At first Stanley talks in terms of “your destination in life,” and where you go “on purpose.”  But quickly, by page 24, he is speaking of “a divinely ordered vision” and “your personal vision” and “God’s vision for your life.”  He says, “All divinely inspired visions are in some ways tied into God’s master plan.  Whether it is loving your wife, investing in your kids, witnessing to your neighbor, launching a ministry, or starting a company, every divinely placed burden has a link to a bigger picture” (26).  Notice the combining of divine revelation and mere burdens.

As a footnote, I’ve also been amazed at how evangelicals use mother Teresa as an example of God working through us.  Stanley (p. 186) and Hybels (pp. 109, 157) both do this.  Are we to evaluate God’s revelation by a Roman Catholic nun?  In explaining “vision casting” Stanley says, “She cast her vision to the Vatican and two years later the Missionaries of Charity was officially sanctioned by the Church” (186).  This is another example of an immediate revelation from God taking precedence over Scripture itself—unless evangelicals are ready to accept Catholic doctrine of ongoing revelation as biblical.

Because space prohibits, allow me to only briefly give two more.

 

The Prophesies of Wayne Grudem

Theologian Wayne Grudem, in his book, The Gift of Prophecy10, presents the idea that God is still giving prophecy to people today.  To guard against being aligned with outright charismatics however, Grudem proposes that God divinely gives revelation to people, but He doesn’t protect the dissemination of that revelation.  Therefore the modern prophet is not protected from error and the modern recipient is not sure whether he has received it from the prophet as God gave it to the prophet.

The Miracles of C. Peter Wagner

Peter Wagner was the partner of John Wimber, founder of the Vineyard movement.  Wagner believed that God gave miraculous power to believers today in order to combat the power of Satan (“signs and wonders”)11.  Wagner (and others) proposed that “Western” Christians don’t see the “excluded middle” tier of supernatural phenomena that takes place all around them.  Only those from an oriental “mystical” culture understand such things.  That’s why most of us do not take advantage of the power over demons and other Satanic authority.

And So . . . .

Cessationist Ernest Pickering wrote, “While theoretically God could bestow any spiritual gift He wished, He does not and will not do so in contradiction to His revealed purposes.”12 The struggle for a clear, once-for-all revealed Word of God continues today.  The issues will become cloudier rather than clearer.  The Bible believing Christian must be discerning!

 

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

Hiding The Gospel From Faith Alone

Written by Rick Shrader

Hiding The Gospel From Faith Alone

by Rick Shrader

No thinking person likes it when a salesman beats around the bush before explaining the reason he’s talking with him.  Who likes to get those dinner-time calls asking for someone by name, as if it were an old friend, that turn out to be telemarketers?  Beating around the bush, bait and switch, hawking one’s wares, have always been seen as distasteful measures.  But sometimes I wonder if that isn’t what happens in many of our evangelistic churches.  I grew up in one of those “fastest-growing Sunday schools” in the 50s and 60s.  The pragmatic methodologies were well known for building a large church.  Then, in 1995, when I read and reviewed Rick Warren’s larger book, The Purpose-Driven Church,1 I responded, “what’s new here?  This is the same old philosophy with newer (and I think much more harmful) methods.”

Pragmatism always breeds slowly creeping humanism into churches which eventually acts as the anodyne to compromise.  I remember how, as a teenager in that large church, it angered me to hear the evangelicals criticizing the fundamentalists for their “nickels and noses” methods of building big churches.  But it’s been an interesting phenomenon fifty years later to see the evangelicals, who now have the bigger churches, defending the very things they once criticized.  In fact, they have gone so far beyond what the fundamentalists used to do in methodology that it pales in comparison.

Paul was plain in saying, “For we are not as many, which corrupt [lit. “hawk”] the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ” (2 Cor. 2:17).  “But we have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully [lit. “adulterating”]; but by manifestation of the truth, commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God” (2 Cor. 4:2).  To the Thessalonian church he wrote, “For neither at any time used we flattering words, as ye know, nor a cloak [lit. “pretext”] of covetousness; God is witness” (1 Thes. 2:5).  Millard Erickson, writing about the dangers of our own postmodern culture concluded, “We should therefore expect to find that we cannot simply make Christianity completely compatible with postmodernism, or completely postmodernize Christianity, without thereby distorting the Christian message to some extent.”2

I’m trying not to write just another article on methodology.  I am trying to make a specific point that I have noticed by watching these changing methodologies:  that perhaps we use these because we really don’t trust the effectiveness of our own faith.  I don’t know anyone who has criticized new methodologies who would say that all human help or persuasion is wrong.  But it seems to me that for various reasons we simply do not trust that the gospel by itself, or the local church by itself, or the Word of God by itself, would be sufficient to win anyone to Christ in our culture.  So we  try to draw them in and keep them by methods that actually do more to hide our faith than to propagate our faith.

It may be that we don’t really like Christianity much in its unvarnished form.  Churches have always gone about dressing up the faith with sights and sounds more pleasing to the natural man.  Perhaps we don’t trust that the gospel itself has enough power to draw people to Christ.  And worse, perhaps we secretly need affirmation from lost people that our faith is OK.  There is a reason John had to warn, “Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you” (1 Jn. 3:13).  I have never seen such a day in which the church doesn’t like church and the brethren do not like brethren.  Today’s average believer goes out of his way NOT to appear as a believer, and the average church goes out of its way NOT to appear to be a church!  And (supposedly) all of this is done for the unbeliever’s benefit.  It’s a good thing we have learned so much about effective evangelism since the apostles’ day!  Today’s preachers make national talk shows famous, the apostles only made prisons famous.

 

We do not draw people to our churches with our faith

By camouflaging the Christian faith from the world (and from ourselves), we actually draw people by some means other than our faith.  By so doing we may actually be presenting a path of non-belief to people of the world.

 1) We design our services for people who don’t believe our faith.  Why do we do this?  I don’t expect the grocery store to try to appear as a car dealership because I like cars.  I don’t want the fast-food place to remove its sign and let me guess which kind of fast-food I would be getting if I went inside.  How do we know that people are coming to us with any gospel interest when we have hidden the gospel from them in order to get them in?

Myron Houghton, in updating Ernest Pickering’s book on Biblical Separation wrote, “Traditional Bible-believing fundamentalists believe that what a church ought to be and how it should function must not be determined by unchurched people or by the prevailing culture.  The separatists who struggle for a pure church will not mix the ideas of unbelievers with the teachings of the New Testament.”3

2) We hide our purpose from people who are looking for our faith.  We should ask ourselves how we would feel if we found ourselves drawn in to some venture under false pretense.  How many of us have accepted a free night in a condo, or a free gift of some sort, only to find out we had to sit through a high-pressure sales pitch?  Do you remember that feeling?  Saying “no” was difficult because you had already accepted something for nothing.  Property may be sold that way but can faith be attained that way?  Testimonies of powerful conversions (Bunyan, Newton, and Spurgeon would suffice) more often show an extended period of wrestling with sin and grace until the time of acceptance.

