Having been in the faith for more than 41 years, I think I have heard just about every objection to obeying God and His Word. I once was told by a fellow male member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church we were attending in the States that he "didn't work-be gainfully employed- to support his family because he was afraid his sons would grow up not knowing who he was if he was gone to work all the time." That was an easy one. However, every now and then something comes along that takes me by surprise, like the theme of this essay: "A member of your cell group/congregation tells you that because he already has the Holy Spirit he does not believe that baptism in water is necessary."
Perhaps the root of this distorted view of the biblical doctrine of the sacraments is merely a misunderstanding or an ill-taught view of what baptism is and why we, as Christians, should be baptized. If so, then a small examination of the Scriptures would do nicely to set this person's view back on track and, hopefully, direct him to obedience in baptism.
Though the word "sacrament" is not in the Bible, it is an interesting word, which finds a highly appropriate application to what baptism (and the other church sacrament: communion) is all about. It was a word used in ancient Roman times as a sign of a soldier's military pledge to serve faithfully his commanding officer. It was sign, indeed a seal, representing the promise to faithfully execute his commander's standards and a sign of the promise not to desert him.
This excellent description of a sacrament applies to baptism in that when we are brought to faith and repentance in Christ, we, too, are listed in the service of the "Captain of our salvation" (Hebrews 2:10 KJV). Our standard, the thing to which we pledge ourselves through faith in Christ, is to take up our cross daily, denying sin within us, and follow Him in obedience.
Some early church fathers saw the sacraments as "solemn badges" worn by Christians metaphorically as a means to distinguish believers from the rest of humanity. As circumcision was a sign and seal of the righteousness and faith (Romans 4:11) under the Old Economy, under the New, the same distinction corresponds to the New Testament sacraments. What baptism represents is Christ's death, burial, and resurrection and how this benefits the believer (Romans 6:1-12). It is the outward expression (sign) of the believer's New, Inward Nature. In every sacrament, there is a spiritual reality between the sign and what it represents.
Baptism is not only a New Testament sacrament, the sign and seal of the New Nature in Christ (Galatians 3:27; Col. 2:11,12), but it was also ordained by Christ Himself. In the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19), believers are commanded to baptize in the fulfillment of the discipleship process. To be baptized is to obey Christ's word.
"In baptism you were raised up with Christ through faith-your own faith, not your parents' faith. If it is not "through faith"-if it is not an outward expression of inward faith-it is not baptism." (John Piper)
In I Peter 3:21, reveals that: 1) Baptism is not the removal of dirt from the flesh (the water is not the object); 2) Baptism is an appeal to God for a good conscience; 3) Baptism is the outward demonstration or expression of a changed heart and mind in Christ. This, therefore, is a nail in the coffin for infant baptism.
If baptism is a Christ-ordained sacrament for the New Testament, and if there can be no discipleship without it, (New Testament, first-century Christians were baptizing and baptized Saints), then let me suggest five reasons why someone who claims to be a believer refuses baptism.
One is that they just do not know. They truly came to faith in Christ and were not taught to take the sign and seal of the New Covenant through baptism.
Two is that once they learn of baptism and its meaning, they are ashamed to admit they've never been baptized.
Three is that they are apathetic. Once they are taught and understand that baptism is an issue of obedience, they can't be bothered. I have encountered this with the elderly.
Four is that they are rebellious. They have been living a spiritually duplicitous life, and they know it, and if they were to suddenly come forward in obedience and be baptized, they would be found to be a spiritual fraud.
Five is that they are not really Christians after all. Church attendance is all the spirituality they need and is the extent of their meaningless profession of faith or lack thereof.
The waters of baptism are not what save you. Faith in Christ, because of Grace, and through the instrumentality of Faith, is what saves you. But, just as the Old Testament saints received circumcision as a sign and seal of their Covenantal relationship with God, so, too, do New Testament saints receive the sign and seal of the New Covenant through the waters of baptism. It is a command of Christ within the salvific purposes of God. And did not Jesus say,
"If you love Me, you will keep my commandment?" (John 15:14 NASB)
Monday, April 12, 2010
"I've Got The Holy Spirit; Why Be Baptized?"
