Due to a spam comment on a May, 2010 blog post, I was reintroduced to a web page I wrote a long time ago on a web site I no longer keep up. It was so long ago that I have no memory of writing it. It was like reading something someone else had written.
It really encouraged me, and it talked about important truths. It really motivated me, so I want to say thanks to my old self and give a link to that page:
I found a coalition of house churches. They sounded pretty awesome, so I emailed the closest one, which is about an hour and a half away.
I like a lot of things they do, but honestly I cannot endure this part of the response I got:
I would like to let you know that we believe that Jesus Christ truly saved his people from their sins and that the gospel is indeed good news to those he has saved. … We believe in the absolute predestination of all things including the evil works of men. We do not believe God loves every human but his elect vessels are afore prepared for glory and the children of the devil are vessels of wrath fitted for destruction that no flesh will glory in His presence. (emphasis added)
He added, in an effort to be honest with me up front, which I commend …
I share this plainly because very few today in so called Christianity believe these precious truths anymore which were once believed and preached as you know in this very country.
Yes, I do know it was once believed and preached in this very country. It was invented in Germany and Switzerland and transported here. Yes, Augustine dreamed up the seminal form of it based on his own experience, but it was so against the preaching of the church that even the renowned bishop of Hippo could not get the church to hold on to it in his time. That doctrine would have to wait for an Augustinian monk named Martin Luther to revive it in the early 16th century.
As far “precious truth,” I want to state plainly and vehemently that it is not truth at all, much less precious truth. This sort of election disparages the Father of our Lord Jesus, the God of the apostles, and the God of our fathers in the faith.
The only way to come to a falsehood like double predestination (the idea that both the sheep and the goats are predestined to be so by the eternal will of God) is by a method of thinking that has plagued the church since the Reformation.
A friend of mine recently wrote, “This is so clear only a theologian could get it wrong.”
We train our people in a bizarre method of Bible interpretation, that no sane person would ever embrace if it weren’t slipped in on them bit by bit by the traditions that are infused into our churches. It frustrates me because it is so dishonest, but it’s so widespread that it’s hard to imagine people are being that dishonest on purpose.
There are numerous verses directly contradicting the idea that God wants only some to be saved or that there is anyone that he has predestined for condemnation.
It’s not only as bad as this. It is worse.
On every page of the Bible we find an attitude of “find everyone, reach everyone.”
The Parables
Think of Jesus’ parables, especially of the marriage feast in Matthew 22:1-14. The king invited those who in his kingdom, but when they didn’t come, he wound up inviting every traveler he could find in his country. Yes, one of those travelers was rejected, but it was for not properly dressing for a wedding feast, not for being foreign to the kingdom.
You can be left out of the kingdom of God, but over and over Jesus and the apostles blame that choice upon us. A very similar verse to the parable of the wedding feast is Rev. 3:4, where most of the church in Sardis had defiled their garments. Only those “few” who had not were going to walk with Jesus in white.
Then there is the parable of the sower, the first and most famous of Jesus’ parables. Where was the Word sown? It was sown everywhere, including in the same places that the king wound up sending invitations in the parable of the wedding feast: the highways and byways. Yes, when the seed fell on bad ground, including the hard, indifferent, worn-down byways, it was rejected; however, that was not the result of being predestined not to believe. It is not God who stole away the seed, but the devil. It was not God who caused the shallow and the weedy to fall away, it was persecution and troubles.
The Reach of the Gospel
Who was the Gospel supposed to be preached to? According to Jesus it was to “every creature” in “all the world” (Matt. 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16).
Page by page by page throughout all the Scriptures, both the Hebrew Scriptures and the apostles’ writings, you will never find any sort of attitude that says, “There are some that excluded.” You will never find it being preached; you will never find anyone acting like some are hopelessly predestined for hell.
>Punishment for Those That Cannot Repent?
The God who is love predestined some of his creation to eternal torment for not believing a Gospel that it was impossible for them to believe?
If some have absolutely no hope, how can we possible call it love for Paul to say, “The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those that do not know God and that do not obey the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thess. 1:7-8)? It is love to pour this kind of wrath upon those for whom it is absolutely impossible to obey?
With so much glaringly against the idea that anyone at all is predestined to be lost, condemned, and subject to the fiery vengeance of God, where did this idea even come from?
First and foremost, it is from taking the idea that we are too weak to enter the kingdom of God too far. We were too weak to enter the kingdom of God. We were to weak to overcome our flesh (Rom. 7). But that has changed (Rom. 8).
Indeed, God helps us to overcome, but that does not happen automatically. Perhaps the best “symbiotic” verse there is, showing that God works with us rather than overcoming our will, is Philippians 2:12-13:
Therefore, my beloved, as you have alway obeyed … work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
But it is not the only one:
For this purpose I labor, striving according to his working, which works in me mightily. (Col. 1:29)
God enables us, but the choice to obey is left in our hands.
That’s why there are commandments. If God did everything for us, then to what purpose are commandments complete with promises of rewards and threats of punishment?
And if you haven’t noticed, every New Testament letter has lots of them.
There are some exceptions. The Bible says that Pharaoh was predestined by God to be a vessel of wrath. There are arguments that can be made that Pharaoh hardened his own heart before God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, but I think it’s very hard to deny that God intended for Pharaoh, before he was ever born, to be in his position solely for the purpose of being Israel’s enemy and being defeated.
God is the Potter; we’re the clay. He’s allowed to do that.
Another exception is Jacob and Esau, although that is not much of an exception. The Scriptures say that God hated Esau and loved Jacob before they were born, but we have to take the use of hated and loved the same way we do in Luke 14:26 (where we are told to hate our families). There are places in the prophets where Israel is told to treat Edom (the descendants of Esau) with mercy because they are Israel’s brother.
The passages about Jacob and Esau are unquestionable about God choosing Jacob as the father of his chosen people over Esau. He did that before they were born. This does not mean that Esau and all his descendants perish forever in hellfire. There are no Scriptures that indicate this, and there are lots of Scriptures that show us this is not God’s nature. For example, Ruth was from Moab, and the Law expels them from Israel for ten generations, yet Ruth, long before 10 generations since she was Rahab’s granddaughter-in-law, was admitted not only to the commonwealth of Israel, but to the lineage of the Messiah!
The Jews and Gentiles
Of course, the ultimate exception, the one that all Calvinists appeal to, is Romans 9-11. In Romans 9, Paul argues that God can make whatever choices he wants, and he appeals to the unusual situations of Pharaoh and Jacob and Esau.
But what is Paul defending? Is Paul arguing that God now chooses who is saved and who perishes randomly, by a roll of cosmic dice? Is Paul arguing that God, unlike his Son, is a respecter of persons, and that he is partial to some and against others for no reason at all?
Of course he is not. He spends three chapters explaining exactly what he means. God has rejected the Israelites—because they killed the prophets and God’s Son (Matt. 21:33-43), not because he predestined them to be rejected—and he has chosen the Gentiles … for a time. He did this specifically because he is not the God of Calvinism. He wants everyone, Gentiles and Jews, to be saved, so he has partially hardened the Jews for a time so that he can bring in the fullness of the Gentiles. This, says Paul, will provoke the Jews to jealousy, so that after the time of the Gentiles, they will be brought back to the one tree, to the Lord of All, to Jesus the Messiah.
As Paul puts it:
For as you in times past have not believed God, yet now you have obtained mercy through their unbelief, even so these also have now not believed so that through your mercy they may also obtain mercy. For God has included them all in unbelief so that he might have mercy upon them all. (Rom. 11:30-32)
I mentioned a mindset that plagues Protestants. Let’s directly address it because it is not just the Calvinists who pick verses here and there.
The Calvinists do it. There are verses that mention predestination here and there, and they love to quote them.