3) We motivate people with things contrary to our faith.  Most contemporary methodology is geared toward entertaining the lost soul with things it already likes.  How will the Holy Spirit then bring conviction?  This is where the worldling merely signs on for the ride.  “This isn’t so bad,” he figures, “this is the way I’ve always thought Christianity should be.”  Any conviction of sin has to come in spite of that, not because of it.  Somewhere the preacher or teacher is going to have to spring the surprise on the victim that these things aren’t the way Christianity really is.  “We knew you wouldn’t understand the real nature of our faith, so we dressed it up a bit.”  But the real problem comes when no differentiation is made between the world and the faith and it is left to suppose that this is the real faith.

4) We remove the labels (“brands”) that identify our faith.  I have always thought we would regret the day we began dropping our denominational names as well as when we began remodeling our sanctuaries into performance halls.  I doubt that the average church visitor these days has any idea what kind of church he is in.  What is a “Worship Center” or a “Family Life Center” or a “Gathering”?  Is there any difference in their services due to what they believe?  Does the preaching reflect any doctrinal distinctions among them?

Isn’t it most likely, that in almost any kind of “Christian” church, a visitor would find a thirty minute emotional concert, followed by a felt-needs message that could come from almost any motivational speaker?  After years of visiting visitors that come to our church, this has been the most common testimony of what they have seen in churches they have attended.  The invitation plea (if indeed one is given at all) probably has little to do with what the church actually believes.  A lost person wouldn’t know the difference between a cult and a true gospel church.  All truly helpful signs have been covered or removed.

 

We do not retain people in our churches with our faith.

Not only do we hide our faith from visitors coming in the doors, we also camouflage our faith from our own members so they won’t get bored and leave.

1) We continue to motivate people with things other than faith.  It has been said many times, you win them to what you win them with.  Even when we have offered them the bait, we still find it hard to make the switch.  If they were really converted, would they leave if we dropped the carnal motivations and went back to relying solely on the faith for motivation?  Was divine regeneration not enough to also sanctify?  Will the Word and Spirit not be enough to draw the new born child of God to further growth?  Evidently we don’t think so!  Whole industries have been built on using everything except the faith to retain new converts.  Dick Keyes, in a book called Chameleon Christianity, said, “What works in marketing may actually destroy the church and turn it into a lifestyle enclave.”4 How true that has been in our churches.  The lifestyle enclave of the average youth department is proof enough!

2) We continue to reward people for activity rather than faith.  We develop a Sesame Street mentality from childhood.  “Entertain me and I’ll learn.”  “Reward me and I’ll do the work.”  In 1985, Neil Postman wrote, Amusing Ourselves to Death in which he coined the phrase “Sesame Street” generation as applied to education.  “If we are to blame Sesame Street for anything,” he writes, “it is for the pretense that it is an ally of the classroom.”5 Fun ceased to be a by-product and became an end in itself and this has affected nearly every aspect of our growing years.  The corollary is, of course, “Take away the fun and I’m out of here.”  In our lifetime, this wave of “Entertain me and I’ll learn” has rolled through the church from the nursery to the Junior Church to the Awana circle to the youth department to the church auditorium.  Does anyone find the exercise of his own faith to be fun?  Would church attenders remain if we took away the secular motivations next week?

3) We continue to seek growth in numbers rather than in faith.  The major standard of church growth continues to be the size of the audience.  Again, my own memory goes back to my naïve teenage years when our large church had wild-West shootouts in the parking lot, famous athletes giving sports demonstrations on the platform, and Santa Clauses handing out candy on the buses.  Have we grown out of such an entertainment mode?  Just click on the website of any mega church and watch the videos.  Or watch the so-called Christian concerts held around the country by various Christian “artists”  and you will see the same pragmatic mentality.  Can a mega church stop this and still maintain its numeric stature?  Would we even have a mega church movement at all if all we had to offer was the gospel?  If most of the people would actually leave when these things ceased in our churches, how do we know if faith is real or contrived?

 

And So . . . .

We might ask ourselves, what is required of the average church member (or attender) in order to remain in his/her church?  I would venture to say almost nothing!  It would take the most egregious sin for anyone to be removed from a church today.  Rather, the tables have been so completely turned about that today the average attender requires certain things of the church which it had better offer or they will remove themselves from the church!  We have so motivated people with worldly things that faith alone has little or nothing to do with why they attend a church or why they remain in a church.

Methodologies that motivate are not bad in themselves.  But they become harmful when they replace the motivation that can only come from the Word of God and the Holy Spirit.  Christianity is a conviction of our own sinfulness and a reception of the righteousness of Christ.  If those things were allowed to happen in a human heart, no other motivation would be needed.

 

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

The Bema Seat of Christ

Written by Rick Shrader

The Bema Seat of Christ

by Rick Shrader

The Bema Seat of Christ is the Judgment Seat of Christ.  “Bema” is the transliteration of the Greek word and “Judgment” is the usual English translation of that word.  Paul appeared at Gallio’s bema seat in Corinth (Acts 18:12), at Herod’s bema seat in Caesarea (Acts 23:35), and at Nero’s bema seat in Rome (Acts 25:10).  He now awaits the only bema seat that really counts, the Bema Seat of Christ.

The Bema Seat of Christ is where all believers will appear after Christ returns to take His church home at the rapture.  It is mentioned specifically as “the judgment seat” in Rom. 14:10 and 2 Cor. 5:10, and is also described specifically in 1 Cor. 3:11-15.  It is alluded to in many other New Testament Scriptures as this article will show.

This doctrine is taken most seriously by pretribulational premillennialists who are also dispensationalists (which is this author’s view).  Unless one is a premillennialist, this doctrine will be minimized into a general judgment for all believers at the end of the world.  Premillennialists who are also pretribulationalists see this happening in heaven immediately after the rapture (the casting of crowns earned takes place in Rev. 4:10, very early in the seven-year tribulation period).  Dispensationalists see this as the judgment for the church only and as a preparation for Christ’s bride before His millennial reign as Rev. 19:7-8 shows, “Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come (aorist tense, “has come”), and his wife hath made herself ready.  And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness (literally plural, “righteousnesses”) of saints.”

 

Summary facts

A few things should be noted about the Bema Seat of Christ as we begin.  First, this judgment is for believers only.  Every context of these major texts involves motivation for the churches.  Paul says that no foundation can be laid except upon Jesus Christ and that even if a person’s work is burned up, he will still be saved (1 Cor. 3:11, 15).  Also, this judgment is not a judgment for the guilt of our sin.  That judgment was completed on the cross of Calvary (Col. 2:14).  John Walvoord writes,

Here, as many other times in the Pauline letters, the church is challenged to labor for Christ in view of the necessity of ultimately giving account to the Lord after He comes for His own.  It is a judgment which relates to Christians only and has to do with the matter of rewards for faithful service. . . . It should be clear from the general doctrine of justification by faith and the fact that the believer is the object of the grace of God that this is not an occasion in which the believers are punished for their sins.1

Also, as has been noted, this judgment takes place in heaven during the tribulation period and is therefore for the raptured church.  Lastly, this judgment is where the believers of this age will give account of the stewardship of their lives.  Paul says, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10).  These works will translate into “gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble” (1 Cor. 3:12) depending on their good or bad quality.  Paul summarizes to the Romans, “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God” (Rom. 14:12).

