Why this post? First some scriptures:

I Corinthians 7:32-34a (NASB) ”But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but the one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interest are divided.”

Ephesians 5:25 (NASB) “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,”

As I converse with many brothers around the country, I find the tension of these two verses (and others) to be a common experience of us all when it comes to serving the Lord and pleasing our wives. I find it interesting that in the passages (Matthew 19:27-30; Mark 10:28-30 and Luke 18:28-30) that are ofttimes used to encourage those who make sacrifices for the kingdom of God in the area of familial relations, that only Luke and one early Matthew manuscript mention or include wives. I believe that it is due to the fact that God designed for us to be so knit together in our marriage as one, that such a choice would be unnecessary. But still as we’re transitioning out of the traditions of men and setting forth in our minds to seek the Lord’s face apart from those traditions and men, it has brought about new challenges for some of us as it pertains to our wives. The dramatic change in our thinking that has taken place, has not in every case been equaled by a change in our spouse’s thinking on the same matters.  

Some of us desire to take what little money that we do have and make a sacrificial gift to some worthy cause of the Gospel. However, our wives remember when we were so sure that the sacrificial giving of  ”tithes and offerings” or to the ”building fund” was just as crucial and are therefore a little leary about our new found passion. They remember the nice dinners, and vacations, and new clothes for the children, that we persuaded them to pass up in order to receive some later blessing for our giving. A blessing, as we defined it, which never came. 

Some of us desire to start home fellowships and invite people in to partake of our new understanding of the function of the body of Christ. However our wives remember what a high standard we set for others in leadership. They also recall the sacrifice we said it took, committment wise, for one to serve/lead God’s flock. They know that they will also be called upon to make that sacrifices, both of our time and attention. And of course our financial resources. And all this without the hope or expectation of any special reward in this life, given that we desire to receive our reward from Christ alone.

I know that for the most part it is usually the Christian wife who is struggling to get equal committment to Christ from her husband, who may or may not be a believer. It is not my intention to paint the wives of the brothers that I talk to, in a bad light. No. Not at all. These are some of the most pleasant women that I’ve ever spoken to. They are kind, well-spoken and from what I gather from their husbands, very gifted women. These women are staunch supporters of their families in general, and of their husbands ministries in particular. But it’s not always easy.

No, my intention is to encourage you, the reader, to pray for every married couple that you know. Or even just a general “every Christian couple” prayer. Make a special effort to be conscience of their needs when you go before the Lord with yours. Pray for unwavering love. Pray for joy. Pray for unity. Pray for strength. Pray for peace. Pray for wholeness. Pray for quality time with one another. Pray for healing of wounds, physical and emotional. Pray for Spiritual giftedness. Pray for fidelity. Pray for communication skills, parenting skills and money management skills. Pray for protection from the evil one. Pray for one another’s children. PRAY FOR GRACE!

I don’t know all of you brothers wives’ names, but I do pray for your families:

Mike and Emily Patrick, Lionel and Charity Woods, Derrick and Angela Hill, Tyris and Alicia Horton, Greg and Allison Requalls (did I spell that right?), Mr. and Mrs. Saiko Woods, Mr. and Mrs. Karsten Miller, Dr. and Mrs. Bob Klenck, Melvin and Peggy Jones, Mr. and Mrs. Leonard Lyles, Mr. and Mrs. Kevin D. Lawson. Just to name a few. If you’re a believing married couple, I’m praying for you!

 (By the way, if you want to be added to the list or you want to supply more names, just go to the prayer request page up top and leave me a note.)

Please pray for Rikisha and I and the children. I desire to conquer the tension between my submission to Christ and my calling to love my wife as Christ love the church. I desire a unified passion for the spread of the Gospel. I desire a unified passion to love our neighbors. I desire a unified passion to teach our children to know the Lord. And I desire the same for you and yours.

God bless you brothers. I love you!

How about I give you the conclusion of this post now? That way you can decide now, whether or not you wish to keep reading. It is basically a continuance of the sentiment that I wished to express in Part One of this same subject. In that post, I attempted to put forth my conviction that requirement for membership in a local fellowship of believers should not extend beyond that which is required to be a part of the universal body of Christ. In anticipation of the many objections to such a simplistic notion, I have prepared to answer them in advance of their being raised.

But before I do that, allow me to add fuel to the fire. I reject any formalized doctrinal test, written or verbal, as a prerequisite for membership. I reject any prescreening or application process, including a required probationary or “waiting” period, as a prerequisite for membership. In fact, I believe a profession of faith is the only requirement for admittance into the fellowship. 

