I have a couple of questions for myself, and perhaps someone out there can help me with answering them.
Background
I was reading a post by Daniel, when I came across a comment from brother Jenson that might cause a little storm in my brain’s teacup, whatever that might be. Brother Jenson wrote:
“I say this with good-will, but with Biblical separation, one has to do it carefully and graciously. Not all believers have reached a level of maturity to be able to handle criticisms and some will inevitably say ‘that is your interpretation!’ when you confront them with a topic as big as ‘Justification by Faith’.”
Of course, Jenson’s comment must be read within the context of Daniel’s post. At first reading, it seemed that I had a little difficulty understanding the second sentence of Jenson’s comment, especially when he “appeared” to have said that believers may not “have reached a level of maturity” to understand “a topic as big as ‘Justification by Faith.’” Having known Jenson better than this, I am sure this is not what he is trying to insinuate. But again, this post brought certain thoughts to mind.
When does a seeker becomes a true believer of biblical Christianity?
Perhaps I can better frame my thoughts in the form of another question:
Can one be considered a true believer if he believes in any one of the following, and yet refuses to change his mind about it (i.e. repent) at a particular point in time? Let me know what you think.
Using simple terminologies:
Soteriology
1. Salvation is not by faith alone.
2. Salvation is not in Christ alone.
3. Salvation is not by grace alone.
Christology
4. Jesus is fully God, but not man in any sense.
5. Jesus is fully Man, but not God in any sense.
6. Jesus is a kind of god, but he is not exactly like the Father in terms of Godhood.
7. Jesus didn’t really rise from the dead.
8. Jesus didn’t really die. He appeared to have died.
Theology
9. There is one God, but not three Persons.
10. God does not know everything in advance.
Theology of the Word
11. The Bible becomes the Word of God when a believer reads it. But this “Word” or “Truth” defers from believer to believer.
12. The Bible is not inerrant or infallible. In other words, the Bible contains errors here, there, and everywhere.
13. The Bible is not the inspired Word of God. Only the message is inspired.
Eschatology
14. Christ is not coming back.
15. Christ really came back, but only spiritually, invisibly.
Anthropology
16. Man is not fallen. He has the innate ability to perfectly keep the Law of God.
17. Man needs Jesus, but he also needs to help himself. God does not help a man who does not help himself. A man must exercise his ability to believe.
18. There is no such thing as original sin. Man is born sinless.
Kindly take note that some of the aforementioned doctrinal points are actually heresies.
Clarification: I am not saying that such a person is not saved. What I am saying is that, can such a person be considered a true believer, if he holds to any of the aforementioned doctrines. Of course, if such a person refuses to be taught, and persists in believing a heresy, he can truly be named a heretic (Titus 3:10).
Again, none of us know who is an elect and who isn’t. I was from a Romish church, and I did believe in salvation by works. This brings us back to the original question: If a person does not believe in “justification” by faith alone (like myself back then), can he really be considered to have understood the gospel? If not, then is he a true believer in biblical Christianity at that point in time? This is, of course, from Man’s point of view.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Let’s Break That Guilty Silence
Note: I have yet to post further with regard to reasons for the lack of discernment in the Christian church today. But before I burden you with my perspectives, I would like to commend to you the following article by one of my favorite preacher and writer, Aidan Tozer.
In the following article, he decries the spiritual cowardice so inherent within contemporary Evangelicalism, and rightly calls it sin. Therefore, one further reason for the absence of discernment today is not the lack of understanding, but the lack of moral courage to stand up for what is true, and the preoccupation with a shameful, cowardly lust to please man rather than God.
Let’s Break That Guilty Silence
by A. W. Tozer
Taken from Aidan W. Tozer, God Tells the Man Who Cares (Cumbria, UK: OM Publishing, 1994), 176-180.
One of the great saints of the past, in a well-known hymn, calls on his tongue to break its “guilty silence” and praise the Lord.
The logic behind the stanza is that if it is right to praise God it is wrong not to praise Him and for that reason the tongue that is silent is sinful. Dr. R.A. Torrey taught that, since the greatest commandment is to love God, the greatest sin is failure to love Him. Such sins as not praising and not loving are called “sins of omission” because no positive act has been committed. The guilt lies in what is not done and might be designated as passive guilt rather than active. But though passive, it is nonetheless real.
Under the law of Moses a man could incur guilt by keeping still about some evil he knew was present in the camp of the Lord, and in the New Testament James tells us bluntly, “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins” (James 4:17). Is it not a serious thought that many clean-living, decent persons, against whom no overt act of wrongdoing can be charged, may yet be deeply guilty and inwardly stained with the sin that does not show, the sin of silence and inaction? There are moral situations where it is immoral to say nothing and basely immoral to do nothing.
The Bible has much to say in praise of prudence and circumspection, but it has nothing but condemnation for the coward. It is plainly taught in the New Testament that the soul that is too timid to own Christ before men on earth will be denied before the Father who is in heaven (Matthew 10:33). And in the book of the Revelation the fearful are classed with the unbelievers, the murderers, the whoremongers, the sorcerers, the liars, and all are relegated to the lake which burns with fire and brimstone (Revelation 21:8). Obviously moral cowardice is a sin, a grave and deeply injurious sin.
The fear that keeps us quiet when faith and love and loyalty cry out for us to speak is surely evil and must be judged as evil before the bar of eternal justice. The fear that prevents us from acting when the honor of God and the good of mankind call for bold action is unalloyed iniquity. God will not overlook it and, if it is persisted in, He will not forgive it.
The sinfulness of silence and inaction is more than academic; it is sharply practical and may impinge upon the soul of anyone of us at anytime. Let a moral situation shape itself so that righteousness demands speech and action, and theory becomes practical fact instantly. We have but to keep still and sit tight to become guilty of real sin.
A Political Example: Communism
The world situation today is such that sin by silence may be more widespread than at any other time in the history of the world. For the first time in human history a shockingly wicked ideology has been organized into a world conspiracy, shrewd, cruel, inhuman and fanatically determined. Of course, I mean international Communism, the devil’s most cunning and most effective imitation of Christianity to date. It is as if the boiling cauldrons of Gehenna had sprung a leak and the noxious vapors had entered the brains of men and turned then into moral cavemen without any conscience or any sense of common decency. They appear to be possessed and morally demented to a degree known nowhere else on earth. These men, though numerically few, yet constitute a threat to the world so grave, so deadly, that nothing else on earth can be compared to it.
Standing as we do under the shadow of such a mighty evil, how can any informed person be still? How can any member of the non-Communist world be indifferent as he sees every value that differentiates man from the beasts being destroyed and every spiritual quality that makes life worth the living being extinguished? The statesman who refuses to take sides has already taken sides. His tolerance has made him a traitor to his own country and to the human race.
A Spiritual Application
Serious as all this may be, there is something more serious still. It is the failure to take sides and to speak up when the enemy stalks into the very sanctuary and pollutes the holy place. Precious as human values may be, such values as freedom and decency and the dignity of the individual, divine values, are infinitely more precious. As high as is the heaven above the earth so great are the spiritual treasures revealed to us by the inspiration of the Spirit and secured to us by the blood of the everlasting covenant. The wisdom of God contained in the message and practice of the redemptive revelation is above a king’s ransom. “For she is more profitable than silver/ and yields better returns than gold./ She is more precious than rubies;/ nothing you desire can compare with her./ Long life is in her right hand;/ in the left hand are riches and honor./ Her ways are pleasant ways,/ and all her paths are peace” (proverbs 3:14-17).
At this hour in world history the state of religion is such that the church is in grave danger of losing this priceless treasure. Her gold is being turned to copper and her diamonds to glass. The religion of Cain is now in the ascendancy - and marching under the banner of the cross. Even among those who make a great noise about believing the Bible, that Bible has virtually no practical influence left. Fiction, films, fun, frolic, religious entertainment, Hollywood ideals, big business techniques and cheap, worldly philosophies now overrun the sanctuary. The grieved Holy Spirit broods over the chaos but no light breaks forth. “Revivals” come without rousing the hostility of organized sin and pass without raising the moral level of the community or purifying the lives of professing Christians. Why?
Could it be that too many of God’s true children, and especially the preachers, are sinning against God by guilty silence? When those whose eyes are opened by the touch of Christ become vocal and active God may begin to fight again on the side of truth. I for one am waiting to hear the loud voices of the prophets and reformers sounding once more over a sluggish and drowsy church.
They’ll pay a price for their boldness, but the results will be worth it.
In the following article, he decries the spiritual cowardice so inherent within contemporary Evangelicalism, and rightly calls it sin. Therefore, one further reason for the absence of discernment today is not the lack of understanding, but the lack of moral courage to stand up for what is true, and the preoccupation with a shameful, cowardly lust to please man rather than God.
Let’s Break That Guilty Silence
by A. W. Tozer
Taken from Aidan W. Tozer, God Tells the Man Who Cares (Cumbria, UK: OM Publishing, 1994), 176-180.
One of the great saints of the past, in a well-known hymn, calls on his tongue to break its “guilty silence” and praise the Lord.
The logic behind the stanza is that if it is right to praise God it is wrong not to praise Him and for that reason the tongue that is silent is sinful. Dr. R.A. Torrey taught that, since the greatest commandment is to love God, the greatest sin is failure to love Him. Such sins as not praising and not loving are called “sins of omission” because no positive act has been committed. The guilt lies in what is not done and might be designated as passive guilt rather than active. But though passive, it is nonetheless real.
Under the law of Moses a man could incur guilt by keeping still about some evil he knew was present in the camp of the Lord, and in the New Testament James tells us bluntly, “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins” (James 4:17). Is it not a serious thought that many clean-living, decent persons, against whom no overt act of wrongdoing can be charged, may yet be deeply guilty and inwardly stained with the sin that does not show, the sin of silence and inaction? There are moral situations where it is immoral to say nothing and basely immoral to do nothing.
The Bible has much to say in praise of prudence and circumspection, but it has nothing but condemnation for the coward. It is plainly taught in the New Testament that the soul that is too timid to own Christ before men on earth will be denied before the Father who is in heaven (Matthew 10:33). And in the book of the Revelation the fearful are classed with the unbelievers, the murderers, the whoremongers, the sorcerers, the liars, and all are relegated to the lake which burns with fire and brimstone (Revelation 21:8). Obviously moral cowardice is a sin, a grave and deeply injurious sin.
The fear that keeps us quiet when faith and love and loyalty cry out for us to speak is surely evil and must be judged as evil before the bar of eternal justice. The fear that prevents us from acting when the honor of God and the good of mankind call for bold action is unalloyed iniquity. God will not overlook it and, if it is persisted in, He will not forgive it.
The sinfulness of silence and inaction is more than academic; it is sharply practical and may impinge upon the soul of anyone of us at anytime. Let a moral situation shape itself so that righteousness demands speech and action, and theory becomes practical fact instantly. We have but to keep still and sit tight to become guilty of real sin.
A Political Example: Communism
The world situation today is such that sin by silence may be more widespread than at any other time in the history of the world. For the first time in human history a shockingly wicked ideology has been organized into a world conspiracy, shrewd, cruel, inhuman and fanatically determined. Of course, I mean international Communism, the devil’s most cunning and most effective imitation of Christianity to date. It is as if the boiling cauldrons of Gehenna had sprung a leak and the noxious vapors had entered the brains of men and turned then into moral cavemen without any conscience or any sense of common decency. They appear to be possessed and morally demented to a degree known nowhere else on earth. These men, though numerically few, yet constitute a threat to the world so grave, so deadly, that nothing else on earth can be compared to it.
Standing as we do under the shadow of such a mighty evil, how can any informed person be still? How can any member of the non-Communist world be indifferent as he sees every value that differentiates man from the beasts being destroyed and every spiritual quality that makes life worth the living being extinguished? The statesman who refuses to take sides has already taken sides. His tolerance has made him a traitor to his own country and to the human race.
A Spiritual Application
Serious as all this may be, there is something more serious still. It is the failure to take sides and to speak up when the enemy stalks into the very sanctuary and pollutes the holy place. Precious as human values may be, such values as freedom and decency and the dignity of the individual, divine values, are infinitely more precious. As high as is the heaven above the earth so great are the spiritual treasures revealed to us by the inspiration of the Spirit and secured to us by the blood of the everlasting covenant. The wisdom of God contained in the message and practice of the redemptive revelation is above a king’s ransom. “For she is more profitable than silver/ and yields better returns than gold./ She is more precious than rubies;/ nothing you desire can compare with her./ Long life is in her right hand;/ in the left hand are riches and honor./ Her ways are pleasant ways,/ and all her paths are peace” (proverbs 3:14-17).
At this hour in world history the state of religion is such that the church is in grave danger of losing this priceless treasure. Her gold is being turned to copper and her diamonds to glass. The religion of Cain is now in the ascendancy - and marching under the banner of the cross. Even among those who make a great noise about believing the Bible, that Bible has virtually no practical influence left. Fiction, films, fun, frolic, religious entertainment, Hollywood ideals, big business techniques and cheap, worldly philosophies now overrun the sanctuary. The grieved Holy Spirit broods over the chaos but no light breaks forth. “Revivals” come without rousing the hostility of organized sin and pass without raising the moral level of the community or purifying the lives of professing Christians. Why?
Could it be that too many of God’s true children, and especially the preachers, are sinning against God by guilty silence? When those whose eyes are opened by the touch of Christ become vocal and active God may begin to fight again on the side of truth. I for one am waiting to hear the loud voices of the prophets and reformers sounding once more over a sluggish and drowsy church.
They’ll pay a price for their boldness, but the results will be worth it.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Reasons for the Absence of Discernment 2
A Compromising Spirit
Another reason for the absence of discernment is the attitude of compromise. This is the spirit of New Evangelicalism. It is the “criticize not”, “judge not”, “let’s be positive” and “just love everyone” philosophy. In contemporary Christianity, the irenic spirit of New Evangelicalism is so pervasive that the term “Evangelical” is almost synonymous with “New Evangelical.”
This philosophy of neutralism and compromise is naturally appealing to the carnal mind. Who would like to “reprove and rebuke (2 Tim. 4:2-5)” others when he can appear to be amiable, obliging, and agreeable? Who would choose to be a pungent, unpopular preacher when he can be the fashionable, positively loving pastor? Deviant doctrines are quietly tolerated in the name of love. All criticisms of questionable doctrines are quickly undermined as negativism and pharisaism. It is of little wonder that the spirit of biblical discernment is despised and even labeled as “narrow-mindedness,” “bigotry,” and “judgmental-ism.”