 

A Current Attitude

Teaching on the Bema Seat seems to have waned in recent years.  This may be due to a number of factors.  If  preaching on the second coming of Christ has waned, so has preaching on the Bema.  Other popular views of eschatology place little or no emphasis on this doctrine or on the premillennial return of Christ at all.  Also, today’s “no judging, no losing” mentality may have made a doctrine like this unsavory to many Christians.  Coupled with this is the belief that after death nothing in the believer’s life will matter any longer; all will be erased and we will all be perfect in Christ.  This, of course, mixes the fact that the guilt for our sins is completely taken away with the fact of the accountability of our Christian stewardship.  If there can’t be a difference between these two things, how can we account for present chastisement by God (or church discipline) of his forgiven children?  Others may write off this doctrine as someone’s “guilt trip” placed upon believers, perhaps for control or power.  Still others may actually care little about rewards (“crowns,” “robes,” etc.) as long as they will be saved, miss hell, and go to heaven.  Those rewards may seem trivial compared to eternity.  Though it seems hard to imagine such Christian attitudes, they no doubt do exist.

 

Gold, Silver, Precious Stones

These things represent reward rather than loss of reward.  Perhaps the analogy is used to show things that God makes compared to the things man makes; or most probably to show things that will burn in fire and things that won’t.  If a man’s work remains after the fire, “he shall receive a reward.  If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss” (1 Cor. 3:14-15).  Leon Wood notes, “The criterion for judging will be the good pleasure of God.  Those labors which please Him, the works which make a proper contribution to ‘God’s building,’ will be declared ‘gold, silver, precious stones’; but those which displease Him, which do not so contribute, will be judged ‘wood, hay, stubble.’”2 A few  things more can be said about these rewards.

They reflect Christ’s glory at His coming.  After we spend seven years in heaven and receive our rewards, we will return with Christ (Rev. 19:14) and will bring glory to the returning King; “When he shall come to be glorified in his saints” (2 Thes. 1:10); “That the trial of your faith . . . might be found unto praise and honor and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 1:7); “That when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy” (1 Pet. 4:13).  Dwight Pentecost writes, “It may be that the reward given to the believer is a capacity to manifest the glory of Christ throughout eternity.”3

It is possible to lose our reward.  Since our rewards depend on our faithfulness to Christ, we may lose them by unfaithfulness.  Jude says, “Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward” (Jude 8).  Paul says, “Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshiping of angels” (Col. 2:18).  Jesus says, “Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown” (Rev. 3:11).

We will cast our crowns at Jesus’ feet.  As I’ve already mentioned, this heavenly service (mentioned only once in Scripture) happens early in the tribulation, showing that the Bema happens immediately after the rapture.  The future tenses (“Shall fall down,” “Shall cast their crowns”) point toward a specific time, but the conjuction “whenever” (hotan) in vs 9 and the active voice (“shall be casting”) in vs 10 indicate an ongoing action.  The crowns are real but they are also tangible symbols of our millennial reward.  That will be mentioned last in this present list.

Our good works become our white robes.  Just prior to the glorious revelation of Christ when the church returns with Christ in the air to the earth, John writes, “And to her was granted that she would be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints” (Rev. 19:8).  The word “righteousness” is in the plural and means “righteous deeds” or just “righteousnesses.”  As with the crowns, the robes are symbols of our good works and their reward.

Our rewards reflect a future blessing in the kingdom of God.  If, as I believe, the marriage of the Lamb and His bride takes place in heaven (Rev. 19:7) and the marriage supper is actually the kingdom of God on the earth (Rev. 19:9), and that we will live and reign with Christ with certain authority (Rev. 20:4, Matt. 19:28), then our rewards translate into positions of authority in the millennial kingdom.  This could be the reason, in the parable of the pounds (Lk. 19: 12-28), faithfulness over money turns into rulership over cities.  This could also be the meaning of the “keys of the kingdom” which Jesus promised to His church (Matt. 16:19) when we will bind things over which we have rule.

Wood, Hay, Stubble

A few things can also be pointed out about the loss of reward.

This is not a loss of salvation.  Paul specifically says, “If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire” (1 Cor. 3:15).  The man who sinned and was disciplined by the church lost reward but not salvation, “To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 5:5).  Peter says, “And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?” (1 Pet. 4:18).

Much of our loss will be things that only God can judge.  Though we cannot judge motives nor see into another person’s heart, God can.  Paul says, “Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God” (1 Cor. 4:5).  This is also Paul’s argument for giving a brother the benefit of the doubt in such things.  “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God” (Rom. 14:12).

The possibility of loss causes us to fear God.  The Bema Seat ought to be a great motivator to good works for the Christian.  Right after introducing the subject, Paul writes, “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Cor. 5:11).  The word “terror” is the normal word for “fear” (phobos) but terror is a good word here since the Bema is obviously given as a deterrent to sin.  John said, “And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure” (1 Jn. 3:3).

Loss of reward will bring shame before Christ.  John finishes writing to believers by saying, “And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming” (1 Jn. 2:28).  Wood writes, “The person will not receive a crown, and this will result in a sense of shame and loss that he did not better use his time on earth.”4 It may sound unsettling to some that the believer could experience shame after he/she is taken to heaven at the rapture.  But what is the purpose for the Bema Seat of Christ at all if not to avoid loss and shame?  Our thinking will be so much in line with our Savior’s that we will desire what He desires and disdain what He disdains.  Finally we will hate our sin as much as He does.  However, the shame will be turned to joy that, at last, all things have been set right in His presence.

 

And So . . . .

Personally I will be glad when my life has been exposed and corrected.  For the first time I will be 100% right about everything!  I would do well to be striving toward such a condition now—“That I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ” (Phil. 3:12).  That is, that my sanctification might better match my justification.  I don’t know when that great reckoning will take place but I know that it will.  It could be momentarily by rapture, or it may be by and by in death.  This means that I only have the rest of my life, whatever that may be, to serve Christ.  Eternity itself won’t afford me an opportunity to redo or add to this life.  I am confident that the reality of seeing my Savior will unveil to me an urgency to life about which I will have come greatly short.  I am also confident that His smile will quickly drive the tears away.

Younger years and older both have their earthly challenges in Christian service.  Bringing the body into subjection at both ends of life is a struggle that requires supernatural help.  May God help us all to stand before Him with rejoicing.

 

Notes:
1. John Walvoord, The Church In Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980) 145.
2. Leon Wood, The Bible & Future Events (Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 1973) 50.
3. Dwight Pentecost, Things To Come (Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 1969) 226.
4. Wood, 51.

 

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

Will The Church Be The Church?

Written by Rick Shrader

Will The Church Be The Church?

by Rick Shrader

I have written much lately about the church being the church in today’s world.  It has been my contention that the local church of Jesus Christ needs to be about doing the Father’s business and not the world’s or the government’s or the devil’s business.  The local church of Jesus Christ is God’s instrument on earth in this age of grace to be the disseminator of the gospel, the revealed mystery once hid but now made manifest to the whole world.