Although this post will not focus on any of these in particular, I do believe that the objections I raise in regards to the actual subject matter of this post, will address these as well. I will go step-by-step in answering what I anticipate to be serious and sincere rationalizations in favor of these kinds of requirements, including the immediate subject matter. Rationalizations such as: 1) We have to do this to keep the church pure, or 2) People need to know what we stand for so they can know what they’re getting into, or 3) We only want committed Christians in our church, or 4) We don’t want Christ’ church to be taken lightly, or 5) This way of enacting membership has worked for years in this church or 6) We do this to make ourselves distinct among other churches.

 Please feel free to offer any of your own rationalizations or reasons that I do not address. Keep in mind that I realize a profession of faith is no guarantee of a person’s spiritual condition. Nor is it a clue as to their ability to contribute to the health of the fellowship. However, as I hope you will see, none of these other requirements are either.

 

This post is about what I believe to be the error of ”church covenants”.

Now before you tune me out because you believe church covenants to be legitimate, understand a few things first:

1) I am not going to use one of the “we’re not supposed to swear oaths” scriptures, as I believe that there was another context in view when both Christ (Matthew 5:34) and James (James 5:12) stated that command.

2) I am also not going to say that those who do require it are in sin but I will say that they are in self. This practice is not of God so far as I understand the scriptures and logic. This seems to me to be a tool of pragmatism or some other -ism. But not of God. And…

3) Since it would be too easy and probably considered a cheap shot by some, I won’t ask for an example of a signed or affirmed covenant as a requirement for church membership. No matter how reasonable I believe the request would be.

 

Now what brought this on was a sermon I heard preached by Pastor John Piper. The title of the sermon is “Resting and Wrestling for the Cause of Christ”. In the sermon, Pastor Piper was encouraging his members to actively participate in the “small groups” ministry. In the introduction, he is explaining that the elders will be held responsible for the task that they do in “taking heed to all the flock”. He feels that the task is made easier in the small group setting because it allows for more intimate fellowship and service. So far, I agree. However, by way of illustration, Pastor Piper uses the specific example of his own church. At about four minutes he mentions:

“There were forty-three hundred people in worship last Sunday, in seven services. Among those, about two thousand are covenant members. We feel a very special obligation for those who said ‘This is me. I’m here. I’m committed. I’m covenant.’ We don’t feel the same responsibility for the two thousand hangers-on. Our exhortation to them is, ‘Come on in or go to another church.”

I must admit I was angry, confused and saddened, by this comment. Being from the COGIC and being used to hearing things such as this, all I could classify it as was manipulation.

But more than that, the idea that people, whom I presume to be Christians (The way Pastor Piper usually preaches, I don’t see unbelievers being ”hangers-on” long enough for him to make such a statement about them.) and I believe Pastor Piper presumes to be believers also, would be denied membership because they won’t conform to the requirement to sign a piece of paper, just seems so unChristian. Where’s the lowly servant/elder who doesn’t care about their affliation? Where’s the lowly servant/elder who sees Galatians 6:10 as an imperative and the “household of faith” not being limited to his local church but applying to the entire Body of Christ? Look, I understand the limits of men to render service to so many people. (I believe he has just over thirty elders on staff.) If they were unable to serve so many, I would at least be sympathetic. Though that would raise another issue. But to actually “feel” differently about them, because they hadn’t signed some paper, seems patently unbiblical. Even anti-biblical!

But before I could allow myself to get too worked up, I took a trip over to his site to see if I could get more info about this covenant. Here’s the link so you can read it:

Click here: The Meaning of Membership and Church Accountability :: Desiring God Christian

Now on the surface, there doesn’t appear to be much here to complain about.  But I took note of a few things. Note: 

1) He calls covenant membership a “concept”. Shouldn’t a requirement for membership, if it is above the requirement for membership in the universal Body of Christ, be based on more than a concept?

2) Over and over he equates “committment” with signing or affirming a covenant statement. I don’t know about you, but it seems that lots of documents are signed by well-intentioned people, even Christians, who sincerely endeavor to fulfill every obligation. However, later they find themselves unable to fulfill the obligation and, therefore, in default. Should Christians be tempted, by the Church, to sin in this way? 

3) He seems to believe that signing or affirming a covenant will keep a sinning member from denying the Churches’ jurisdiction over them. What?! First of all, why would a pastor expect Christians to behave this way? Shouldn’t he expect just the opposite from Christians? Secondly, where is the confidence in the Holy Spirit’s work in a pastor just preaching and teaching the requirements of church membership from the scriptures? Does a covenant helped to insure success where the scriptures miss?