Let me recount an incident as an illustration. In a church I visited, there was a discussion on the issue of “househusband” during Sunday School. The pastor preached on the topic of God-ordained roles for Man and Woman, and subsequently elucidated the subject of biblical Fatherhood and Motherhood. The discussion group appeared to be fairly agreeable with the pastor’s teachings, which are, of course, according to the Word of God.
However, when the pastor was away to preach to a mission church the following week, another discussion group gathered after Sunday Service to reevaluate what was discussed the previous week during Sunday School. An elder of the church asked, “So, everybody agree with what was taught last week?” What subsequently followed was a torrent of disagreements and repudiation of the biblical views taught by the pastor last week.
Some proposed that it is good for a “well-qualified” woman to work outside the home, and to bring in the bread and butter, especially if the husband is unable to acquire a lucrative salary (for example, if the husband is a road-sweeper or hygiene officer). Others commented that if the husband is doing home-based work (e.g. Web-based work), he can be the “househusband” and take care of the children, while the wife earns extra salary outside the home. After all, why “waste” the wife’s qualification, and allow an incapable husband to earn the meager “few dollars?”
But the Bible is very clear as to what the roles of the husband and wife are. The husband is to be the provider, protector, and spiritual leader of the family. The wife is to submit to the husband’s authority, and to be a “keeper at home (Titus 2:4-5).” The father is never meant to breastfeed the kids, and neither is he endowed with the necessary glands for that purpose. Apparently, pragmatic concerns inundated biblical guidelines, and the opinions of men are elevated above the Word of God.
I was absolutely astounded as to why an apparently “doctrinally sound” church (I would like to refrain from naming this church, or stating its ecclesiastical associations) would succumb to such a compromising spirit and pragmatic philosophy. If church elders could not even figure out what the biblical roles for father and mother are, how can they lead the home, let alone the church? Most likely, the leaders know what these roles are (according to the Bible), but they would rather please men than to glorify God and to uphold His Word.
When a brother-in-Christ spoke up vehemently against these unbiblical views of Fatherhood and Motherhood, he was criticized as being “unloving” and “judgmental.” By associating any form of discernment or criticism with such pejorative terms, the leaders are covertly stifling the testimonies of these faithful brethren.
Also, the leaders hinted that he should not “despise” his weaker brethren who adhere to such alternative views. It was also declared during a discussion group that all views are correct, and that we should not “judge the views held by other brothers and sisters.” A session member even commented that a mature Christian would be able to “accept” and “love” another brethren, including his erroneous views. He insinuated that a mature Christian would not criticize others, let alone “judge” the other brother-in-Christ.
My reply is this, “A mature Christian will seek to please God rather than men, and will endeavor to honor God’s word rather than men’s mere opinions and preferences. A mature Christian will care for his brethren’s spiritual welfare, and will correct him if he is wrong. The failure to correct serious doctrinal errors, especially the failure for elders to do so, is tantamount to spiritual murder!”
In view of such a careless attitude to doctrine and truth, it is of little wonder that churches infiltrated by the irenic spirit of New Evangelicalism will inevitably follow the slippery slope down to greater compromise and spiritual privation.
May the Lord help us in this age of error.
Note: As I am trying to invest my after-work hours to research my project and writings, I have only my lunchtime to write for my blog. So do excuse me if there are any errors in my posts.
This philosophy of neutralism and compromise is naturally appealing to the carnal mind. Who would like to “reprove and rebuke (2 Tim. 4:2-5)” others when he can appear to be amiable, obliging, and agreeable? Who would choose to be a pungent, unpopular preacher when he can be the fashionable, positively loving pastor? Deviant doctrines are quietly tolerated in the name of love. All criticisms of questionable doctrines are quickly undermined as negativism and pharisaism. It is of little wonder that the spirit of biblical discernment is despised and even labeled as “narrow-mindedness,” “bigotry,” and “judgmental-ism.”
Let me recount an incident as an illustration. In a church I visited, there was a discussion on the issue of “househusband” during Sunday School. The pastor preached on the topic of God-ordained roles for Man and Woman, and subsequently elucidated the subject of biblical Fatherhood and Motherhood. The discussion group appeared to be fairly agreeable with the pastor’s teachings, which are, of course, according to the Word of God.
However, when the pastor was away to preach to a mission church the following week, another discussion group gathered after Sunday Service to reevaluate what was discussed the previous week during Sunday School. An elder of the church asked, “So, everybody agree with what was taught last week?” What subsequently followed was a torrent of disagreements and repudiation of the biblical views taught by the pastor last week.
Some proposed that it is good for a “well-qualified” woman to work outside the home, and to bring in the bread and butter, especially if the husband is unable to acquire a lucrative salary (for example, if the husband is a road-sweeper or hygiene officer). Others commented that if the husband is doing home-based work (e.g. Web-based work), he can be the “househusband” and take care of the children, while the wife earns extra salary outside the home. After all, why “waste” the wife’s qualification, and allow an incapable husband to earn the meager “few dollars?”
But the Bible is very clear as to what the roles of the husband and wife are. The husband is to be the provider, protector, and spiritual leader of the family. The wife is to submit to the husband’s authority, and to be a “keeper at home (Titus 2:4-5).” The father is never meant to breastfeed the kids, and neither is he endowed with the necessary glands for that purpose. Apparently, pragmatic concerns inundated biblical guidelines, and the opinions of men are elevated above the Word of God.
I was absolutely astounded as to why an apparently “doctrinally sound” church (I would like to refrain from naming this church, or stating its ecclesiastical associations) would succumb to such a compromising spirit and pragmatic philosophy. If church elders could not even figure out what the biblical roles for father and mother are, how can they lead the home, let alone the church? Most likely, the leaders know what these roles are (according to the Bible), but they would rather please men than to glorify God and to uphold His Word.
When a brother-in-Christ spoke up vehemently against these unbiblical views of Fatherhood and Motherhood, he was criticized as being “unloving” and “judgmental.” By associating any form of discernment or criticism with such pejorative terms, the leaders are covertly stifling the testimonies of these faithful brethren.
Also, the leaders hinted that he should not “despise” his weaker brethren who adhere to such alternative views. It was also declared during a discussion group that all views are correct, and that we should not “judge the views held by other brothers and sisters.” A session member even commented that a mature Christian would be able to “accept” and “love” another brethren, including his erroneous views. He insinuated that a mature Christian would not criticize others, let alone “judge” the other brother-in-Christ.
My reply is this, “A mature Christian will seek to please God rather than men, and will endeavor to honor God’s word rather than men’s mere opinions and preferences. A mature Christian will care for his brethren’s spiritual welfare, and will correct him if he is wrong. The failure to correct serious doctrinal errors, especially the failure for elders to do so, is tantamount to spiritual murder!”
In view of such a careless attitude to doctrine and truth, it is of little wonder that churches infiltrated by the irenic spirit of New Evangelicalism will inevitably follow the slippery slope down to greater compromise and spiritual privation.
May the Lord help us in this age of error.
Note: As I am trying to invest my after-work hours to research my project and writings, I have only my lunchtime to write for my blog. So do excuse me if there are any errors in my posts.
Reasons for the Absence of Discernment 1
It appears that spiritual discernment is deficient amongst Christians today, especially within Contemporary Evangelicalism. But what could be the reasons that might account for such a deficiency? Again, why are serious doctrinal errors and multifarious “movements” ensnaring Evangelical Christians? If the Holy Spirit guides us into all Truth, why are Christians so confused with regard to the teachings of the Bible?
Spiritual Immaturity
Peter exhorted the Christian Diaspora to “desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby” (1 Peter 2:2). Likewise, Paul chastised the Corinthian Christians for being spiritual babes. Subsisting only on spiritual milk, they were unable to take solid food. “I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able” (1 Cor 3:2).
Therefore, the first obvious reason for the lack of discernment is spiritual immaturity. This can be the consequence of slothfulness, the unwillingness to study the Bible, a lack of interest in spiritual things, or the inadequacy of good teachers. A spiritual baby will not be able to discern right from wrong, truth from error, or the shepherd from the wolf.
Caught up with the cares and worries of this world, some are unwilling to invest more time for the study of God’s Word, while others are too exhausted after slaving for riches and honor. When the world ceases to be a battleground for the pilgrim, it is transformed into a playground where carnal believers wallow in its lusts, pride and beauty.
Some Christians even claim to glorify God by doing well in examinations, securing a prestigious job in a company, or achieving an impressive post-graduate degree. One wonders how God is glorified by the sacrifice of personal devotional time, the neglect of Bible study, and the desecration of the Lord’s Day by missing church services and fellowship. There is nothing wrong with achieving good results in examinations or acquiring a doctorate per se, but when priorities are confused, these pursuits can easily dominate a person’s life. Precious resources such as time and energy are consequentially invested in areas other than the Lord’s work.
The conscience has an uncanny way of defending selfish desires by camouflaging it in “Christianized” uniforms and garbs. The quest for personal gains is sometimes disguised as “God glorifying” deeds. Nevertheless, when self is placed on the pedestal of worship, the only “god” that is glorified is the god of this world.
When addressing the Greek-speaking Jewish Christians, the author of Hebrews wrote, “For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat (Hebrews 5:12).”
This rebuke is true for many who (choose to?) remain in spiritual infancy, when they ought to have matured to consume strong meat. “But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Hebrews 5:14).
The ability of spiritual discernment will not be available to those who choose to remain in spiritual infancy. If they refuse to study the Word of God, the Holy Spirit is unable to use the Bible to transform the mind of the believer (Romans 12:2).
Spiritual maturity does not come via sudden visions, dramatic dreams, exhilarating experiences, electrifying emotions or fanciful magic shows and skits. The Holy Spirit works by applying the written Word. The Bible and the Third Person of the Holy Trinity work in tandem to bring about spiritual growth. No amount of fables, newspaper headlines or “Chicken Soup for the Christian Soul” from charismatic preachers will bring about spiritual revival. The only “revival” observed here is a biological, pheromonal ecstasy or an adrenaline rush to the unthinking brain.
To be continued
Spiritual Immaturity
Peter exhorted the Christian Diaspora to “desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby” (1 Peter 2:2). Likewise, Paul chastised the Corinthian Christians for being spiritual babes. Subsisting only on spiritual milk, they were unable to take solid food. “I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able” (1 Cor 3:2).
Caught up with the cares and worries of this world, some are unwilling to invest more time for the study of God’s Word, while others are too exhausted after slaving for riches and honor. When the world ceases to be a battleground for the pilgrim, it is transformed into a playground where carnal believers wallow in its lusts, pride and beauty.
Some Christians even claim to glorify God by doing well in examinations, securing a prestigious job in a company, or achieving an impressive post-graduate degree. One wonders how God is glorified by the sacrifice of personal devotional time, the neglect of Bible study, and the desecration of the Lord’s Day by missing church services and fellowship. There is nothing wrong with achieving good results in examinations or acquiring a doctorate per se, but when priorities are confused, these pursuits can easily dominate a person’s life. Precious resources such as time and energy are consequentially invested in areas other than the Lord’s work.
The conscience has an uncanny way of defending selfish desires by camouflaging it in “Christianized” uniforms and garbs. The quest for personal gains is sometimes disguised as “God glorifying” deeds. Nevertheless, when self is placed on the pedestal of worship, the only “god” that is glorified is the god of this world.
When addressing the Greek-speaking Jewish Christians, the author of Hebrews wrote, “For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat (Hebrews 5:12).”
This rebuke is true for many who (choose to?) remain in spiritual infancy, when they ought to have matured to consume strong meat. “But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Hebrews 5:14).
The ability of spiritual discernment will not be available to those who choose to remain in spiritual infancy. If they refuse to study the Word of God, the Holy Spirit is unable to use the Bible to transform the mind of the believer (Romans 12:2).
Spiritual maturity does not come via sudden visions, dramatic dreams, exhilarating experiences, electrifying emotions or fanciful magic shows and skits. The Holy Spirit works by applying the written Word. The Bible and the Third Person of the Holy Trinity work in tandem to bring about spiritual growth. No amount of fables, newspaper headlines or “Chicken Soup for the Christian Soul” from charismatic preachers will bring about spiritual revival. The only “revival” observed here is a biological, pheromonal ecstasy or an adrenaline rush to the unthinking brain.
To be continued
Monday, October 02, 2006
So What Is Wrong With Taylor’s Book?
Firstly, I must apologize for using some difficult, and probably, vague quotes from Taylor’s book. But I wouldn’t want to insult anyone’s intelligence by using the obvious and easy ones.
I think all of you know that there is, indeed, something wrong with Taylor’s book. All of us are forced to return to basic Theology 101, and in that sense, I believe most of us benefited from this little exercise.
Jenson actually mentioned John 1; Taylor did spend a chapter discussing John’s prologue and gospel in order to attack Christ’s deity. Wenxian posted a little summary on the doctrine of the Trinity, a doctrine which many Christians do not take time to study. The next time we meet a Jehovah Witness, a Mormon or a Unitarian, let us be prepared to defend the Divinity of Christ, and the doctrine of the Trinity. Daniel mentioned Sabellianism, which comes fairly close to Taylor’s direction of development for his Christology and Theology.
Nevertheless, I believe the most basic lesson for all of us is this: a book can begin with the language of orthodoxy and love (Taylor reiterated the concept of love numerous times), but its content might prove poisonous for the soul.
Finding Taylor’s book in the “Christian” section of the Tampines Regional Library is not the most disappointing event last week. But chancing upon Richard Dawkin’s The God Delusion at the top-most shelf of MPH “Christian” section is. And guess whose work Dawkins used to support his atheism? On pages 95ff., he quoted the writings of Bart D. Erhman, the apostate textual critic. By the way, are Dawkins and Bertrand Russell related? They seem to speak the same things.
And again, what is Dawkins book doing on the shelf of the “Christian” section of MPH? Why was it not placed in other “Religion” sections?
Answer:
In the following brief commentary on Taylor’s latest work, I have included several quotes that I did not publish in my previous question.