Historically, God’s institutions have operated successfully when they have not strayed from their divine constitution.  God established the family in the Garden of Eden but it has often strayed from its moorings.  Our day is witnessing a struggle for the very existence of the family as God designed it.  Human Government was given by God after the Noahic flood as a means of rule, replacing the immediate intervention of the Holy Spirit during the dispensation of conscience.  Governments have come and gone, due primarily to the selfish and often evil bent of their rulers.  Both the family and human government exist today as God’s instruments on the earth.  They are sometimes good and sometimes bad but they are God’s institutions nonetheless.  Israel was and is God’s chosen people.  To them belong the promises and covenants yet to be fulfilled at the return of Jesus Christ.  Due to Israel’s rejection of the true Messiah, Jesus Christ, God has set them aside until the time of the gentiles is fulfilled and they are again restored to their intended purpose as the world-leading nation in the Kingdom of God.

The Church is God’s program for God’s people who live in this dispensation of grace.  The people of God are to assemble themselves into local churches where they live and carry out God’s Word in life and worship.  They will still uphold the traditional (provided that remains “Biblical”) family, obey the civil government, and recognize God’s future for Israel.  Yet, without violating any of those, they will live as the people of God, strangers and pilgrims though they be, communicating God’s Word to a lost and dying world, and walking in the light of that Word by covenant and conviction.

Can the church do this?  Will the church do this?  Both questions are connected.  The answer to the first is definitely “yes” but the answer to the second remains unknown.  The seven churches in Revelation all had the same advantages, all lived in the same time and place, and each faced unique challenges.  Some of them failed and some of them succeeded.  This has been true in every age and yet it has never been more challenging and critical as it is today.  The church has all it needs for both success and for failure.

The church has all it needs for success

Edward Hiscox, the well-known writer of Baptist polity, wrote, “A Christian Church is the most perfectly constructed society known to men, and its system of government the most simple and complete.  As each member on entering it, solemnly covenants to maintain, defend and abide by these regulations, so he should consider himself bound by the most sacred considerations to honor and keep his covenant inviolate.”1  Peter said that God “hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue” (2 Pet. 1:3).

The Holy Spirit.  Since every believer has received the Holy Spirit from the moment he/she was saved, the local church may be said to possess the Holy Spirit.  “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13).  This Holy Spirit immersion enables us  to understand God’s Word, to enjoy Christian fellowship, and to bring before God spiritual sacrifices that are well-pleasing to Him (Heb. 13:15-16).  This is not some charismatic-generated source of new revelation.  In that case there would be no permanent and comprehensive ground for truth in Christianity.  We have been placed into Christ and have been made to hear and understand the Word of God “once for all delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).  The Holy Spirit is God’s gift to each believer in that He regenerates, seals, baptizes, indwells, fills, illuminates, and leads us.  Through Him we have success.

The Word of God.  The church of Jesus Christ knows that God has revealed Himself.  But we also know that such “revelation” came “at sundry times and in divers manners . . . Unto the fathers by the prophets” (Heb. 1:1).  We also know that “in these last days [He has] spoken unto us by his Son” (Heb. 1:2).  We further know that the only revelation available for us today is the Bible, the written, inspired, infallible, Word of God.  Peter assures us that this Scripture is “a more sure word of prophecy” (2 Pet. 1:19) than those that had passed away.  Further, Paul says that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16-17).  All that the church needs can and must be found in the written word of God.  This IS God’s prophecy for today; this IS God’s incarnation for today; this IS God’s sure Word for today.

We don’t ask for God to reveal Himself to us today.  He HAS revealed Himself and ONLY reveals Himself in His Word.  We don’t ask God to show us His Word for this church and then His Word for that church.  He HAS shown us His Word for all churches in the Scripture.  Any other searching for a new word or a further word is a plain lack of faith and only causes confusion among the churches and an insecurity as to what God’s Word really is.

The gospel of Jesus Christ.  Will the church ever lack for a message to give in this age of grace?  No! It will not.  All the various commissions to the church (Matt. 28:19-20; Mk. 16:15-16; Lk. 24:46-49; Jn. 20:21-23; Ac. 1:4-8) contain the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Paul made the gospel the opening subject in the great book of Romans, “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy Scriptures,) concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord”  (Rom. 1:1-3).

The church’s job is not political or social (except within the confines of the order and service of the local assembly) but is spiritual and exclamatory.  We truly believe that this world will come to an end and eternity awaits every human being.  Heaven and hell are the only alternatives and the gospel of Jesus Christ is the only hope for any soul that will miss hell and gain heaven.  Though we are not calloused to the plight of people on this earth, the high-calling of the church is to prepare people for eternity.  When that day comes, nothing else will matter.

The field.  Jesus said that our field is the world (Matt. 13:38).  This world (kosmos) is the totality of people living at any given time.  Every local church has had a field within which it must work.  Jesus saw the field in His day white unto harvest.  Paul explained that we are workers together with God in our field and that our job is to plant the seed and water it until the time of harvest (1 Cor. 3:6-9).  Our field will have both wheat and tares growing in it (Matt. 13:24-32).  They will be separated by the angels of God at the harvest.

The church is not to use civil force to separate the tares from the wheat but is to let both grow together until the time of harvest.  This is not a mixed multitude in the church but in the world.  It is the way the field is and must be until Jesus returns but it is our field nonetheless.  The field doesn’t have to love us or care that we have this ministry, but it does have to receive seed when it is cast.  We remember that Jesus said that only a fourth of the soil will actually produce fruit (Matt. 13:10-23).  That is not discouraging but encouraging because it matches with the reality we find.  It is not our job to convert the world but rather to give seed to the world, and to let God give the increase.

The Blessed Hope.  Among many other ingredients for success that the church has is the imminent return of Jesus Christ in the rapture.  This is called a “catching up” by Paul (1 Thes. 4:17) and a “blessed hope” (Tit. 3:13).  Though only the last generation of the church will experience it, every member of the church has the responsibility to look for it and to “wait for his Son from heaven” (1 Thes. 1:10).

This looking for our Savior at any moment is a great motivation to service and a deterrent from sin.  Some have ridiculed the doctrine for these very reasons, but let the moment come and all things will be made manifest, even the hidden things of darkness and the counsels of the heart (1 Cor. 4:5).

The church has all it needs for failure

Again, the question is not whether the church can succeed, but whether it will succeed.  The church has the ingredients it needs for success but also for failure.

The old environment.  Ironically, our field in which we work is also the very thing we are not to love—the world (1 Jn. 2:15).  In preaching peace to those in the world, we are at the same time in danger of falling back into the old life ourselves.  Peter warned that “the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles” (1 Pet. 4:3), as Paul also says, “In the which ye also walked sometime, when ye lived in them” (Col. 3:7).  We must work in it but not be part of it lest we become disqualified ourselves (1 Cor. 9:27).

The old nature.  The church is made up of people who are regenerate but also who retain their flesh which they inherited from Adam.  This flesh fights against the Spirit and the Spirit against this flesh (Gal. 5:17).  This flesh must be put to death daily or it will rule in our hearts to the detriment of God’s work (Col. 3:5, Rom. 8:13).  Many today mistake our inordinate affections for positive cultural acuteness, and destroy the church of God through the human nature.

The old enemy.  The church faces the world, the flesh, and also the devil.  He is the adversary to the work of the church (1 Pet. 5:8) whom we must resist.  His demons have complete doctrines ready for the church’s destruction (1 Tim. 4:1) and false apostles who appear as angels of light (2 Cor. 11:13-15).  We spend too much time belittling him and not enough time learning to resist him.  We allow his work among unbelievers to creep into our own fellowships and feast with it without fear (Jude 12).  Only discouragement and defeat can come of such carelessness.

