The Atonement »
Sunday, April 20th, 2008As a truly Reformed sort of fellow, following the Regulative Principle of worship, I believe that if God does not COMMAND something in worship, then it is FORBIDDEN in worship. Yet working out the regulative principle is sometimes difficult. Sure, we don’t need no stinking drama in our church, but what do you do with traditional Christian holidays that have no specific Biblical warrant? God did not command them, but is it lawful to recognize them? My solution was to get rid of the Christmas Eve and Good Friday services (the Lord’s Day is the only required meeting day of the saints) but is that enough? Some people do not think so. They think I am compromising with the “Roman Whore” (their EXACT words) if I even preach on the Incarnation in December!
True story, several years ago I published an article in the Report justifying why I thought it appropriate to celebrate Christmas as a civic and family holiday (but NOT as a religious holiday). Therefore if people wanted to have a Christmas tree, and give presents and sing Christmas carols, etc., that I said it was lawful to do so. (Why can I lawfully celebrate my wife’s birthday but not my Lord’s?)
As a result, I received numerous blasts from other truly Reformed types. One indignant brother even sent me a copy of his church bulletin to show me what a truly Reformed order of service looked like. The church bulletin was from October and prominently featured an advert for their annual Reformation Day Sunday celebration with special guest speaker, potluck dinner, children’s costume party, etc. I wrote back to my esteemed brother and asked where in Scripture had he received permission to celebrate the Reformation as a special day? He answereth not. It seems that it is perfectly fine to preach a message on patriotism on Memorial Day, a special sermon on Proverbs 31 on Mother’s Day, and haul out all the stops for Reformation Day, but we mustn’t preach about the Crucifixion around Easter!
I weary of such pharisaical nit picking and am sometimes sorely tempted to buy a few crosses and candles as decorations for my church just to see how loudly I can make some people squeal! But I won’t. I’ll be big about it. I’ll not intentionally offend a brother (unnecessarily!). Instead, as Easter approaches, I’ll preach a series of messages on the Atonement. Something along the lines of the below…
The Need for the Atonement
Our God is a holy God, pure and blameless. He cannot abide sin. “Thine eyes are too pure to approve evil, and thou cans’t not look on wickedness with favor…” (Hab. 1:13). Sin is a horrible stain on His Creation. He must remove both sin and sinful men from His presence. Hence, “But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.” (Isa. 59:2)
. Furthermore, Sin not only separates us from God, but from one another. Because of sin, men are “alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds…” (Col. 1:21). Consequently, there awaits the unrepentant sinner only a “certain, terrifying expectation of judgment & the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries of God…” (Heb. 10:27).
Because of sin, the entire earth is cursed (Gen. 3:17) and subjected to futility and longs to be set free from its slavery to corruption (Rms 8:20-22). Not only are all of Man’s works affected by his sin, but also the very ground he stands on. Sin is a horrible stain on the perfect creation of God. What had been created “very good” has now become filled with corruption.
We are utterly unable to deal with our sin. We cannot hide from it; “…your sin will find you out…” (Num. 32:23). We cannot cleanse ourselves from it; “Who can say ‘I have cleansed my heart, I am pure from my sin?‘ (Pvbs. 20:9). We cannot make up for it with good works; “…by the works of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight…” (Rms. 3:20).
Since there is no one who is without sin (1 Kings 8:46, Psa. 14:3, Ecc. 7:20, Mark 10:18, Rms. 3:23, etc.) the entire human race is therefore condemned before a holy and righteous God. Unless God Himself chooses to do something, we are lost. He is holy; He cannot abide sin. He is immutable; He cannot change. But our God is also a God of compassion and loving-kindness. He Himself redeems His people AND His creation by making atonement for their sins.
The Basis of Atonement; Sacrifice
The basic term for atonement is kippour, or covering. The basic concept is substitution; i.e. God allows someone or something to stand in for the punishment due our sin. The basic content of a sacrifice is blood “for the life is in the blood.” God Himself instituted the ritual of sacrifice in the Garden. His promise was that the day that they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil they would die. His word had to be kept. He killed an animal and dressed Adam and Eve in its skin (Gen. 3:21). This act carried both thoughts; covering; because God covered their bodies, hiding their nakedness/vulnerability and substitution; God substituted the death of the animal for their death.
The second sacrifice in the Bible was Cain and Abel’s; one acceptable to God, the other rejected (Gen. 4:4-5). Though debatable, it can be argued that Abel’s sacrifice was accepted because it was an animal sacrifice; blood was shed. Therefore Cain’s was rejected because as an offering of fruit and vegetables it was not a blood sacrifice.