Thursday, April 1, 2010
The Effect Upon the Church of the Legalization of Christianity Under Constantine
The legalization of Christianity under the rule of Caesar Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus, or Constantine I, was a landmark decision for persecuted Christians. It would, eventually, change everything. What Constantine would implement during his reign would cause Christianity to become the official religion of the empire. It would bring tremendous changes for good for believers as well as many changes of questionable value. When Constantine signed his infamous Edict of Milan it would grant religious freedom to the kingdom for all religions but with a decidedly Christian bias on the part of Constantine. This favorable bias toward Christianity would endure for centuries.
Advantages
Constantine the Great became the Christian's patron. Financial support flowed church-ward. Not only did Constantine build churches but tax exemptions were available for the clergy. Constantine began a church building program in the Holy Land. For the purpose of evangelism and increasing wealth for the clergy, under his or his mother's (Helena) support, he ordered the following churches built: Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem to be constructed; in Rome, St. Peter's Basilica, an oratory now the Basilica di San Lorenzo fuori le Mura, Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls¸ and in Constantinople, Hagia Sophia, plus the Church of the Holy Apostles.
Employment in prestigious positions never before allowed for Christians were suddenly available. Property of great value was granted to the church as well as land taken during the persecution of Diocletian was returned. Constantine's Christian biased proved to provide an unprecedented acceptance into the society at large.
Constantine's pro-Christian reforms were enforced as law. These reforms favored not only Christians but had an effect for the non-Christian. Capital punishment and prison reforms were implemented affecting all, Christian or pagan alike. This, however, did not prevent and increasing pagan hostility toward Christians to whom to was obvious Constantine favored. What had to add to this growing hostility was the fact that Constantine, while building Christian churches, was not building pagan temples. In fact, as he no doubt grew in his faith, he became less and less likely to mix pagan with Christian, which he did very early in his profession of faith in Christ, and grew to the point of limiting his patronage Christian-ward.
The newly emboldened church resulted in internal strives which Constantine saw as his duty to deal with in the forms of "councils". He ordered in 314 A.D. The council of Arles to settle the Donatist controversy and to deal with the Arian error he ordered the First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.
These were certain advantages never before experienced by the church. To have an Emperor who not only claimed to be a Christian but who more often than not consistently demonstrated his conversion with reforms and favor toward a previously persecuted God's Elect.
Disadvantages
Mostly certainly a negative point to consider, and which garnered much enmity and resentment toward the Christian from the pagan camp, was that Constantine eventually got around to closing their temples and forking over the pagan wealth into the Emperor's bank to fund his Christian favoritism. Some scholars say the motive was to teach the pagan to come to the point of despising their paganism and to convert to Christianity. Well heeled Roman families began to be deprived of key government appointed jobs for their rejection of Christ. This could not bode well for the Church.
Another point to consider requires a bit of history. During Constantine's time and previously to his alleged conversion, there were four stages with which someone engaged to become a Christian. According to Ian Mugford's paper, Constantine's Impact on Christianity when someone became an inquirer into the faith he would meet with believers to express his desire to become one of them. In other words, he would make application to the church and submit himself for examination. If deemed worthy he would proceed to step two.
Step two was the instructional stage in the faith that could take up to five years. During this instructional phase the candidate's life was examined and judged. If found acceptable, he would then be permitted to advance toward stage three.
Stage three centered on the beliefs of the potential Christian. More intense teaching ensued. After much additional orthodox teaching and severe examination to test the sincerity of the candidate and his knowledge of church doctrine and practice, he was baptized.
Stage four was the "mystagogy"-the explanation of the baptism and communion the "new Christian" had just experienced.