The old question.  The serpent asked Eve, “yea, hath God said?” (Gen. 3:1) and he has been asking the people of God the same question ever since.  The Word of God, when properly treated, can be the very source of strength and success.  But when the Word is doubted and twisted to fit our own purposes, it becomes our own excuse rather than God’s revelation.  John Newton wrote,  “Now as God only thus reveals himself by the medium of Scripture truth, the light received this way leads the soul to the Scripture from whence it springs, and all the leading truths of the word of God soon begin to be perceived and assented to.”2

And So . . .

The church will be the church if we will follow the Lord in all things and not allow the wilderness of the world and the old life to encroach upon God’s work.

Notes:
1. Edward Hiscox, The New Directory For Baptist Churches (Grand Rapids:  Kregel, 1970) 164.
2. John Newton, The Letters of John Newton (Edinburgh:  Banner of Truth Trust, 2000) 15.
 
 

 

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

Politics, Social Issues, and the Church

Written by Rick Shrader

Politics, Social Issues, and the Church

by Rick Shrader

How much should the churches and their pastors be involved in politics and social issues?  The points of view on this have changed dramatically in my own life-time due first of all to the rise of the Moral Majority in the early 1980s and now again with the obvious secularization of American culture, including government, the military, education, and the current political correctness.

Added to this is our own “red-blooded American spirit” that loves God, country, and pick-up trucks (in my case, Farmall tractors).  Whether every American founding father was a born-again believer is not really the issue.  The fact is that no other gentile nation in this age of grace has been built with such Biblical principles in mind and with the Christian faith at the forefront.  For those of us who grew up praying in school and other public venues, listening to evangelistic preaching in and out of church, enjoying Christian symbols displayed in private and in public, it saddens our heart to see these great religious advantages systematically being removed and discarded, or should I say profaned!  Our parents were WWII veterans, the “great generation,”  who paid a heavy price for the freedoms we enjoyed and who tolerated no disrespect for God, mother, or country.  We also grew up with great religious freedom to speak of and witness for our faith in public; to attend religious services in church, in the park, or under a large tent at the fair grounds.  Veterans were heroic and missionaries were angelic.  Presidents, senators, and congressmen were to be respected and teachers were to be  emulated.  Officers were to be obeyed and preachers were to be believed.

The American experiment was welcomed by our Baptist forefathers because it was a system where the civil government could not unnecessarily restrict religious freedom nor the free gathering for sectarian worship.  Roland Bainton said, “These views are on the North American continent among those truths which we hold to be self-evident: the voluntary Church, the separation of Church and State, and religious liberty.  From the days of Constantine . . . These principles, to us so cardinal, had been in abeyance.”1 It is for this religious liberty that my generation has been thankful to God all our lives.

At the same time, we have enjoyed a relatively good and moral culture.  I mean relatively good compared to the Biblical culture of the local church which ought to always to be good as well as Biblical.  But in recent years we have seen abortion legalized, prayer exorcised, and homosexuality normalized.  We have seen the air waves polluted, the screen adulterated, and the internet fornicated.  The same natural tendency within us which would defend our country is ever present to defend moral right in the face of immorality and debauchery.  But how much of this can we do as Christians and/or as churches?

The question is not how much can a Christian citizen be involved in politics and social issues.  Christians have their feet in two worlds and have always felt the liberty to act as earthly citizens in whatever way was necessary as long as it was Scriptural, moral, and legal.  As a matter of fact, Christians have always made the best citizens.  They vote, pay their taxes, obey the laws of the land, willingly join the military, make an honest living, raise obedient children, build hospitals and rescue missions, and basically raise the tide of any national culture which raises all other boats in the cultural harbor.

The local church of the New Testament, however, collectively operates  differently than its individual members.  The ministry, worship, commission, and work of the local church is inextricably tied to New Testament precept and example.  The church is to be the church in whatever time and place and earthly nation it finds itself.  An individual member may find his calling to be in the banking business or a military career, but the church would not because no such calling is described for it in Scripture by text or by New Testament example.  The question remains, then: what about “the church as the church” in matters of politics and social issues?

As the pressure mounts on our society due to the loss of political freedom and the decline in moral standards, churches and their representative pastors are being pressed to get more involved in these areas because they usually hold a lot of public sway in a community.  Unfortunately this pressure often comes in the form of challenging one’s manhood, calling one out of the safety of his church office, asking one to take a stand, not abandoning one’s calling, accusations of cowardice, and a host of other irrelevant motivations.

Hugh Hewitt, writing for Townhall.com, said, “As our great country accelerates its slide into economic and moral hell, be careful whom you blame.  The present boldness of liberals and timidity of conservatives are only the secondary causes.  Much of the blame can be placed at the foot of the church . . . . Our country is failing because too many believers have abandoned their calling.”  Chuck Baldwin of V-Dare.com writes, “As a result of America’s preachers’ indifference (and that of the Christians they influence) our country is on the brink of becoming an oppressive and tyrannical state—and it’s the preachers’ fault!”

I would actually agree with Mr. Hewitt and Mr. Baldwin, but not in the way they think.  They seem to think that our country is in moral decline because the church has stayed inside its four walls and not become involved in politics and social issues.  I believe our country is in moral decline because the church has become involved in politics and social issues and has not stayed inside its four walls.  It is not that the business of the country is so important that the church must stop doing what it has been doing.  It is that the business of the church is so important that it must not stop doing what it is doing, lest individuals, families, and also the country suffer the loss of the only influence that can really make a difference.

The reasons given for the church to become more involved in politics and social causes are usually predictable.  I heard one well-known public speaker say, “If the Ship of State goes down, our little compartment goes with it.”  But can any Christian really believe that?  Do the millions of Christians in Communist China believe that?  Did the millions of Christians in the Soviet Union believe that?  Where does the New Testament say that the church’s life will depend upon the strength of the State?  If Jesus builds His church, not even the gates of hell can stand against it.

Usually someone will give the Old Testament prophets as examples of preachers who stood up to the governmental rulers.  Nathan stood up to David; John the Baptist stood up to Herod.  But do we understand the difference between a theocracy with its prophets, priests, and kings, and the New Testament church which lives in all nations, cultures, and under all forms of governments?  Do we want to live under a theocracy?  Do we want the prevailing Church to wield the sword of  the civil authority over the citizens of a country?  Ask John Bunyan during his years in Bedford jail about a union of church and state.  Ask translator John Rogers, Bloody Mary’s first candle to burn at Smithfield, about the church’s influence over the state.

The most embarrassing fact for those seeking the church’s involvement in politics and social issues is that the church of the first century, the church of Peter, James, John, and Paul, lived under the terrible Roman Empire and yet we find absolutely no command or example of political or social involvement.  Surely, if this were the business of the church, we would find that first church engaged in it.  But we do not, to the embarrassment of many.  But then they say, if Paul would have lived and ministered in a democracy, he would have been involved.  Thus implying that some Biblical principle of involvement is latent within the Scripture (perhaps some form of Theonomy, Christian Reconstruction, or Dominion Theology) that will inevitably come out when the circumstance presents itself.  In that case, welcome to the Jeremiah Wright doctrine of politics and religion!  No!  God sent His Son and wrote His Book in the fullness of time.  He knew what context in which to put the Biblical model just as He knew every situation in which His precious people would live and apply it over the next two thousand years.  His martyrs (“Of whom the world is not worthy”) did not fail in their stewardship, but overcame “by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony, and they loved not their lives unto death” (Rev. 12:11).