The third sacrifice occurred when Noah offered burnt offerings to God for his salvation from the flood (Gen. 8:20) God here instituted the practice of eating the flesh of animals (Gen. 9:3), including the flesh of the sacrifice. Thus the sacrifice literally becomes a part of man.
The next significant sacrifice was God commanding Abraham to offer his son Isaac (Gen. 22:1ff). This illustrates both the price that had to be paid; Abraham’s promised son and the fact that a substitution could be made; a lamb.
During the deliverance of His people from bondage in Egypt (itself a picture of man’s slavery to sin) God instituted two main sacrifices for Israel. The first was Passover; an animal sacrificed for the first-born. Before the exodus, a lamb was slain and it’s blood painted on the door-posts of the house. God would then pass over the first-born in the house as He visited His wrath on Egypt. The second main sacrifice was Yom Kippour; the Day of Atonement. Each year an animal was sacrificed for the entire nation. On that day, the high priest put aside his priestly garments and wore a simple white garment. He first offered a bullock as a sin offering for the priesthood. After filling his censor with live coals from the altar, he then entered the Holy of Holies, holding the bowl of blood from the bullock before Him. He placed incense on the coals sending a cloud of fragrant smoke over the mercy seat. He took blood from the bullock and sprinkled it over the mercy seat, making atonement for the priesthood. Then a goat was sacrificed as a sin offering for the people. The goat’s blood was then sprinkled on altar. The high priest laid his hands on a second goat that was driven into the desert where it symbolically carried away the sins of the people. Thus were the people’s sins were covered, and a substitution made in their place.
Atonement and the New Testament;
The Old Testament is a picture, a shadow, and an earthly copy of heavenly realities. Christ is the archtypical High Priest (Hebs 7:26-27) and therefore makes atonement for His people. “For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God” (Hebs 9:24).
The blood of animals could never be a real substitute for sin; “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Hebs 10:4). But it could provide a picture and a promise of the coming Messiah. Hence it is crucial to understand that in His death, Christ fulfilled all that the old sacrifices foreshadowed (Rms 4:25). “He…was delivered up because of our transgressions” (Matt 26:28). His blood was shed for the “behalf of many for forgiveness of sins…” (Eph. 1:17, Col. 1:14) He made “purification for sins…” (Hebs 1:3). “He is the propitiation (i.e. sacrifice which turns away God’s wrath) for our sins…” (1 Jn 2:2). His blood is “the blood of the new covenant” (1 Cor. 11:25). Christ “gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma…” (Eph. 5:2). “Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.” (1 Cor 5:7). We were redeemed not with perishable things such as silver or gold “but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ” (1 Ptr 1:19). “Behold the Lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world” (Jn. 1:29).
The death of Christ was representative for us “One died for all, therefore all died.” (2 Cor 5:14). The death of Christ was a ransom; a price paid to buy a slave out of slavery “For even the Son of man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give His life a ransom for many…” (Mk 10:45). God “made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God…” (2 Cor 5:21). “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all…” (Isa 53:5-6).
The death of Christ reveals God’s love for men; “God demonstrates His own love for us in this, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Rms 5:8). “God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son.” (John 3:16).
Conclusions;
At the risk of sounding hopelessly pietistic, the above brief survey on the Atonement ought to drive us to our knees in both humility and appreciation. If our Great God hates sin so much, how dare we flirt with temptation? Even worse, how dare we deny our sin, or blame it on someone else or even worse, try to atone for it through our own efforts? Sin is wicked, evil and repugnant and we ought to yes hate it and forsake it even as our God does.
Secondly, since there is NO solution for sin apart from Christ’s sacrifice, we must you rest and trust in Jesus alone. The Law ought to drive us to our knees in fearful anticipation of the righteous wrath of a holy and awesome God. But then the mercy and grace of God exalts us at He demonstrates His great love even for His unlovely people through the cross. We are now new creations, with a new life, future and hope. “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” (2 Cor 5:17). We now have a whole new way of living, a new way of thinking because Jesus made atonement for our sins.
And therefore the Atonement ought then to make us love our God in response. As a result of His sacrifice for us, how can we not then give back to Him everything? Our time, money, family, calling, everything we have comes from Him and has been redeemed by Him. Therefore we can say with David, “How do I love thy Law? It is my meditation all the day…”
Only by grace can the mercy of God be given, only by faith can the mercy of God be received. “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” (Galatians 2:20).
Why I Am NOT A Reconstructionist! »
Sunday, April 20th, 2008For a number of years, I worked closely with the Chalcedon Foundation, mostly as a writer and speaker, but also serving on the board of directors. This has been in the main, a very positive experience. I have had the opportunity to work with some very talented and articulate men committed to a comprehensive Biblical worldview. They are trying the lay the intellectual foundation for the resurgence of Christian civilization. In my work, I have concentrated on the need for godly men to learn how to live self-governed lives under God, leading their families, training their children and working diligently at their callings. I have also focused on the need for reformation in the church. And as a result, I have become fairly well known as (dire music here) a “Reconstructionist!”