Predestination
However, without a Protestant, theological approach to the Scriptures, you are not going to get Calvinism out of those predestination verses. Someone who has not been theologically trained to pick isolated phrases from Scripture is going to wonder why the Gospel is always presented as though it is for everyone. They are going to wonder why the Scriptures say repeatedly that the will of God is to see everyone come to repentance. Then they are going to ask what those predestination verses mean.
They’re simple enough.
A couple talk about being predestined to other things than salvation. Those of us who are being saved are predestined to be conformed to the image of King Jesus (Rom. 8:29). God has a purpose, and it is not for us to be evangelists and nothing else. It is for us to become just like Jesus. That is the primary work that God has for us on this earth. As a result, that was the utter devotion and goal of the apostle Paul (Php. 3:8-10), and the goal he wanted all the rest of us to have (Php. 3:15). He even described the route to that goal (Eph. 4:11-16).
He puts this a little differently in Ephesians 1:9-12, where he tells us that we are predestinated according to a purpose. That purpose is to gather together everything in the Anointed One.
Predestination is not predestination to be saved. It is predestination of the elect of God to be conformed to the image of Jesus, the Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many siblings.
Paul tells us that the source of this predestination is foreknowledge (Rom. 8:29). It is those whom he foreknew that he predestines to be conformed to the image of Jesus. Peter repeats this, saying we are “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” (1 Pet. 1:2).
Foreknowledge
Foreknowledge is not so easy. I have my own opinions, but foreknowledge is not explained. The Scriptures simply tell us that we are predestined according to foreknowledge.
At the very least, this tells us that God knows something in advance. Some argue that he knows what will happen to those who believe and continue in belief. Therefore, if we continue to believe, we remain among the elect and predestined.
That’s a little mystical, so others simply say that God knows the end from the beginning. Isaiah says this is true of God, and it would mean that he knows the final decision all of us will make. Those whom he foreknows will continue to the end, those are the saved, and they are predestined to a certain end based on God’s foreknowledge.
Others, arguing from a Calvinistic viewpoint, say that foreknowledge is the same as predetermination. If God knows what is going to happen, then he made it happen.
Predetermination
The trickiest verse—in fact, the only tricky verse on this subject—is Acts 13:48. There Luke talks like a Calvinist. He tells us that “as many as were appointed/ordained/assigned to eternal life believed.”
The Greek word is tasso. There is no prefix to translate into the English prefix “pre-.” The word should not be translated “predetermination” like some translations do, but it should be “assigned” or “appointed.”
This is not much different than predetermination, and I don’t want to use it as an argument against the obvious meaning of Acts 13:48. I do want to point out that Luke avoided using any Greek word that directly means predestination or predetermination.
Why are only certain ones appointed to eternal life? Why do only those believe?
If this were the only verse we had in Scripture, then it would be possible to interpret this to mean that God is a respecter of persons, partial to some and against others. It would be possible to interpret this to mean that God randomly chose some to believe and some not to believe.
It is, however, the only verse in all of Scripture that even hints at such an idea, and there are other ways to interpret this verse that fit what the rest of Scripture says.
We have direct statements that those who are predestined to be like Jesus are called, justified, and glorified as well. Thus, the most obvious interpretation of Acts 13:48 is that it means the same thing that Romans 8:29-30 means. God foreknew some, and it is those who are called, who believe, and who are justified.
Luke is saying, “As many as are in the pattern Paul described in Romans 8, which begins with God’s foreknowledge, those are the ones who believe Paul’s message. God knows the ones who would not believe, and they are not appointed for eternal life. Only the ones who are foreknown are ordained to glorification.”
I have spent perhaps too much time explaining the issue with Calvinism. I’m not trying to convince you that Calvinism is wrong. I’m trying to convince you that you already know Calvinism is wrong.
We think that the teachings of God are established by picking this verse and that verse, then combining them together into an argument. I want to free you from that thought.
There are things that are obvious in Scripture. We would all see it if we weren’t trained to miss it and hold to traditions backed up by cherry-picked verses instead.
Let me pick on the Roman Catholics as an example. They pull passages from almost early church fathers to justify their overboard veneration of Mary. The passages they pull are from much later church fathers than I would give any authority to, but the point goes deeper than that.
Read through the writings of the apostles. If no one said anything to you in advance, would you have any idea that Christians ought to make statues of Mary and bow down to them? Would you get the idea from any apostolic writing that anyone anywhere prayed to Mary after she died, or to any other dead saint for that matter?
You would find the same thing in the writings of the early church fathers, the ones that were within three centuries of Jesus. None of them give us a hint that anyone prayed to saints or had some particular devotion to Mary. In fact, you will find all sorts of warnings to beware of directing worship to statues and images, no matter who those statues and images represented.
It’s no different with Calvinism. If you read through the Gospels and the letters from the apostles, you’ll find nothing that would give you the idea that the Jesus didn’t die for everyone or that the Gospel is not for everyone or that God picks out certain people to be saved. Every page of Scripture would teach you something contrary to that. God longs to see everyone come to repentance, but they refuse.
Jesus even mourned over the Jews who are said to be hardened (partially) by God. After he was forced to reject them, Jesus looked upon Jerusalem and mourned out loud, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem! You who kill the prophets and stone them who are sent to you! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her chickens underwing, but you would not!” (Matt. 23:37).
This was not the will of God. This was the will of man, foreknown by God, but mourned over nonetheless by Jesus.
Over and over you will find God and his Son Jesus pleading with men to repent and threatening eternal death to those who will not.
Do we really think it is sensible, much less wise, to cherry pick a couple verses and develop a doctrine that violates everything we read in Scripture?
I hope none of my readers do, but there are a lot of others who have no problem reading the Scriptures that way.
Some people are so in love with the traditions handed to them that they beg and plead with the rest of us to shut off our reason and accept their interpretation of Scripture. They pull out this verse and that verse, sure that we are going to see their reasoning. If you point out their error, they quickly switch to another verse, pulled out of context and disagreeing with the whole tenor of Scripture. If you keep replying, they accuse you of doing what they are doing.
Such people are not worth talking with. They will confuse you, make you wonder if they’re right, and continue poking you with Scripture until you think you are crazy and unable to reason for yourself.
Don’t let it happen. The Scriptures were written for simple folk who have the Spirit of God to rejoice in the love of God towards them. You can understand Scripture as it is written, at least the great themes of Scripture. And you can do so with just the smallest bit of training.
The issue of baptism is important in and of itself, but as a topic it is the gold standard for exposing how bizarre our modern approach to the Scriptures is.
I will show you that there is no legitimate alternative interpretations to what the Scriptures say about baptism. The New Testament says one thing about baptism, and one thing only. Our modern teaching that baptism is a symbolic public testimony has always puzzled me since it has no support at all in Scripture and the apostles show no concern whatsoever for having a “public” present for baptism in the book of Acts. Our defense of baptism as a symbolic public testimony (hereafter, SPT) is embarrassing at best.
I’m not going to do a long history of baptism, delving into the role of washings in pre-Christian Judaism or among the Essenes. I’m not going to cover the prophecies about baptism in the Hebrew Scriptures. The New Testament Scriptures are simple, straightforward, and easy to understand. We can marvel at the prophecies about baptism and the precedence for baptism after we learn to pay attention to the elementary apostolic teaching about baptism.
I’m not going to cover every verse that has reference to baptism. I’m only going to cover the ones that get argued about.
Jesus said that the one who believes and is baptized shall be saved, while the one that does not believe will be condemned. SPTers argue that yes, Jesus said those believed and baptized will be saved, but it is only those who don’t believe that will be condemned.
If this were the only verse in the apostles’ writings, then the SPT interpretation would just be poor/unlikely. It’s not, however.
Here Peter is responding to Jews who were convicted about killing God’s Messiah and who had asked what they should do. Peter tells them, “Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus the Messiah for the remission of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
My interpretation of that verse is that Peter wanted them to repent and to be baptized in the name of Jesus so that their sins would be forgiven. A.T. Robertson is one famous Greek scholar who argues that the word “for” (Gr. eis) could be translated “because of” in this verse.