There are a few related things in the New Testament.  There is an unyielding loyalty to the future state:  the coming millennial kingdom of God.  That is the believer’s real Fatherland and it is that to which he is entirely loyal.  There is an unrelenting commitment to the saving gospel of Jesus Christ.  That is still the only thing that can change a person’s life and values.  There is an uncompromising separation of the truth from untruth and unbelief.  An occasional compromise, even for the sake of patriotism, will not be entertained.  There is also a total commitment of the believer’s life to the ministry and fellowship of his/her local church.  It is within this “sectarian” environment that real godliness and, yes, good citizenship is produced.  It is here that believers in the age of grace have been schooled in a world-changing culture.  That is why Paul commands us to pray “for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.  For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:3-4).

We can give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s by doing as Jesus instructed—paying our taxes and being good citizens; but we cannot give unto God the things that are God’s without strong and vibrant local churches within which we build up the saints on the most holy faith for the work of the ministry in this world and the edifying of the body of Christ.  Salt and light must be different than meat and darkness if they are going to accomplish anything positive.  We have spent too much time allowing the church to be like the world that it can no longer effect the world for righteousness’ sake.  Yes, we are also earthly citizens of a country with certain rights and privileges of citizenship.  We may exercise those rights as believers and we will be able to do what citizens can do.  But if we are not first and foremost Christians who possess the Spirit of God and the Word of God in the church of God, we can do no more than that.  The local church is the most powerful force for good the world has ever known.

A sports team cannot play well on the field if they do not first retreat to the practice field.  That practice will be designed for the players, not the spectators.  It will require commitment and hard work.  It will require common agreement to follow the coach’s instruction and the play book.  It is not designed for non-players, fans, or critics.   It is designed for only one purpose—that the team will win on the real field on game day.  The gathered local church is the Christians’  practice session.  We must do it well if we are going to affect our world.

In their book, Blinded By Might, Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson concluded that their work in the Moral Majority in the 1980s was a failure due to many reasons.  They write, “The church that belongs to Jesus is not part of anyone’s agenda.  In fact, people who belong to him provide the only agenda that ultimately counts. . . . It is the only force that can make an enemy into a friend, a criminal into a saint, a biological father into a real parent.  And it makes the most ambitious political agenda we can possibly imagine look trivial by comparison.”2 Darryl Hart agrees:  “To use Christianity for public or political ends fundamentally distorts the Christian religion because it is essentially an otherworldly faith.”3

May God give His church the faith and courage to be the church in our generation.  May we live by the faith we profess and faithfully proclaim it throughout this lost and dying world for the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ and His coming kingdom.

Notes:
1. Quoted by Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and their Stepchildren (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1964) 91.
2. Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson, Blinded By Might (Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 1999) 97.
3. Darryl Hart, A Secular Faith (Chicago:  Ivan R. Dee, 2006) 16.

 

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

Separation: A Christian Perspective (Pa...

Written by Rick Shrader

Separation: A Christian Perspective (Part 2)

by Rick Shrader

In the second part of this article I want to apply the Biblical doctrine of separation to seven areas of our Christian lives.  We continue to focus on how we can be in the world without becoming part of the world.  John Newton, the English pastor and song writer, wrote the following answer in a letter to a friend:

In our way of little life in the country, serious people often complain of the snares they meet with from worldly people, and yet, they must mix with them to get a livelihood.  I advise them, if they can, to do their business with the world as they do it in the rain.  If their business calls them abroad, they will not leave it undone for fear of being a little wet; but then, when it is done, they presently seek shelter, and will not stand in the rain for pleasure: so providential and necessary calls of duty, that lead us into the world, will not hurt us, if we find the spirit of the world unpleasant, and are glad to retire from it, and keep out of it as much as our relative duties will permit.  That which is our cross, is not so likely to be our snare; but if that spirit, which we should always watch and pray against, infects and assimilates our minds to itself, then we are sure to suffer loss, and act below the dignity of our profession.1

It should be noted also that separation is not argumentative or caustic by nature, though many separatists have been so by personality.  The separatist separates.  He walks away, unless there is Biblical reason to admonish.  His course of action is not dependent on whether others do right but only on his own faithfulness to Biblical living.  When God says, “Come out from among them” (2 Cor. 6:17), that is what he does.  Dr. Clearwaters used to tell us, “The liberals never built anything, they took over everything they own.”  Whether that is 100% true, I don’t know, but his point was that separatists have always been willing to leave when staying was a violation of their conscience.  The testimony of many liberal schools and churches that were once fundamental might prove the statement largely true.

Personal Separation

Every believer can follow Christ whole-heartedly.  God does not ask us things that are impossible.  Most admonitions to holy living in the Bible are directed to the individual.  We all have a space (“my space,” if you will) for which we will give an account one day.  Two millenniums of martyrs is testimony enough to the fact that if you believe strongly in your convictions, no one can make you act against them.  Oswald Chambers wrote, “When once the protest is made where your Lord requires you to make it, you will soon find where you stand — exactly where Jesus said you would, outside the synagogue, called purist, narrow, and absurd.”2 Paul earnestly wrote to the Thessalonians, “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thes. 5:23).

The most well-known passage on personal separation is Rom. 12:1-3.  It contains a negative and a positive command.  We are not to be “conformed” to the world.  This word is from the word, suschematiz?, from which we get the word “schematic.”  It is the outward drawing or representation of what is inside.  We are not to use our very bodies as an advertisement for the world but rather for a living sacrifice to God.  But we are also to be “transformed” by the renewing of our mind.  This word is the word, metamorpho?, which means to have a metamorphosis occur from the inside out.  When we think holy, we will begin to live holy.

Family Separation

The next larger circle of fellowship for the believer is the family.  We may not think of separation taking place within the family but it does quite frequently.  Children may come to Christ within a lost family; a spouse may get saved but the other does not; or children may rebel against the faith of the family and forefathers.  Many faithful believers in such situations are forced to make critical decisions concerning their faith.  D.L. Moody wrote, “Anything that comes between me and God — between my world and God — quenches the Spirit.  It may be my family.  You may say:  ‘Is there any danger of my loving my family too much?’  Not if we love God more;  but God must have the first place.  If I love my family more than God, then I am quenching the Spirit of God within me.”3

If the family is united in their convictions, they will seek a life-style that is not only pleasing to God but agreed upon by all family members.  Areas of entertainment, music, television, the internet, will have agreed upon rules and limits.  The world is against the Christian family and today’s choices are as critical as ever.  It is time for Christian families to again abstain rather than indulge.  Concerts, theaters, dances, and many internet social sites are controlled by godless unbelievers and rarely offer anything uplifting or spiritually positive.

The families of our churches are raising the future leaders in our churches.  If we are eroding the very moral and spiritual foundation upon which the churches will be built, the future will not be positive.  Parents need to take back the leadership in these areas.