4) Next he equates accountability with signing/affirming a covenant. Again, do Christians need this? Aren’t Christians accountable to Christ (Romans 14:4,11; II Corinthians 5:10) first and foremost? Because of that, won’t they be accountable to one another if they are taught to do so from the scriptures? How does the covenant help to solidify what is already clearly taught in scriptures? 

5) Check out this statement for further evidence: The covenant allows for freedom of conscience in areas where the Bible is not definite in its guidance. The covenant focuses on principles, especially as they relate to our corporate life together. Uh Pastor Piper, so does the bible! Why does a Christian, whose allegiance is to Christ through what is clearly taught in scripture as to his/her duties, need the covenant alongside the bible? How is it different than the cults and psuedo-Christian religions, who have their own books and covenants to go alongside the bible?

Now look at some of the statements in the covenant. Refer to the link if you have to. I’ll make comments according to their numerical order.

1) Other than the fact that I believe this to be totally unnecessary, there’s not much to complain about.

2) Why “this church”? Why not to “the body of Christ everywhere and whenever we encounter them”? I’ll answer my own question. Because it’s about “this church”. And why would the “spread of the gospel” be the last mentioined item concerning contributions? Is this a case where a church is too large and the budget to demanding to put the gospel and the poor as first priorities?

3) No one has a right to dictate to another as to the nature of their personal or family devotion. That’s pure worship control. For the most part everything else is commendable. However, I thought that the covenant allowed for matters of conscience. If so, then why is there a committment made in that very area. Food? Drink? All drugs? Does that include medication? And who decides what is harmful to another’s body? I know, that’s another post.

4) Personally this is without anything with which to object. But I must ask, isn’t all this in the bible? Aren’t the elders supposed to be teaching this anyway?

5) Why does this covenant follow an individual wherever they go? I would say that it is because of the nature of covenants. But again, if it’s all in the bible and we’re dealing with Christians, then the covenant would seem patently unnecessary.

I know this has been a long post. But dear reader, by now you should be asking some of the same questions that I have. Or you should at least be preparing answers to them. I am agonizing over this issue in an honest manner. I am really struggling to see this as something that our Lord and Savior had in mind when he said “upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” (Matthew 16:18b) What about the next verse you ask? Well, again if you can show me where the Apostles have bound us to covenants, I will recant.

Otherwise, I say let’s follow Paul’s command in Romans 15:1-7 which ends with “Therefore, accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God.”

This is going to be a relatively short post.

I’ve heard many sermons and bible studies on Romans 14, which is normally called the “Christian Liberty” or “Matters of Conscience” passage. Since the text only covers food and drink specifically, I’ve noticed that most of the time the application of the text stalls in other areas where there is no “thou shalt not” in the scriptures to guide us. What do I mean? Well, ask any conservative Christian about one of these types of ”matters of conscience” issues, like smoking or drinking, and you’ll get a wide range of opinions. The problem for me is that most of the time it leads to hypocrisy on the part of the one saying “You can’t” do either. How? Well, if the objection is body pollution, then the one saying “you can’t” must be a total health nut in all areas, like eating. If the objection is addiction, then there goes any area of addiction for the thou-shalt-not’er, like t.v. or coffee. The solid objection seems to be in the area of “personal witness” to non-believers. But even then one would seem to be able to rebutt that with the fact that the gospel is what is offensive/rejected and not a beer or a cigarette. And I would think that a Christian would do either privately or at least, not a the time that they intend to witness.

But the question really is, what are areas that we should consign to the “matters of conscience” bin? Smoking? Drinking? Dancing? Voting? Home-schooling? Military service? etc.?

Here’s one to kick around your head:

There are two brothers in your church. One has terrible, inoperable back pain. One has glaucoma, which gives him terrible headaches. The one with the back pain is on prescribed codeine or vicadin pills and he takes them. The one with the glaucoma is on prescribed medical marijuana (where it is legal) and he must smoke it. We would accept the brother with the back pain. But what would our reaction be to the brother with the glaucoma? Would we suggest he just pray about it? Would we question his standing as a believer if he smoked the marijuana?

Help me agonize on this one please.

I don’t know if this belongs under the title of my last post or not but I decided to place it here. I hope you hear my heart.

I have a theory. Or should I say a premise? The theory or premise is that persecution eliminates or, at the very least, diminishes division in the body of Christ. It’s based off of a scenario that I came up with after listening to Dr. James White’s interaction with a sermon preached by Greg Matte, pastor of Houston’s First Baptist Church (You can see the interaction on Dr. White’s YouTube page, Dr. Oakley1689. It is entitled “Bunyan Conference Houston 2008: Session 4A ). The subject of the sermon was Calvinism.   