However, to be perfectly honest, I always have been a less than happy with that term. On more than one occasion, I have written and published essays explaining why I am NOT a Reconstructionist because frankly I am tired of having to define my theology every time the subject comes up. No, I do NOT believe in salvation by keeping the Law (that’s heresy!). No, I do not believe that the church should run the state. No, I do not believe in Christians “taking over” the civil government and imposing Old Testament Law by top-down, bureaucratic imposition. No, I do NOT believe in equipping the State with a secret police to peep into people’s bedrooms. No, I do NOT think politics is the be all and end all of social change. No matter that, NO “Reconstructionist” believes any of the above, the reality is that many, many people THINK that’s what a Reconstruction believes. And as a result, the term has a lot of excess baggage that gets in the way of genuine reformation.
I simply affirm that EVERY area of life must be submitted to King Jesus. I do not pretend to have all the implications worked out yet of HOW we are to do this, but I do believe they CAN be worked out, and that the total revelation of God in His Word is sufficient to do so. Yes, I do believe, as did Calvin in Geneva, in a sovereign God who is working out His will in time and space. Yes, I do believe, as did George Gillespie, Scottish delegate to the Westminster Assembly (as well as the New England Puritans), that the civil magistrate ought to pay more attention to the Law of God. Yes, I do believe, as did Hodge, Warfield and Machen at Old Princeton Seminary, in the victory of God’s people in time, as well as eternity. Yes, I do believe, as Cornelius Van Til taught at Westminster Seminary, that there is no neutrality. Furthermore, I am prepared to spend my life working on understanding how all these ideas come together to form a comprehensive system of Christian ethics and practical instruction.
I have come to see that Christian “reconstruction” is really more of a task, rather than a “movement” i.e., the goal is to reform the family, church and yes, even the state to reflect Biblical principles in every area of life. It was always interesting to me that Rushdoony, the oft cited “father” of Christian Reconstruction, could point to such people as the Salvation Army, or Arminian Christian schools and in some cases, even out-right antinomians who were doing some sort of charitable work and say with pride, “they are doing the work of Christian reconstruction.” How could Rush consider people who don’t share ANY of the theological distinctives of historic Reformed theology as “Reconstructionists?” But from one perspective, his comments make good sense. In his view, ANY Christian working to extend the kingdom, despite whatever shortcomings in their theology, IS working at the serious task of rebuilding Christian civilization and hence a “Reconstructionist.”
But the term itself is so open to misunderstanding that I think it time to give it a decent burial. By giving this goal a name, and then calling it a “movement,” it also gave some people the idea that this was something new. And if it is “new” then there is probably something seriously wrong with it! However, in reality, I suspect that there is no “movement” per se. From my experience, one could divide “Reconstructionists” roughly into three camps. One group consists of those who are deeply committed to their churches but want Biblical Christianity to have a wider influence in our culture. They read books, essays and articles from a variety of sources that they find useful to their work, life and ministry. But they are NOT particularly committed to any “Reconstructionist” institution and have little or no loyalty to a “movement.” In fact, these people are quite eclectic in their theology, many being reformed only to a slight degree.
There is a second, much smaller group of men and women who self-consciously identify themselves as “Reconstructionists” but they probably number less than a very few thousand people in America. Such people are often isolated from a good local church (for understandable reasons), are fairly reformed, but only in as far as it supports their ideology. Often, they are Christians concerned with moral decay and are activists of some sort (or at least WANT to be activists!).
Finally, a third group of people latches onto Christian Reconstruction because at heart they are ecclesiastical anarchists. They do not WANT to be in submission to any church or any other institution. One might say that these people are on the fringe of Christianity, and one might even suggest that at least some of them probably have deeply-rooted psychological problems. These are the survivalists, the tax protestors, the conspiracy nuts, etc. They like Christian Reconstruction because it gives them a theology for rebellion; i.e., Rushdoony, North, Chilton, etc., were all brilliant at exposing the superficiality of modern broad evangelicalism, the tyranny of the modern humanist state, etc. and called for reformation of both. These people like the criticisms because it justifies the fact that they cannot get along with anyone. They are happy in their autonomy, satisfied with the little house-church of two or three families (or just themselves!) and will stay that way for the rest of their lives. It can even be argued that this third group is at least partially responsible for giving “Reconstructionism” its bad name. Personally, their bizarre views, abysmal relationship skills, acerbic writings, constant criticism, and ecclesiastical autonomy all convinced me that these are not people with whom I want to be associated.