Let us read what Taylor has to say:
“[The Council of] Nicea seems to have little awareness of Old Testament use of such symbolic terms as Logos (Word), Wisdom, Spirit, etc. All of these biblical terms do not refer to separate divine persons or entities. (p 36)”
To understand terms such as Logos and Spirit as symbolical representations of Yahweh is to undermine the doctrine of the Trinity. Although Christians do not see the Persons of the Godhead as being “separate,” such terms do refer to distinct Persons within the Trinity.
“[The Council of Chalcedon] shows little knowledge of or respect for Scripture’s many literary forms and figures of speech. Where the Old Testament often spoke of God’s nature and activities by means of symbolic terms and personifications, such as Spirit, Wisdom, Word, etc., Chalcedon personalizes (or hypostasizes) these ways of speaking about God’s immanent activity without any critical elaboration of why it feels justified in doing so. The council mostly prefers the abstract metaphysical terms of philosophy to the biblical and historical descriptions of Jesus. (p 40)”
Again, by referring to the terms Logos and Spirit as “symbolical” literary forms or “figures of speech,” Taylor is directly denying the “hypostasizing” (using his language) of Biblical “ways of speaking.” This is a subtle denial of the Trinity as consisting of three Persons (hypostasis or subsistence).
“Earlier Christians would find the saving God in a fleshing of the descending Logos. Today Christians find the same God in the human Jesus, for in him God dwells fully with his transforming love and through his love has made Jesus a perfect image of himself. (p 42)”
This quote is quite blatant in its denial of Christ’s deity. Taylor implies that the divine Logos in the flesh is an “early” Christian concept, which is subsequently (or allegedly) replaced with the notion of a “human Jesus” in whom God’s love dwells.
“In my view, the prologue of John [John 1:1-5] speaks about the concept of God’s Logos, not to identify Jesus as the Logos himself, but dramatically to show why Jesus in the coming gospel is all-sufficient to the spiritual needs of John’s community. Jesus for John is the one in whom God’s Logos dwells. It is the Logos that descended from heaven. The term Logos in the Old Testament is a biblical metaphor for God’s outreaching love. For John it is probably his way of translating the term Wisdom, which is also a biblical figure of speech for God’s love when he exercises it within his creation. (p 70)”
Taylor, once again, seems to deny that Jesus is the divine Logos. According to Taylor, Jesus is “the one in whom God’s Logos dwells,” not the Logos Himself.
“For [the apostle] John salvation is realizing and possessing within oneself unity with God’s selfless love. John’s unique genius is in showing his readers this wonderful truth. His Jesus is not a divine visitor intervening from heaven. He is one of us, our human brother, who with God’s help has accomplished the divine purpose and in that glorious state has realized complete human fulfillment, manifest in his Resurrection from death and glorification in heaven. (pp 70-71)”
Taylor’s Jesus “is not a divine visitor intervening from heaven. He is one of us, our human brother.”
“Certainly if John saw Jesus as a singular divine person, equal in divinity to the Father, he would not have him say in chapter 5 that he “can do nothing on his own, but only what the Father shows him.” Rather, Jesus is loved and taught by the Father. His power derives from the Father. His judging role is given him by the Father. If Jesus seeks people’s submission and faith, it is not because he himself is claiming divinity, but because he is God’s chosen instrument to mediate his saving activity on earth (5:19-24). God is always present in the words and works of his mediators. (p 76)”
Taylor is putting words into the Apostle John’s mouth. He seems to understand that Jesus is not “a singular divine person, equal in divinity to the Father.”
“When Jesus was spoken of as the Son of God, it probably did not at first mean believers saw him as literally divine. More likely it was a way of showing that Jesus was understood to have had a privileged mission from God which he carried out faithfully. Eventually it was used to indicate in Jesus, his words and deeds, people saw a human embodiment of God and his will for them. (p 95)”
Now Jesus is a missionary. He is simply a “human embodiment of God,” not God Himself.
Conclusions:
1. We can safely say that Taylor denies that Jesus is co-substantial with the Father. This would place his Christology at least on the same level as Arius. But I sincerely suspect that his Christology is lower than that of Arius.
2. Taylor also denies Christ’s eternal pre-existence, and in effect, repudiates His divinity. It seems to be quite clear that Taylor does not believe in a Jesus who is 100% God and 100% Man.
3. According to Taylor, Christ is a man, the spiritual leader, teacher and model. He is “the one who shows them the way to salvation. (p 41)” But He is not the way itself (John 14:6).
4. Taylor’s view hints of the ancient heresy called Dynamic Monarchianism or Adoptionism, but again, it is difficult to label a Christology which is in the process of development.
I think all of you know that there is, indeed, something wrong with Taylor’s book. All of us are forced to return to basic Theology 101, and in that sense, I believe most of us benefited from this little exercise.
Jenson actually mentioned John 1; Taylor did spend a chapter discussing John’s prologue and gospel in order to attack Christ’s deity. Wenxian posted a little summary on the doctrine of the Trinity, a doctrine which many Christians do not take time to study. The next time we meet a Jehovah Witness, a Mormon or a Unitarian, let us be prepared to defend the Divinity of Christ, and the doctrine of the Trinity. Daniel mentioned Sabellianism, which comes fairly close to Taylor’s direction of development for his Christology and Theology.
Nevertheless, I believe the most basic lesson for all of us is this: a book can begin with the language of orthodoxy and love (Taylor reiterated the concept of love numerous times), but its content might prove poisonous for the soul.
Finding Taylor’s book in the “Christian” section of the Tampines Regional Library is not the most disappointing event last week. But chancing upon Richard Dawkin’s The God Delusion at the top-most shelf of MPH “Christian” section is. And guess whose work Dawkins used to support his atheism? On pages 95ff., he quoted the writings of Bart D. Erhman, the apostate textual critic. By the way, are Dawkins and Bertrand Russell related? They seem to speak the same things.
And again, what is Dawkins book doing on the shelf of the “Christian” section of MPH? Why was it not placed in other “Religion” sections?
Answer:
In the following brief commentary on Taylor’s latest work, I have included several quotes that I did not publish in my previous question.
Let us read what Taylor has to say:
“[The Council of] Nicea seems to have little awareness of Old Testament use of such symbolic terms as Logos (Word), Wisdom, Spirit, etc. All of these biblical terms do not refer to separate divine persons or entities. (p 36)”
To understand terms such as Logos and Spirit as symbolical representations of Yahweh is to undermine the doctrine of the Trinity. Although Christians do not see the Persons of the Godhead as being “separate,” such terms do refer to distinct Persons within the Trinity.
“[The Council of Chalcedon] shows little knowledge of or respect for Scripture’s many literary forms and figures of speech. Where the Old Testament often spoke of God’s nature and activities by means of symbolic terms and personifications, such as Spirit, Wisdom, Word, etc., Chalcedon personalizes (or hypostasizes) these ways of speaking about God’s immanent activity without any critical elaboration of why it feels justified in doing so. The council mostly prefers the abstract metaphysical terms of philosophy to the biblical and historical descriptions of Jesus. (p 40)”
Again, by referring to the terms Logos and Spirit as “symbolical” literary forms or “figures of speech,” Taylor is directly denying the “hypostasizing” (using his language) of Biblical “ways of speaking.” This is a subtle denial of the Trinity as consisting of three Persons (hypostasis or subsistence).
“Earlier Christians would find the saving God in a fleshing of the descending Logos. Today Christians find the same God in the human Jesus, for in him God dwells fully with his transforming love and through his love has made Jesus a perfect image of himself. (p 42)”
This quote is quite blatant in its denial of Christ’s deity. Taylor implies that the divine Logos in the flesh is an “early” Christian concept, which is subsequently (or allegedly) replaced with the notion of a “human Jesus” in whom God’s love dwells.
“In my view, the prologue of John [John 1:1-5] speaks about the concept of God’s Logos, not to identify Jesus as the Logos himself, but dramatically to show why Jesus in the coming gospel is all-sufficient to the spiritual needs of John’s community. Jesus for John is the one in whom God’s Logos dwells. It is the Logos that descended from heaven. The term Logos in the Old Testament is a biblical metaphor for God’s outreaching love. For John it is probably his way of translating the term Wisdom, which is also a biblical figure of speech for God’s love when he exercises it within his creation. (p 70)”
Taylor, once again, seems to deny that Jesus is the divine Logos. According to Taylor, Jesus is “the one in whom God’s Logos dwells,” not the Logos Himself.
“For [the apostle] John salvation is realizing and possessing within oneself unity with God’s selfless love. John’s unique genius is in showing his readers this wonderful truth. His Jesus is not a divine visitor intervening from heaven. He is one of us, our human brother, who with God’s help has accomplished the divine purpose and in that glorious state has realized complete human fulfillment, manifest in his Resurrection from death and glorification in heaven. (pp 70-71)”
Taylor’s Jesus “is not a divine visitor intervening from heaven. He is one of us, our human brother.”
“Certainly if John saw Jesus as a singular divine person, equal in divinity to the Father, he would not have him say in chapter 5 that he “can do nothing on his own, but only what the Father shows him.” Rather, Jesus is loved and taught by the Father. His power derives from the Father. His judging role is given him by the Father. If Jesus seeks people’s submission and faith, it is not because he himself is claiming divinity, but because he is God’s chosen instrument to mediate his saving activity on earth (5:19-24). God is always present in the words and works of his mediators. (p 76)”
Taylor is putting words into the Apostle John’s mouth. He seems to understand that Jesus is not “a singular divine person, equal in divinity to the Father.”
“When Jesus was spoken of as the Son of God, it probably did not at first mean believers saw him as literally divine. More likely it was a way of showing that Jesus was understood to have had a privileged mission from God which he carried out faithfully. Eventually it was used to indicate in Jesus, his words and deeds, people saw a human embodiment of God and his will for them. (p 95)”
Now Jesus is a missionary. He is simply a “human embodiment of God,” not God Himself.
Conclusions:
1. We can safely say that Taylor denies that Jesus is co-substantial with the Father. This would place his Christology at least on the same level as Arius. But I sincerely suspect that his Christology is lower than that of Arius.
2. Taylor also denies Christ’s eternal pre-existence, and in effect, repudiates His divinity. It seems to be quite clear that Taylor does not believe in a Jesus who is 100% God and 100% Man.
3. According to Taylor, Christ is a man, the spiritual leader, teacher and model. He is “the one who shows them the way to salvation. (p 41)” But He is not the way itself (John 14:6).
4. Taylor’s view hints of the ancient heresy called Dynamic Monarchianism or Adoptionism, but again, it is difficult to label a Christology which is in the process of development.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
What Is Wrong With That Quote?
A Very Trivial Encounter
As I was browsing through the “Christian” section of the Tampines Regional Library yesterday, hoping to find a book that might introduce a young believer to orthodox Christian theology, I was at first pleasantly surprised to find this: Michael J. Taylor, Theological Reflections: On the Trinity, Christology, and Monotheism (Maryland: University Press of America, 2001).
Well, the title - “Theological Reflections: On the Trinity, Christology, and Monotheism” - seemed to indicate that the book was probably a primer to Theology proper and Christology. At last, good Christian books find their way to the national libraries of Singapore! Or so it seems.
My initial gladness was quickly inundated by the gloom from within the pages of Taylor’s little book. It was not a primer to Theology proper and Christology. It was an attack on historical Christianity. And why was this book placed in the “Christian” section of the library?
I was taught since primary school that we should not attack the religions of fellow Singaporeans, all in the name of religious and racial harmony. But here in my hands, in the “Christian” section of a national library of Singapore, is a book that repudiates orthodox Theology and Christology confessed by the Evangelical, Baptist, Reformed, Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran and Catholic churches of Singapore.
The author of this book is a Jesuit priest. This was my first surprise, as I had assumed that Catholics around the globe confessed Nicene Christology. He is also a respected scholar, professor and prolific writer.
If you think that I am going to review this book, you are sincerely mistaken. In the present post, I intend to quote from a few passages of Taylor’s book, and offer the readers an opportunity to discern his theological slant. I would then post a reply to your educated guesses (if any).
I am supposed to continue with my series on “Spiritual Discernment.” But before I continue with this series of posts, I believe this “exercise in discernment” would be beneficial for all orthodox Christians. Well, you ought to know what orthodox Theology and Christology is, at the very least.
Here goes:
"If Jesus were to be called Son of God, in Arius’ view his sonship would be through adoption, not from any equality of essence. The council refused to see any “lessness” in Jesus. Rather, it ascribed to him the ontological divinity of the Logos. . . . Although few scholars today would embrace or defend Arius’ approach to Christology, many do find the terminology of Nicea and its manner of expressing the “divine dimension” of Jesus to be too narrow and confusing. (p 35)"
"Nicea seems to have little awareness of Old Testament use of such symbolic terms as Logos (Word), Wisdom, Spirit, etc. All of these biblical terms do not refer to separate divine persons or entities. (p 36)"
"[The Council of Chalcedon] shows little knowledge of or respect for Scripture’s many literary forms and figures of speech. Where the Old Testament often spoke of God’s nature and activities by means of symbolic terms and personifications, such as Spirit, Wisdom, Word, etc., Chalcedon personalizes (or hypostasizes) these ways of speaking about God’s immanent activity without any critical elaboration of why it feels justified in doing so. The council mostly prefers the abstract metaphysical terms of philosophy to the biblical and historical descriptions of Jesus. (p 40)"
"After centuries of understanding Jesus almost exclusively as a divine, pre-existent being who descended from heaven (the assumed Johannine perspective), no wonder scholars today ask that our Christological search for Jesus’ full identity begin where the earliest books of the New Testament (Paul and the Synoptics) began - with the historical human Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus should first and foremost be one of us who lived his life the way God intended it should be lived, and whom God finally raised to glory. It is there that we find a very appealing, gifted, vulnerable human being that we can identify with, one who is obviously united in prayerful intimacy with God. We see him as a man called to preach and reveal a saving Father. He gave us a deeper meaning and purpose to our lives. He showed us how we should properly live them, so that at the end of them we would rise to eternal glory with him in the love of the Father. This Jesus is close to us. He is our brother. He is imitable and fulfills the role of teacher and model. His picture of God is clear and appealing. Christians accept this man as their spiritual leader and rightly call him Lord, the one who shows them the way to salvation. (p 41)"
"Earlier Christians would find the saving God in a fleshing of the descending Logos. Today Christians find the same God in the human Jesus, for in him God dwells fully with his transforming love and through his love has made Jesus a perfect image of himself. (p 42)"
Clues:
1. Study the meaning of the Logos and Spirit in Scripture. Are these terms symbolical?
2. Check up what is meant by the theological term hypostasis. You will then understand what Taylor meant by “hypostasizes” in page 40.