In the introduction, Pastor Matte laid down two ground rules. He said, 1) “There are intelligent and godly people on both sides of this issue”, and 2) “This is not a test of fellowship.” Now because of Dr. White’s reaction to this second ground rule, I was motivated to write this post. First of all, he feels that the phrase “test of fellowship” needed to be explained. Dr. White gives an example of what he feels demonstrates that there are different levels of fellowship in the form of a couple of questions. He asked, “could he seriously allow me to minister from the pulpit there on a regular basis?” and “could he minister regularly in my church on a regular basis?” Secondly, Dr. White brings fellowship to the level of church membership. He continues, “You see in our church we have a confession of faith and to become a member of our church the elders meet with you and they ask ‘do you have any issues with the confession of faith’”, which Dr. White says is the London Baptist Confession of 1689. Because of Pastor Matte’s position on Calvinism (as Dr. White defines it), Dr. White says that Pastor Matte would have to admittedly, “reject most of it, at least to what it says about salvation. And Greg Matte could not be a member of my church. He certainly couldn’t be an elder there. He wouldn’t be allowed to teach. It doesn’t mean that I am saying that the man is not a Christian. But”.

Now it is that “But” that presents the problem for me. Here we have a man that Dr. James White admits that he would not discount as a member of the body of Christ. And yet this same man is not welcome to contribute to, nor to be a member of, this local body because he wouldn’t necessarily be able to agree with some piece of paper. Now I may be wrong but that seems completely foreign to the scriptures and it seems to put one lesser form of commonality (thinking like everyone else on a lesser issue) than on the higher form of commonality, namely, faith in Christ for salvation.  If you listen to the sermon as Dr. White interacts with it, you will hear Pastor Matte appear to agree with Calvinism but mostly in the form of statements that sound like nothing more than cliche’s. Sure he does minimalize the teachings. And even in a couple of places you may feel that he misrepresents the position. But in the one place that would offend most Calvinist, the area of salvation, he at least admits that he adds nothing to his salvation. But even if he was an outright Arminian and not a Calvinist (which he said he was neither), what does that have to do with his ability to join a church for fellowship and sacrament? That brings me to my scenario:

Let’s say that tomorrow it was declared that all U.S. citizens who professed to be Christians had to report to the nearest major sports facility (coliseum, remember the one in Rome in the first century?) to be interviewed by the government. Let’s say that the ones who did not report were turned in by those who knew that they professed to be Christians and then were rounded up by law enforcement. So let’s take it for granted that they got all professing Christians together in each individual county. Let’s say that the initial interview consisted of threats of death if you held true to your faith. Now let’s assume that every member of every group which is considered a cult group refused to affirm Christ as Savior and Lord and escaped. So after days of interviews, everyone who held firm ends up on their respective areas’ football field, baseball diamond or basketball court. Now let me ask a few questions:

1. Would there only be Calvinist there? Only Arminians? Or how about only Cessasionist? Or only Charismatics? Or only Trinitarians? Or only Oneness?

2. Would we be surprised to see that brother or sister who holds that other position there? If so, would you believe that their martydom meant absolutely nothing because they believed in tithing? or baptized babies? or thought they chose Christ?

3. Would there be any theological debates going on? Or would anybody be preaching an ”Are you sure your saved” sermon?

4. Would we clique up in our groups that day? Would we care so dearly about our denominational distinctives? Would the blacks be only with the blacks and the whites only with the whites and so on?

5. If that brother or sister standing near you began to pray and suddenly broke out in tongues, would you move away? Or would you join hands with them and just pray the way you pray?

6. If they allowed us to have our bibles (a miracle it would be in itself) would we argue over which version was the correct one?

7. Would anyone be monitoring what another had on?

8. WOULD WE HAVE UNPRECEDENTED AND UNPREJUDICED FELLOWSHIP WITH ONE ANOTHER?

I believe we would. And that is my point. How can all of these things suddenly be a non-issue in the face of death? How is it that all I would suddenly be able to see in you is another brother or sister in Christ? There would be no interviews to see if you would affirm some ancient creed or confession, would there? We would be encouraging one another to stand firm in the face of death while we anticipate the joy of seeing our Saviour face-to-face!

Why can’t this happen every Sunday while we’re safe and sound? Why can’t a brother who is not a 5 point Calvinist stand and give an exhortation in your church (Dr. White or you who are reading this)? Why can’t he be a member of your church? Is it because it’s more your church than Christ’?

Somebody needs to help me with this dilemna. What am I missing here?