Furthermore, all the talk about “dominion” invariably gives many Christians concern that the goal of Christian Reconstruction is political or social revolution. Nothing could be further from the truth. My goal has always been to simply work out the consistent implications of our Reformed heritage. I believe that God will GRANT victory in time, as well as eternity. Hence, “dominion” comes, not through revolution, but rather through reformation, as Christians learn how to work out their salvation in fear and trembling.
There is nothing in my theology or views that is not either explicitly or implicitly required in the Westminster Standards. Granted, there are “strands” of “Reconstruction” that have their five-point covenant model, or a psychedelic free association type of hermeneutic. And sadly, as mentioned above, there are well known personalities that are certainly on the fringe of good mental health. But since I reject these ideas, (and do not associate with those people) why should I have to defend myself against being lumped in with them?
Yes, I am proud and honored to have worked with R. J. Rushdoony in the last few years of his life. He was a brilliant man whose understanding of history and theology, as well as his ethnic heritage gives him a unique perspective on American history. Yet, as much as I appreciate and respect Rush, I do not agree with some aspects of his theology (e.g., his view on the dietary laws). And I place much greater emphasis on the role of the church than he traditionally did (not a criticism, no man has time to do ALL the work that has to be done). Most people don’t realize that Rushdoony used to be a widely popular guest lecturer at various Reformed seminaries until fairly recently. Twenty years ago, few people saw him or his views as controversial (until certain men with obnoxious personality disorder poisoned the well).
Having worked as an “insider” at Chalcedon for several years, I know they certainly do not see themselves, as offering something “new” or “revolutionary.” To the contrary, they see their task as essentially being a theological think-tank committed to serving the entire church by working out the intellectual and philosophical implications of a consistently Reformed world and life view. One may not always agree with the WAY they work out those implications, but at least they are trying!
Can anyone deny that the best features of Western civilization were derived from a Christian worldview? Can anyone deny that our Christian heritage has been undermined and destroyed? Can anyone deny that the culture, because of apostasy and heresy, is sliding into destruction as a direct result? Can anyone deny that Christians have a God given task to preach the word and disciple the nations? Can anyone deny that God will bless the preaching of His Word? In other places, I have made the statement that even if the rest of the church rejects the particular solutions that people like Chalcedon are offering, their ministry will have been a success if they at least get Christians THINKING about these areas of life from a consistent, Biblical perspective.
My point here is that I do not think we need to fight over “names.” I would far prefer to be known as “Reformed” than “Reconstructionist.” The word “Reformed” communicates everything I believe and teach, without leading us into other areas that are just not relevant. To be “Reformed” means to believe those doctrines hammered out during the high-water mark of Christian scholarship in the century following the Reformation. To be “Reformed” means to take the Bible seriously, and see God’s rule over every area of life. To be “Reformed” simply means to be committed to Biblical authority. And isn’t that enough?
Hence, there is nothing uniquely “Reconstructionist” about my theology or the churches I have pastored. I have written, lectured and preached on the dangers of pietism, antinomianism, Arminianism, dispensationalism, etc. and attempted to offer a thoroughly Biblical alternative. I have emphasized the three uses of the Law (as detailed in the Larger Catechism of the Westminster Standards). By God’s grace I have tried to build on the work of the Reformers and become consistent with the presuppositions inherent within the great Reformation creeds. I have encouraged, exhorted and admonished my brother pastors to be consistent with THEIR confession of faith. And in all this, there was nothing really “new” and certainly nothing “revolutionary.” Calvin, Knox, Gillespie, Rutherford, Mather and Cotton, et. al., all said it first and better; my goal is to simply say it say it again to a new generation.
Hence, I am content to call myself “Reformed.” I have no other agenda in my life or ministry but simply to be consistent with our Reformed heritage. Granted, the term “Reconstructionist” will undoubtedly haunt me for the rest of my life. But as far as I can, I want now to distance myself from the term so I can focus on what is important without unnecessary baggage. Surely, it is time to stop arguing about terms and get on with the real task of discipling the nations?
What Does It Mean to Be A Christian? »
Sunday, April 20th, 2008The Importance of Personal Salvation Rev. Brian M. Abshire
The word “Christian” has become a flabby word today without a clear definition. The term has been so twisted and turned and means so many things to so many people it is almost meaningless. For example, in some places, to say that a person is not a Christian is to cast aspersions on his character. Thus for some, Christian means “moral” and even an atheist can be a “Christian.”
To others, a “Christian” is simply a person with some sort of religious leanings and leads a good life. Thus, it has been said that Muslims and Jews are sometimes better “Christians” than Catholics or Protestants. To still others, being a Christian has more to do with one’s family, cultural or national identity. Thus if one is born into a “Christian” country, then one is by birth, a Christian, regardless of one’s religious or ethical convictions.