Local Church Separation

Individual believers and families made up of individuals, ought to seek a place to worship where their convictions about holy living can be lived out.  This involves the documents of the church which reveal doctrinal beliefs and practices, the reverence of the worship service, and the life-styles of the leadership and membership.  This will also be affected by the sister churches and associations with which the church participates in meetings, camps, retreats, and other forms of fellowship.

Ernest Pickering wrote, “This is the very point.  The issue of separation does not involve the believer’s relationship in an invisible church.  It involves believers’ relationship to visible churches.  The local visible church is a voluntary society.    While membership in the Body of Christ, the so-called universal church, is by the sovereign disposition of the Spirit, membership in a local congregation is by the free choice of a believer as he or she responds to what the Scriptures teach.  Freedom of association is at the root of separatist practice and teaching.”4 The believer, therefore, will separate from a local church which he cannot join, or may have to separate from his own church if it is not practicing according to his Biblically based convictions.

Universal Church Separation

I mean by this that when a believer separates from other believers, those who truly belong to Christ, he is separating within the sphere of the whole  body of Christ.  Paul told the Romans, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Rom. 16:17).  Paul also told the Thessalonians, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us” (2 Thes. 3:6).  These verses apply to discipline within the local church and also, by logical inference, to any other brother in Christ who is walking in a way in which fellowship with him would be harmful (1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 2:17-18).

Rolland McCune wrote, “Ecclesiastical separation is the refusal to collaborate in or the withdrawal from a working relationship with an organization or a religious leader that deviates from the standards of Scripture.”5 This may involve leaving an organization but it may also simply mean the impossibility of joining or fellowshipping in various circles of Christian ministries.  This is why believers choose to be in one denomination rather than another, or why even within denominations, some churches would or would not join a certain fellowship, association, or convention.

Professing Church Separation

We often call this Christendom.  There are many religious people who do not know the Lord as Savior.  Liberalism has taken the gospel message away from many people who are in apostate denominations, churches, and cults.  They call Jesus Lord, but in works they deny Him.  We may work around them, live next to them, share a meal and witness to them, even go to church across the street from them, but we cannot bid them “God speed” without being partakers in their “evil deeds” (2 Jn. 10-11).

Commenting on Psalm 129:8, “Neither do they which go by say, ‘the blessing of the LORD be upon you: we bless you in the name of the LORD,”  Spurgeon wrote, “When persecutors are worrying the saints, we cannot say, ‘the blessing of the Lord be upon you.’  When they slander the godly and oppose the doctrine of the cross, we dare not bless them in the name of the Lord.  It would be infamous to compromise the name of the righteous Jehovah by pronouncing his blessing upon unrighteous deeds.”6

The book of Jude as well as the second chapter of 2 Peter were written to warn us of unbelievers creeping into our churches and fellowships.  Not only must we separate from such apostasy, but we must also admonish the brethren to do so.  Biblical writers used the strongest terms in describing apostates (wolves, accursed, false apostles, deceitful workers, ungodly, mockers). For a believer to continue to say “God speed” to them, is to be a partaker of “all” their deeds and to become himself disorderly.  From such a brother, other brethren should separate.

National Separation

The church of Jesus Christ is a spiritual nation within a physical nation.  We take on earthly citizenship and participate in the nation’s activities including commerce, neighborliness, and good citizenship.  As individual believers, we exercise citizenship as the apostles did in a Roman nation.  We are its best citizens when it comes to being law-abiding, honest, moral, and productive.  We may be involved in politics, the military, education, or a number of professions.  In this way we affect the culture positively.

Many conservatives have noted that the Bible is void of any social or political mandate for the local church.7 Considering the Roman Empire of the first century, if the Bible was ever going to command the local church to change the culture, it would have been then, but it didn’t.  The church gathered must be about doing what it is commanded in Scripture to do:  build up the saints to live godly in this world.  Then when those saints leave that safe retreat, they are prepared to go out into a hostile world as good soldiers of Jesus Christ.

World Separation

Surely we know that we are not to love the world nor the things in the world (1 Jn. 2:15).  If a believer becomes the friend of the world, he becomes the enemy of God (Jas. 4:4).  But this doesn’t seem to be the case with many Christians.  They have tried every way they can to soften the godlessness of the world, and to find ways to indulge themselves in the world and still be a friend to God.  It just can’t be done.  In fact, John wrote, “If we say we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth” (1 Jn. 1:6).  We are not talking about the globe as the world, or even the people to whom we are debtors with the gospel, but about the kosmos, the culture created by the sinful nature of lost people.

And So . . . .

“It is a matter of most solemn import that, whereas here and elsewhere in Scripture he who would walk with God is called to separate himself from unholy associations and the fellowship of the mixed multitude, even though it be found in what calls itself the Church.”8

Notes:
1. John Newton, The Letters of John Newton (Edinburgh:  Banner of Truth Trust, 2000) 163.
2. Oswald Chambers, Biblical Ethics (Grand Rapids:  Discovery House, 1998) 44.
3. D.L. Moody, Spiritual Power (Chicago: Moody Press, 1997) 125.
4. Ernest Pickering, Biblical Separation (Schaumburg:  RBP, 1976) 226.
5. Rolland McCune, Promised Unfulfilled (Greenville:  Ambassador Int’l, 2004) 125.
6. Charles Spurgeon, The Treasury of David, vol. VII (Grand Rapids:  Baker Book House, 1978) 58.
7. See McCune, part 7, “Social Involvement.”  Also, Darryl Hart, A Secular Faith, especially chapter 8, “The Dilemma of Compassionate Conservatism.”
8. H. A. Ironside, Holiness, The False and the True, (New York:  Loizeaux Brothers, nd) 72.

 

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

Separation: A Christian Perspective (Pa...

Written by Rick Shrader

Separation: A Christian Perspective (Part 1)

by Rick Shrader

The Bible teaches a doctrine of separation.  Biblical separation is not a mere occurrence as politeness or rudeness.  Separation is something that is commanded by God in the Scripture and something that was lived out by prophets, patriarchs, and apostles, as well as the Son of God Himself.  To be “holy” as God is holy, or to be “sanctified,” means to be set apart unto God.  It is only then that He can be a Father to us and we can be sons and daughters to Him (2 Cor. 6:18).

The apostle Paul brings forward Israel’s requirement to be a separated people into the church when he quotes Isaiah 52:11 as an absolute requirement for the believers in Corinth (2 Cor. 6:17-18).  He does the same when he quotes God’s command to Abraham in Gen. 21:10 in order to instruct the Galatian church to “Cast out the bond-woman and her son” (Gal. 4:30), meaning, obviously, to separate themselves from the false doctrine of legalism.

It has always been a struggle for the church to grasp how she can practice separation as Israel did being a theocracy, a national entity, and yet be the church which is not a theocracy nor a nationalized entity.  The church cannot retreat to a mountain top or a commune, but must somehow be in the world while not being of the world.  Paul was still teaching this principle to the Corinthians in the midst of their church discipline when he wrote, “I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.  But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one, no, not to eat” (1 Cor. 5:9-11).