Have you, as a believer, ever struggled with certain Doctrines of the Christian faith? Have you ever been confronted by someone with questions about what you believe that took you an hour to explain because there wasn’t “chapter and verse” just plainly stating it? For instance, have you ever wanted to turn to the verse that says “God’s sovereignty is completely compatible with man’s freedom!”? Or how about “The earth was created on January 1, 4000 b.c.”? Or how about my favorite verse ”God is a Trinity, 1 God in 3 Divine persons, not 3 Gods, but 3 co-equal, co-eternal, and co-existing Divine Persons, all sharing the exact same nature and attributes”? You couldn’t find these verses could you? Well, that’s because they aren’t in the bible.

So much of what we as Christians believe is derived from applying “the whole counsel of God”. If we add to that the fact that normally an individual comes to faith in Christ totally ignorant of these things, perhaps we can be a little more patient with those who disagree or are ignorant. Perhaps we can began to trust more on the work of the Holy Spirit through illumination and less on our ability to argue. Perhaps we can also began to understand that the Holy Spirit does not work at the same pace with each individual. Just look at the testimony on my personal page. 

People are often times misjudged by other Christians as not being regenerate because of an inability to discern where that person is in the process. I’ve heard Apologist of every stripe go to I Corinthians 2:14 and use it to declare someone who is struggling to understand and agree with certain doctrines as “possibly unregenerate”. What bologna! I could be wrong but this doesn’t seem to apply to the wide range of things for which it is being used.

Let’s take a closer look at I Corinthians 2 and find out if these are reasonable applications. I’ll start at verse 6:

(NASB) Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; but just as it is written, “Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, and which have not entered the heart of man, all that God has prepared for those who love Him.” For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thougths with spiritual words. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.”

Let’s make a few observations about this passage

1.  The context of the wisdom spoken of in verse 6 doesn’t seem to apply to the wide range of certain doctrines that they are applied to.

2. Verse 7 says that this is a wisdom that is predestined. So even if it did apply to every doctrine that an apologist wants to use it for, even he/she must admit that predestination of all kinds manifest at different times for each of us.

3.  Since the understanding of this wisdom would have prevented the “rulers” from crucifying our Lord, then it seems that it deals with understanding who and how valuable Christ is to man concerning salvation. I dare say that the fullness of this is not grasped by any Christian alive. Christ is infinitely valuable and we are ever increasing in our understanding of that fact!

4. Verse 9 speaks of things that God has prepared for those who love Him. What are these things? Again, it seems to be in the context of the value of Christ. We have a lot in Christ besides salvation. According to II Peter 1:3 we have been granted “everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence.” Now does that apply to the difficult doctrines of the faith? Maybe. But in verse 10, Paul says that they have been revealed through the Spirit because “the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God”. How are they revealed? Through the Spirit! Do we control how the Spirit operates in another believers life? God forbid such presumption! It even seems to imply that searching is required. It’s not a case of you telling me and then me responding “Oh, I get it now!”. Remember those Bereans? Was that the case with them? You know, the noble ones who searched the scriptures daily. But I digress….

5. Verse 12 says that we have received the Spirit who is from God, “so that we may know the things freely given to us by God”. This is an important verse because this is what the “natural man” does not accept.

6. The natural man does not accept the free gift of God which is salvation. Why doesn’t he accept them? Because it is foolishness to him. Why is it foolishness? Because it comes through accepting a crucified God/man as Lord and Savior ( I Corinthians 1:18 ) which is being preached (another seemingly foolish endeavor depending on how you read I Corinthians 1:21) in simplicity.

My point here is that this verse or passage of scripture should not be used to beat down anyone who is struggling to understand that which is not explicitly stated in scripture. It definitely should not be used to call into question the salvation of one who is genuinely searching these things out. Every measure of grace, mercy and longsuffering should go into instructing one another in these areas. Why? Because God has extended this same grace, mercy and longsuffering to each and everyone of you reading this. And we yet stand in need of more!

I Peter 3:15 reads: “but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;”. According to John MacArthur Jr. in the MacArthur Study bible: ‘The English word “apologetics” comes from the Greek word here translated “defense.” Peter is using the word in an informal sense and is insisting that the believer must understand what he believes and why one is a Christian, and then be able to articulate one’s beliefs humbly, thoughtfully, reasonably, and biblically.’

Now let’s say that we accept MacArthur’s explanation on this verse, then what of all the debates that we see in Christian circles today. Are all of these debates really centered around defending why one is a Christian? Is every subject being debated actually vital to the foundation of one’s belief in Christ? I realize that since most of the tenets of Christianity are arrived at systematically, at times we may find it necessary to cover a wide range of subjects. But what I’m basically asking is if the current culture of Apologetics has developed from taking this verse too far. Or, in other words, from not applying it strictly based on its intented purpose?