3. Do you think Taylor agrees that Jesus is “a divine, pre-existent being who descended from heaven?”
4. Is Jesus “the one who shows [Christians] the way to salvation?”
I have deliberately included quotes that are not so obviously “anti-Nicene.” See if you can deduce Taylor’s Christological stance.
Note: I will post the answer within the next few days. Please do not surf the Web for answers.
Monday, September 18, 2006
What does it mean to be Reformed?
Note: I cannot resist making a quick post on this issue, as this was mentioned in the comments of my previous post.
In response to the aforementioned question, Professor Byron Curtis, Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies at Geneva College, wrote:
“To be Reformed means:
To confess with the orthodox churches the consensus of the first five centuries of Christianity, including:
a) Classic theism: One omnipotent, benevolent God, distinct from creation.
b) Nicene and Chalcedonian Trinitarianism: one God in three eternally existent persons, equal in power and glory.
c) Christ, the God-Man, the one mediator between God & the human race, incarnate, crucified, resurrected, ascended, & coming again.
d) Humanity created in the image of God, yet tragically fallen & profoundly in need of restoration to God through Christ.
e) The Visible Church: the community of the redeemed, indwelt by the Holy Spirit; the mystical body of Christ on earth.
f) The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.
g) The Sacraments: visible signs and seals of the grace of God, ministering Christ's love to us in our deep need.
h) The Christian life: characterized by the prime theological virtues of faith, hope, and love.”
Although Reformed theologians generally adhere to the “consensus of the first five centuries of Christianity”, this consensus is not exclusive to Reformed theology. Classic Theism and Nicene Christology, for example, are generally confessed by various theologians from different end of the spectrum, including Classical, Revised and Progressive Dispensationalists. From the aforementioned listing of the consensus of historic Christianity, probably only the view that “the Sacraments as visible signs and seals” is considered exclusively Presbyterian (which in turn is distinguished from the Lutheran, Zwinglian, and Romish views). But again, the above listing cannot be conclusively made the sine qua non of Reformed Theology.
Professor Curtis continues:
“To be Reformed means:
To confess with the Reformation churches the four great "Solas:"
a) RE the source of authority: Sola Scriptura.
b) RE the basis of salvation: Sola Gratia.
c) RE the means of salvation: Sola Fide
d) Re the merit of salvation: Solus Christus"
It is widely known that Historic Protestantism confesses the four Solas; this includes our Lutheran and Anglican brethren. Salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone, plus the doctrines of the authority and sufficiency of Scripture are not exclusively Reformed teachings, but are also traditionally confessed by the Protestant churches. In addition to Protestantism, historic eighteenth century Evangelicalism (as distinguished from New Evangelicalism and Neo-Orthodoxy) likewise confesses essentially the principles of the four Solas. Twentieth century Pentecostalism and the Fundamentalist movement can also be safely included into this category. Once again, the four Solas cannot be the sine qua non of Reformed Theology.
In addition to the above characteristics, Professor Curtis points out that the Reformed Christian ought to “confess with the Reformed churches the distinctives of the Reformed faith:
a) In salvation: monergism, not synergism. God alone saves. Such monergism implies T.U.L.I.P., the Five Points of Calvinism from the Synod of Dordt:
T = Total Depravity
U = Unconditional Election
L = Limited Atonement, or, better, Particular Redemption
I = Irresistible Grace
P = Perseverence and Preservation of the Saints
b) In worship: the Regulative Principle of Worship. “Whatever is not commanded in public worship is forbidden.” God alone directs how He is to be worshiped in the assembly of the visible church.
c) In the Visible Church: Covenant Theology & Covenant Community. The Church is the New Israel, incorporating believers among Jews and Gentiles alike. Infant Baptism ordinarily follows from this understanding. Sacraments are not merely human observances, but acts of Jesus Christ, marking out the visible church.
d) In life: Life is religion: there is no sacred/secular destinction. As such Christians have neither jobs nor careers; they have vocations (callings). Every calling is "full time Christian service," because every Christian is a full-time Christian.”
Most would agree that the five points of Calvinism form the basis of Reformed Theology. At the same time, it is important to realize that these five points are not sufficient to define Reformed Theology itself. Although the five points of Calvinism were born out of the Reformation, these five points can theologically be compartmentalized within the confines of soteriology and anthropology. In other words, it is possible to adhere to these five points, and not be Reformed in one’s overall theology. Before anyone vehemently disagrees, please allow me to elaborate upon this.
One problem with restricting the definition of Reformed Theology with merely the “five points of Calvinism” is this: there are avowedly dispensational theologians who adhere to these points as well. John F. MacArthur, Jr. of The Master's Seminary, for example, has consistently claimed an allegiance to the five points. But it is clear to all that his theological-hermeneutical grid is that of Dispensationalism. No Dispensational or Non-Dispensational theologian would ever say that MacArthur is Reformed. MacArthur himself proclaims that he is a Dispensationalist! Therefore, it is evident that these five points are not sufficient to define what Reformed Theology is.
So what does it mean to be Reformed? It cannot be simply an adherence to the five Solas or the five points of Calvinism.
Reformed theologians have consistently used Covenant theology as a unifying theological-hermeneutical grid to understand Scripture. Covenant theology sees an overarching unity within the Old and New Testaments, specifically, the Covenant of Grace. There is continuity instead of discontinuity.
There is continuity between Israel and the Church, not a distinction. Likewise, there is continuity between the various administrations of the Covenant of Grace, not discontinuity between diverse dispensations. It must be added that Reformed Theologians similarly see at least two different economies or “dispensations,” especially if one prefers that terminology: the Old Covenant and the New Covenant economy (Jer. 31:31-34). Therefore, seeing distinctive dispensations within the Bible is not a sine qua non of either Dispensationalism or Reformed Theology per se. It is how the Covenant theologian relates and ties the various economies, which distinguishes him from a Dispensationalist.
Reformed ecclesiology likewise arises from a “covenant” theological-hermeneutical grid. The Church age is not seen as a parenthesis within the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel’s prophecy. The Church is the true, spiritual Israel. God does not have two “divine purposes,” one for Israel, and one for the Church.
Covenant theology sees the Church present in the Old Testament. Furthermore, many prophecies directed to national Israel are fulfilled in Christ and His bride, the Church (contra the literalistic hermeneutics of Dispensationalism). Consequently, a more precise definition for Reformed theology would be found within the theological-hermeneutical grid that undergirds the theological system itself.
Professor Curtis concludes, “Finally, in everything, as Christians everywhere joyfully affirm: Soli Deo Gloria. ‘To God alone be the glory.’”
According to Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism is “a view which sees the glory of God as the underlying purpose of God in the world.” In this sense, the fifth Sola cannot be used as a distinguishing feature of Reformed Theology.
So what are we left with? What would be the sine qua non of Reformed Theology?
The two diametrically opposed systems of theology – Reformed and Dispensational Theology – are derived from their hermeneutical presuppositions. It is ultimately the theologian’s hermeneutics, and his peculiar theological grid, which give rise to a resultant theological system.
Essential to a Reformed theologian’s theological-hermeneutical grid is Covenant theology, which includes the unifying covenant of grace, and the consistent continuity between Israel and the Church. This, I would say, is the fundamental difference between Reformed and Dispensational theology.
PS: This post is deliberately brief. I will explore this topic further in my future writings, and especially in the project I’m working on now.
In response to the aforementioned question, Professor Byron Curtis, Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies at Geneva College, wrote:
“To be Reformed means:
To confess with the orthodox churches the consensus of the first five centuries of Christianity, including:
a) Classic theism: One omnipotent, benevolent God, distinct from creation.
b) Nicene and Chalcedonian Trinitarianism: one God in three eternally existent persons, equal in power and glory.
c) Christ, the God-Man, the one mediator between God & the human race, incarnate, crucified, resurrected, ascended, & coming again.
d) Humanity created in the image of God, yet tragically fallen & profoundly in need of restoration to God through Christ.
e) The Visible Church: the community of the redeemed, indwelt by the Holy Spirit; the mystical body of Christ on earth.
f) The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.
g) The Sacraments: visible signs and seals of the grace of God, ministering Christ's love to us in our deep need.
h) The Christian life: characterized by the prime theological virtues of faith, hope, and love.”
Although Reformed theologians generally adhere to the “consensus of the first five centuries of Christianity”, this consensus is not exclusive to Reformed theology. Classic Theism and Nicene Christology, for example, are generally confessed by various theologians from different end of the spectrum, including Classical, Revised and Progressive Dispensationalists. From the aforementioned listing of the consensus of historic Christianity, probably only the view that “the Sacraments as visible signs and seals” is considered exclusively Presbyterian (which in turn is distinguished from the Lutheran, Zwinglian, and Romish views). But again, the above listing cannot be conclusively made the sine qua non of Reformed Theology.
Professor Curtis continues:
“To be Reformed means:
To confess with the Reformation churches the four great "Solas:"
a) RE the source of authority: Sola Scriptura.
b) RE the basis of salvation: Sola Gratia.
c) RE the means of salvation: Sola Fide
d) Re the merit of salvation: Solus Christus"
It is widely known that Historic Protestantism confesses the four Solas; this includes our Lutheran and Anglican brethren. Salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone, plus the doctrines of the authority and sufficiency of Scripture are not exclusively Reformed teachings, but are also traditionally confessed by the Protestant churches. In addition to Protestantism, historic eighteenth century Evangelicalism (as distinguished from New Evangelicalism and Neo-Orthodoxy) likewise confesses essentially the principles of the four Solas. Twentieth century Pentecostalism and the Fundamentalist movement can also be safely included into this category. Once again, the four Solas cannot be the sine qua non of Reformed Theology.
In addition to the above characteristics, Professor Curtis points out that the Reformed Christian ought to “confess with the Reformed churches the distinctives of the Reformed faith:
a) In salvation: monergism, not synergism. God alone saves. Such monergism implies T.U.L.I.P., the Five Points of Calvinism from the Synod of Dordt:
T = Total Depravity
U = Unconditional Election
L = Limited Atonement, or, better, Particular Redemption
I = Irresistible Grace
P = Perseverence and Preservation of the Saints
b) In worship: the Regulative Principle of Worship. “Whatever is not commanded in public worship is forbidden.” God alone directs how He is to be worshiped in the assembly of the visible church.
c) In the Visible Church: Covenant Theology & Covenant Community. The Church is the New Israel, incorporating believers among Jews and Gentiles alike. Infant Baptism ordinarily follows from this understanding. Sacraments are not merely human observances, but acts of Jesus Christ, marking out the visible church.
d) In life: Life is religion: there is no sacred/secular destinction. As such Christians have neither jobs nor careers; they have vocations (callings). Every calling is "full time Christian service," because every Christian is a full-time Christian.”
Most would agree that the five points of Calvinism form the basis of Reformed Theology. At the same time, it is important to realize that these five points are not sufficient to define Reformed Theology itself. Although the five points of Calvinism were born out of the Reformation, these five points can theologically be compartmentalized within the confines of soteriology and anthropology. In other words, it is possible to adhere to these five points, and not be Reformed in one’s overall theology. Before anyone vehemently disagrees, please allow me to elaborate upon this.
One problem with restricting the definition of Reformed Theology with merely the “five points of Calvinism” is this: there are avowedly dispensational theologians who adhere to these points as well. John F. MacArthur, Jr. of The Master's Seminary, for example, has consistently claimed an allegiance to the five points. But it is clear to all that his theological-hermeneutical grid is that of Dispensationalism. No Dispensational or Non-Dispensational theologian would ever say that MacArthur is Reformed. MacArthur himself proclaims that he is a Dispensationalist! Therefore, it is evident that these five points are not sufficient to define what Reformed Theology is.
So what does it mean to be Reformed? It cannot be simply an adherence to the five Solas or the five points of Calvinism.
Reformed theologians have consistently used Covenant theology as a unifying theological-hermeneutical grid to understand Scripture. Covenant theology sees an overarching unity within the Old and New Testaments, specifically, the Covenant of Grace. There is continuity instead of discontinuity.
There is continuity between Israel and the Church, not a distinction. Likewise, there is continuity between the various administrations of the Covenant of Grace, not discontinuity between diverse dispensations. It must be added that Reformed Theologians similarly see at least two different economies or “dispensations,” especially if one prefers that terminology: the Old Covenant and the New Covenant economy (Jer. 31:31-34). Therefore, seeing distinctive dispensations within the Bible is not a sine qua non of either Dispensationalism or Reformed Theology per se. It is how the Covenant theologian relates and ties the various economies, which distinguishes him from a Dispensationalist.
Reformed ecclesiology likewise arises from a “covenant” theological-hermeneutical grid. The Church age is not seen as a parenthesis within the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel’s prophecy. The Church is the true, spiritual Israel. God does not have two “divine purposes,” one for Israel, and one for the Church.
Covenant theology sees the Church present in the Old Testament. Furthermore, many prophecies directed to national Israel are fulfilled in Christ and His bride, the Church (contra the literalistic hermeneutics of Dispensationalism). Consequently, a more precise definition for Reformed theology would be found within the theological-hermeneutical grid that undergirds the theological system itself.
Professor Curtis concludes, “Finally, in everything, as Christians everywhere joyfully affirm: Soli Deo Gloria. ‘To God alone be the glory.’”
According to Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism is “a view which sees the glory of God as the underlying purpose of God in the world.” In this sense, the fifth Sola cannot be used as a distinguishing feature of Reformed Theology.
So what are we left with? What would be the sine qua non of Reformed Theology?
The two diametrically opposed systems of theology – Reformed and Dispensational Theology – are derived from their hermeneutical presuppositions. It is ultimately the theologian’s hermeneutics, and his peculiar theological grid, which give rise to a resultant theological system.
Essential to a Reformed theologian’s theological-hermeneutical grid is Covenant theology, which includes the unifying covenant of grace, and the consistent continuity between Israel and the Church. This, I would say, is the fundamental difference between Reformed and Dispensational theology.
PS: This post is deliberately brief. I will explore this topic further in my future writings, and especially in the project I’m working on now.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
What do YOU think of the Millennium Temple?