Vance Havner said it this way, “The Christian has been saved out of the world.  He is in the world but not of it and he is sent into the world to win others out of the world, which is his business in this world.  He must keep separated from its defilements, yet he must be in the midst of it for the salt must be mixed with whatever it is to purify.”1 However, salt can only purify when it is unlike meat.  Light can only illuminate when it is unlike darkness.  But this “unlikeness” has become distasteful to many Christians and separation has become the nadir of popular Christianity.  More than that, separatists have been made to be the enemy of God’s grace rather than the biblical result of that grace (see Tit. 2:11-12).  Ernest Pickering responded to this when he wrote, “This is one of the laments made by anti-separatists—that the doctrine of separation, premised as it is upon the ideal of a pure church, lends itself to repeated separations.  This is true in a sense, because every generation must fight its own battles and the war is never won.  The culprit, however, is not the prickly fundamentalist who cannot live at peace with his brethren, but rather the never-ending maliciousness of Satan.”2

In this first article, I want to lay out what I believe to be the biblical basis for separation.  This basis is seen intertwined in the very nature of no less than six other important Christian doctrines.  In the second article, I want to apply the doctrine of separation to seven areas of the Christian life.  This will begin with personal separation and work its way outward in concentric circles to family, local church, universal church, professing church, the nation, and the world.  Here, we begin with the over-arching doctrine of God’s holiness and proceed on to the future reward and high calling of all believers, heaven itself.

The separate nature of God’s holiness

“Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy” (1 Pet. 1:13-17).

God is unchanged by the sinfulness of this world.  It is only by His grace that He is longsuffering and willing to restore sinners to Himself before He destroys the whole fallen world with fire.  In eternity He will not have compromised His holiness in any way.  The only way for any part of His creation to abide with Him eternally is to become as He is—holy.  J.N. Darby said, “Separation from evil is the necessary first principle of communion with Him.  Separation from evil is His principle of unity. . . Wherever the body declines the putting away of evil, it becomes in its unity a denier of God’s character of holiness, and then separation from the evil is the path of the saint.”3

The degrading nature of man’s sin

“This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness” (Eph. 4:17-19).

J. Gresham Machen wrote, “Everything in the Bible is concerned with the fact of sin; the relationship in which man as man stood to God has been broken by transgression, and only when that barrier is removed is there sonship worthy of the name.”4 The whole world has gone “in the way of Cain” (Jude 11).   Do we understand the offense our sin is to God?  Fallen man is a mere shell of his former glory when Adam was the king of Eden.  Now a flaming cherub separates man from the tree of life, and only death can repair the breach.  Fallen man has no moral connection with God even though he remains a creature in His likeness.  He is “in Adam” (1 Cor. 15:22), and must be in Christ if he is to be accepted at all.  “Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” (Jas. 4:4).

The radical nature of our redemption

Redemption is of Jesus Christ, “who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30), and not of ourselves!  “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation . . . But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Pet. 1:18-19).  It took the blood of the holy and righteous Son of God to purchase us from the slave-market of sin.  And when that happened, we were radically changed: positionally in an instant and relationally in a progression.  We are not only a new creature, but a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, and a holy nation that we should show forth the praises of Him who called us out of darkness into His marvelous light (1 Pet. 2:9).

It would be a biblical contradiction for the new creature in Christ to remain like the world.  Charles Ryrie wrote, “Separation from the world, or nonconformity, is being unfashionable, and this is a necessary characteristic of the dedicated life.”5 William Newell, writing of Abraham’s pilgrim faith, said, “But now, also in Abraham, the principle of strangerhood is first seen: Abraham is called out; for the world had left God.  So God’s people are to leave it today.”6

The progressive nature of our sanctification

“For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication” (1 Thes. 4:3).  Though we are positionally in Christ, and that secures our eternal salvation, we must not neglect, as many do, the on-going nature of this sanctification process.  Only on purpose could one miss the biblical admonitions to grow in grace and to progress in holiness while in this life.  So Peter says, “Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul” (1 Pet. 2:11).

This progressive nature of a growing holiness brings with it an antipathy from the world.  The more we grow into the likeness of Christ, the more the world becomes unsympathetic to our life-style.  This is what the weak Christian does not like and seeks to avoid, yet the only way to avoid it is to avoid holiness.  “Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution” (2 Tim. 3:12).  “And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold” (Matt. 24:12).  Jesus said, “These things have I spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace.  In the world ye shall have tribulation” (Jn. 16:33).  The problem of too many today is that they want peace in the world and so they find tribulation in Christ.  Spurgeon said, “You cannot grow in grace to any high degree while you are conformed to the world.  The life of separation may be a path of sorrow, but it is the highway of safety, and though the separated life may cost you many pangs, and make every day a battle, yet it is a happy life after all.”7

The urgent nature of our evangelism

Perhaps the most tragic result of a lack of separation is a lack of power for evangelism.  The love of the world is powerful enough to convince the weak Christian that worldliness is actually better for evangelism.  The offense of the cross becomes an offense to the believer rather than to the world.  This is the very crux of the matter.  Jesus said, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me” (Jn. 12:32).  When will we learn that men must come to Christ by way of the cross?  It is the weary path of the penitent that opens to the bright sunshine of grace.  Jesus said, “They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Mk. 2:17).  We have become so busy making the gospel palatable to the world that we are now trying to call the righteous to repentance.  If Jesus could not do it, neither can we.

It is that separation, that apartness from the world, that God uses to draw sinners.  John was on his way to Patmos when he wrote, “They are of the world:  therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.  We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us.  Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error” (1 Jn. 4:5-6).

The forward nature of our calling

C.I. Scofield wrote, “The church is everywhere said to be heavenly in calling and destiny, and exhorted as pilgrim and stranger to walk in holy separation from the world which hated Christ and will hate the faithful disciple of Christ; her one mission, the preaching of a crucified Christ to a lost world.”8 We are the called of God and that calling calls us all the way home as a father who stands at the door and calls his children home for supper. This calling pulls us outward and upward the further we walk in life.  The outward man may be perishing, but the inward man is renewed day by day.   Holiness becomes us the more we become like Him. “Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling” (2 Tim. 1:9); “For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness” (1 Thes. 4:7).

It is in this way that we live in the world and yet become more separated from it.  As we do, we become more and more effective in the cause of Christ.  Oswald Chambers helps us see, then, how separation from the world has a powerful effect in the world, “The things that used to be ends in view have not only ceased to be ends, they have ceased to have any interest for us at all; they have become tasteless.  This is the way God enables us to be fundamentally dead to the things of the world while we live amongst them.”9 Soon we will live and reign with the King of Righteousness and we will wear a crown of righteousness if we are among those who love His appearing.  If we have this hope in us, we will purify ourselves as He, whom we are about to see, is pure.

Notes:
1. Vance Havner, All The Days (Old Tappan:  Revell, 1976) 181.
2. Ernest Pickering, Biblical Separation (Schaumburg:  RBP, 1979) 190.
3. By Pickering, p. 116.
4. J. Gresham Machen, What Is Faith? (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 1979) 85.
5. Charles Ryrie, Balancing The Christian Life (Chicago:  Moody, 1994) 83.
6. William Newell, Hebrews (Chicago:  Moody, 1947) 380.
7. Charles Spurgeon, Morning and Evening (Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 1948) 107.
8. C.I. Scofield, Addresses on Prophecy (Greenville:  The Gospel Hour, nd) 25.
9. Oswald Chambers, The Moral Foundations of Life (Grand Rapids:  Discovery House, 1998) 168.
 

 

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