It seems that we can't seem to get away from the extremes.
People want a Christianity that is about feelings and buttercups. They don't want a cross and they don't want theology. We may safely put the majority of professing Christians in this category. Here, intellectual content is useless if not entirely devilish to their "religious experiences", and the idea of denial of oneself so foreign they forget that it is in the Bible. We often classify this type of thinking as antinomianism.
Another group of people are those who may have an interest in a cross but care little about the theology behind it. They are strong in emphasizing self-denial and "practical" holiness, but theology and sound doctrine is at best secondary and at worst, "dead orthodoxy". The stress upon belief in correct doctrine is usually countered by this group with James 2:19. At any rate, they deny themselves sundry different pleasures and are strong on preaching repentance. They know something needs to change dramatically in the church. However, because of the mitigation of sound doctrine and the reducing saving faith to the "faith of demons", we may classify this group as legalism. "Faith" is of little importance; one must work for salvation.
The Protestant/Evangelical/Reformed view has always been that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone and that good works necessarily follow from the regenerate heart. Action follows belief. Good works proceed from saving faith. Antinomianism and legalism are done away with. Antinomianism sees good works as useless and the law abrogated. However, the same Spirit that regenerates is the same Spirit that sanctifies and one does not come without the other and the Spirit sanctifies by way the law-word of God, not by leaving us to our own devices. Legalism is done away with because we are saved by grace, not works. No matter how good one thinks oneself to be, at best, your works will only compare to that of filthy rags. On your best day, God could at any moment say, "depart from me you workers of iniquity". Legalism is the attempt to stand before God without the righteousness of Jesus Christ. It sees the operations of salvation through faith as insufficient.
Christianity is intellectual and practical. It is not a "heart" religion, at least not in the colloquial sense of the word. It is about knowing and applying. It is about understanding the One true God of Scripture that voluntarily revealed Himself to man and gave man the knowledge of Himself and the way that man is to walk before God. It is about God saving wretched sinners for Himself and giving them His perfect law to live by. It is about the working of all things to the glory of God and the furtherance of Christ's glorious Kingdom on earth, in time and in history.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Accept Christ
“Accept Christ” has been a popular term to express the necessity of Christ in one’s life. The phrase “accept Christ”, however, needs explanation. If I were to walk up to Random Joe (that‘s his full name) on the street and tell him to “accept Christ” he probably would not know what I mean.
Random may associate the phrase with messages he has heard in his past. Some of Random’s past pastors may have used the term to describe how the sinner must cleave to the love of Jesus who died in the place of all men so that all might be saved. Perhaps another couple of his previous pastors used the term to designate that inexpressible experience one receives when they are illumined through the misapprehension of Scripture and thrust into the bliss of existential oneness with the Divine[!]. Whatever they were, these past exposures Random has had with the phrase will influence how he interprets the phrase “accept Christ”.
If he is a thinking man, Random will ask questions: “What does it mean to accept?” or, “Who is Christ?” or even, “Which Christ?”. If, in my approach to Random, I have not specified these things, he will not know what I mean. Further, if I can’t explain “accept Christ” I do not know what I mean. Defining terms is essential in communication.
There have been objections within the Body of Christ against using this type of terminology. It is argued that because the phrase has been used to present a false Gospel message to individuals, we, as true Christians, ought not use it. When an evangelist uses the term in a message, many regard the message as being weak because of how the phrase has been used by supposed evangelical preachers (that is, the “Jesus loves you and wants you to love Him back” message). The word “repentance” is thought to be the more appropriate word to use.
It is true, if the term is left undefined, many people will get the wrong idea by the phrase “accept Christ” due to prior poor usage by others. But if the evangelist is careful to define his terms and present a clear strong Gospel message, the term will not carry with it the negative features it did when false preachers presented it.
Don’t believe that it’s that easy to use a term that has presuppositions associated with it? Think back to Random Joe. Now from that sentence, “Think back to Random Joe”, did you think of random Joe (a random individual of the male gender) or did you think of Mr. Random Joe (the object of my previous paragraphs)? You thought of our dear friend Random, didn’t you? Why did you associate the phrase “Random Joe” to a particular individual as opposed to how the phrase is typically used in colloquial speech, that is, to indicate any arbitrary individual (a random Joe)? Because I defined my terms. Remember I said Random Joe was his full name, and proceeded to call him Random. Perhaps the upper case “R” in his name gave you a clue, but that would have just confused you if I had not told you Random Joe was his full name. Brilliant, isn’t it?