I am not qualified to be as upset as I am with Robertson’s obviously incorrect translation, so we’ll skip that. We will just move on to the rest of the verses, which will show on their own that “for the remission of sin” is the right translation.
This is the conversion of Saul (later the apostle Paul) as described by Paul himself. Most of us think Paul was saved on the road to Damascus. Ananias seems to think otherwise.
What are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
I don’t think I need to explain this, nor why this proves “for the remission of sins” is what Peter said on the day of Pentecost. You can read it for yourself.
There are a couple of points to be made, though. Notice that Ananias refers to baptism as a washing. We’ll see it referenced as washing a couple more times before we’re done with this study.
I also want you to see this very important side point. Today, we like to tell a new convert something like, “Though you can’t see him, Jesus is here right now. You can bow your head and pray to him, and he will hear you.”
We try to send people to Jesus, the invisible head in the heavens, but when Jesus appeared to Paul, he did not say, “I am glad you are repenting of persecuting me. I am here right now, and you can even see me. All you have to do is accept me into your heart right now.”
No, Jesus, in a vision speaking audibly to Paul, sent him to the church. He sent him to the his visible body on earth.
One big difference between baptism and the “sinner’s prayer” that we have replaced it with is how it affects our conception of the church. Baptism involves physical water and the touch of physical members of the church. It brings us into a covenant community that is real and close. We are attached not just to the head in the heavens, but to the body of our Lord right here on earth. He can touch us, comfort us, hug us, and share our life with us through his body.
We don’t take the body analogy literally enough. Jesus lived in an individual body on earth 2,000 years ago. He still lives in a body on earth, a body which consists of many members.
For as the body is one, yet has many members [limbs/body parts], and all the parts of that one body, though many, are one body, so also is Christ. (1 Cor. 12:12)
There are a lot of side issues in this passage that we will get to in the next post, having to do with the timing of baptism in water vs. baptism in the Holy Spirit. All I want to point out here is that Peter did not wait to baptize Cornelius and his household until the next meeting of the church or the next major church event. He had Cornelius baptized on the spot.
This is the ultimate anti-public-testimony passage. This passage starts at midnight (v. 25) and ends at “when it was day” (v. 35). In between, Paul baptized the Philippian jailer and his family.
Thus, Paul baptized the Philippian jailer in the middle of the night, after midnight and before morning. This was not essential. Before Paul left Philippi, Luke mentions that he left behind Lydia and some other believers. The baptism of the jailer could easily have happend the next day “as a public testimony.”
It didn’t.
Don’t you know that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore, we are buried with him by baptism into death, so that like the Anointed One was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we should walk with him in newness of life.
As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Is it at all difficult to follow what these verses say?
There are three passages that frighten symbolic public testimony believers.
At this point, SPT believers begin claiming these verses don’t mean what they say. They sputter, stutter, choke, and run for explanations.
No real explanations are needed for the obvious meanings of these verses. I am sorry we are so frightened of them, but they agree with everything we have looked at.
I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one can say I baptized in my own name! I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Other than that, I don’t know that I baptized anyone else. For the King did not send me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel. (1 Cor. 1:14-17)
So, do you think we ought to interpret this verse to conflict with all the others we just looked at?
How about let’s interpret this verse to mean that other people did the baptizing, rather than Paul. Paul used this to point out that he was not only not baptizing into his own name, but he was not even doing the baptizing himself. His job was to exalt Jesus through preaching, not to exalt himself. As a result he preached Jesus, and those who responded were baptized into Jesus, not Paul, often by other people than Paul.
Do we have any precedence in Scripture for such an idea?
Yes, it’s pretty well founded in Scripture:
Everyone already knows that once someone believes, something must be done in response to that belief. There needs to be a concluding action certifying one’s belief.
Our actions make it clear that we all know a response is needed. Everyone provides one. Most of the time what we provide it is a sinner’s prayer, which has no Biblical support at all.
The apostles, however, supplied a response in the form of baptism. Peter even relates it to a sinner’s prayer by calling it a plea to God for (or from) a good conscience (1 Pet. 3:21).
Baptism is not a magical thing that saves people by getting them wet or giving them a bath. It is the normal response to the Gospel that we have replaced with the sinner’s prayer without any scriptural justification.
In baptism the repentant sinner is buried with Jesus and rises again. There he begins his new life in the Anointed One. There he washes away his sins, his past, and his background. There he is crucified to the world, and the world is crucified to him. There he enters into covenant with God who saves him by his own will and power, transforming him into a new creature and filling him with the Holy Spirit, which is the promise of the New Covenant.
I’m not exactly sure how we convince ourselves that it is okay to sweep these verses away, choosing to base our teaching on baptism on our interpretation of verses that don’t mention baptism. We have constructed a doctrine of baptism that has no foundation or even reference to any verses on baptism, only to verses on faith.
The fact that the baptism doctrine we have invented from verses on salvation by faith is so different from the doctrine of baptism practiced and taught by the apostles should put some fear into us that our interpretation of those verses on salvation by faith are also wrong.
Reasonable thinkers would draw that conclusion without hesitation. Our reasonableness is seriously damaged by the knowledge that disagreeing with the central traditions of Protestantism will get us ostracized, not only by our Christian friends, but probably also by our families as well.
Is it worth it to us?
I was asked about harmonizing NT Wright’s “New Perspective on Paul” with the Keswick Convention and Watchman Nee’s “Deeper Life.” How do I reconcile being fond of both?
Here’s my answer:
I don’t really worry about harmonizing NT Wright and Watchman Nee. My concerns are practical. Therefore, the answer to your question about harmonizing the “New Perspective on Paul” and the “Higher/Exchanged Life” is found in your later questions about sin in the believer.
You mentioned the sin that remains in us, our new nature, the Holy Spirit, what to do after a known sin, relationship with God, and the effective work of Jesus in us. To address all of that would be a book! So my answer to you will be to summarize my answer to these last issues, and then explain how they apply to harmonizing the New Perspective with the deeper life teachings of Keswick. (You’re right. I am a huge fan of the Keswick Convention because of the incredible people that have been affiliated with it: Amy Carmichael, George Mueller, Rees Howells, Hudson Taylor, T. Austin Sparks, etc. Just a phenomenal crew of effective, powerful disciples.)
So, here goes.
As I said, my concerns are practical. My goal is to hear “Well done, thou good and faithful servant” on the last day. I have no other goal. I have a lot of distractions and temptations that hinder me on the way to that goal, but that is my one goal.
What I see in Jesus and Paul is that they were both true “paracletes.” Parakletos is the Greek word for “exhorter.” The Holy Spirit is called the Paraclete by Jesus in John’s Gospel, though there parakletos is usually translated “comforter.”
The related Greek words parakaleo and paraklesis are translated many different ways. They are translated beg, plead, exhort, comfort, console, consolation, exhort, admonish, and probably 2 or 3 others.
I decided my chosen definition would be “to convince someone with words by any means possible.” I think you can see that the words above all involve using words to convince someone of something.
Jesus and Paul both do that. They plead, they warn, they threaten, they promise reward, they encourage, they show mercy, they rebuke, they express frustration.
We need all of that, too. I need of all of that. I am like all the other weak ones among the saints. I am tempted by my flesh, attacked by the devil, tempted by the devil, drawn to the world, moved by human emotion, prone to addiction, and in every other way prone to sin, pride, jealousy, lust, division, revenge, anger, etc.
I don’t want to lose the war against the world, the flesh, and the devil. I want to win it.
Watchman Nee—along with Amy Carmichael, George Mueller, T. Austin Sparks, and Hudson Taylor—has had a great influence on my life by teaching me that I must rely on the Holy Spirit all the time. My victory will never come from my flesh. It will come as I turn again and again and again and again to the Holy Spirit, choosing his ways, not mine.
They taught me that being spiritual and recognizing the voice of God is absolutely essential to the Christian life, and that it is not only possible, but normal. They taught me that it is okay to learn to hear God and that many mistakes would be made along the way, but that I would mature and grow to know his voice better and better as time passed.