Constantine completely changed this process. He had not submitted to this four step or stage process. He spoke of church leaders as his brethren and would eventually regard himself as "fellow servants" within the church. Yet, he had not submitted to this process of examination and scrutiny. By example Constantine gave people the chance of becoming a Christian without submitting to baptism or being instructed by the church. After all, the Emperor didn't submit to these requirements, why should the people? It wasn't until the end of his life that he did submit to baptism and teaching. There wasn't time to judge his life as to determine the sincerity of his professed conversion which was what the four step process provided. Regardless of the Emperor's conversion and its sincerity, during the next twenty years of his reign would prove problematic for the church.
The impact upon the church was significant. The four step process that one would normally need to go through was the opportunity for the church leaders to judge a candidate's sincerity or motive for becoming a Christian seemed to decline in importance. During Constantine's rule the motive for conversion changed. Constantine did not coerce people to become Christians but he did bribe them. Not only did he change the conversion landscape by ignoring the four step process for becoming a Christian, he polluted the church's membership with those with nefarious motives. How could those who responded to the Emperor's conversion bribes of cash for the convert and church, better jobs and promotions, and the social status for being a member of the Emperor's religion be sincere? The sad thing is that this bribery continued after the Emperor's death. Edicts made it impossible for pagans to get jobs or advance n their positions.
Conclusion
How to judge the effect of the legalization of Christianity during Constantine's reign is difficult. Granted that before his reign Christians were on the Empire's extinction list. By the time of Constantine's death, Christians were in all levels of government positions and institutionalized persecution was gone from within the empire.. Whether one believes Constantine's conversion was real or not, he was definitely "christianized" and his subsequent "christianized" reforms changed everything.
###
RESOURCES
Christianbook.com Home
bible-media.com
Christian Dating
Christian Music
A Plurality of Leadership
“And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.” (Acts 14:23 NIV)
In the New Testament, the church, each local, earthly expression of Christ’s body, was expected to appoint a plurality as its leadership called elders. Deacons were also to be appointed and, again, in the plural sense. Missions in the New Testament also sought to establish a plurality of leadership where churches were established.
Today, in the array of church denominations existing in our Western societies, there is a confusing string of terms describing church leadership. There are pastors, elders, bishops, overseers, deacons, and even, in some cases, the word apostle is used. In the first century church, there were two offices, elder and deacon, used to describe how the church was to be “set up” and how it was to function.
“Elder” (presbureros) is what the man is called who shares leadership with at least one other Elder within the church’s government. Bishop or Overseer (episcopos) is the work of the Elder. He “oversees” the church and its needs. Pastor (poimen) is the means by which the Elder accomplishes oversight of the flock. He shepherds or pastors it. In the English translations of the Greek text of the New Testament, these English terms are often interchangeable.
For example, in Titus 1:5-7, in the New American Standard Bible, Paul is giving instruction for the appointment of Elders in the church in Crete (verse 5). He goes on to list the qualifications for Elders (verse 6). Then he says, “For the overseer must be…” (verse 7), and he delineates additional qualifications for the Elder or Overseer. Elder and Overseer are equated as the same thing. The word “for” links verse 7 with 5 and 6.
In the King James Version, in verse 7 of the same passage, Paul says, “For a bishop must be…” using “bishop” in place of overseer. Here bishop, as is overseer in the NASB, is equated with elder (see Titus 1:5-7 in the King James Version). It is the same word, episcopos, in the Greek text.
In I Peter 5: 1-2, the function of the Elder, what the Elder does, is defined. Peter writes to “exhort the Elders” to pastor the flock. The word pastor, the Greek word poimen, is translated “shepherd” in the NASB and “feed” in the KJV. In the same passage, Peter also shows how they are to shepherd or feed the flock and that is by “exercising” or “taking” the oversight (episcopos).
In Acts 20:17 and 28, Luke links Elders to Overseers to Pastors. Luke records in the text that Paul met with the Elders (presbureros) of the church admonishing them to take heed of themselves as well as the flock over whom they had been made, by the Holy Spirit, overseers (episcopos) to shepherd (poimen) the church of God.