I am currently ruminating about the various attempts by sympathizers of Dispensationalism to steer a “safe” course through the minefield of a literal Millennial Temple. In view of this newly acquired (or rather, required) pet topic - which might bog me down for another week or two - I might as well post a teaser on this issue of concern.
I am curious to know how fellow brethren, both Dispensational and Non-dispensational, reconcile the animal sacrifices reiterated in Ezekiel 40-48 with a literal, historical-grammatical hermeneutics. After going through numerous papers written by Dispensationalists, plus an article written by Dr Prabhudas Koshy of Far Eastern Bible College (who is also my previous pastor!), I will try to classify these “commando” exegeses into the following broad categories:
The Various Views on the Ezekielian Sacrifices
1. Memorial view: Animal sacrifices have no expiatory value, and are offered in the Millennium to commemorate Christ’s death.
2. Whitcomb’s view: Animal sacrifices are offered for ceremonial “cleasing,” and in this sense, do have expiatory value.
3. No literal animal sacrifices. Despite their “consistently literal hermeneutics,” some Dispensationalists actually understand that these sacrifices will not be restituted in the Millennium.
I chanced upon Randall Price’s article “An Overview of the Future Temples” today, which contains a fairly accurate summary of the Dispensationalist’s position. Rapture-ready Randall Price wrote:
“The Millennial Temple will be built by Christ (Zech. 6:12-13), redeemed Jews (Ezek. 43:10-11), and representatives from the Gentile nations (Zech. 6:15; Hag. 2:7; cf. Is. 60:10) at the beginning of the Messianic kingdom (Ezek. 37:26-28). As a sign of the restoration of theocratic rule the Shekinah Glory will return to its Holy of Holies (Ezek. 43:1-7; cf. Is. 4:5-6). . . . [A] feature of Ezekiel's Temple that indicates its literal interpretation is the ceremonial system including blood sacrifices. This is in keeping with other prophetic predictions where the Temple includes a priesthood and sacrifices (Is. 56:6-7; 60:7; Jer. 33:18; Zech. 14:16-21). The function of these sacrifices may be memorial in nature, just as the Lord's Supper is today (1 Cor. 11:24-26), however, the fact that they are said to be for "atonement" may also indicate the need for a ritual purification. This would be necessary, as in the past (Heb. 9:13), for those saints living in mortal bodies throughout the Millennium and seeking approach to the Temple since God's holy presence will be resident there (Jer. 3:17; Zech. 14:20-21).”
According to Price, “the function of these sacrifices may be memorial in nature.” But again, he seems not to be able to make up his mind on this issue, and added ambiguously that “the need for a ritual purification” and atonement might become necessary in the Millennium. Do we suppose that, after the substitutionary death of Christ our Passover Lamb, animal sacrifices might again be needed to “purify” and ceremonially “cleanse” the worshipper in the millennial temple? If, indeed, legal, ceremonial cleansing is required in the Millennium to approach God, why is there no necessity today for this “ceremonial,” temporal cleansing?
Do read up Dr Koshy’s article “The Millennial Temple” in The Burning Bush, Volume 6 Number 1 (January 2000). Dr Koshy is, according to the college’s Statement of Faith, a Reformed theologian adhering to the Reformed doctrine of the atonement. It is interesting to note that Koshy and Price embrace essentially the same view on the Ezekielian sacrifices.
There are some questions we might want to ask ourselves when pondering upon this “mammalian, sacrificial” issue:
1. Firstly, what should be our hermeneutical approach when studying the visions of Ezekiel?
2. What should be our interpretational grid when seeking to understand Ezekiel, especially in employing the principle of progressive revelation, that is, the interpretation of the Old Testament with New Testament Revelation (and not vice versa)?
3. What does Leviticus teach with regard to bloody sacrifices? What are the etymological implications regarding the Hebrew word for “atonement,” especially when applied to the Book of Ezekiel?
4. Can a Reformed theologian consistently adhere to such distinctives of Dispensational Premillennialism - i.e. the temple, the sacrifices, the priesthood, the rite of circumcision and the restitution of Jewish Feasts and Festivals in the millennium – and remain distinctively Reformed?
5. Last but not least, here is the most important question of all, “What does it mean to be Reformed?” Does it mean a mere adherence to the five points of Calvinism, or is there more to the theological label? (Hint: I believe that the Reformed faith is more than a mere adherence to the 5 points!)
Finally, let me refresh our memories with regard to my previous statement in paragraph two, “I am curious to know how fellow brethren, both Dispensational and Reformed, reconcile the animal sacrifices reiterated in Ezekiel 40-48 with a literal, historical-grammatical hermeneutics.” Therefore, if you see me, bump into me, or when you remember to drop me a note, do let me know what you think.
How do you, as a child of God, understand the visions of Ezekiel in chapters 40 to 48?
That will be all for now, after a very busy week of research and writing. Thanks for dropping by.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Spiritual Discernment 2
What Discernment Is Not
Some zealous Christians - for example, young Christians who have recent exposure to books on contemporary Christian theology, or even those who have of late been converted to Calvinism and the Reformed faith - are very quick to pronounce judgment on various ministers, teachers, or Christian organizations. We must constantly remind ourselves what true discernment is, and especially, what spiritual discernment is not.
Spiritual discernment is not:
Gossiping about others (Deut 22:13-19)
Tale bearing (Leviticus 19:16; Proverbs 11:13)
False witnessing (Exodus 20:16; Exodus 23:7)
Whisperings (Romans 1:29)
Slandering others (1 Tim 3:11)
Making false accusations (Titus 2:3)
Vain talking (Titus 1:10)
Defaming (Jeremiah 20:10)
Tattling (1 Tim 5:13)
Lying (Proverbs 6:17; Rev 21:8; Rev 22:15)
Deceiving (Rev 12:9)
Backbiting (Psalm 15:3; Romans 1:30)
Gossiping involves discussing intimate details of people’s life for injurious or malicious purposes. Often, the gossiper fails to clarify the facts with the relevant persons involved. The Bible describes such ungodly activity as “tale bearing,” “false witnessing,” slandering,” “tattling,” “lying,” and “backbiting.” The spread of rumours and tales amongst brethren can have drastic repercussions, and can even destroy the entire church. The reputation of many good ministers and elders had been permanently damaged due to such gossiping.
True biblical discernment must not be confused with a cynical attitude, or “Christian” witch-hunting. There are some believers who have a critical attitude about everything. They would challenge the authority of almost every leadership, and criticize every minute detail of the doctrines taught. They would constantly occupy themselves with faultfinding and cavilling. We must not confuse such practices with spiritual discernment.
Spiritual discernment entails the judgment of doctrinal teachings against the Word of God. When a believer proceeds to make a judgment against a false teaching, he must be careful to state only the facts. Such a judgment must corroborate with documented evidence and relevant witnesses. Stating a fact, such as exposing errors or naming false teachers, is not gossiping. On the other hand, we must restrain ourselves from making personal attacks or unfounded claims.
Genuine discernment emanates from a sincere intent to teach others the truth. It is not self-seeking, but stems from a heart of humility and service. Thus, discernment must not be divorced from godly love (Eph 4:15, 1 John 2:5, 5:2-3, 2 John 1:6, John 14:23, Phil 1:9-10).
Likewise, the believer must not confuse spiritual discernment with a lust for attention. Some young Christians like to boast about their theological learning, and they might dress it up with an appearance of being discerning. With the use of theological jargon, terminology of Philosophy, and Latin phraseology, some are attempting to draw attention to themselves, while all the time they are simply hoping for others to realise how learned they are. Such must not be the case for the God-loving believer.
We must not be quick to make judgments against anyone unless the facts are verified. Even so, disciplinary procedures must be carried out in a godly and scriptural manner by the Church (Matt 18:15-17, 2 Cor 2:6-11, Gal 6:1). False doctrines and heresies taught publicly must be exposed in public. This is necessary to warn those who are exposed to dangerous leaven or teachings. The Bible says, “Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear” (1 Tim 5:20). Again, “A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject” (Titus 3:10).
There are some who believe that the act of naming names is unkind and unloving. False teachers who teach false doctrines openly must also be identified publicly. The Apostles themselves made an effort to name names: Hymenaeus (1 Tim 1:20, 2 Tim 2:17), Philetus (2 Tim 2:17-18), Alexander (1 Tim 1:20, 2 Tim 4:14), Demas (2 Tim 4:10), Diotrephes (3 John 9), Phygellus and Hermogenes (2 Tim 1:15) were promptly identified and dealt with in the epistles. Our Lord Jesus was never sympathetic towards the false teachers of His days, namely, the Pharisees and Sadducees. He openly warned His disciples of their dangerous doctrines (Matt 5:20, 16:6,11, 23:13-15, 23, 25, 27, 29, Mark 8:15, Luke 11:39, 42-44, 12:1).
We will discuss the reasons for the lack of discernment in further posts.
Some zealous Christians - for example, young Christians who have recent exposure to books on contemporary Christian theology, or even those who have of late been converted to Calvinism and the Reformed faith - are very quick to pronounce judgment on various ministers, teachers, or Christian organizations. We must constantly remind ourselves what true discernment is, and especially, what spiritual discernment is not.
Spiritual discernment is not:
Gossiping about others (Deut 22:13-19)
Tale bearing (Leviticus 19:16; Proverbs 11:13)
False witnessing (Exodus 20:16; Exodus 23:7)
Whisperings (Romans 1:29)
Slandering others (1 Tim 3:11)
Making false accusations (Titus 2:3)
Vain talking (Titus 1:10)
Defaming (Jeremiah 20:10)
Tattling (1 Tim 5:13)
Lying (Proverbs 6:17; Rev 21:8; Rev 22:15)
Deceiving (Rev 12:9)
Backbiting (Psalm 15:3; Romans 1:30)
Gossiping involves discussing intimate details of people’s life for injurious or malicious purposes. Often, the gossiper fails to clarify the facts with the relevant persons involved. The Bible describes such ungodly activity as “tale bearing,” “false witnessing,” slandering,” “tattling,” “lying,” and “backbiting.” The spread of rumours and tales amongst brethren can have drastic repercussions, and can even destroy the entire church. The reputation of many good ministers and elders had been permanently damaged due to such gossiping.
True biblical discernment must not be confused with a cynical attitude, or “Christian” witch-hunting. There are some believers who have a critical attitude about everything. They would challenge the authority of almost every leadership, and criticize every minute detail of the doctrines taught. They would constantly occupy themselves with faultfinding and cavilling. We must not confuse such practices with spiritual discernment.
Spiritual discernment entails the judgment of doctrinal teachings against the Word of God. When a believer proceeds to make a judgment against a false teaching, he must be careful to state only the facts. Such a judgment must corroborate with documented evidence and relevant witnesses. Stating a fact, such as exposing errors or naming false teachers, is not gossiping. On the other hand, we must restrain ourselves from making personal attacks or unfounded claims.
Genuine discernment emanates from a sincere intent to teach others the truth. It is not self-seeking, but stems from a heart of humility and service. Thus, discernment must not be divorced from godly love (Eph 4:15, 1 John 2:5, 5:2-3, 2 John 1:6, John 14:23, Phil 1:9-10).
Likewise, the believer must not confuse spiritual discernment with a lust for attention. Some young Christians like to boast about their theological learning, and they might dress it up with an appearance of being discerning. With the use of theological jargon, terminology of Philosophy, and Latin phraseology, some are attempting to draw attention to themselves, while all the time they are simply hoping for others to realise how learned they are. Such must not be the case for the God-loving believer.
We must not be quick to make judgments against anyone unless the facts are verified. Even so, disciplinary procedures must be carried out in a godly and scriptural manner by the Church (Matt 18:15-17, 2 Cor 2:6-11, Gal 6:1). False doctrines and heresies taught publicly must be exposed in public. This is necessary to warn those who are exposed to dangerous leaven or teachings. The Bible says, “Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear” (1 Tim 5:20). Again, “A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject” (Titus 3:10).
There are some who believe that the act of naming names is unkind and unloving. False teachers who teach false doctrines openly must also be identified publicly. The Apostles themselves made an effort to name names: Hymenaeus (1 Tim 1:20, 2 Tim 2:17), Philetus (2 Tim 2:17-18), Alexander (1 Tim 1:20, 2 Tim 4:14), Demas (2 Tim 4:10), Diotrephes (3 John 9), Phygellus and Hermogenes (2 Tim 1:15) were promptly identified and dealt with in the epistles. Our Lord Jesus was never sympathetic towards the false teachers of His days, namely, the Pharisees and Sadducees. He openly warned His disciples of their dangerous doctrines (Matt 5:20, 16:6,11, 23:13-15, 23, 25, 27, 29, Mark 8:15, Luke 11:39, 42-44, 12:1).
We will discuss the reasons for the lack of discernment in further posts.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Bible Presbyterian Church Member Sues His Pastor for Defamation
1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? 2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? 4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. 5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? 6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. 7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? 8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. 6:1-11)
Note: I have left the Bible Presbyterian Church due to doctrinal disagreements, and there is no reason why I would side with the pastors of Calvary (Pandan) Bible Presbyterian Church. Nevertheless, it is a good reminder to every Christian that we ought to glorify God in whatever we do.
On 28 August 2006, page 3 of the Straits Times Home section published an article entitled Barred believer sues pastors for defamation. Apparently, due to a doctrinal disagreement which subsequently escalated beyond the Board of Elders of Calvary (Pandan) Bible Presbyterian Church, Mr Lim Seng Hoo has decided to take both Rev (Dr) Quek Suan Yew and Senior Pastor Rev (Dr) S H Tow to court.
It is, without a doubt, a very sad day for Christianity in Singapore. When a brother drags another brother before unbelievers in secular courts of law, the cause of Christ is blasphemed, and the name of our Saviour tarnished. Nevertheless, Lim defends his right to sue his own pastors.
In his online treatise, “The necessity for my legal suit,” Lim writes:
“The Apostle Paul in 1Cor 6:1 says, “Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?” At the same time, this same Apostle Paul was constrained to resort to the use of his civil rights both vis-à-vis civil (Act 16:37-39, 21:39 and 22:25-28) and religious authorities (Act 23:3, 25:10-12 and 28:17-19, etc) of his day. And in Rom 13:1-6, Paul maintained the need to observe the rules of law in civil society.”