For instance what about the subject of Eschatology, which is the study of last things? I recently listened to two debates. Both of which were between a Preterist and a Futurist. (If you don’t know what these terms mean, look them up as I don’t have time or space to do either of them justice) Both sets of men professed to be devoted Christians. Both times it seems as though they regarded one another as fellow believers. But neither time did either of them seem to hinge the hope of their salvation on their eschatalogical views. Now don’t get me wrong, I believe that it’s okay for Christians to kick around their different views on other subjects in a debate format. I am even okay with the public being made privy to the conversation. However, since we’ve got their attention, what about mentioning the hope that is in us? What about taking the time to establish the common ground of Christ. I mean Paul even debated with others himself. And he did it publicly. But his aim always seemed to be to establish the truth claims of Christ and the gospel message. Why isn’t that our aim?

Maybe I missed something. Maybe eschatology is pertinent to the gospel. But if it is, then I need someone to show me how. What about you? Do you wonder about other debate subjects that don’t seem to have any impact for the gospel? Do you see any benefit other than believers being equipped to defend their faith? Do you believe that the non-believer can be impacted by vigorous theological debates, either with them or between two Christians? What do you think?

     In my first post on this subject I was mainly venting frustration based on my personal experience. I owe an apology both to the ministries of Way of the Master Radio and Paul Washer. I should not have mentioned them by name in the first post at all and I could have made my point without doing so. I’m sure they are both sincerly attempting to address a very real problem that exist in the church and in reality in general. That is the problem of false converts. I believe now as I believed then, that there wasn’t enough care in their messages to spare the struggling yet authentic believer. But alas, I could have made the point without mentioning them. For that I do sincerly apologize. 

     Following a critique from a trusted friend and mentor, I was prompted to write a second post. In the second post, I attempted to address the overall issues that existed irregardless to whether or not I was directly affected. I received some great feedback and I hope that it at least sparked some thought. In this third, and as I plan it final, post I want to look at the text that are used by various individuals to preach these “test of assurance” sermons (Thanks Lionel, for this phrase!). Let’s begin agonizing:

    The first text I will look at is 2 Corinthians 13:5. It reads “Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you-unless indeed you fail the test? (NASB)”.  This verse, when read alone, seems to imply that Christians ought to periodically, if not everyday, examine their lives for signs that they aren’t really saved. But is this Paul’s intention in these verses? Even if it’s not, is it a proper application to use to implore Christians to test their own authenticity? If we look at the entire context of the previous few chapters, and even 1st and 2nd Corinthians as a whole, perhaps we will come away with a different view. The Corinthian church was a church beset by many problems; factions and worldliness being the best way to generalize the issues. But the specific problem that concerns our discussion today is the presence of the false apostles who challenged Paul’s apostleship and the unexplainable acceptance of these challenges by some in the Corinthian fellowship. That acceptance caused some to feel as though they were qualified to examine Paul. So in chapter 10, Paul begans to discuss and defend his apostleship and the authenticity of his ministry. After what Paul considers to be an embarassing defense of himself and his ministry he challenges those who have begun to examine him to “Examine yourselves!” But why? What was his point? His point was that if they had come to Christ or “faith” through his ministry and he was a fake, then what did that say about their salvation? Wouldn’t it be fake as well? Now, do you honestly believe that a preacher can pound the pulpit over and over again with this verse and command you to question your salvation?

     Next let’s look at 2 Peter 1:10a “Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; (NASB)”. Now usually this is the only portion of this text that is quoted by the pulpit pounding preacher. The remainder of the verse and the preceding verses, give a better context or background to this phrase. The remainder of the verse says, “for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble.” What things? And what does it mean to stumble? Well maybe we should back up to verse one and make some observations. “Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, TO THOSE WHO HAVE RECEIVED A FAITH OF THE SAME KIND AS OURS, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: (NASB, emphasis mine)” Simon Peter seems to indicate a confidence in the salvation of his audience. He doesn’t seem to wonder or doubt their standing in Christ. So how do we get to what he says in verse 10 and turn it into a command to question our salvation? Hold on, I’m getting there. Verses 2-4 read, “Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, HAVING ESCAPED THE CORRUPTION THAT IS IN THE WORLD BY LUST.” (emphasis mine) Again, I don’t see anything in this statement that can be applied to an unbeliever or even to one whom Peter wasn’t so sure about. Even greater than that is the fact that it’s the Holy Spirit who is speaking, therefore we know that He is not unsure or uncertain about anything. So what about verse 10? Hold on my friend, we’re almost there. Verses 5-9 read “Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten HIS PURIFICATION FROM HIS FORMER SINS.” (emphasis mine) What can we note here? Peter, by the Holy Spirit, gives admonishment to a Christian as to what qualities he/she needs to pursue in addition to their faith in Christ. He also includes the consequence of not pursuing these things in our lives. One can actually become uncertain of one’s spiritual condition, that of a cleansed sinner, and become stagnant. Now verse 10 makes sense, especially when read in it’s entirety. Through the pursuit of these qualities, one need not suffer doubt or despair over one’s salvation. As the text states, “they will never stumble!”!