I have also been influenced by Charles Finney and the early Christians who taught me that seeking to walk by the Spirit in some mystical, spiritual way is good, but not enough. The violent take the kingdom of God by force, Jesus said (Matt. 11:12), and he was speaking about those who would enter the kingdom with violent force, not crushing the walls of the kingdom, but crushing ourselves, our will, and our own lives so that we might be acceptable to the King because we have forsaken everything.
Where I have really gotten help from the New Perspective people is in the area of justification. The emphasis on the Kingdom of God and our right standing as citizens really helped me piece together the many seemingly contradictory statements of Scripture concerning righteousness, faith, and works.
The simplest picture of arriving blameless at the throne of God that I find in Scripture is 1 Jn. 1:7. We have to walk in the light, and if we do walk in the light, then the blood of Jesus will continually cleanse us from sin. Walking in the light means two things to me. It means walking in obedience to the teaching and revelation God has given me, and it means staying open and exposed before God when I stumble.
The shortest description of how to walk as a Christian that I can expound on is 2 Pet. 1:3-7. It goes like this:
v. 7: To godliness, we add brotherly kindness. With godliness comes humility and a righteousness that is from God and not from man. We need this foundation to really excel in brotherly kindness. We must know our own weakness, and we must know what God commands and be able to differentiate God’s will from religious ideas, traditions, superstitions, fears, and deceit of man.
Another passage that gives a picture of this is 1 Jn, 2:12-14. The little children simply know the Father. The young men have learned to be strong and to battle the wicked one. The fathers, however, know him who was from the beginning. They know the depths of God. They understand his eternity and his attributes, and they have abandoned their own versions of righteousness to be found in God’s righteousness, imbued with godliness, filled with brotherly kindness, and shining with love.
Along the way we may, and will, stumble or even fall. We are in a mighty battle against ourselves, the devil, and the world. When we sin, however, we have an advocate with the Father, King Jesus the Righteous One.
There are those to whom God will not impute sin (Rom. 4:8). This blessing is not for those who merely name the name of the King. It is for those who also depart from iniquity (2 Tim. 2:19). We can’t just call him Lord; we have to do what he says (Matt. 7:21; Luke 6:46). If we want our sin to be automatically cleansed, we must walk in the light (1 Jn. 1:7). If we want to be as righteous as Jesus is, we must practice righteousness (1 Jn. 3:7). Do not be deceived about these things (1 Cor. 6:9; Gal. 6:7; 1 Jn. 3:7).
One final note:
I have said that we sin along the way. Let me provide a little more scriptural evidence for that assertion.
James 3:1 warns us that not many of us should become teachers because teachers receive a stricter judgment. How can there be a stricter judgment if the least strict judgment is that a person must not sin at all?
So, too, Paul tells us that there are those to whom God will not impute sin (Rom. 4:8). What purpose does he have for saying that if Christians never sin?
Don’t take that so far that you mock God (Gal. 6:7). The unrighteous will never inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9), and those who walk according to the flesh will reap corruption (Rom. 8:12; Gal. 6:7).
True Christian theology calls us to action, and zeal for action. No, we’re not perfect the first day, which is why I love NT Wright’s description of justification. God just wants us to be faithful citizens of the Kingdom. He knows our weaknesses, and the Christian life is all about overcoming those weakness; day by day; over long periods; with lots of discipline from our Father involved.
It’s a frightening but exciting course, given by the Creator of the universe, which allows us to become his sons and grow up in his household.
That’s the other thing. We grow together. It’s really hard to grow up straight and true if we are not exhorted, encouraged, consoled, rebuked, and pleaded with daily (Heb. 3:13). I feel so sorry for those being bent by the ways of this world, the traditions of men that rule our Christian organizations, and by pure loneliness without ever being rightfully welcomed in the arms of Jesus, which according to 1 Corinthians 12:12 are the arms of saints. His arms are not supposed to be stretched down from heaven when they exist here on earth already! He wants to hug us, comfort us, and strengthen us in real human arms through which flows his blood and which are empowered by his Spirit.
Such an environment is worth searching long and hard for.
Augustine didn’t really write about evolution, since the evolution of all species was not proposed for another 1400 years. It almost sounds like he knew about it, though.
In On the Literal Meaning of Genesis (Bk. 6, ch. 5, par. 8), St. Augustine argues that Genesis chapter one says that God created male and female on the sixth day, but that Genesis chapter two says that Eve, the first woman, was not created until after God had rested on the seventh day.
His conclusion, which he had spent about 50,000 words building up to, is this:
The original creation, therefore, of the two was different from the later creation. First they were created in potency throuh the word of God and inserted seminally into the world when he created all things together, after which He rested from these works on the seventh day. From these creatures all things are made, each at its own proper time throughout the course of history. Later the man and the woman were created in accordance with God’s creative activity as it is at work through the ages and with which He works even noww, and thus it was ordained that in time Adam would be made from the slime of the earth and the woman from the side of her husband.
Here there is a chapter break, and then comes the most interesting conclusion of all:
According to the division of the works of God described above, some works belong to the invisible days in which He created all things simultaneously, and others belong to the days in which He daily fashions whatever evolves in the course of time from what I might call the primordial wrappers. (ibid. ch. 6, par. 9. Emphasis added.)
I was going to write a longer article, but Alister McGrath has both an article and a book on the subject, so I will turn this subject over to him …
There is a problem with our emphasis on evangelism. It is not the evangelism that is the problem. It is what we are skipping along the way!
When I suggest what is obvious in Scripture, that “the Great Commission” was given only to the apostles, I am excoriated by everyone but my closest friends. Now, though, a book I am reading may give me a chance to make my suggestion—well, assertion—more palatable.
The following is a quote from some theologians who seem to agree with me, but with whom I disagree. The quote is from a report called Re-Thinking Missions, which was produced by a “Commission of Appraisal” led by Harvard philosopher William Ernest Hocking (1873-1966).
The Christian way of life is capable of transmitting itself by quiet personal contact and contagion, and there are circumstances in which this is the perfect mode of speech. Ministry to the secular needs of men in the spirit of Christ, moreover, is evangelism, in the right sense of the word.… We believe that the time has come to … be willing to give largely without any preaching, to cooperate whole-heartedly with non-Christian agencies for social improvement. (cited by Sweeney, D. A. [2005]. The American Evangelical Story: A History of the Movement [p. 100]. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.)
I think being willing to give without preaching is a good thing. Avoiding preaching, however? Not a good thing. The apostle Paul wrote:
How shall they hear without a preacher? (Rom. 10:14)
Preaching is necessary. Evangelism is a good thing. The harvest is ready, and the laborers are few. We should be praying that the good Lord would send laborers into the harvest.
… that the good Lord would … send …
The next question Paul asks is:
How shall they preach except they be sent?
Have we considered who is sent?
So what step are we missing?
We are missing the step in which they are sent. In fact, we’re missing a much more major step in which people can be prepared to be sent.
I’m not talking about missionaries. Many of those are ill-prepared for what they will face on the mission field, but most missionaries have had some preparation and have been sent by someone.
I’m talking about the evangelists that are sent out into their own homes, workplaces, and towns, who are neither equipped nor commissioned.
The step that’s missing is the church.
Admittedly, evangelicals start churches, and they encourage their members to be a part of a church. But if you are a part of an evangelical church for any length of time, you soon find out that church is just a way to keep up your zeal for evangelism. It’s a way to pass time until we get to heaven. There’s only two steps that really matter, getting saved, and saving others.
The magnitude of what we’re missing with that mindset is phenomenal.
We are predestined to be conformed to the image of King Jesus (Rom. 8:29). The reason that Jesus gave us apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers is so that we would be able to build up the body of Christ so that the body of Christ, the church, can grow together into his fullness (Eph. 4:11-16).