In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the word elder is used. The word chosen to render the Hebrew word for elder into Greek is presbuteros. Elders in the Old Testament led the Israelites. They would represent the Jews in spiritual issues, represent them before Kings, and settle political matters. (See II Sam. 5:3; II Sam 17:4; I Kings 20:7; Exodus 7:17; 24:1-9)
Therefore, Elder is the office a male within the church holds; Overseeing is what the male does in the office of Elder; and Shepherding or Pastoring is how he carries out oversight as an Elder. But, what of the Deacon? Is there a difference in what a Deacon is and does within the church?
From the Greek word “diakonos,” we get our English word, “deacon.” It means a “servant.” Though this word has a general sense in its various usages, it also has a specific use. When diakonos is used in a technical sense, it is tied to the office of “deacon” within the church. Quite simply, when it is used to refer to the office of deacon, it has the meaning of serving others within the church. A deacon is a male who is in the office of ministry to others within the church. A deacon renders service.
The qualifications for a deacon are almost exactly the same moral attributes as that for an elder. In I Timothy 3:1-13, Paul spells out first the qualifications for the office of Elder. He lists the attributes, “above reproach, husband of one wife, temperate, self-control, respectable, hospitable, not addicted to the drink, etc…” Then, when the Apostle gets to verse 8, he writes, “Deacons, likewise, are to be men…” Likewise or “in the same way” indicates a link between the Elder qualifications and those for the Deacon.
There is no confusion in the mind of Paul as he penned the qualifications of both Elder and Deacon. While the office of Elder was different from the office of Deacon in function, neither office should be regarded frivolously. Both should be the husband of one wife, making it necessary the offices being filled with males. They should have exceptional character and run their homes according to Scripture. He, of course, has to be a believer and walk in a manner worthy of his calling.
So why are so many church governments set up with one man running the entire show rather than a plurality of leadership? Is it as some suggest that the primitive church government was only a workable solution for the first century church?
The normal church government you see today is an organization with a man or woman called a “pastor” who runs everything. If there are Elders or Deacons, they are more often than not little more than figureheads. A church building growth program is usually their reign of influence. Since “pastor” is not a church office but a function of the Elder, then churches set up on this type of top to bottom structure is not biblical.
In the Orthodox Presbyterian Church I belonged to in the States, there was a ruling Elder (the pastor), Elders, and Deacons. This triangular or pyramid structure had the “ruling elder” at the top, then came the “lower” Elders, then the Deacons, then the church members. This is not the biblical example. One Elder is never above another no matter what you call them. They are all equal.
An excellent example of an entirely Elder ruled, viable church government is found in the Plymouth Brethren Assemblies.[1]
###RESOURCES
Christianbook.com Home
bible-media.com
Christian Dating
Christian Music
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Galatians 3:28 and Women Preachers?
"Every kind of foolish and superstitious belief can be proved from the Bible if it is not interpreted according to the demands of context, language, common sense, and reality."[1]
An example of not interpreting a passage or text of Holy Scripture according to the demands of context, language, common sense, and reality is when Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”[2], is used as a proof text for the ordination of women. If ripped out of the context in which this verse appears, seeing what came before the verse and what comes after the verse, one could justify pretty much anything one wanted with regards to the ethnic distinction between Jews and Greeks (gentiles), slaves and non-slaves, men and women, and say it is so because “…you are all one in Christ Jesus.” But, is this what the verse is saying?