     The last and most popular of texts is 1 John. It is no doubt that there are clear distinctions made by John throughout the letter between the true and the false professor. But history tells us that John was contrasting the followers of an early form of gnosticism with the true Christians to whom he was writing. These gnostic teachers had actually come in and upset the inward assurance of many believers by their false claims. However, nowhere does John indicate that he is unsure of the salvation of those to whom he is writing. In fact just look at the places where he gives a reason for writing: 1:4; 2:1,8,12,13,14,21,26; and 5:13. In each place he seems to desire to encourage rather than to test these believers. Let’s look at some of the “we” statements that he makes regarding specifically things applying only to believers (he does make “we” statements that apply to unbelievers but the intention of those statements is clear): 1:7,9; 2:2,3,5. There are also warnings and instructions that he only seems to expect believers to heed. These are found in: 2:15,18,24,28; 3:7,11,13,18,23; 4:1,7,11, 21; 5:16,21. And not to mention all of the passages containing promises which only the believer can access. Now to be fair, we do in many places see the phrase “By this we know” and this may be the cause of many to believe that this means that we should test ourselves by these statements. But again, taking into account both the historical context and John’s stated purpose for writing, I believe that this was a way for his audience of true believers to identify the false teaching of those who had disturbed their fellowship. This early group of gnostic teachers taught and lived the opposite of all the “by this we know” statements. Now is it proper to use 1 John on a mixed congregation of believers and unbelievers? Or on those whom you suspect may be unregenerate? Maybe, but care must be taken and discernment must be exercised before we proceed.

     All in all, the purpose of these posts on assurance is to get each one of you to realize that the objective reality of assurance rest only in Christ’ finished work on the cross. All other forms of assurance, though not inherently bad and even worthy of pursuit, are subjective. These subjective forms ought to be submitted to the objective reality of Christ!

 

Next up, AGONIZING OVER ESCHATOLOGY DEBATES

I was informed by someone that I trust that the connecting points of my last post did not connect. (He’s a professor who grades papers where students must articulate their points of view with clarity so he would know) So here’s my second attempt:

For every human being that is living now or has ever lived (with the exception of Christ) the most dangerous position to be in is one in which your status before God is uncertain. Being that an eternity in either total bliss or total agony is at stake, nothing, it seems to me, could be of more importance. But what about the Christian? Shouldn’t the Christian be completely confident of his/her standing with God? Shouldn’t their having placed faith in Christ’ finished work on the Cross be enough to convince them that they’re saved?

Not according to some. There are many ministers who are making it their personal mission to see to it that no professing Christian is resting in a false hope. This I vigorously applaud. But the ones who should be confident are being swept up in the broad net that these gentlemen are casting. And partly because of a question of methods. If those who do this would be honest, they can no more provide a more sure methodology than what the person tried before. Sure they can raise a lot of questions about how an individual came to Christ and how that person would describe their conversion experience. But they can’t provide assurance that any of it is valid. These ministers have managed to cancel the validity of the salvation of all those who came to Christ during altar calls or while saying the so-called sinner’s prayer all while failing to provide them with a better understanding. These poor people, no matter what message they were responding to when they did these acts, even if it was the true gospel, should not be confident that it either meant or signified anything. And here’s where I have a problem.

I’ve read the books of these ministers and I’ve listened to their sermons and do you want to know what they provide as an alternative to these methods? More subjectivism. You see, I’m not saying that anybody’s method is guaranteed to grant entrance into the kingdom. I’m not saying that any of us get saved because of some effort we put forth nor because of our sincerity. I’m saying that if you’re going to invalidate an individuals salvation based on the method by which they came to Christ, then my friend your method ought to be solidly scriptual and a more sure foundation for the person to stand on. Should anybody question the validity of their salvation because they didn’t get saved “your way”? 