Finally, the word “Christian” is often used in regards to someone who has had some sort of religious experience. However, it ought to be remembered that there are all sorts of experiences out there; not all of them Christian. And some “Christian” churches believe nothing in common with the historic faith “once received and delivered unto the saints.”
Clearly, all of these definitions of a Christian are inadequate because they cancel each other out. The same word cannot mean different things to different people. There needs to be some sort of objective standard to determine just what we mean when we use the word “Christian.” Otherwise, we cannot talk meaningfully about the subject.
The Presbyterian Church (or at least those Presbyterian Churches who still retain the distinctive doctrines of the Reformed Faith) bases its beliefs and practices on the Word of God. The Bible controls both our understanding and our practice of the Christian life. Thus, orthodox Presbyterians try to go back to the Bible even when addressing something as simple as understanding what we mean by the word, “Christian.”
The term “Christian” was first used in first century AD in the city of Antioch to describe those who believed in Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior. Scripture teaches that a Christian is someone who meets three basic criteria; (1) he is a person who has been forgiven for his sins, (2) he has experienced a transformation of his basic nature (called regeneration) and (3) he is someone who now has a personal relationship with God on His terms, not ours. Personal salvation is at the heart of the Christian message. Without these three key ingredients, the word “Christian” has no meaning.
A Christian is Someone Who Has Been Forgiven for His Sins
The first issue to settle is the idea of forgiveness of sins. We have to know something of why we need forgiveness. And for that, we have to understand something of what the Bible teaches about sin. Our common conception of sin is something like “bad things people do.” But what is bad? As times have changed, so also has the definition of “bad.” Another problem with this definition is that it usually means, “the bad things that other people do!” thus conveniently letting us off the hook. The Bible gives a more precise definition. It uses several words in both Greek and Hebrew that help us to get a picture of what is meant by the term “sin.”
In the Old Testament the most common term is hattah a; which means “a missing, a failing.” In the New Testament, the most common word is an archery term; hamartia; which means, “missing the mark.” Romans 3:23 sums up both meanings, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…”
Sin is falling short of God’s glory. God is perfect, holy, totally righteous and good. When any person fails to live up to God’s perfect standard of holiness, (i.e., when he falls short of the mark) then he sins. But sin is more than just a failure to achieve perfection. The Bible also teaches that Man, by nature, is in active rebellion to God, seeking his own desires, his own will and striving to live his own life independent of God. The Apostle Paul in Romans 3:10ff, uses a collection of Old Testament citations to make this point,
“There is none righteous, no not even one, there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God, all have turned aside, together they have become useless, there is none who does good, there is not even one…”
While this is a grim evaluation of the human race, it is a Biblical one. The Bible maintains that every single individual is in rebellion to God. “If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us…” (I Jn 1:8). The world was created by God and for God (Col 1:16). All that exists was created to reflect His perfect glory and majesty (Psa 19:1ff). Whenever we act in a manner contrary to God or His Law, we sin (i.e. miss the mark). God’s Law is summarized in the commands to love Him and our neighbor (Matt 22.36-40). Whenever we fail to do so, we are in violation of God’s standard and thus sin.
Even an attitude of disinterest of God is sin because “in Him we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:28).” Foolish men often curse God with the very breath He gives us moment by moment by His own gracious, loving care. The Westminster Confession defines sin as “any want of or lack of conformity to, the will of God…”
God is a holy God. Holiness refers to His separation from and transcendence over all His creation. It has two major referents. The first is His supremacy, majesty and awesome glory (Ex 3:4-5). The universe does not bind God, or limit Him because He created it. Thus, God is distinct from creation.
But secondly, God is also morally separate from all sin and rebellion because of the ethical purity of His character (Lev 11:44/1 Ptr 1.16/Psa 89:35). In Him, there is no spot, stain, or moral blemish. “God is light and in Him there is no darkness at all (1 Jn 1:5).
Therefore, God, because of the very characteristics that make Him God, must separate Himself from sin (Isa 59:2). This separation results in several things: firstly, a man whose sins are not forgiven is abandoned by God to live life without God; “If I regard iniquity in my heart, then the Lord will not hear me…” (Psa 66:18). The person who lives his own life according to his own laws will reap the fruit of it both in this life and in the life to come. God will not hear his prayers and his life will eventually experience the anguish of an unfulfilled spirit. St. Augustine said, “There is a God shaped vacuum in each man’s heart.”
Men try to find meaning and purpose in life through religion, philosophy, materialism, consumption, personal fulfillment, gratifying their senses, etc. But there is no way to fill the gap that only God can fill. There can be no real meaning and purpose in life, just a vast emptiness.