What the Apostle Paul is NOT saying is that in Christ women can or should be ordained as preachers of the Word of God. To draw this meaning from Gal. 3:28 would contradict texts of Scripture in which Paul says plainly that God has chosen men and not women as overseers or elders or deacons. In I Timothy 3:1-13, the same writer of Galatians addresses the issue of leadership in the church. He begins with the office of overseer in verse one. Paul later, in Titus 1:5-7, uses the word “elder” to indicate the same office. Qualifications for the overseer or elder are that “he” be the “husband” of one “wife.” This qualification is echoed in Titus 1:6. Paul goes on to say in I Timothy 3: 4,5: “He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)” [3] (Italics mine)
If this wasn’t enough to convince that Galatians 3:28 is NOT saying that women should be ordained in the church, in the previous chapter (I Timothy 2:8-15), Paul spells out explicitly the role of men and women in the church. A woman, says the text, is to learn in silence in all submission and is not allowed to have authority over a man [4] And, unlike the accusation of liberals, the reason Paul says this, his reason, is not cultural. It is, rather, theological.
“For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner” [5]
Paul cites a “creation ordinance” as his exegetical grounds for this teaching about the roles for men and women in the church of Jesus Christ. The creation ordinance argument Paul also uses in I Corinthians 11:8-12.
Galatians 3:28 is NOT speaking to the roles of men and women in the leadership of the church. What the passage IS saying is that with regards to salvation, there is no longer a wall of separation. All in Christ are Abraham’s seed.[6]
This third chapter of Galatians is a corrective one. Paul is rebuking the Galatian Christians for letting themselves be drawn away from the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that all are one in Him. The wall of separation had, at the cross, been torn down. Is justification by faith in Christ or the works of the law? Paul reviews and reproves in 3:6-18.
Then, after having rebuked the Galatians for their disobedience to what they knew to be true, he proceeds to prove, again, the doctrine he had rebuked them for rejecting. Paul’s argument goes as follows:
Under the law, the Jews were above the Gentiles (Greeks). Slaves had no privileges at all. Under the law, only the men received the sign of the covenant: circumcision. In union with Christ, all are of the same covenant. Jews and Greeks are one in Christ, women as well as men receive the sign of the New Covenant: baptism, slaves are equal to the freeman in Christ. There are no distinctions or special privileges in Christ under the New Covenant. All classes of people are kings and priests unto God with the same eternal inheritance.[7]
Taken out of context, the Bible can be made to say almost anything. Untaught and unstable the Apostle Peter calls those who twist Scripture and do it, Peter warns, to their own destruction.[8] Seeking the meaning of the text, the intended meaning demands interpreting Bible verses in the immediate and remote context. Not only do you have to interpret the verses within the paragraph in which it appears, like Galatians 3:28, but you have to go even further.
If “Scripture Interprets Scripture,” you must allow Scripture to show you how the one verse fits within the paragraph it appears, the chapter in the book it appears, all the other chapters of the book in which the one verse it appears, and with the rest of Scripture itself—all of it! You cannot understand the intended meaning of “a” verse apart from the rest of the Bible. No verse of Holy Scripture can be separated from the rest of the Scripture. In fact, one must interpret a verse of the text in both its immediate and remote context. Immediate context is the paragraph, chapter, and book in which the one verse appears. Remote context would be the other books, if any, by the same author as well as the rest of Scripture.
No one using “the analogy of faith” (Scripture interpreting Scripture) can come to the Galatians 3:28 text and walk away from it believing it is teaching that women should be ordained ministers to preach in Christ’s church. It would be, I believe, impossible. The contradiction is too great.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Do We Have a Reliable Word of God or a Bible Fully of Holes?
I can still remember the shock my friend and I both felt when we got to the point in the theology course when the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy was discussed. The instructor made a statement to the effect that, “Only the original autographs or manuscripts were inspired and without error and that the copies of the Greek and Hebrew texts and subsequent translations we have today are not.” I felt like I had been slammed with a brick. After the class I thought that a nice cot with an attending nurse was in order. So did my friend. We, however, survived.