Paul told us that it is through many tribulations that we must enter into the kingdom of God (Acts 14:21). We rejoice in tribulation because it produces character and character produces hope (Rom. 5:3-4). The goal of the Scriptures is to equip us for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17). James tells us that the route to that equipping is the trials of this life (Jam. 1:2-4).
You will find all sorts of commands in the letters to the churches about loving one another, having the same mind, maintaining unity of the Spirit, and living a life worthy of the calling with which we are called. Paul’s entire letter to Titus is about what to say to the churches in Crete, and even to its leaders once he appoints them, and not one line of those instructions include “go out and evangelize.”
In fact, Paul’s instruction to the church at Thessalonica, after he commended them for the great love they had for one another, was to …
… labor to lead a quiet life, to attend to your own business, and to work with your hands, like we commanded you, so that you may live decently before outsiders. (1 Thess. 4:11-12)
Whether we like it or not, here is what the Scriptures say. Jesus told the apostles to go out and start churches all over the world. Some others were clearly added to that commission, such as Paul, Barnabas, and Apollos. We know from Acts that Paul and Barnabas (Barnabas and Saul at the time) were given a specific call from the Holy Spirit and then sent by the church.
Those churches were told to live in such a way that …
Let’s address that last passage. It’s really important.
Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give an answer to to everyone that asks a reason for the hope that is in you. (1 Pet. 3:15)
I quoted this once to someone who disagreed with me about the Great Commission being given only to the apostles. He answered me, “So we have to wait for someone to ask? When was the last time someone asked you?”
He nailed the problem right on the head.
People ask me all the time for the reason that I live with such hope. It happens more often now that I’m a cancer survivor, but it has happened all my Christian life, 32 years worth of requests for the reason for my hope in Jesus.
In 1983 I was in Alaska in the Air Force. My roommate was a tough guy, hunter and all around strong, healthy, and outdoorsy guy. I was a complete nerd. I thought he despised me, and I hardly ever talked to him. He certainly didn’t talk to me.
One night, right after we had both climbed into our beds, he asked, “How do I become a Christian?”
I was shocked. He listened openly, then said, “I have to give some real thought to this.”
The next day a co-worker who was a nominal Christian—maybe “unrighteous hypocrite” is more honest—explained to him that he didn’t have to live like me to go to heaven. Faith was all it takes, so he could just go on doing his own thing.
I had a couple very interesting occurrences a couple years later. I was an electrician working on F-4’s, and so I worked out of a dispatch office that included all the mechanic, radar, communications, hydraulic, and navigation specialists. With 24 planes to take care of, we often had up to 60 people in and out of the dispatch office during day shift.
I read a book during that time that really convicted me and got me to thinking about changes I needed to make in my life. As I was sitting one day, mulling over the message in the book, an airman with whom I’d never talked sat down next to me.
“Are you okay?” he asked. “Is something wrong?”
“I’m fine,” I told him. “I’m just thinking about some things.”
He then told me, “Well, you better pull yourself together. You’re supposed to be shining a light to the rest of us.”
Not long after, I was on an evening shift, and one of the crew chiefs swung by to ask one of us specialists to stand fire guard while his plane was being refueled. We specialists worked on all the planes, but the crew chiefs were assigned to one plane. They took care of it, and they called us if they needed our help.
No one liked to get up and stand fire guard when they could be sitting in the dispatch office chewing the fat until their next repair job. I didn’t like it, either, but I figured Christians should serve, so I volunteered for the job.
What transpired afterward was simply amazing.
One of the guys said, “We need more Christians here so that I don’t have to do fire guard. Would anyone like to get saved?”
Someone answered, “I don’t think I could live like that.”
A third co-worker said, “No, it’s not like that. I’ve been talking to Paul here, and it’s about grace. If you accept Jesus, then he’ll give you the desire and the power to live like a Christian.”
The first guy who had spoken got excited. “There you go!” He announced. “Raise your hand if you want to accept the Lord!”
All three were non-Christian. One of them was also an electrician, so he had asked me a lot of questions as worked out on a plane one day, me sitting in the cockpit, and him sitting out on the ladder next to me. I got a good hour or two to explain the Gospel to him, and though he had not yet repented, something had gotten in. Now he was telling others even though he hadn’t decided to follow yet himself!
Sometimes the questions are not so direct. One day while I was hospitalized I went to visit one of my chemo buddies in his room. He was Jewish proselyte. He had been agnostic, met a Jewish girl, was baptized into Judaism, and married the girl. Oddly enough, he was still agnostic, and he told me a lot of Jews are.
He had already seemed like the philosopher/intellectual type. That day he had a visitor who was even more so. I’m pretty sure they were discussing an ancient Greek book that I knew little or nothing about. It was clear I was with people who were over-my-head intellectual. Honestly, forsaking humility, that’s not a common experience for me.
I just listened, knowing I wasn’t in their league on whatever they were talking about, when my chemo buddy told his guest, “Paul wrote a book. It’s pretty interesting.”
Don’s guest asked me about it, and I started explaining about the Council of Nicea and what happened to the church and how it affected western history. He listened completely captivated. When I was done, he said, “I have got to talk to you more.”
That never happened because Don was released a couple days later.
I have at least dozens, maybe a couple hundred stories like that.
I started this section by saying that someone had asked me, “When was the last time someone asked you about your faith?” Obviously, he thought that if a person said nothing and just lived their faith, no one would notice.
What is really happening is that because of our emphasis on evangelism Christians, from the holiest to the outright hypocrite, is exhorted to evangelize as though this were our prime Christian duty. It is, after all, according to evangelicals, the GREAT Commission.
Thus, we have created an army of salesmen, usually no more welcome than a Jehovah’s Witness, a Kirby vacuum peddler, or a used car salesman. No one asks for a reason for the hope that is in us because they are tired of hearing it. When they see us, they have the same feeling they get when they walk into a car lot and the salesman approaches. You don’t get to say “just looking” in a car lot.
I’m not saying we can’t overcome it. Even in this modern day, if we will do what Jesus said—good works, love each other, and maintain the unity of the Spirit—people will see us and know there is something different.
And that is just my point. Set a real Christian free, and he (or she) cannot help but evangelize even if he never opens his mouth. No matter how shy a Christian is, the light of his life is going to draw people, and the movement of the Holy Spirit in his heart will make sure he has something to say in time of need.
This post is just over 2,000 words already, but this subject is so sacred, though not any more Scriptural because of its sacredness, to evangelicals that I think it’s important to give you a bit more.
Early Christians:
The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus the King; King Jesus from God. … Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus the King, established in the Word of God, and with full assurance of the Holy Spirit, they went forth proclaiming that the Kingdom of God was at hand. (The Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth. 1 Clement 42.)
He has exhorted us to lead all men, by patience and gentleness, from shame and the love of evil. And this indeed is proved in the case of many who once were of your way of thinking, but have changed their violent and tyrannical disposition, being overcome either by the consistency which they have witnessed in their neighbors’ lives, or by the extraordinary forbearance they have observed in their fellow travelers when defrauded, or by the honesty of those with whom they have transacted business. (Justin. First Apology 16)
[Jesus] commanded the eleven others, on his departure to the Father, to “go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” Therefore, the apostles immediately did this, as their title indicates “the sent” … On the authority of a prophecy which occurs in a psalm of David, they chose Matthias by lot as a twelfth … they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the churches. They then … founded churches in every city, from which all other churches, ane after another, derive the tradition of the faith and the seeds of doctrine. Indeed, they are deriving them every day so that they can become churches. (Tertullian. Prescription Against Heretics 20.)
The Scriptures
One of my favorite passages illustrating the plan of God is 1 Thessalonians 1:5-10. I have asserted that God’s plan was for the apostles, and those who are especially sent, like Paul, Barnabas, and Apollos, to go into all the world with the Gospel. Everywhere they went they would establish churches that were a testimony to the Lord by their very lives. As Jesus pointed out, they were cities set on a hill that could not be hidden (Matt. 5:13-16).