This is how God has created us; as rational beings, made in His image. So then, the phrase “accept Christ” could be Biblical and appropriate for the true Christian to use when evangelizing as long as the evangelist defines his terms. “Who is Christ” and “What does it mean to accept Him” are questions that need to be answered. How they are answered determines whether the phrase “accept Christ” is Biblical in a given instance.
Christ is the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, being eternal, of one substance equal with the Father yet for the glory of His own self and for the love He has for the elect, He took upon himself the form of human flesh, submitted Himself to the law, being perfectly sinless as is typified in a lamb without spot or blemish, He gave himself a sacrifice for the sins of the elect and for the accomplishment of their salvation. On the third day of His death He rose from the dead by the power of God in the same body which had been killed, conquering death and sin by His glorious work. Christ ascended into heaven where He sits on the right hand of God ruling and reigning with all power and authority until His Church is finally triumphant and victorious over His enemies on earth. Christ is therefore King. Christ is also Prophet, being the Law-giver, declaring and teaching the law during His sojourn on earth and foretelling of His death, resurrection and accomplishments . Christ is Priest, who atoned His own blood as a propitiation for those who would believe, making intersession for the saints, who are the people of God in every generation. Christ equips His Church with the Word which is complete and is the only epistemological foundation for sound belief, and the only tool used for dominion over Christ‘s enemies.
To accept Christ is to believe what Scripture says of Him and to submit to His law which is the 66 books of the Bible. There is no dichotomy between believing who Christ is and submitting to His law; accepting Him involves both. Belief without submission is impossible. One who claims to believe may accept the facts of who Christ is and what He has done, but if he does not live according to Christ’s commandments He hates both His person and His work and does not have true faith. To accept Christ is to love Christ, to love Him is to obey His commandments, cling to His work, abandon your way for His way. To love Christ is to share the mind of Christ, His will being your desire. This believing in and this accepting of Christ can only be done by the work of the Spirit of God, changing the mind to love Christ. If left to ourselves we would only hate Him.
If the term “accept Christ” is presented in this manner could it be said the message is weak? There was no use of the word “repentance”, but wasn’t the idea and necessity of repentance heralded? Could someone walk away from this message and not understand the Gospel? Of course; there are many idiots in the world. But if a man is reasonable, he will understand the true Gospel message from what was presented. Not only that but it will affect his understanding of the phrase “accept Christ”. Mr. Joe, from now on, when he hears the phrase “accept Christ”, which he will no doubt see and hear multiple times throughout his life in several different venues and in various contexts, will have the true Gospel message come to his mind. Just as the next time your hear or read about some “random Joe” you will think of my fictions character used to demonstrate the importance of defining your terms. Thus, the use of “accept Christ” is not only appropriate if defined properly, but also beneficial above other phrases not so commonly used.
Let’s face it: the word “repent” has been truncated by the contemporary nicer-than-Jesus evangelicalism. How many people know what true repentance is? It is generally thought to be a mere asking of forgiveness, which once done, God is under contract to forgive, therefore making whatever sin there may have been “fall into the sea of His forgetfulness”. This is clearly works-based, Christ rejecting, egotistic excrement. Even when we use the term “repent,” we must define it properly; we cannot assume those we approach understand what true repentance is, because many do not.
This necessity of defining our terms should bring drive us to another application. That is, to be diligent to notice how others define their terms. Just because one uses the term “repent,” we shouldn’t assume the message is Biblical. Just because one refrains from the word “repent” and used the phrase “accept Christ” doesn’t mean it’s unbiblical. We must be careful to understand each individual’s message, realizing that another’s understanding of a word or phrase may not be your understanding of the same word or phrase. One may say “Christianity is not a religion; it’s a relationship,” which by my understanding is a ludicrous statement. Christianity is the only true religion and a relationship is generally thought to be emotional, and emotion is undesirable in Christianity. However, my beloved former Pastor Riley Ware, used the phrase to denote a rejection of works (religion) for the adoption of the Father through the merits of Christ (a relationship), which is Biblical. He used the phrase to reject Arminianism and affirm Calvinism. Though, this same phrase more often than not, is used to reject Calvinism for a works-grounded I love you, you love me, Jesus is my boyfriend expression of emotionally misguided fervor, which is unbiblical. Was Pastor Ware unbiblical when he declared "Christianity is not a religion; it's a relationship"? No, because he defined His terms.