The facts, we would learn, is that only the originals, that which was God breathed to the Apostles and Prophets, from the Old Testament through to the New, had the promise of inspiration and to be without error. The guarantee of 100% inspiration and without mistakes applies to the originals and not to the copies of the originals and translations. The self-attesting verses in the Bible to its accuracy applies to the original autographs. My “just-out-of-high school” reaction was a bit justifiable as I thought: “If the Greek and Hebrew texts from which all translations flowed were not without error and given by inspiration of God, then to what was I committing my life to as a believer? If I am commanded in Scripture to obey God’s Word, walk by faith and not by sight, then are the commandments I am to obey reliable or not?” –a dilemma worth considering.
I would go on to learn that through the seemingly endless copies of the original texts of Scripture something called “copyist errors” have most certainly crept into the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that exist today. However, these so-called mistakes, as well as other alleged “errors” do not affect the doctrine or history of redemption presented in the context of the passages in which they occur. A classic example is the numbering of King Solomon’s horse stalls in I Kings 4: 26 and in II Chronicles 9:25.
In the I Kings passage it is recorded that Solomon had 40,000 horse stalls while in II Chronicles it is stated that Solomon had only 4,000. Which is correct in this apparent contradiction? An answer commonly given is that I Kings records a different time than II Chronicles. At the beginning of Solomon’s reign he had 40,000 horse stalls while at the end of his reign he had in II Chronicles only 4,000. While convenient, it is more likely than not that this is a simple “copyist’s error.” There are issues other than “copyist errors” that creep into discussions on the inerrancy question.
Some alleged “discrepancies” might occur in situations in which details of an event might vary. In other words certain details in a biblical event might not be mentioned in another author’s account of the same event. What comes to mind are the following texts that seem to present a problem: 1) The account of Mary Magdalene and the Mary the mother of Jesus meeting one or two angels at Jesus’ tomb (Luke 23:55-24:9;John 20:1-2). And, 2) The blind man or men—two or one?—healed by Jesus at Jericho (Matthew 20:29-34, Mar10:46-52, and Luke 18:35-43).
But the point of the real existence of so-called and alleged “errors” exiting in copies of the originals is: Is what we have today reliable or so corrupted that it should be, as some have done, thrown out in the trash? The short and long answer is, no!
None of what constitutes discrepancies in the Bible constitute a contradiction. It is not like a writer of Scripture says in one place, “Christ rose from the dead,” while another writer in yet another places says, “Christ did NOT rise from the dead.” What we are talking about is something that appears to be an “error” and the explanation is not known. It is an “error” that can be explained, an “error” that is a simple leaving out of a zero or two, or an “error” that is simply a mystery that may or may not be explainable, ever. The solution to coming to a comfort zone with this is in the Science of Textual Criticism.
The discipline of Textual Criticism is one in which scholars are able to compare the copies with one another to determine the meaning of the original autographs. In the New Testament, for example, there are an amazing 24,000 copies entailing almost complete manuscripts to fragments. Through the painstaking process of comparing these copies to one another it could be discovered, for example, that one copy differs so greatly from the other thousands that scholars make the determination that a scribal addition was made to the text warranting an alert to study the variation more closely.
Another point in Textual Criticism is that in spite of the massive manuscript evidence of the New Testament so-called discrepancies are not what or as extensive as one might think. The difficulties generally are mere misspelled words, word order, some changed, added, or missing words. Depending on the source, scholars estimate a 99.5% accuracy rate to the originals found in the Greek manuscript copies. The alleged problems do not affect doctrine in the Old or New Testaments. And, the variations in the Greek or Hebrew manuscripts are mostly recorded in footnotes. This is also true in the better translations of the Bible.
We should take seriously the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy because as in any book, the Bible reflects the thoughts and intentions of its author. We can have confidence in the better translations we have from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, even though we do not have the originals, that we have The Word of God. Scoffers would have us believe the texts of Holy Scripture has been so corrupted so as to be unreliable. This is hardly the case.
“Though inerrancy applies only to the original autographs, it does also apply to the Greek and Hebrew texts in this sense: the vast majority of verses in the Bible are not disputed…The vast majority are undisputed, the rest we're just unsure which one is the right reading (but no doctrine is changed in any case). God has indeed preserved His Word!” (Joseph A. Vusich; M.Div, Master’s Seminary)
###
RESOURCES
Christian Dating
Christian Music
Monday, March 1, 2010
Paul's and Peter's Epistles: Similar or Different?