1 Thessalonians 1:5-10 is a testimony of how well this plan works!
Paul tells the Thessalonians that their love is so well known that it is a witness not only in Macedonia and Achaia (entire provinces), but everywhere “so that we do not have to say anything.”
No wonder Paul went on to Spain after the imprisonment that ends the book of Acts. His churches were prospering lights. The life of his churches in the east was testifying for him.
Arise, shine, for your light has come! And the glory of the Lord has risen upon you! For behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people, but the Lord will arise on you, and his glory shall be seen on you. Gentiles shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising. Lift up your eyes! Look around and see! They all gather togther. They all come to you. Your sons will come from afar, and your daughters will be nursed at your side. … The abundance of the sea will be converted to you, and the Gentiles shall come to you. (Isa. 60:1-5)
Somehow, most people assume I am against evangelism when I say that the Great Commission is not for everyone. Not at all! I am arguing that the most powerful way to evangelize is God’s way.
I’ve been reading a book about the evangelical movement. There is, of course, a lot of focus on the missionary movement. The stories of some of these evangelists thrill me.
At our church we are fond of saying, “The only thing better than living this life is sharing it with others.” We love to shine the light of this life that has descended from heaven, and we cherish every opportunity to talk about it.
That doesn’t mean that every Christian is commanded to evangelize.
Facts are facts, whether we like them or not. Jesus was talking to the eleven when he gave the Great Commission. Jesus still calls people and sends them.
The instructions to the church, however, are to stay right where you are, live a quiet life, work with your hands, mind your own business, and give everyone around you a reason to marvel at your life and the life of the people you have been joined to in Jesus.
I’m sorry. I love Keith Green, but Jesus did not command us to go, and it should definitely NOT be the exception to stay.
We have sent ill-equipped missionaries into the field. That’s the minor problem, though it is still a problem.
I know of one couple whose intention was to go into the mission field. They were all excited about it until they got a taste of real church life. At that point it became obvious that their marriage was entirely dysfunctional. As is common in marriages where the wife is “the spiritual one” and the husband is meek and tagging along, the wife didn’t like it when her husband started to become a man of God. In fact, she disliked it so much that as he began to rise up and follow Jesus wholeheartedly, she divorced him.
What would they have taken with them to the mission field?
That’s the minor problem. Those who want to be missionaries are almost always trying—sometimes despite glaring faults—to live for Jesus. The major problem is the unsaved or baby “Christians” that fill our pews and are exhorted to go witness, witness, witness.
Some baby Christians ought to be witnessing. They have a transformed life, though they may know little of the ways of the Lord at the beginning. They are excited and in love with Jesus. Let them witness. Let their excitement show.
However, it’s usually not necessary to command such people to witness. People notice the change and ask what happened. When I was converted, it spread all through our squadron. I heard “Is it true you got saved?” daily for a month or so.
Others are intimidated and terrified. They don’t know what they’ve gotten into. They are given the same instructions a Jehovah’s Witness might receive: “Go out and recruit.”
Unless you have a salesman personality, that is simply overwhelming.
That wouldn’t matter if that is what Jesus or the apostles taught to the disciples in general. Yes, Jesus trained the twelve and even the 70 to preach the Gospel. We should be training people to do so as well. We should be praying for the Father to send people out into the harvest.
First, though we should make a disciple out of those who have been converted!
Look at Jesus’ instructions to a large crowd rather than to just the eleven. The Sermon on the Mount started with just his disciples (Matt. 5:1-2), but by the end, he was clearly speaking to a crowd (Matt. 7:28). In the Sermon on the Mount he does talk about “evangelizing,” but the method of evangelism was to do good works.
What sort of good works? Well, he goes on to describe them. Be poor in spirit; show mercy, rejoice in persecution; hunger for righteousness; don’t lust; don’t be angry or hate; turn the other cheek; be private in your prayer and giving; seek rewards from God, not men; Trust God, despise money; etc.
Read that paragraph again (or better yet, the whole Sermon on the Mount), and ask yourself, “If I did all these things, and more importantly, if I did all these things together with friends, would the world notice?”
I think so. They might even ask about it.
Let’s move from theory to some real practical matters.
I want to work with two passages of Scripture today. I’m going to list them, and then I’m just going to refer back to what they say without referencing them a second time:
He gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some shepherds and teachers to perfect the saints for the work of service and for the building up of the body of Christ until we all come into the unity of the faith, of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the full stature of the King. The purpose of all this is that we do not remain children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of teaching, by the sleight of hand performed with cunning craftiness by men who lie in wait to deceive. Instead, we will speak the truth in love and grow up in everything into him who is the head, the King, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, as each part effectively gives what it has, causes growth of the body so that it builds itself up in love. (Eph. 4:11-16)
I have written these things [his letter to that point] to you [plural!] about those who are trying to seduce you. But the anointing which you have received from him remains in you, and you don’t need anyone to teach you. Instead, as the anointing teaches you about everything, and is true and not a lie, just as it has taught you, you will remain in him. (1 Jn. 2:26-27)
We use these passages, especially the one from Ephesians 4, but in practice we miss its main teaching. We don’t miss the main teaching in interpretation. We just miss it in practice.
So, what I am about to say will not seem new to most of you. I just want to point out that almost no one is doing the Word of God contained in these passages, and then I want to ask you to start doing it.
It could change everything.
We like verses 11 and 12 of Ephesians 4. The apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers (or possibly, though unlikely, shepherd/teachers) train the saints to serve and to build the body of Jesus, and everything is wonderful.
Perhaps there are countries where that would be enough.
In the USA, it is not nearly enough.
We’re pretty wimpy. We think Jesus, who was not only full of love, but was love incarnate, was sweet, syrupy, and understanding. And, in fact, to the adulteress that was about to be stoned, his rescue of her could certainly be described as sweet and understanding, as well as heroic. It was certainly full of mercy.
Jesus wasn’t always like that. With his closest comrades he was nothing like that.
Jesus wants us to learn from him.
“If your brother sins, rebuke him.” (Luke 17:3)
So does Paul:
All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, reproving, correction, and instruction in righteousness … (2 Tim. 3:16)
One of their own … said, “The Cretians are always liars, wild animals, and gluttons.” This testimony is true; therefore, rebuke them sharply so that they may become healthy in their faith. (Tit. 1:12-13)
In the United States, there are things we just don’t talk about. We are so concerned about “political correctness” that we have an acronym for it!
That doesn’t work in the church.
I’ve attended a number of black churches (though I mourn the fact that there could be black or white churches) in my time, a couple on a regular basis. It’s not uncommon for a pastor to interrupt his own sermon to say, “Now I’m meddlin’.”
He means he’s talking about things that the typical church member doesn’t like to bring into the light or talk about openly.
Usually, though, that statement is greeted with whoops and hollerin’, as the congregation knows that we need “meddlin’.”
That meddlin’, however, should not come from the shepherd. The shepherd(s) should be training the saints to do the work of service and to build up Jesus’ body, making it healthy so that it grows to the stature that it’s supposed to have. We are the ones who are supposed to speak the truth in love and effectively play our part (cf. also 1 Pet. 4:10-11; Rom. 12:3-8; 1 Cor. 12:4-12).
The results promised for the saints doing the work of service, building up Jesus’ body, and speaking truth to one another as they are equipped by God to do so are phenomenal. We will dodge the doctrinal sleight of hand done by the cunning ones, sent by the devil to prevent the church from growing into its terrifying fullness, and we will not wander this way and that as various teachers and teachings come through. In fact, we will grow, together, and we will grow into “the full measure of the stature of the King.” In other words, Jesus’ body will grow up into the full, strong man that he should be on the earth.
If we do our part.
Not playing your part will stunt our growth.
The other great promise to the church concerning those that would lead us astray is 1 John 2:26-27. “We” don’t even need anyone to teach us! The anointing that he gives us will teach us everything we need, and it will be true and not a lie!