Lim feels that his civil rights ought to be exercised in view of the defamatory remarks delivered by his pastors. As part of his Singaporean civil rights, Lim decides to sue his pastor S. H. Tow, whom he “regarded … as a father figure.” (See Barred believer sues pastors for defamation, ST, August 28 2006) But one wonders how many sons would actually sue his own father.
By giving the example of Paul, Lim attempts to manoeuvre around the passage of 1 Cor. 6:1-11. It appears that “this same Apostle Paul was constrained to resort to the use of his civil rights.” It is true that Scripture does not forbid the Christian from exercising his “civil rights” with regard to charges against him from the civil magistrates and unbelievers. But this has no relevance to the issue being discussed: should a Christian bring another Christian before the secular court of law? This is not a matter of a Christian versus the authorities, or a Christian versus the unbeliever, but a Christian versus another Christian.
In Act 16:37-39, 21:39 and 22:25-28, Paul exercised his legal privileges as a Roman citizen to obtain fair and unbiased treatment, as well as protection, from the Roman authorities. In Acts 23:3, Paul was speaking to Ananias the high priest, one who is not a believer. Acts 25:10-12 describes Paul’s conversation with Festus, who is, once again, an unbeliever. Here, Paul requested to be delivered to Caesar’s jurisdiction as a means of protection from his persecutors, the Jews - who are, of course, not believers. In Acts 28:17-19, Paul explained to the chief of the Jews why he had appealed to Caesar.
From all the examples mentioned by Lim, there is not a single instance whereby he can conclusively demonstrate that the Apostle Paul dragged a fellow Christian to the heathen courts of law.
In his online treatise, “The necessity for my legal suit,” Lim explains his side of the story, “On 3 Jul 05, Dr Khoo distributed 300 copies of an open letter against my “An Evidential Review” to his church, and also emailed his letter to other churches. He later on 10 Jul preached a VPP sermon at Calvary Pandan, which led to my Open Letter on 14 Jul, inviting him to a public academic debate, which many had implored of me, as being the best way to resolve the issue decisively, for the peace of all our churches. On 17 Jul, I hand distributed 60 copies of my open letter to English members (after also hearing that Rev Quek had attacked our Mandarin Pastor, Rev Tang Wai Kay, over the VPP issue). The subsequent conduct of Dr Tow and Rev Quek on 24 Jul was, however one looks at it, clearly disproportionate, vicious and unjustifiable.”
It appeared that Lim had decided to disseminate his views to members of his church apart from Session’s approval. This can easily be misconstrued as a subversive act. Any doctrinal disagreement ought to be settled in private with the church’s Session. It is not in accordance with proper Christian conduct or ecclesiastical procedure to publicly criticize the church’s doctrine without Session’s approval or sanction. It is, indeed, the duty of every church member to strive for peace within the church. This is also part of the member’s covenant with the church, which one has to sign when joining the church as a member.
Even if the Session decides upon a view which contradicts one’s conviction, the member has to acquiesce. The Board of Elders possesses ecclesiastical authority within the church to dictate issues pertaining to doctrine and practice. The pastor has the responsibility and the right to teach the view decided upon by the Board of Elders, and to protect the flock from variant views.
If the member is so convicted in his heart that the doctrine held by the church is heretical or unscriptural, he has every right to resign from church membership. The member is not required to remain in the church, much less initiate or propagate a doctrinal dispute within the church.
A Correct Exegesis?
What is most disturbing is Lim’s exegesis of 1 Cor. 6:1-9. He writes:
“A correct exegesis of 1Cor 6:1-9 would show why Paul himself appealed to his Roman civil rights at times. For a start, Paul did not assume that no redress should be given to the one wronged but rather assumed that the church would provide the redress. Thus he asks in verse 5, “Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge his brethren?” However, this prescription of wise judges was rejected by the pastors.”
Firstly, Lim has never shown how Paul had dragged a fellow Christian to the courts of law. The teachings of 1 Cor. 6:1-9 are aptly summarized by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, “Litigation of Christians in Heathen Courts Censured: Its Very Existence Betrays a Wrong Spirit: Better to Bear Wrong Now, and Hereafter the Doers of Wrong Shall Be Shut Out of Heaven.”
Warren Wiersbe elucidates further in his commentary on 1 Cor 6:1-8:
“It was probably the Gentiles (Greeks) in the church who were the guilty parties in this case, for the Greeks were very much wrapped up in courts and law. Each Greek city had its courts and councils, and it was not uncommon for a son to sue his own father! Of course, the basic problem was carnality (3:1–4); when Christians are immature and not growing, they cannot get along with one another. They lack the spiritual discernment to settle and solve personal problems. How tragic it is when a local church is torn asunder by lawsuits among the members! We are living in an era when lawsuits are the “going thing” and a quick way to try to make money. It seems that the purpose of the court is not justice but income. Paul is not condemning courts of law (see Rom. 13), for the government is instituted by God for our good. But matters between believers must not be exposed before unbelievers, and certainly an unsaved judge lacks the spiritual understanding to deal with spiritual matters (2:14–16). By dragging one another to court, the church members at Corinth were ruining the testimony of the church and disgracing the name of the Lord.”
Lim continues to explain why his exercise of “civil rights” is justified in what is allegedly not the “smallest matters”:
“Secondly in verse 1, Paul refers to “a matter” (singular). If it were just a simple matter of my being defrauded personally, once, why not rather accept wrong? And thirdly, verse 2 refers to the smallest matters, or matters of a primarily material nature, which a heavenly viewpoint would regard as having small importance (cp Lk 12:13-14). But here in our case, what if the “wrong” inflicted is to suppress my attempts to rectify failures in the stewardship of the Church finances, in which unfaithfulness is a most terrible thing?”
The Apostle Paul answers Lim’s question in verse 3, “Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?” According to Paul, the “things that pertain to this life” are also referred to as “the smallest matters.” Apparently, the meaning of the phrase “smallest things” is not to be decided upon arbitrarily, but is to be interpreted in context of Paul’s rebuke to the Corinthians.
“If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church (v.4).” It is obvious that Paul refers to the “things pertaining to this life,” in view of the eschatological judgment at the end of the age, as “the smallest things.” Lim’s grievances belong to the category of “things pertaining to this life.” As Jamieson, Fausset and Brown had rightly commented, “The weightiest of earthly questions at issue are infinitely small compared with those to be decided on the judgment-day.”
We recall that Lim is bringing a defamation suit against his pastors. But what has a defamation suit to do with church finances? Lim asks, “what if the “wrong” inflicted is to suppress my attempts to rectify failures in the stewardship of the Church finances, in which unfaithfulness is a most terrible thing?”
Again, Weirsbe provides an answer:
“How should Christians settle personal differences? They must first have the right spiritual values. How trivial these personal disputes become when compared to the great eternal matters we will decide in glory! The church is going to judge the world and the angels! This realization makes worldly disputes rather insignificant. Too many Christians have warped values; the things of this world (especially money) are more important to them than the glory and praise of God. Matters between Christians should be settled quietly according to the principles of Matt. 18:15–17 and 1 Cor. 6:5. If the two parties cannot reach an agreement, then they should invite some spiritual believers to meet with them and help decide. If the matter becomes known to the church (or outside the church), the members should appoint a group to examine the matter and give spiritual counsel. Far better that a Christian should lose money than lose his spiritual stature and bring shame to Christ’s name! We can find this same attitude in Matt. 5:38–42. Of course, the Christians in Corinth were so carnal that they lacked spiritual vision and wisdom, and thus their church was split into warring factions. “You are brethren!” Paul cried. “Show love for one another!’”
There is no necessity to sue the pastor for financial discrepancies. Lim writes, “I was finally duty bound to report to the Authorities, who have commenced investigations.” It seems to me that Lim has exercised his civil rights by reporting the monetary discrepancies to the authorities. Why, then, is the defamation suit necessary? Let the authorities do their work.
Lim claimed that he required the civil magistrates’ protection from his pastor’s incessant “verbal attacks.” He laments, “I however can say with the Apostle Paul that I have done nothing against my church or the customs of our Christian faith but am constrained to appeal to the civil courts for protection and not that I had anything to accuse my church of (Act 28:17-19).”
Paul required protection from the Jews who seek to murder him. Likewise, Lim required protection from the pastors who seek to verbally assassinate him. In view of such serious threats to his life, Lim seeks recourse from the authorities. Yes, I would agree that if his pastors wanted his life, he should get protection quickly. Wouldn’t you agree too?
Let us pray that the differences between the pastors and brother Lim will eventually be resolved in a scriptural manner.
Note: I have left the Bible Presbyterian Church due to doctrinal disagreements, and there is no reason why I would side with the pastors of Calvary (Pandan) Bible Presbyterian Church. Nevertheless, it is a good reminder to every Christian that we ought to glorify God in whatever we do.
On 28 August 2006, page 3 of the Straits Times Home section published an article entitled Barred believer sues pastors for defamation. Apparently, due to a doctrinal disagreement which subsequently escalated beyond the Board of Elders of Calvary (Pandan) Bible Presbyterian Church, Mr Lim Seng Hoo has decided to take both Rev (Dr) Quek Suan Yew and Senior Pastor Rev (Dr) S H Tow to court.
It is, without a doubt, a very sad day for Christianity in Singapore. When a brother drags another brother before unbelievers in secular courts of law, the cause of Christ is blasphemed, and the name of our Saviour tarnished. Nevertheless, Lim defends his right to sue his own pastors.
In his online treatise, “The necessity for my legal suit,” Lim writes:
“The Apostle Paul in 1Cor 6:1 says, “Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?” At the same time, this same Apostle Paul was constrained to resort to the use of his civil rights both vis-à-vis civil (Act 16:37-39, 21:39 and 22:25-28) and religious authorities (Act 23:3, 25:10-12 and 28:17-19, etc) of his day. And in Rom 13:1-6, Paul maintained the need to observe the rules of law in civil society.”
Lim feels that his civil rights ought to be exercised in view of the defamatory remarks delivered by his pastors. As part of his Singaporean civil rights, Lim decides to sue his pastor S. H. Tow, whom he “regarded … as a father figure.” (See Barred believer sues pastors for defamation, ST, August 28 2006) But one wonders how many sons would actually sue his own father.
By giving the example of Paul, Lim attempts to manoeuvre around the passage of 1 Cor. 6:1-11. It appears that “this same Apostle Paul was constrained to resort to the use of his civil rights.” It is true that Scripture does not forbid the Christian from exercising his “civil rights” with regard to charges against him from the civil magistrates and unbelievers. But this has no relevance to the issue being discussed: should a Christian bring another Christian before the secular court of law? This is not a matter of a Christian versus the authorities, or a Christian versus the unbeliever, but a Christian versus another Christian.
In Act 16:37-39, 21:39 and 22:25-28, Paul exercised his legal privileges as a Roman citizen to obtain fair and unbiased treatment, as well as protection, from the Roman authorities. In Acts 23:3, Paul was speaking to Ananias the high priest, one who is not a believer. Acts 25:10-12 describes Paul’s conversation with Festus, who is, once again, an unbeliever. Here, Paul requested to be delivered to Caesar’s jurisdiction as a means of protection from his persecutors, the Jews - who are, of course, not believers. In Acts 28:17-19, Paul explained to the chief of the Jews why he had appealed to Caesar.
From all the examples mentioned by Lim, there is not a single instance whereby he can conclusively demonstrate that the Apostle Paul dragged a fellow Christian to the heathen courts of law.
In his online treatise, “The necessity for my legal suit,” Lim explains his side of the story, “On 3 Jul 05, Dr Khoo distributed 300 copies of an open letter against my “An Evidential Review” to his church, and also emailed his letter to other churches. He later on 10 Jul preached a VPP sermon at Calvary Pandan, which led to my Open Letter on 14 Jul, inviting him to a public academic debate, which many had implored of me, as being the best way to resolve the issue decisively, for the peace of all our churches. On 17 Jul, I hand distributed 60 copies of my open letter to English members (after also hearing that Rev Quek had attacked our Mandarin Pastor, Rev Tang Wai Kay, over the VPP issue). The subsequent conduct of Dr Tow and Rev Quek on 24 Jul was, however one looks at it, clearly disproportionate, vicious and unjustifiable.”
It appeared that Lim had decided to disseminate his views to members of his church apart from Session’s approval. This can easily be misconstrued as a subversive act. Any doctrinal disagreement ought to be settled in private with the church’s Session. It is not in accordance with proper Christian conduct or ecclesiastical procedure to publicly criticize the church’s doctrine without Session’s approval or sanction. It is, indeed, the duty of every church member to strive for peace within the church. This is also part of the member’s covenant with the church, which one has to sign when joining the church as a member.
Even if the Session decides upon a view which contradicts one’s conviction, the member has to acquiesce. The Board of Elders possesses ecclesiastical authority within the church to dictate issues pertaining to doctrine and practice. The pastor has the responsibility and the right to teach the view decided upon by the Board of Elders, and to protect the flock from variant views.
If the member is so convicted in his heart that the doctrine held by the church is heretical or unscriptural, he has every right to resign from church membership. The member is not required to remain in the church, much less initiate or propagate a doctrinal dispute within the church.
A Correct Exegesis?
What is most disturbing is Lim’s exegesis of 1 Cor. 6:1-9. He writes:
“A correct exegesis of 1Cor 6:1-9 would show why Paul himself appealed to his Roman civil rights at times. For a start, Paul did not assume that no redress should be given to the one wronged but rather assumed that the church would provide the redress. Thus he asks in verse 5, “Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge his brethren?” However, this prescription of wise judges was rejected by the pastors.”
Firstly, Lim has never shown how Paul had dragged a fellow Christian to the courts of law. The teachings of 1 Cor. 6:1-9 are aptly summarized by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, “Litigation of Christians in Heathen Courts Censured: Its Very Existence Betrays a Wrong Spirit: Better to Bear Wrong Now, and Hereafter the Doers of Wrong Shall Be Shut Out of Heaven.”
Warren Wiersbe elucidates further in his commentary on 1 Cor 6:1-8:
“It was probably the Gentiles (Greeks) in the church who were the guilty parties in this case, for the Greeks were very much wrapped up in courts and law. Each Greek city had its courts and councils, and it was not uncommon for a son to sue his own father! Of course, the basic problem was carnality (3:1–4); when Christians are immature and not growing, they cannot get along with one another. They lack the spiritual discernment to settle and solve personal problems. How tragic it is when a local church is torn asunder by lawsuits among the members! We are living in an era when lawsuits are the “going thing” and a quick way to try to make money. It seems that the purpose of the court is not justice but income. Paul is not condemning courts of law (see Rom. 13), for the government is instituted by God for our good. But matters between believers must not be exposed before unbelievers, and certainly an unsaved judge lacks the spiritual understanding to deal with spiritual matters (2:14–16). By dragging one another to court, the church members at Corinth were ruining the testimony of the church and disgracing the name of the Lord.”