Were the Apostles Paul and Peter at odds with one another in the first century? Perhaps they were rivals or nemesis? Were there such differences in their epistles that warranted some liberal schools of theology to say that the great Apostles were at such opposite ends of the pole theologically so as to interpret the New Testament epistles in light of this conflict. I would suggest otherwise.
Similarities and differences abound in any body of writing when two entirely different individuals are doing the writing. Differences can be one of style, different objectives, personality, and in the case of holy writ, differences of revelation God Himself chose to give to the writers of Scripture. In each men’s writing course the same Messiah, the same death burial, and resurrection, and the same plan of salvation. There is no conflict of revelation only differences of degree of revelation and emphasis.
One example is that in the Pauline writings, the church and its Biblical organization is stressed. The time period between the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension to His glorious return is more fully developed through the Apostle’s writings through the epistles to Ephesians 3,4, Timothy , Titus, and the church at Thessalonica. What the church was to look like and function as on a practical basis was revealed to Paul and expressed in his writing. Peter would have known of the church from Matthew 16 as he was in close proximity with the Lord Jesus, however, the details would come in Paul’s writings.
Whereas Paul’s audience was mostly gentiles, Peter had Judeo-Christian readers. His emphasis in writing to this Jewish believing audience, making the transition from a life time of observing the Law of Moses to a life of being saved by Grace through the instrumentality of faith, was the emphasis of making your calling and election sure in an age in which the sheep and the goats mingle together in the church as revealed in the Gospels. (Matt. 25:31-46. Also See “Parable of the Weeds”: Matt.13:24-30)
“Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth6 you now have.” (2 Peter 1:10-12. NIV)
In such theological harmony with Paul was Peter that the Apostle wrote of Paul’s writing and its content:
“Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:15,16. NIV)
Writing of the goats among the sheep or the tares growing with the wheat, Peter warns his believing audience of the false believer’s scripture twisting ways but advises that Paul is to be trusted. Peter trusted Paul. I contend there was no conflict of theology and its practice between the two Apostles. Peter calls Paul’s writing Scripture.
So what, if any, was the conflict between Paul and Peter that has caused liberals to point and proclaim contradiction in Scripture? Some point to an issue at Antioch when Paul opposed Peter:
“When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”” (Galatians 2:11-14. NIV)
Peter lapsed in applying an aspect of the truth of the Gospel of which he was aware, “That by the death of Christ the partition wall between Jew and Gentile was taken down, and the observance of the law of Moses was no longer in force; as Peter's offence was public, he publicly reproved him. There is a very great difference between the prudence of St. Paul, who bore with, and used for a time, the ceremonies of the law as not sinful, and the timid conduct of St. Peter, who, by withdrawing from the Gentiles, led others to think that these ceremonies were necessary.” (Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible, Galatians 2:11-14.)
A brother reproving another is hardly basis for saying that there was a conflict in doctrine.
The Antioch affair demonstrates the need for a plurality in the church leadership. No man is infallible and needs others within the church’s leadership to rebuke when necessary. It is this plurality in the leadership of the church that holds each leader, elders and deacons, accountable to one another and ultimately to the individual members of the body. The case between Peter and Paul was not a theological dispute of the foundations of the Gospel. It was one brother helping another who had temporarily lost his way get back on track.
Both Paul and Peter wrote of the fundamentals of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with slightly difference distinctions and emphases directed to specific audiences. Perhaps this is why they earned the distinctions of the Apostle to the Gentiles (Paul) and the Apostle to the Circumcision (Peter).
###
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
An Easy Salvation or Paul’s Life of Faith?