All the you’s in 1 John 2:26-27 are plural. It is not addressed to individuals, but to the church. It is good to at least own a KJV translation because in it you can tell the difference between plural and singular you’s. Thou, thee, and thine are singular; ye, you, and your are plural. The idea that “thou” is somehow holier than “you” is false. It is simply more singular than you!
For most Christians, however, that promise falls into the “too good to be true” category. Where has it every worked?
It has worked wherever the church has existed. I can name some: The catholic churches prior to Constantine; the early Anabaptists (the Radical Reformation); the early Quakers (Societies of Friends); the Moravian Brethren. I’m sure there’s more that I could list if I took more time to think about it.
At Rose Creek Village, we have gathered people from most streams of western Christianity (Catholic, Pentecostal, Baptist, Amish, Mennonite, Methodist, “non-denominational,” charismatic, International Church of Christ, and the Lord’s Recovery) along with former atheists, patriot movement members, National Organization of Women members, and several that wouldn’t fit into any of those categories, into one body, developing one heart, one mind, and one way, whose members are filled with the Holy Spirit and love.
That was no small task. In fact, it is an utterly impossible task without the intervention of God.
For us, 1 John 2:27 was not too good to be true.
I could run this post up to 5,000 words telling you about modern churches that have believed the passages I began this post with, and who prospered doing so. I could also tell you about the immense effort the devil expends trying to make sure such churches do not continue to exist. (My booklet, How to Make a Church Fail, exposes the 200-year effort that produces such a great apostasy during the time of Constantine.)
I’ll limit myself to what I’ve experienced. How did Rose Creek Village bring such a diverse group of people together and have them stay together? Well, three things:
I had a plan for something much less sloppy in covering teachings that must not be lost. Apparently God did not share the same plans. Maybe by looking at Jesus’ church circumspectly, from several possible angles, we can paint a picture that will bring light to those who read.
If you haven’t, you might want to read part one and part two.
Okay, so this post is a response to a post on Frontier Ruminations blog. I’m trusting that Ben is not going to be offended by straightforward and robust but polite disagreement. The post is titled “The Great Question,” but I want to argue that it should be titled “The Wrong Question.”
The actual video is called “Protestantism and Authority,” and it is found on Youtube.
The video is a Roman Catholic apologetic. I disagree with its premise, but I completely agree with its charges against Protestantism. How can I not? They’re obviously correct.
Hopefully, my response will direct Protestants and Catholics both to the right question.
“Who finally has the authority to interpret the Word of God?”
Father Robert Barron states this as the central issue of this short video at 0:52 in. On the surface this is an excellent question. I blame no one for asking it.
I just think it’s already been answered.
At about 1:15 of the video Fr. Barron tells us that Martin Luther’s answer was that because of the priesthood of all believers, we are all capable of reading the Bible and interpreting it.
Do you need Fr. Barron to tell you what his argument against this Protestant teaching is? You probably don’t. You know the problem with Martin Luther’s assertion. These “capable” Bible interpreters have come up with at least 30,000 different answers to what the church ought to be.
Oops! That didn’t work very well.
At around 1:53, Fr. Barron then tells us that Alister McGrath’s answer (Barron is critiquing a book by McGrath) is to reject any absolute authority and rely on a consensus that gradually builds up.
Fr. Barron is apparently pretty smart because he tears that argument apart several ways. Really, though, the objection to Martin Luther’s answer is just as valid when applied to McGrath’s. There are at least 30,000 consensuses that have gradually built up. Which one should we rely on?
At 2:40, Fr. Barron gets to his own answer.
We do need a voice, finally, that can determine for us the truth of things when there is this tremendous disagreement.
He adds Cardinal John Henry Newman’s answer, basically the same.
There has to be a living voice that can determine the truth of things when the church is divided about central matters.
Fr. Barron compares this to the role of a referee in a sporting event. A referee doesn’t tell everyone what to do, but when there is a dispute, everyone agrees there needs to be a referee.
This is the role of the church, he says, in Cardinal Newman’s eyes.
Fr. Barron tells us that Cardinal Newman’s opinion, while he was Anglican, was that the referee, the final interpreter of the Word of God, would be the consensus of the fathers. Newman realized, however, that their voice was not a “living” voice. They had to be interpreted as well. They can no longer speak for themselves.
Fr. Barron foresees my objection. At 5:35 he tells us that the umpire analogy breaks down. Umpires and referees can be wrong. In fact, referees are sometimes fired because they are incompetent or biased.
I figured a few Protestants might be offended because I’m referring to Mr. Barron as Fr. Barron, so I threw in a “Bob” here. Now that I’ve pretended to obey the letter (as opposed to the spirit) of Matthew 23:8, I’m going to go back to being polite.
By the way, Protestants who object to the Catholic use of “father”, while referring to men as Pastor Hagee or Dr. Stanley are hypocrites anyway. Our reference should be to Matt. 23:5-12, not just v. 8.
Sorry. pet peeve of mine.
Anyway, Fr. Barron’s defense to the charge that I would make, that the Roman Catholic “magisterium” is not a competent referee and should be fired, is that the Holy Spirit shares his and Cardinal Newman’s opinion that we must have a living voice to be the final interpreter of God’s Word. Thus, the Holy Spirit would ensure that the truth given to the apostolic churches was preserved by some organization that descended from those churches, in this case the Roman Catholic Church.
My answer to Fr. Barron is the same answer he gave to the Protestant idea that an ongoing consensus could be the final authority on the truth. That Protestant answer clearly did not work. Thirty thousand denominations is his evidence.
The answer Fr. Barron gives, that the Holy Spirit would ensure that the truth would be preserved in the Roman Catholic Church, clearly did not happen. Numerous significant false doctrines are my evidence. Prayer to saints, the assumption of Mary, her immaculate conception, a philosophy of leadership bolstered by an invented history, a priesthood class in the church, and so many more.
It is a nice theory that the Holy Spirit would preserve truth in the Roman Catholic Church, but the proof is in the pudding. Bad fruit does not come from a good tree. If the fruit is bad, make the tree bad.
I think the right question makes it clear that the wrong question leads us to the wrong tree.
Jesus said that a true prophet would be known by his fruit. A good tree produces good fruit.
The right question is not who is the final authority on the interpretation of God’s Word. The right question is:
Who is producing the fruit that Jesus and the apostles produced?
The fruit of properly interpreting the Scriptures—and thus the rest of God’s Word—is Christians who are thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
Every good work includes the prayer that Fr. Barron mentioned. Jesus prayed that his disciples would be as united with one another as he is with the Father (Jn. 17:20-23). Every good work also includes love between the disciples (Jn. 13:34-35), obviously meaning a love that exceeeds typical love in the world, or else that love would be no proof of anything.
The authoritative interpreter of the Word of God is any church that is producing a unity between disciples that is so like the unity between God and his Son that the world believes God sent him (Jn. 17:20-23).
The authoritative interpreter of the Word of God is any church that produces disciples that love one another so much that the world knows they are Jesus’ disciples by their love for one another (Jn. 13:34-35), not by an organization they hold in common.
The authoritative interpreter of the Word of God is any church that consistently raises up disciples who are thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
If you want to be able to argue that you are joined to the right church, join yourself to people that effectively argue that they are the true church.
If you want to feel like you are correctly interpreting the Scriptures, join yourself to people that win all the doctrinal arguments in which they engage.
If you want to be a part of the family of God, united in love, sharing and being shared with, growing in godliness and experiencing the work of the Holy Spirit in your life, join yourself to people living that way.
Each one of these illustrate the truth that trees produce fruit in accordance with their nature.
I would argue that the goal of Scripture interpretation is to produce people who keep God’s commandments (1 Jn. 2:4), walk in the light (1 Jn. 1:7; 2:6), practice righteous (1 Jn. 3:7), and love one another (1 Jn. 4:7-8; Jn. 15:12).
If you find a tree producing that fruit, you can be sure it is a good tree, a true and trustworthy interpreter of the Word of God.