Lim continues to explain why his exercise of “civil rights” is justified in what is allegedly not the “smallest matters”:
“Secondly in verse 1, Paul refers to “a matter” (singular). If it were just a simple matter of my being defrauded personally, once, why not rather accept wrong? And thirdly, verse 2 refers to the smallest matters, or matters of a primarily material nature, which a heavenly viewpoint would regard as having small importance (cp Lk 12:13-14). But here in our case, what if the “wrong” inflicted is to suppress my attempts to rectify failures in the stewardship of the Church finances, in which unfaithfulness is a most terrible thing?”
The Apostle Paul answers Lim’s question in verse 3, “Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?” According to Paul, the “things that pertain to this life” are also referred to as “the smallest matters.” Apparently, the meaning of the phrase “smallest things” is not to be decided upon arbitrarily, but is to be interpreted in context of Paul’s rebuke to the Corinthians.
“If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church (v.4).” It is obvious that Paul refers to the “things pertaining to this life,” in view of the eschatological judgment at the end of the age, as “the smallest things.” Lim’s grievances belong to the category of “things pertaining to this life.” As Jamieson, Fausset and Brown had rightly commented, “The weightiest of earthly questions at issue are infinitely small compared with those to be decided on the judgment-day.”
We recall that Lim is bringing a defamation suit against his pastors. But what has a defamation suit to do with church finances? Lim asks, “what if the “wrong” inflicted is to suppress my attempts to rectify failures in the stewardship of the Church finances, in which unfaithfulness is a most terrible thing?”
Again, Weirsbe provides an answer:
“How should Christians settle personal differences? They must first have the right spiritual values. How trivial these personal disputes become when compared to the great eternal matters we will decide in glory! The church is going to judge the world and the angels! This realization makes worldly disputes rather insignificant. Too many Christians have warped values; the things of this world (especially money) are more important to them than the glory and praise of God. Matters between Christians should be settled quietly according to the principles of Matt. 18:15–17 and 1 Cor. 6:5. If the two parties cannot reach an agreement, then they should invite some spiritual believers to meet with them and help decide. If the matter becomes known to the church (or outside the church), the members should appoint a group to examine the matter and give spiritual counsel. Far better that a Christian should lose money than lose his spiritual stature and bring shame to Christ’s name! We can find this same attitude in Matt. 5:38–42. Of course, the Christians in Corinth were so carnal that they lacked spiritual vision and wisdom, and thus their church was split into warring factions. “You are brethren!” Paul cried. “Show love for one another!’”
There is no necessity to sue the pastor for financial discrepancies. Lim writes, “I was finally duty bound to report to the Authorities, who have commenced investigations.” It seems to me that Lim has exercised his civil rights by reporting the monetary discrepancies to the authorities. Why, then, is the defamation suit necessary? Let the authorities do their work.
Lim claimed that he required the civil magistrates’ protection from his pastor’s incessant “verbal attacks.” He laments, “I however can say with the Apostle Paul that I have done nothing against my church or the customs of our Christian faith but am constrained to appeal to the civil courts for protection and not that I had anything to accuse my church of (Act 28:17-19).”
Paul required protection from the Jews who seek to murder him. Likewise, Lim required protection from the pastors who seek to verbally assassinate him. In view of such serious threats to his life, Lim seeks recourse from the authorities. Yes, I would agree that if his pastors wanted his life, he should get protection quickly. Wouldn’t you agree too?
Let us pray that the differences between the pastors and brother Lim will eventually be resolved in a scriptural manner.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Spiritual Discernment 1
Note: In the current series of posts, I am using a revised version of an old article, one that I had written in 2001 for the youths. In this particular post, I would like to introduce the subject of biblical discernment. In the next few posts, I will explain what discernment is not, and I will also address the various reasons for the absence of discernment in the Church today.
Introduction
Christianity today is a confusing hodgepodge of differing opinions and notions. With the plethora of contradictory interpretations of Scripture, how would the believer discern truth from error? This requires spiritual discernment. Discernment can be defined as the spiritual faculty of a born-again believer to delineate scriptural truths from unbiblical beliefs and falsehood. The problem is, spiritual discernment is greatly lacking in Christendom today.
Any attempt to discriminate between truth and error is quickly met with resistance. The zeitgeist of the age demands that we accept all perspectives as constituting Truth. Militancy for the truth is often labeled as “judgmental-ism,” narrow-mindedness, or extremism. But we are commanded to “prove all things (1 Thess 5:21)” and to “reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine (2 Tim 4:2).”
No teacher of Scripture should be spared from scriptural scrutiny. Not even the Apostle Paul was excused from such biblical examination (Acts 17:10-13). Nevertheless, our ecumenical, New Evangelical brethren had insinuated that we should abandon our spiritual faculty of discernment, reject the practice of separation from false teachers, and begin dialoguing with unbelieving wolves and apostates. And all these are to be done in the name of love.
Should we, then, love the wolves more than sheep? According to some, we are to emulate our “noble”, “loving,” and “accommodating” New Evangelical brethren, who are, of course, noble, loving and accommodating according to their own standard and definition.
The Bible recounts to us that the Christians in Berea were noble because of their diligence in searching the Word of God to verify what the Apostle taught. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Luke praised the Bereans (Acts 17:11) as being “more noble” than those in Thessalonica. Here, we read that even the Apostle Paul was not spared from scriptural scrutiny. The Bible, therefore, commends the exercise of biblical discernment.
Contrariwise, New Evangelicals seem to suggest that the separation of truth from error is too critical and pharisaical. According to them, we should embrace aberrant doctrines as variant interpretations of Scripture.
The Word of God commands us to judge all doctrines and practices (1 John 4:1, Matt 7:15-16, Romans 16:17-18, 1 Thess 5:21, Isaiah 8:20, 1 Cor 2:15, 10:15, Luke 7:43), and to reprove, reject and separate from all false teachings and teachers (2 Cor 6:17, 2 Tim 3:5, 2 Thess 3:6, Eph 5:11, Romans 12:9, 2 John 10-11).
New Evangelicals, however, reject God’s mandate to separate from errors and false teachers. By dampening the spirit of discernment, contemporary Evangelicalism is becoming more and more accommodating to various falsehoods and ecumenical lies. Apparently, the spiritual faculty of discernment is urgently needed to preserve apostolic doctrines and truths for churches today.
True believers are capable of spiritual discernment
It is taught in Scripture that the Holy Spirit guides born-again Christians into all truth. “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come (John 16:13).” What a privilege it is to be taught by God Himself. The Word of God is the very instrument, which the Holy Ghost utilizes to teach believers. While we may learn much from men, we are not entirely dependent upon them. We have the divine Teacher, the Holy Ghost. We will never know the Truth until we are thus taught. No matter how much the education, the knowledge of ancient near eastern literature (e.g. Assyriology), and the amount of time spent in mastering the biblical languages, we will never know the truth unless the Holy Ghost teaches us.
The Bible says, “the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you (John 14:26).” The Comforter will bring to remembrance all the teachings of Christ our Lord. He will teach each and every born-again believer the truth concerning God’s Word. “But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him (1 John 2:27 ).”
Again, we read in 1 John 2:20, “But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things”. Good teachers are excellent sources of knowledge, but we must realize that they are not an infallible authority. Mature believers are able to discern truth from error through the diligent study of God’s Word; the Holy Ghost guides them via the Scriptures. In fact, the ability to discern the true gospel from false ones is what sets true believers apart from others.
The present generation of Christians has probably forgotten that it is their responsibility to discern right from wrong, truth from error, and prophets from false teachers. They are so reliant on others to teach them when they should be studying the Word conscientiously for themselves (2 Tim 2:15). They become gullible victims of wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matthew 7:15) as they are “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph 4:14).
The apostle wrote, “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Cor 2:9-14).”
From 1 Cor 2:9-14, it is clear that the Holy Spirit reveals to believers the deep things of God which are hidden from the natural man. God’s Word is foolishness to the unbeliever, because he is spiritually dead (Eph 2:1-9). Indeed, the only way for one to know spiritual truths is through the tutelage of the Holy Ghost. Is it not marvelous that the Author of divine revelation is our Interpreter as well?
The Psalmist prayed, “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law” (Psalm 119:18). It is, indeed, a grave error to believe that we can comprehend spiritual things with mere natural or carnal understanding. As much as a paint manufacturer is not qualified to teach Art just because he is an expert on paints, a Hebrew and Greek linguist is not qualified to teach God’s Word just because he knows the original languages. The Modernists with their rationalistic theory of higher criticism are extremely qualified according to man’s standards. Nevertheless, to put the Modernist on the pulpit is tantamount to spiritual suicide.
We need to recognize the utter insufficiency of human wisdom, and to humble ourselves to be taught by the Spirit. “Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise (1 Cor 3:18).” The philosophy and scholarship of this world should never be used as a yardstick to measure God’s Word. Conversely, we must bring “into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5).”
Much of human wisdom and rationalism have only produced spiritual retrogression and decay. The naturalistic theory of Neo-Darwinism mocks the creation account of Genesis 1 as Jewish myth and superstition. Carnal pragmatism compromises scriptural injunctions for statistics, filthy lucre and “church growth.” This compromise may even impinge upon gospel truths itself. The philosophy of feminism has placed on our pulpit preachers in skirts and petticoats. Fundamental doctrines such as biblical inerrancy are repudiated with the most peculiar exegetical gymnastics. Plain Scriptures are apparently explained away with the “original” Greek and Hebrew. Such are the fruits of better “scholarship” and “higher learning.”
To be continued
Introduction
Christianity today is a confusing hodgepodge of differing opinions and notions. With the plethora of contradictory interpretations of Scripture, how would the believer discern truth from error? This requires spiritual discernment. Discernment can be defined as the spiritual faculty of a born-again believer to delineate scriptural truths from unbiblical beliefs and falsehood. The problem is, spiritual discernment is greatly lacking in Christendom today.
Any attempt to discriminate between truth and error is quickly met with resistance. The zeitgeist of the age demands that we accept all perspectives as constituting Truth. Militancy for the truth is often labeled as “judgmental-ism,” narrow-mindedness, or extremism. But we are commanded to “prove all things (1 Thess 5:21)” and to “reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine (2 Tim 4:2).”
No teacher of Scripture should be spared from scriptural scrutiny. Not even the Apostle Paul was excused from such biblical examination (Acts 17:10-13). Nevertheless, our ecumenical, New Evangelical brethren had insinuated that we should abandon our spiritual faculty of discernment, reject the practice of separation from false teachers, and begin dialoguing with unbelieving wolves and apostates. And all these are to be done in the name of love.
Should we, then, love the wolves more than sheep? According to some, we are to emulate our “noble”, “loving,” and “accommodating” New Evangelical brethren, who are, of course, noble, loving and accommodating according to their own standard and definition.
The Bible recounts to us that the Christians in Berea were noble because of their diligence in searching the Word of God to verify what the Apostle taught. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Luke praised the Bereans (Acts 17:11) as being “more noble” than those in Thessalonica. Here, we read that even the Apostle Paul was not spared from scriptural scrutiny. The Bible, therefore, commends the exercise of biblical discernment.
Contrariwise, New Evangelicals seem to suggest that the separation of truth from error is too critical and pharisaical. According to them, we should embrace aberrant doctrines as variant interpretations of Scripture.
The Word of God commands us to judge all doctrines and practices (1 John 4:1, Matt 7:15-16, Romans 16:17-18, 1 Thess 5:21, Isaiah 8:20, 1 Cor 2:15, 10:15, Luke 7:43), and to reprove, reject and separate from all false teachings and teachers (2 Cor 6:17, 2 Tim 3:5, 2 Thess 3:6, Eph 5:11, Romans 12:9, 2 John 10-11).
New Evangelicals, however, reject God’s mandate to separate from errors and false teachers. By dampening the spirit of discernment, contemporary Evangelicalism is becoming more and more accommodating to various falsehoods and ecumenical lies. Apparently, the spiritual faculty of discernment is urgently needed to preserve apostolic doctrines and truths for churches today.
True believers are capable of spiritual discernment
It is taught in Scripture that the Holy Spirit guides born-again Christians into all truth. “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come (John 16:13).” What a privilege it is to be taught by God Himself. The Word of God is the very instrument, which the Holy Ghost utilizes to teach believers. While we may learn much from men, we are not entirely dependent upon them. We have the divine Teacher, the Holy Ghost. We will never know the Truth until we are thus taught. No matter how much the education, the knowledge of ancient near eastern literature (e.g. Assyriology), and the amount of time spent in mastering the biblical languages, we will never know the truth unless the Holy Ghost teaches us.
The Bible says, “the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you (John 14:26).” The Comforter will bring to remembrance all the teachings of Christ our Lord. He will teach each and every born-again believer the truth concerning God’s Word. “But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him (1 John 2:27 ).”
Again, we read in 1 John 2:20, “But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things”. Good teachers are excellent sources of knowledge, but we must realize that they are not an infallible authority. Mature believers are able to discern truth from error through the diligent study of God’s Word; the Holy Ghost guides them via the Scriptures. In fact, the ability to discern the true gospel from false ones is what sets true believers apart from others.
The present generation of Christians has probably forgotten that it is their responsibility to discern right from wrong, truth from error, and prophets from false teachers. They are so reliant on others to teach them when they should be studying the Word conscientiously for themselves (2 Tim 2:15). They become gullible victims of wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matthew 7:15) as they are “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph 4:14).
The apostle wrote, “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Cor 2:9-14).”
From 1 Cor 2:9-14, it is clear that the Holy Spirit reveals to believers the deep things of God which are hidden from the natural man. God’s Word is foolishness to the unbeliever, because he is spiritually dead (Eph 2:1-9). Indeed, the only way for one to know spiritual truths is through the tutelage of the Holy Ghost. Is it not marvelous that the Author of divine revelation is our Interpreter as well?