In a world where theology is no longer the “Queen of the Sciences,” there remain storm clouds, dark and foreboding, over the land. Whereas the church, the true church, is called to be a light in every generation to provide answers for man’s sinful state before God, it is sadly lacking in its God-ordained duty. Even in the church, theology is not sound but wavers like a wind-tossed ship being dashed to bits on a rocky shore. Souls of its members are suffering shipwreck in their faith.
I have often speculated with a great deal of wanderings through Scripture that the root cause of the moral decay within the church is that the foundation has become skewed. The very foundational truth upon which the house should be built is based upon faulty perceptions. Salvation, the beginning and end of it all, is presented in a watered down, more palatable form rather than teaching the truth of the Gospel. An “easy entrance” into the Kingdom of God is offered: “Nothing shall be required of you, if only you will believe,” is the corrupted message. This corruption is dispensed in churches everywhere at the eternal expense of men’s souls.
There is a saying that “The Fish Rots From the Head Down.” Tragically, the heads of churches throughout America, pastors and elders, hold to a form of the Gospel that is rotting the body from the head down, and it is the Apostle Paul’s conversion as told in the book of Acts1 that is the profound demonstration of the true biblical teaching of the Gospel. Is the Gospel an easy decision in which nothing is required of the professing believer, or is it as the Apostle Paul himself wrote,
“For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."2
Saul of Tarsus was not seeking the salvation of his soul while on the road to Damascus. He did not have a Gospel tract telling him he needed to invite Christ into his heart. There were no televangelists urging him to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Saul was on his way to kill Christians. This would not be his first time killing. In Acts 7:58; Luke tells of Saul’s participation in the murder of Stephen, whose only crime was Stephen's preaching to the Sanhedrin. Saul’s trip to Damascus was authorized by the high priest from whom Saul received letters of authorization for the dastardly task.3 Saul was in route to take out his hatred on Christians.
It was while on his way to take prisoners, or perhaps even kill them if taking them captive proved impossible, that what some call the most “dramatic conversion” experience recorded in Scripture occurs. I propose six observations in Paul’s conversion that I suggest demonstrate the Biblical Truth of the Gospel of Salvation.
Acts 9:1-19
One: Paul’s conversion shows that Christ calls sinners in a confession of His Lordship. When confronted with the blinding light and voice that stunned him and those traveling with him on the road to Damascus, Paul cried out, “"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.” 4 Some Bible commentators say this is just a polite mode of expression. Others point to Romans 10:9 where Paul wrote, “That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” When a confession of Christ’s Lordship or Rule over your life occurs, the next step is inevitable.
Two: Paul’s conversion shows that real faith produces repentance and is the outcome of confessing someone else as Lord of your life. You cannot profess Christ as Lord and go on in your sin. Paul immediately produced a changed life, fruit “in keep with repentance.”5 Paul stopped in his murderous tracks and no longer persecuted and killed Christians.
Three: Paul’s conversion shows that salvation is a work of God and not man. Paul was not seeking God while on the road to Damascus. He was seeking to persecute the Second Person of the Triune God through Christ’s people, ““I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied.”6 It was while Paul was dead in his trespasses and sin that God made him alive (born again, John 3) in Christ Jesus. "But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ by grace you have been saved) (NASB),"7
Four: Paul’s conversion shows that a true conversion experience results in obedience to the Word of God. In response to the Second Person of the Godhead’s words to get up off his knees, go into the city and wait to be told what to do, Paul did just that. Paul obeyed the Word of God.
Five: Paul’s conversion shows that a true believer will obey God.8 Paul demonstrated his love for Christ by doing what Christ said to do. Anyone who does not obey the Word of God, says John, is a liar.9
Six: Paul’s conversion shows that a change, a radical change in the professing believer’s behavior, is a test of that person’s salvation. Paul stopped persecuting and murdering Christians. He began loving those whom he once sought to eradicate. He obeyed God’s leading in taking the Gospel to the Gentiles.
The last half of the Book of Acts is dedicated to showing the result of one man’s conversion experience of a radically changed life in behavior and deeds in serving the Lord God and His church.10