Secondly, the person whose sins have not been forgiven will suffer eternal spiritual separation from God and all His good gifts; i.e., death and hell (Rms 6:23). Now this is not a popular topic in many Churches today. But the Bible is clear; the wages of sin is death…
Thirdly, the person whose sins are not taken care of will suffer in this life foolishness, fear, violence, perversion etc. (Rms 1:18ff). Space is too short to develop this idea here, but all good gifts come from God (Jas 1:17). Can men expect to receive the gifts if they reject the giver?
But we must always keep in mind that sin is not just bad because of its bad effects; sin ought not to be! Sin is a stain on the universe that God created. It’s like having a perfect beautiful mirror that is stained, cracked, and warped. All of creation groans under the weight of sin, waiting the time when all things will become new (Rms 8:20-22). A child once described God’s response to sin as biting an apple and finding half a worm!
Thus, the paramount question for every individual is, “What can be done about my sin?” There are several inadequate measures. The first is denial, i.e., pretend that our sin does not exist or that our sins aren’t really so bad after all. We see many attempts in modern culture to rewrite morality and make what is evil, good. The problem is that God is the absolute lawgiver and judge. We can pretend it never happened; we can even pass laws making what was once an abomination, now socially acceptable. But God is keeping track and eventually, each person will have to stand before Him and give an account of why he thought what he thought, said what he said and did what he did (Rev 20:11-13).
Some people try projection; i.e., they blame their sin on something or someone else. “I am the way I am because of my parents, my peers the harsh conditions of my background etc.” But regardless of how badly we may have been sinned against, we are still responsible for the sins we ourselves commit!
Other people try self-atonement; i.e., they try to make amends by doing good deeds and being moral people. They think that if their good works outweigh their bad works that God will find them acceptable. But the Bible says that the only payment is death (Rms 6:23)! If a good and righteous man lived a blameless life and then, in a fit of rage, murdered his wife, would all his previous good deeds make up for his one bad one? NO! Justice demands that he pay for his crime, regardless of how good he was in the past. In the same way, God may take into account our good deeds when judging us, but the only standard acceptable for Heaven is 100% perfection!
How can any man get to heaven then? The Biblical solution is that since man cannot solve his own sin problem, God in Christ pays the penalty for our sin (Rms 5:8, 1 Ptr 3:18). Christ took upon Himself the righteous wrath of God, thus canceling out the debt of sin against us (Col 2:13-14). Using our above example, the man justly convicted of murder has to pay the price for his crime. So, the judge, because of his integrity, pronounces judgment against the crime, and then, because of his great compassion and mercy steps down off the bench and accepts the penalty himself! This is the wonder of Christianity. All other religions give men rules and regulations which if they keep adequately enough; they are taught that they can earn their own salvation. But the Bible’s message is that none of us are good enough to save ourselves, so God saves us by taking our sins upon Himself. Thus, a Christian is someone whose sins have been forgiven because Jesus Christ has paid the full and complete price by His own death on the cross.
A Christian Is Someone Who Has a New Nature within Him
But as important as having had our sins forgiven because of Christ, the Bible also teaches a second essential ingredient of being a Christian. The non-Christian has a nature that is hostile and opposed to God (Eph 4:17-24 Col 1:21). By nature, the Bible means one’s basic orientation to God. The Bible often uses the term “heart” here. In the Bible the heart is not the seat of the emotions, but rather the very essence of a person; his inner man so to speak. Peer pressure and conformity behavior may make a man act socially acceptably, but his heart, his essence, is what he is really like deep down inside. A man’s heart is what he does in the dark, when he thinks no one can see what he is doing. Those who does not know Jesus Christ as Lord have a basic orientation that is alienated from God and seeks to do their own will rather than God’s.
The Christian on the other hand is someone who has been given a new nature because of salvation (Gal 2:20 2 Cor 5:17). This new nature is a radical transformation of one’s entire being resulting in such things as; a new mind (Eph 4:23), a new character (Col 1:23), a new walk or way of living (Eph 4:25-6:10) etc. The new nature does not mean instant holiness. This new nature frequently wars with the old lifestyle (Rms 7:18-25, Eph 4:17ff.). It takes time and discipline to work out the implications of this fundamental change in our orientation.
The Christian is not perfect, just forgiven (1 Jn 1:8-9). But the difference is that once one’s nature is changed, Christians have a desire to obey God and serve Him (Eph 4:20-24). They are not happy in sin and willfulness. They hunger and thirst for righteousness. Yes, they continue to fall short, but they are people who want to be obedient to God. This usually manifests itself in a hunger for studying and learning more about God’s word (1 Ptr 2:2), repugnance for sin (1 Jn 2:15-16) and desire for personal holiness (Matt 5:6), a genuine love for others (1 Jn 2:10) and an earnest desire to follow Jesus Christ in everything (1 Jn 2:3-6). If the heart has been changed, then it ought to affect every area of a man’s life.