Let us be careful to define our terms, and be careful of those who don’t.
Random may associate the phrase with messages he has heard in his past. Some of Random’s past pastors may have used the term to describe how the sinner must cleave to the love of Jesus who died in the place of all men so that all might be saved. Perhaps another couple of his previous pastors used the term to designate that inexpressible experience one receives when they are illumined through the misapprehension of Scripture and thrust into the bliss of existential oneness with the Divine[!]. Whatever they were, these past exposures Random has had with the phrase will influence how he interprets the phrase “accept Christ”.
If he is a thinking man, Random will ask questions: “What does it mean to accept?” or, “Who is Christ?” or even, “Which Christ?”. If, in my approach to Random, I have not specified these things, he will not know what I mean. Further, if I can’t explain “accept Christ” I do not know what I mean. Defining terms is essential in communication.
There have been objections within the Body of Christ against using this type of terminology. It is argued that because the phrase has been used to present a false Gospel message to individuals, we, as true Christians, ought not use it. When an evangelist uses the term in a message, many regard the message as being weak because of how the phrase has been used by supposed evangelical preachers (that is, the “Jesus loves you and wants you to love Him back” message). The word “repentance” is thought to be the more appropriate word to use.
It is true, if the term is left undefined, many people will get the wrong idea by the phrase “accept Christ” due to prior poor usage by others. But if the evangelist is careful to define his terms and present a clear strong Gospel message, the term will not carry with it the negative features it did when false preachers presented it.
Don’t believe that it’s that easy to use a term that has presuppositions associated with it? Think back to Random Joe. Now from that sentence, “Think back to Random Joe”, did you think of random Joe (a random individual of the male gender) or did you think of Mr. Random Joe (the object of my previous paragraphs)? You thought of our dear friend Random, didn’t you? Why did you associate the phrase “Random Joe” to a particular individual as opposed to how the phrase is typically used in colloquial speech, that is, to indicate any arbitrary individual (a random Joe)? Because I defined my terms. Remember I said Random Joe was his full name, and proceeded to call him Random. Perhaps the upper case “R” in his name gave you a clue, but that would have just confused you if I had not told you Random Joe was his full name. Brilliant, isn’t it?
This is how God has created us; as rational beings, made in His image. So then, the phrase “accept Christ” could be Biblical and appropriate for the true Christian to use when evangelizing as long as the evangelist defines his terms. “Who is Christ” and “What does it mean to accept Him” are questions that need to be answered. How they are answered determines whether the phrase “accept Christ” is Biblical in a given instance.
Christ is the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, being eternal, of one substance equal with the Father yet for the glory of His own self and for the love He has for the elect, He took upon himself the form of human flesh, submitted Himself to the law, being perfectly sinless as is typified in a lamb without spot or blemish, He gave himself a sacrifice for the sins of the elect and for the accomplishment of their salvation. On the third day of His death He rose from the dead by the power of God in the same body which had been killed, conquering death and sin by His glorious work. Christ ascended into heaven where He sits on the right hand of God ruling and reigning with all power and authority until His Church is finally triumphant and victorious over His enemies on earth. Christ is therefore King. Christ is also Prophet, being the Law-giver, declaring and teaching the law during His sojourn on earth and foretelling of His death, resurrection and accomplishments . Christ is Priest, who atoned His own blood as a propitiation for those who would believe, making intersession for the saints, who are the people of God in every generation. Christ equips His Church with the Word which is complete and is the only epistemological foundation for sound belief, and the only tool used for dominion over Christ‘s enemies.
To accept Christ is to believe what Scripture says of Him and to submit to His law which is the 66 books of the Bible. There is no dichotomy between believing who Christ is and submitting to His law; accepting Him involves both. Belief without submission is impossible. One who claims to believe may accept the facts of who Christ is and what He has done, but if he does not live according to Christ’s commandments He hates both His person and His work and does not have true faith. To accept Christ is to love Christ, to love Him is to obey His commandments, cling to His work, abandon your way for His way. To love Christ is to share the mind of Christ, His will being your desire. This believing in and this accepting of Christ can only be done by the work of the Spirit of God, changing the mind to love Christ. If left to ourselves we would only hate Him.