I promise I will get back to teachings that must not be lost, but I’ve been on a trip. I need to get in a blog, and there’s nothing like a good Roman Catholic apologist to stir me up to write. Besides, this is on the topic of what the church is.
It’s probably worth noting that I wrote this before I wrote my last two posts. I forgot about it, though, and I am just now plugging it into the scheduled posts several days after my Massachusetts trip.
This answer to a Roman Catholic blog is every bit as applicable to Protestants as it is to Roman Catholicism.
The blog was an argument against sola Scriptura (Scripture only). The history the blog gave was subtly off enough to sound accurate yet still bolster an untenable argument. We’ll skip all that, though, and get to the point.
In the midst of his subtly false history, he said that most early Christians only heard the Scripture (and which books belong in Scripture) from the “liturgy.”
In some other age, I might not object to the use of the word “liturgy” in reference to an early Christian meeting. Between Pliny the Younger’s description of an early Christian church meeting and Justin Martyr’s, I can understand describing both as a “liturgy.”
The problem is, most liturgical churches offer liturgy and liturgy only. The Catholic Mass is a liturgy. Many Lutheran and some Presbyterian services are liturgies. Anglican churches have a liturgical service, and all the Orthodox churches are liturgical.
Liturgy is from a Greek word meaning worship (latreia). In modern liturgical services, for all practical purposes, it is an order of worship that includes Scripture readings, psalms, confession of sin, and confessions of faith and theology.
That happened. I agree. Justin Martyr’s description of a Christian meeting is very simple. Scripture is read, the “one presiding” (usually an elder?) expounds on that Scripture, and then the fellowship meal is eaten. A collection is taken, but only from those who are willing and able, and bread and wine is eaten, then delivered to the infirm who could not attend the meeting.
Very structured, though very simple.
But that was not the extent of their worship or their meetings! It was not the extent of their exposure to Scripture!
1 Corinthians 14 describes a meeting of Christians who exercised their gifts. They came with a psalm, a hymn, a revelation, a tongue, an interpretation. They did not always do this decently and in order, but they were supposed to.
A century and a half later, Tertullian describes a Christian feast where everyone ate moderately, maintaining their self control, and each brought a song, a Scripture, an admonishment for the body. There they consecrated themselves to God, and they admonished one another, and there, on occasion, they carried out “sacred censures” when they were forced to remove someone from the fellowship of the church.
Today, the liturgical churches have liturgy, and the “free” churches have freedom … to sit in a pew and watch a show performed by professionals.
Okay, some Protestant churches are small enough that they watch a show performed by only one professional along with a few volunteers.
We’re trying to correct that. Catholic and Protestant alike are using various forms of small groups, whether at home or at the church building, to attempt to recreate a 1 Corinthian 14 type of meeting where everyone can participate.
Mostly, it doesn’t work, unless you mean that it keeps people whose lives are still their own and whose families are still more important than God’s family happy and feeling like they have gone as far as they can for Jesus.
I mourn the loss of understanding of the power of the church. I mean the church which is your family more than your parents, more than your grown children, more than your brothers, sisters, aunts, and uncles. The church in which you can obey Jesus’ command not to store up treasures on earth because you know will find lifelong support in the family of God. The church in which no one feels alone because the disciples know that every member has to grow together and not be left out (1 Cor. 12; Eph. 4:11-16). Everyone is called not just to be attached to the head in the heavens, but also to the body of Jesus on earth.
Jesus is a many-membered body (1 Cor. 12:12). He has arms to hug with. He has eyes to share tears with those who come to him. He has many arms, many eyes, many feet, and he calls those who will forsake all to enter his family.
Listen, O daughter! Consider, and incline your ear! Forget your own people and your father’s house, and in this way the King will greatly desire your beauty. (Ps. 45:10-11)
When we argue about liturgy versus free churches and how much Scripture is included in the liturgy, we are talking about a tiny, tiny percentage of what is at the heart of “church.” While we determine whether three songs (or twenty), an offering, and a speech are better or worse than a carefully choreographed recital of faith and Scripture, we send people “home” from those meetings, as though they had some other home than the family of God.
I’m quite certain this all could be said better, and maybe more sweetly (not that Jesus or the apostles left me any “sweet speech” example to follow. I think, however, if you want to, you’ll get the point.
It only recently dawned on me that I have been trying to be “catholic” since the time I became a Christian. With a lot of hesitation, I am ready to announce that I … no, we … have arrived.
I’ve been telling people for a long time that in the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds, the word “catholic” does not mean Roman Catholic, but universal. The early Christians referred to the “catholic” churches, which was almost identical with referring to the apostolic churches. The catholic churches were the churches formed by the apostles and remaining in unity.
That had great meaning in the first couple centuries of the church. In our modern era … not so much.
However, I read a new definition of “catholic” that I really like:
To many Fundamentalists-Evangelicals, the word catholic is simply an abbreviation for Roman Catholic. The term catholic, however, can never be the property of a denomination. In fact, as I shall show in a moment, those who use it to segregate Christians from each other are actually contradicting its very meaning! The ancient Church understood catholicity to mean wholeness, fullness, integrity, and “totality.” This is the primary meaning of the Greek word katholou (kaqolou), catholic.
Another popular misunderstanding of the word catholic is “universal,” as in, the church which exists throughout the world. This was not at all the early Christian understanding. The Church of the first centuries used the term as a synonym for the fullness of Truth, not as a geographical description. For example, Ignatius of Antioch (the first Christian father to use the word to explain the Church) states that the Church is catholic because in her assembly, the faithful welcome the presence of Christ in all His Truth. The idea of a universal Church, understood as being constituted by all “churches” throughout the world, never occurred to Ignatius. (Bajis, Jordan. Common Ground. Chapter 10. Emphasis in original.)
To be a part of a church where “the faithful welcome the presence of Christ in all his truth” is exactly what I’ve been searching for all my adult life. It is what I have been experiencing for almost twenty years.
I realize now that being “catholic” is what I have always wanted. I have always wanted to be right in the middle of the stream of God’s Spirit as he moved in his people in this world.
I’m ready to believe I’ve found it.
I am not trying to define the Orthodox churches’ view here. I am just taking one part of what’s been told to me by Orthodox members and applying it to myself and to the Christians who are my near and dear relatives in Jesus and fellow members of the local body of Christ.
I wish I could remember the exact wording, but a friend spoke of the “conciliatory of churches.” This was the idea that the catholic churches—the apostolic churches—were together, joined to one another in love, and mutually watching over one another. They did not rule over one another, but they did admonish one another and keep one another on the right track.
We have entered wholeheartedly into this definition of catholicity!
We draw from every tradition we can. We test the teachers and teachings by the fruit they produce. We learn from the earliest Christian writers. We pay attention to Roman Catholic dogma, and we read about Orthodox teachings and talk to Orthodox members and priests. We study Protestant scholarship, and we love history. We want our life and teachings to be grounded in the historical church.
In doing so, we have rejected the doctrine of the primacy of the Roman bishop as unhistoric. We have rejected the claim that the authority and power of God is limited to churches who can claim a human line of bishops, one laying hands on the next from the time of the apostles.
The approach I have described above to being catholic is exactly what has led us to reject those claims.
We believe that we are entering into, growing in, and experiencing “wholeness, fullness, integrity, and totality.” We see that the result of this pursuit has been that the we, not just I or him or her, have been grounded in good works, shining such a light that the world has taken notice of us and given glory to our Father in heaven. We have tasted how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity. We have fulfilled our longing to pursue the teaching of the apostles, the breaking of bread, and fellowship continually and daily.
I do believe that we can rightly claim that we are holy, catholic, and apostolic. We long for the day when all those who share that claim will also be able to share the claim that we are one.
Author of books on early Christianity, apostolic faith, and church history. Official site: 
https://christian-history.org
Genesis 1 is teaching theology, not creation science.
Meaningful Dialogue across Christian Traditions
Motivate | Inspire | Uplift
The Rest of the Old, Old Story 