A Christian Is Someone Who Has A Personal Relationship with God
Salvation is not “fire insurance” i.e., protection from some future calamity. Nor is salvation given to enable us to live happy, snappy lives without fear or anxiety (sort of a spiritual tranquilizer). The whole meaning and purpose of our existence is that we were created to know and love God (Jer 31:33). “And this is eternal life that men might know Thee, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent” (Jn 17:3). A person is saved so that he can fulfill the purpose for which he was created, to fellowship with the living God. The Westminster Shorter Catechism poses it this way in the very first question “What is the chief end of man? Man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever…” This is the high and holy calling of the redeemed human race. We are not eating, sleeping, consuming animals with no future and no hope. We were created to love, glorify and enjoy Almighty God. And the Christian, whose sins have been forgiven because of Christ and whose nature has been changed now is enabled to fulfill the purpose for which he was destined.
The Bible calls the Christian, the “friend” of God (Jn 15:15), someone with whom God desires to fellowship and enjoy. What a wonder! Would we deign to fellowship with a worm? Yet, God desires a warm, personal and eternal relationship with us, not because He needs it, but because we do! Now this relationship, like all relationships needs to be nurtured if it is to grow properly. We need to have accurate knowledge of who God is and what He is like (Jer 29:12-13, Jer 33:3). You cannot have a relationship with someone if you know nothing about the other person! Granted, knowing God means more than just knowing things about Him, but it certainly does not mean anything less! While God knows all there is to know about us, we will spend an eternity learning about Him. Every aspect of creation is designed to tell us something about Him. But studying the Scriptures is the primary way that we learn about His nature, His attributes, His character and His love and His requirements. In prayer, we talk to God. In the Scriptures, through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, He talks to us.
If the relationship is to grow, our lives must also be transformed so that we can enjoy God (Rms 12:2). As children, we often like sweet things that are not all that good for us. But as we grow to maturity, we learn to develop a taste for savory things that are better nutrition. Though a Christian is someone whose basic orientation has been changed, there is always the problem that our habits and desires still reflect something of the old way of thinking and acting. Thus as the Christian grows in his faith, he learns to develop a taste for godliness, something that does not come naturally! Thus growing in our relationship with God requires an investment of our time, our resources, our wealth, even our lives (Mk 8:35, Matt 16:25). God is the pearl of great price that we mortgage everything to possess.
Becoming A Christian
My home state of Maine was settled early in American history and most people have lived there a long time and are slow about accepting outsiders. There is a supposedly true story about a young couple that moved to Maine and then started a family. While the parents knew that they would always be “foreigners,” at least they expected that their children would be accepted as native Mainers. However, the town folks insisted they were still “Outta Staters.” When the father objected that his children were all born right there in the town, one old salt replied, “Maybe so, but if my cat had kittens in an oven, it wouldn’t make ‘em biscuits!” Their story has a grain of truth in regards to how one becomes a Christian. Some people think they are Christians because their parents, or grandparents were. Others think that becoming a Christian is like osmosis; they sort of pick it up from the environment.
The Bible says that a person becomes a Christian through a sovereign act of God (Titus 3:5, Eph 2:8a). It is God Who saves men and makes them Christians. Salvation (i.e., becoming a Christian) is a gift freely given to sinful men who receive it by faith (Rms 6:23, Eph 2:8-9). It cannot be earned, only received. God in His wonderful sovereign grace works a miracle in the human heart, granting repentance for sins and giving saving faith.
In order to become a Christian God works in a person’s heart, causing several things to happen. The first is that a person acknowledges that God exists and has rightful demands that He places upon us (Heb 11.6). You cannot become a Christian until you first recognize God’s sovereign rule over creation, which of course, includes YOU! This is not just any old god, but the Lord God Almighty, the One True God. Most people believe in some sort of Supreme Being. But the Bible says our God is the only God.
Secondly, as God works in a person’s heart, he comes to understand that he is a sinner, guilty before God and deserving only His wrath (1 Jn 1:8,10). A person cannot be saved until he first realizes that he is lost.
Thirdly, God then gives that person grace to repent of one’s sins, literally; to turn around and go in a new direction (Acts 3:19). Repentance is not an emotion of sorrow, but a genuine change of life based upon a change in our heart.