If the term “accept Christ” is presented in this manner could it be said the message is weak? There was no use of the word “repentance”, but wasn’t the idea and necessity of repentance heralded? Could someone walk away from this message and not understand the Gospel? Of course; there are many idiots in the world. But if a man is reasonable, he will understand the true Gospel message from what was presented. Not only that but it will affect his understanding of the phrase “accept Christ”. Mr. Joe, from now on, when he hears the phrase “accept Christ”, which he will no doubt see and hear multiple times throughout his life in several different venues and in various contexts, will have the true Gospel message come to his mind. Just as the next time your hear or read about some “random Joe” you will think of my fictions character used to demonstrate the importance of defining your terms. Thus, the use of “accept Christ” is not only appropriate if defined properly, but also beneficial above other phrases not so commonly used.
Let’s face it: the word “repent” has been truncated by the contemporary nicer-than-Jesus evangelicalism. How many people know what true repentance is? It is generally thought to be a mere asking of forgiveness, which once done, God is under contract to forgive, therefore making whatever sin there may have been “fall into the sea of His forgetfulness”. This is clearly works-based, Christ rejecting, egotistic excrement. Even when we use the term “repent,” we must define it properly; we cannot assume those we approach understand what true repentance is, because many do not.
This necessity of defining our terms should bring drive us to another application. That is, to be diligent to notice how others define their terms. Just because one uses the term “repent,” we shouldn’t assume the message is Biblical. Just because one refrains from the word “repent” and used the phrase “accept Christ” doesn’t mean it’s unbiblical. We must be careful to understand each individual’s message, realizing that another’s understanding of a word or phrase may not be your understanding of the same word or phrase. One may say “Christianity is not a religion; it’s a relationship,” which by my understanding is a ludicrous statement. Christianity is the only true religion and a relationship is generally thought to be emotional, and emotion is undesirable in Christianity. However, my beloved former Pastor Riley Ware, used the phrase to denote a rejection of works (religion) for the adoption of the Father through the merits of Christ (a relationship), which is Biblical. He used the phrase to reject Arminianism and affirm Calvinism. Though, this same phrase more often than not, is used to reject Calvinism for a works-grounded I love you, you love me, Jesus is my boyfriend expression of emotionally misguided fervor, which is unbiblical. Was Pastor Ware unbiblical when he declared "Christianity is not a religion; it's a relationship"? No, because he defined His terms.
Let us be careful to define our terms, and be careful of those who don’t.
Friday, October 29, 2010
On Rush Limbaugh's radio show, Limbaugh had an interview with Karl Rove about several different matters. My purpose is not to going into the details of that interview. However, Karl Rove made some comments that represent the thought of many Americans, and in that case, it may prove instructive. Rove said, “It's one thing to say we're based on the Judeo-Christian ethic or draw from the Judeo-Christian ethic, that we have enshrined the free expression of religion, that we have no state establishment of a state church, but you can't say we're a Christian nation 'cause that leaves out the Jews and the Buddhist and the Sikhs and the nonbelievers, all of whom under our Constitution are as good an American as anybody else.”
Several observations can be made here:
First, Rove admits our nation is founded on the Christian ethic. On this principle alone, we ought to consider America as a Christian nation. How else does one determine whether a nation is Christian or not but upon the laws of the nation? One can know what the god of any nation is by evaluating the laws of the nation; whatever the laws appeals to as the source of authority is the god of that nation. The appeal of our founders- for the most part - was the Christian God. Any deviancy from that principle, therefore, is revolution. Judges, civil magistrates, etc. who appeal to themselves or reason (usually an indirect way of appealing to the self) as the standard of authority are in fact undermining the very law structure of America.
Secondly, Rove thinks the first amendment means freedom of all religions, and supposedly this is a Christian concept or "ethic". However, the Bible nowhere advocates religious pluralism. The God of Scripture is represented as a jealous God who will not tolerate individuals or nations that are given over to idolatry.
Thirdly, in Rove’s comment he commits the fallacy of petitio principii, that is, he begs the question. The point in dispute is whether America is a Christian nation. To prove his point that America is not a Christian nation, Rove says that “The Jew, Buddhist and the Sikhs and the nonbeliever…are as good an American as anybody else”. But whether the Jew, the Buddhist, Sikhs and the nonbeliever are “good Americans” is directly related to whether America is a Christian nation. If it is a Christian nation and these different groups advocate a departure from Christian faith, which is the foundation of our legal tradition, then simple enough, they would not be “good Americans”; they would be revolutionaries. I am not stating that Jews and Buddhists can’t be Americans, nor that all are revolutionists, but any attempt to institute their ideas or their laws to our nation is.