And what about the self-examination test that these ministers are preaching about? I’ve heard several sermons where 1 John was being used like the law of Moses. The whole time I was listening to these sermons I was thinking to myself “Man, I have a lot of improving to do in every area that he’s talking about. Does that mean I’m not a Christian?” And when the ministers would expound on specific points all they gave were generalities. One minister said “Do you look like the world, sound like the world, dress like the world, act like the world? If so, then what makes you think you’re a Christian.” All I could say was “HUH?” Is what this preacher asked indicative of what it means to be holy? Was he describing the biblical definition of worldliness in an attempt to warn professing believers of its danges. If these people would look at the second chapter of 1 John they would know that at the end of the self-examination you should be confessing some sin or short coming discovered in the examination. If you feel squeaky clean, that would seem to be more cause for concern than finding out God’s not through working on you. 

Now I said that nothing was more important than where you stand before God and I meant it. The message of salvation by grace through faith in Christ can not be over emphasized. Neither can an honest self-examination of one who professes to be in Christ. However, I believe the end result should be a heart of repentence that is looking to Christ and His finished work on the cross for rescue. As far as I can tell, that’s the only way to have real assurance.

Maybe you’ll see yourself in this post…maybe not. But my goal here on this blog is to be honest about things that I agonize over. So here goes:

If you would have interviewed me a few years ago, asking me theological questions, you would have deduced that I was an ignorant Arminian. Sincere yes, but ignorant. I was your typical “If once saved always saved is true, then I can go out and sin all I want to and still say I’m saved!” defender of Arminianism. For a mainline “hand-clapping, foot-stomping, tongue-talking (although I actually didn’t do this), run around the church 3 times (I did do this, lol)”  Pentecostal, the idea of infinite grace and complete atonement was simply odious to me. This of course shows how ignorant I was of the doctrines of grace. This also shows how I would have defined salvation as a cooperative work between me and God. I would have also made an unwarranted distinction (there is a theological one) between regeneration and santification. Regeneration, for me, was a forgiveness of all sins up until the point I said the ”sinner’s prayer”. Sanctification was the result of all the work I put forth to be a good church member and ”not be like the world”, as both were defined by the COGIC. In other words, getting saved was easy but staying saved was hard work. Nothing was final.

In spite of all this, though, I was 100% confident that I was saved. Even during periods when I would fall into (really walk right into) grevious sin, my attitude or belief was that at any moment I could just cry out to God in sincerity and my sins would be forgiven. My slate would be wiped clean and I could begin the massive effort of trying to live a sinless life all over again in order to “stay saved”. Now of course this became a seemingly unending cycle but still I was confident that if I died, I would be welcomed into Heaven.

Then about three years ago, I met a brother on my job who introduced me to Calvinism and the whole debate. My love of reading, the fact that I had just purchased a new computer and the fact that I was between churches, opened a wide door of opportunity for me to fully engulf myself in the whole issue. As I began to study more and more, I became fully convinced of the biblical accuracy of the five points of Calvinism (the Tulip). The last domino or letter to fall being, of course, ”Limited Atonement”. Ironically, though, at this present moment I don’t have the same confidence of my standing with God that I had as an Arminian.

Now this same brother on my job had introduced me to Way of the Master and Paul Washer. And here’s where the problems began. Despite having what I now consider to be a more sound and biblical theological foundation, these two particular ministries went a long way to shake up my confidence in my salvation. It became disturbed on two fronts. First of all (and you can read about this on the About Me page), I didn’t enter the Christian life under the most pristine conditions. I did believe that the prayer I prayed was my entrance into the fold. And on top of that, the gospel that I had been given presented Christ’ atoning work on the cross as only sufficient for conversion but the rest was on me and my ability to confess each sin I identified in my life before I died. Secondly, I saw sin in my everyday life. Some that would/could be considered habitual. Sure I prayed and read my bible. I witnessed (occasionally and with at best an incomplete gospel) and I went to church everytime the door swung open. I fasted twice a week and gave tithes of all my earned money. (just like the Pharisee) But I had an ongoing battle with sin and according to these guys that was a sign that I truly wasn’t a Christian. I didn’t share my faith with everyone I saw everyday. I didn’t have a devotional hour where I sat and read the bible with deep meditation daily. My definition of holiness wasn’t the same as what they said God required. (which I believe is just another version of the Pietism/Puritanism that I was already exhausted from trying to live up to.) And did I mention, I had an ongoing battle with sin? Oh yeah. I did. Moving along….

This all leads to the subject of assurance. What is it? Can we have it? How do we get? On what should it be based? And finally, is it subjective or objective?

Remember, I’m agonizing, so be honest!