The Psalmist prayed, “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law” (Psalm 119:18). It is, indeed, a grave error to believe that we can comprehend spiritual things with mere natural or carnal understanding. As much as a paint manufacturer is not qualified to teach Art just because he is an expert on paints, a Hebrew and Greek linguist is not qualified to teach God’s Word just because he knows the original languages. The Modernists with their rationalistic theory of higher criticism are extremely qualified according to man’s standards. Nevertheless, to put the Modernist on the pulpit is tantamount to spiritual suicide.
We need to recognize the utter insufficiency of human wisdom, and to humble ourselves to be taught by the Spirit. “Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise (1 Cor 3:18).” The philosophy and scholarship of this world should never be used as a yardstick to measure God’s Word. Conversely, we must bring “into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5).”
Much of human wisdom and rationalism have only produced spiritual retrogression and decay. The naturalistic theory of Neo-Darwinism mocks the creation account of Genesis 1 as Jewish myth and superstition. Carnal pragmatism compromises scriptural injunctions for statistics, filthy lucre and “church growth.” This compromise may even impinge upon gospel truths itself. The philosophy of feminism has placed on our pulpit preachers in skirts and petticoats. Fundamental doctrines such as biblical inerrancy are repudiated with the most peculiar exegetical gymnastics. Plain Scriptures are apparently explained away with the “original” Greek and Hebrew. Such are the fruits of better “scholarship” and “higher learning.”
To be continued
Friday, August 18, 2006
1 Thessalonians 5:9 and the Rapture
Some Pretribulationists have argued that since the church is saved from the wrath of God, and given that the Great Tribulation is the wrath of God, the church is apparently delivered from this Great Tribulation. Pretribulationists rely heavily upon this argument for their pretribulation rapture theory. On face value, their reasoning seems logical. One of the “proof-text” used in their paralogism is 1 Thessalonians 5:9. This verse says, “For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thessalonians 5:9).”
Commenting on this verse, Dr Jeffrey Khoo writes:
“The Christian has been spared from the wrath of God to come (cf. Rev 6:17, 11:18, 15:1,16). It is not the Christian’s duty nor destination to face God’s wrath since he has already been saved by the perfect redemptive work of Christ (Rom 5:9). It is important to know that the terms “wrath” and “salvation” here are opposites. The verse is clearly not talking about a both-and, but either-or situation. If you are under wrath, you are not saved, and if you are saved, you are not under wrath (John 3:36). This certainly argues against the posttribulational rapture view.” (Khoo, 1 Thessalonians, 37.)
1 Thessalonians 5:9 contrasts the concept of “wrath” and “salvation.” It is true that God has not appointed Christians to His wrath, but this does not exempt the Christian from the wrath of men, the wrath of the Antichrist, and the wrath of the Devil. Furthermore, the “wrath” mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 5:9 is clearly eternal wrath, that is, eternal perdition. This is supported by the understanding that 1 Thessalonians 5:9b describes “salvation” from God’s judgment, and not simply salvation from the Great Tribulation. 1 Thessalonians 5:9 contrasts eternal wrath with eternal salvation. Surely Dr Khoo must understand this, for he writes: “It is not the Christian’s duty nor destination to face God’s wrath since he has already been saved by the perfect redemptive work of Christ (Rom 5:9).” This salvation “by the perfect redemptive work of Christ” is eternal salvation, and comprises of election, regeneration, justification, sanctification and glorification. Obviously, 1 Thessalonians 5:9 is not describing the salvation of Christians from the Great Tribulation. To impose the concept of a pretribulation rapture into the meaning of 1 Thessalonians 5:9 is eisegesis. Dr Jeffrey Khoo has yet to explain why 1 Thessalonians 5:9 “argues against the posttribulational rapture view.”
If, indeed, the exegete insists that 1 Thessalonians 5:9 describes the deliverance of Christians from the Great Tribulation, he cannot escape the entrapment of even more nagging exegetical problems. According to 1 Thessalonians 5:9b, the reason for the Christian’s deliverance is his salvation in Jesus Christ. It cannot be overemphasized that the tribulation saints are likewise saved by the redemption of Christ. If the Church must be exempted from the wrath of God in the Great Tribulation according to 1 Thessalonians 5:9a, how can we justify the pretribulationist’s belief that tribulation saints are left behind to suffer the wrath of God during the Great Tribulation? Is it not true that tribulation saints are also redeemed by Christ’s atoning death?
Must the Church be raptured in order for her to be protected from the Great Tribulation? The fact is: presence does not necessitate participation. The Church can be on earth throughout the Great Tribulation and yet be divinely protected from God’s wrath. Israel was in Egypt when God sent the ten plagues. God did not rapture Israel prior to sending His wrath against the Egyptians. Israel was divinely protected from God’s wrath during the entire period. But the pretribulationists would have us believe that the pretribulation rapture of the Church is a certainty. The reason, which has been repeated ad nauseam, is that God has not appointed the Christians to wrath.
I believe 1 Thessalonians 5:9 is one of the most misunderstood verses of the Bible, and it is probably due to popular, dispensational eisegesis. The phrase - “For God hath not appointed us to wrath” - has almost become a mantra. Then let the pretribulationist answer why the tribulation saints are left on earth for the “wrath” of God.
Another pertinent question for the Bible Presbyterians would be, “Are not the tribulation saints also part of the Church?”
Friday, August 11, 2006
Rant:The Evolutionist Bible
The Book of (Abio)Genesis - Chapter One
In the beginning was a “burp,” and that “burp” contained nothing, yet it became something. That infinitesimal “burp” grew astronomically, and inflated to a bigger “blob.” Incidentally, that “blob” exploded, and produced hydrogen, and slowly, helium. Incidentally, the hydrogen and helium somehow fused to form higher elements, rocks, stars, galaxies and planets.
Miraculously, the rocks came alive, and magically, water was formed in the now expanded “burp,” also known as the "universe". Boys and girls, this is going to be complicated. If you think a frog turning into a prince is exciting, this one gets even better! This is the magic of SCIENCE.
Once upon a time, long ago and far away, the water married the rock and formed magical “goo.” Remember children, according to textbooks, it rained on the rocks for millions and millions of years. After millions and millions of years (and billions, trillions, zillions, quadrillions and abracadabradrillions of years), the “goo” decided to come alive. Somehow, that blend of exotic “goo” rearranged itself to form the first compact, self-replicating, self-repairing, immensely complicated polynucleotide strand. Accidentally, this strand somehow rearranged itself to provide all the information for life!
From that single polynucleotide strand came all the information for the formation of all the species you see all around you. Remember, boys and girls, all that information came accidentally from some of that “goo.”
Over time, that rock eventually evolved to a naked, hairless, bipedal, intelligent ape.
The ape was intelligent. It worked out a theory which describes its descent from plants, fish, amphibian, reptile and mammals. As indicated by this theory, the ape and the banana share a common ancestor. There was no Creator. Everything was an accident, and so was the ape.
One day, that ape decided that it had legal rights and civil rights. It decided that it had the right to lie, steal, rob, plunder, lust, crave, rape, fornicate, hate, and murder. So every ape did what was right in its own eyes. Remember boys and girls, goo has rights too!
In time, the ape discovered many other theories and called them “science.” These discoveries enabled the ape to destroy the ecosystems, and to construct “towers to heaven” for its own empire – also known as skyscrapers. So the apes were successful, but only the strongest ape survived. The rest of the apes became an economic liability.
All in all, the ape was proud of its many discoveries. But according to the history of science, the greatest discovery was this: The Theory of Evolution. Via this theory of evolution, that intelligent ape intelligently discovered its ancestor - the Rock. This theory also explains why some of these apes worship rocks, plants, trees and four-legged beasts. These rocks, plants, trees and four-legged beasts are, scientifically speaking, the ape’s ancestors. And the worship of these entities is called ancestral worship.
In summary, according to science, the rock became goo, which became you. This is the theory of evolution.
References:
Any textbooks on the following:
Big Bang theory
Inflation theory
Cosmic evolution
Stellar Evolution
Chemical evolution
Abiogenesis
Macroevolution
Anthropology
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Effete Ecclesiasticism: A Brief Note on Deaconesses and Women Preachers
The ordination of women church officers, particularly the appointment of deaconesses, is part of the ecclesiastical tradition of the Bible Presbyterian churches in Singapore. (1) I hereby refer to the church constitution of True Life Bible Presbyterian Church as the exemplar of local Bible Presbyterian practices. (2) It is clear from article 15 - which concerns the election of deaconesses – as well as article 11 that the female deacon is part of the church session. Consequentially, deaconesses in Singapore’s Bible Presbyterian churches have much ecclesiastical authority over the congregation.
These deaconesses, together with the elders and deacons, constitute the church session, which in turn makes administrative, didactic, financial and ecclesiastical decisions for the church. Indeed, the deaconess exercises her voting rights within the session, thus utilizing her authority in making crucial church decisions concerning doctrines, election of future session members, as well as other matters that have a direct or indirect bearing over the congregation. How the employment of such female authority within the session can be squared with Scripture is, unfortunately, beyond my comprehension. Paul says, “Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, was in the transgression (1 Tim. 2:11-14).”
Historically, there is indeed an order of widows (1 Timothy 5:9-14), but this must not be confused with the office of deaconess in contemporary churches. According to Brian Schwertley, “Those who are in favor of women deacons who are in the same office as men deacons reject the idea of an order of widows. Why? Because they want women deacons to have the same office, function, and qualifications as the male diaconate. The deaconesses in the early church had different qualifications (widows over sixty), different functions (primarily to women), different authority (they submitted to the male deacons) and a different office than the male deacons. Modern advocates of women deacons believe that it is perfectly permissible for women who are married, who have dependent children and who are under sixty to be deacons. Yet such thinking clearly contradicts Paul’s command to the younger widows in 1 Timothy 5:11-14.” (3) Thus, deaconesses in Bible Presbyterian churches operate and function at a capacity not permitted by Scripture. In contrast to the order of widows, contemporary deaconesses have true ecclesiastical authority.
It may be argued that, in certain Bible Presbyterian churches of Singapore, the deacons and deaconess do not vote or make certain decisions with the Board of Elders. In this sense, the Board of Elders rules over the diaconate, and the deaconess is therefore exonerated from the charged of usurping the authority of men within the session. This argument, however, is tenuous at best. Schwertley replies, “While it is true that deacons are not pastors or ruling elders and do not vote with the session [only in certain Bible Presbyterian churches in this case], they still have an ecclesiastical authority in the church that is clearly forbidden to women. The deacons [and deaconesses, if any] are the financial officers of the church. The collection of tithes and the management of God’s money is in itself an authoritative function forbidden to women. The collection of tithes and the management of church funds has [sic] always been restricted to men.” (4)
The point is, deaconesses are part of the session according to the Bible Presbyterian Church constitution, and ipso facto, exercise ecclesiastical authority over the men of the congregation. Ironically, the husbands of deaconesses - that is, men within the congregation - have to submit to their wives (deaconesses) within the session, while these deaconesses are supposedly required by Scripture to submit to their husbands at home. “The idea that women are permitted to control the financial affairs of the church when they are not permitted to have the final say regarding the financial affairs of the home is not logical. Is a woman deacon permitted to have authority over her husband’s money in the church, while submitting to his control of the finances in the home? Such a situation is unseemly. The fact that women can be and are the chief financial officers of major corporations is irrelevant. The issue is not one of fitness or ability but of God’s ordained order of authority in the household and in the church.” (5)
There is, however, another controversial role of women within Bible Presbyterian churches. Specifically, women preachers are appointed in numerous Bible Presbyterian mission churches all over Asia. Sometimes, women preachers are even appointed within local Bible Presbyterian congregations. (6) This is clearly an unscriptural practice (1 Cor. 14:34-37, 1 Tim. 2:11-14). (7)
In response to the aforementioned allegations, Rev James Chan, the pastor of Calvary Bible Presbyterian Church (Jurong), wrote: “In the mission field, there are many women missionaries, doing the work which men are unwilling to do. Kelapa Sawit B-P Church was taken care of by Miss Ng Siang Chew. Awana Club and Junior Worship - from the nursery to the young teens - are run by many faithful female teachers because few brothers responded to the need. Let me again quote from Rev [Timothy] Tow in his letter to the Calvary Missions Fellowship (dated April 22, 1994); he wrote, “I take my hat off to women missionaries and preachers. There is no law forbidding them to preach when men are reluctant to venture out. Let the first male to criticize the women speakers be sent to the frontiers to take their place. Amen?” (8)
Such pragmatism is unbecoming of a professedly biblical, fundamentalist institution. Even if the “men are unwilling” to perform the task of preaching, we do not facilitate the gospel work by being disobedient to clear injunctions of Holy Scripture. God’s commandments are clear: women are plainly disallowed to teach men within the congregation. If we truly believe that God is sovereign, even in the salvation of sinners, we must perform the Great Commission according to our Lord’s directives and mandates. We ought to wait patiently for God to raise up suitably qualified servants to do His work. The prophet Samuel proclaims, “Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry (1 Samuel 15:22-23).”
To obey the Word of God is better than sacrifice, and rebellion against God’s injunctions is undoubtedly sin. Paul commands the young Corinthian church, “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak: but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also says the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:34-37). Let the Church today acknowledge that what Paul wrote “are the commandments of the Lord.”
I “take my hat off” to pastors who obey God’s Word unconditionally and sacrificially, especially when it is inconvenient to do so. Amen?
End Notes
1. For example, Calvary Bible Presbyterian Church (Tengah) and Tabernacle Bible Presbyterian Church have deaconesses within their sessions.
2. See “Constitution of True Life Bible Presbyterian Church,” The Burning Bush 11, no. 2 (2005): 98-120.
3. Brian Schwertley, A Historical and Biblical Examination of Women Deacons [book on-line]; available from http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/schwertley/deacon.html; Internet; accessed 10 October 2005. This book provides a historical and theological discussion of the issue of deaconesses.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. For example, Ms Carol Lee, a lecturer in Far Eastern Bible College, was assigned as teacher of a mixed class on 22nd January 2006 for a Bible Presbyterian congregation in Singapore. The lesson was avowedly doctrinal in nature. This is, but, the tip of the iceberg.
7. For an introduction, see David Cloud, Women Preachers [article on-line]; available from http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/womenpreachers.htm; Internet; accessed 10 October 2005.
8. James Chan, “Our Bible Presbyterian Faith and Practice,” The Burning Bush 6, no. 1 (2000): 55.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