In the sense of influence, there is no separation of church and state nor ought there to be one. The proper way to view the matter would be to have the church under God, the government under God and our nation under God; that is a general way of viewing the relationship. A civil magistrate is not a pastor, the state government is not a church, but they have in common that they are both to administer God’s law in their sphere authority. The power of the sword is given to civil magistrates, but it is not to the church. The administration of the sacraments is to be done by the church, not the state. But both are to look to the Christian Scriptures to determine what the will of God is for them in their given spheres. A separation of Christianity and state will only result in the stripping away of our liberties; the liberties we enjoy only because we were founded on Christian principles.
Several observations can be made here:
First, Rove admits our nation is founded on the Christian ethic. On this principle alone, we ought to consider America as a Christian nation. How else does one determine whether a nation is Christian or not but upon the laws of the nation? One can know what the god of any nation is by evaluating the laws of the nation; whatever the laws appeals to as the source of authority is the god of that nation. The appeal of our founders- for the most part - was the Christian God. Any deviancy from that principle, therefore, is revolution. Judges, civil magistrates, etc. who appeal to themselves or reason (usually an indirect way of appealing to the self) as the standard of authority are in fact undermining the very law structure of America.
Secondly, Rove thinks the first amendment means freedom of all religions, and supposedly this is a Christian concept or "ethic". However, the Bible nowhere advocates religious pluralism. The God of Scripture is represented as a jealous God who will not tolerate individuals or nations that are given over to idolatry.
Thirdly, in Rove’s comment he commits the fallacy of petitio principii, that is, he begs the question. The point in dispute is whether America is a Christian nation. To prove his point that America is not a Christian nation, Rove says that “The Jew, Buddhist and the Sikhs and the nonbeliever…are as good an American as anybody else”. But whether the Jew, the Buddhist, Sikhs and the nonbeliever are “good Americans” is directly related to whether America is a Christian nation. If it is a Christian nation and these different groups advocate a departure from Christian faith, which is the foundation of our legal tradition, then simple enough, they would not be “good Americans”; they would be revolutionaries. I am not stating that Jews and Buddhists can’t be Americans, nor that all are revolutionists, but any attempt to institute their ideas or their laws to our nation is.
In the sense of influence, there is no separation of church and state nor ought there to be one. The proper way to view the matter would be to have the church under God, the government under God and our nation under God; that is a general way of viewing the relationship. A civil magistrate is not a pastor, the state government is not a church, but they have in common that they are both to administer God’s law in their sphere authority. The power of the sword is given to civil magistrates, but it is not to the church. The administration of the sacraments is to be done by the church, not the state. But both are to look to the Christian Scriptures to determine what the will of God is for them in their given spheres. A separation of Christianity and state will only result in the stripping away of our liberties; the liberties we enjoy only because we were founded on Christian principles.
Okay...so, it has been a year and we never did get something up on this blog. Of course, we have several reasons for not doing so, all of which may be aptly called excuses. Whether there are readers or not, the next few posts will have some meat to them. Some will be things we have already written in the past, or things we have written that have only sat in a Word document. Without any further adieu, there are things to write and study upon.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
The goal of this blog
This blog has been started for the express purposes to, 1. Glorify God and 2. Advance His Kingdom. The principles we believe that undergird this is, 1. Biblical theology, and 2. applied theology. If a theology is applied but it is not Biblical, the result will never be anything good. In the political realm, if the theology that is applied is anthropocentric (that is, man-centered) it will always result in oppressive laws and policies. In the theological realm, if the theology is erroneous it will always result in heresies that will ultimately destroy the churches and individuals who hold to them. However, if a theology be Biblical, but it is not applied, it is good for nothing. Therefore, the application of Biblical theology is what is necessary. This is our aim. To have only one of the two is either dangerous or worthless.
As we are getting started (the "we" are biological brothers), we will mostly be touching upon issues that we are currently studying or matters in the political realm we think should be addressed.
Until then, Soli Deo Gloria!
As we are getting started (the "we" are biological brothers), we will mostly be touching upon issues that we are currently studying or matters in the political realm we think should be addressed.
Until then, Soli Deo Gloria!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)