Fourthly, that person responds, because of this changed heart by confessing with his mouth that Jesus is Lord (Rms 10:9a) i.e. that Jesus is both God and King. This is more than just a verbal statement, but a heartfelt recognition that Jesus is who the Bible says He is and that He did what the Bible says He did. There can be no idea that Jesus was just a great moral teacher or gave us a wonderful example we ought to follow. He was the Lamb of God slain for our sin (Rev 5:9). He is also the righteous King to whom we humbly acknowledge as Lord (Phil 2:9-11).
Finally, God then gives that person trust or faith to believe in his innermost being that God raised Jesus from the dead (Rms 10:9b-10). The resurrection of Jesus Christ is not a theological debating point but an utter fact of history on which our own resurrection and eternal life depend (cf. 1 Cor 15:12ff). When God raised Jesus from the dead, it was His sign that Christ’s death was acceptable to Him, as the sacrifice for our sins. We know that God forgives us, because Jesus fully paid our debts. And unlike all the great moral teachers of history who offered their wisdom, we KNOW that what Jesus said about His life and work are true, because He is the only one who ever proved it by His resurrection.
These five principles are not things that we do to get saved, but rather the result of God working in sinful human hearts to bring them to salvation. The Bible clearly says that “…whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved” (Rms 10:13).
Salvation, becoming a Christian, being born again, whatever term one uses, is the absolute foundational principle of Christianity. From our perspective, there is no other issue in life that can begin to compare with this is regards to importance. Without individual salvation, the church is just a social club or theological debating society of dubious value. Everything else we do stems from our personal encounter with Jesus Christ, forgiving our sins, creating a new nature within us and giving us a personal relationship with God.
As a result of this personal transformation, Christians are then led to changing not just their own personal lives, but the lives of their families, their communities, their nations and their world. Personal salvation is what enables us to live in obedience to God, loving Him and loving one another. Until the heart is changed, the world remains in sin and darkness. The Christian life does not end with personal salvation, but it certainly begins with it. Any supposed “Christian” church that neglects the good news that Jesus Christ has died for sinful men and granted them new life by faith has forgotten the most fundamental aspect of Christ’s teaching. The historic Reformed faith, as understood by John Calvin, one of its most brilliant theologians, “God has nothing else in view in addressing men, but to call them to salvation… “
The above article was written at the request of the Moderator of the Natal Presbytery, Republic of South Africa. The Presbyterian Church in South Africa no longer believes in the importance of individual, personal salvation and the Moderator was desperate for any information he could bring to his church that it might be reclaimed for Christ. Sadly, in America, we also have millions of Presbyterians who no longer understand or accept the gospel, substituting the warmed over platitudes of Humanism for Jesus’ words of life.
The Reformed Doctrine of Scripture »
Sunday, April 20th, 2008An Analysis of the Historic Creeds of the Reformed Faith on Scripture Rev. Brian M. Abshire
“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and training in righteousness that the man of God may be perfectly equipped for every good work…” 2 Tim 3:16-17
The doctrine of Scripture has been under virulent attack for the past 150 years. As the demise of theological liberalism vividly demonstrates, once a church loses confidence that the Bible is the literal word of God, the gospel and saving faith are quickly lost as well. Today, those who would flee from the authority of God’s Word deny that historic Christianity requires the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures. Instead, they are aggressive in trying to undermine the sufficiency of Scriptures (through modern pop psychology); its necessity (by replacing it with science and technology); its authority (by casting doubts on its authorship), and its clarity (by proposing that the Bible has been edited and changed so many times no one but the experts really understands what it originally said). The reason of course is that if you deny the credibility of the Bible, then men are free to make up their own ethics, morals and rules according to what seems “good to their own eyes.”
This is an age-old problem, going all the way back to the Garden of Eden when Adam chose to sin against God’s Word. The serpent enticed Eve into sin by challenging the integrity of God’s Word. Though he may have become a little more sophisticated in his attack since then, his objective remains the same; the best way to destroy faith is to attack the authority of God’s Word.
Today, we have many “evangelical” Christians who insist there are errors in the Bible’s treatment of history, science, etc. They maintain that the Bible is “infallible” when it touches on matters of faith and doctrine but not “inerrant” when it touches on other matters. In fact, it is common in even evangelical seminaries to suggest that the modern debate over the inerrancy of Scripture is a result of nineteenth century heresies of certain right wing, Presbyterian theologians at places like old Princeton. The implications for Christian faith are enormous. If the Bible makes mistakes in the things you can check out (such as history, science, culture), then how can you trust it in the areas you cannot check out (such as the Deity of Christ, the resurrection, etc.)?
Similarly, if the Bible has mistakes in matters of fact, then perhaps it also has mistakes in matter of doctrine. Thus many “evangelical” feminists maintain that the Apostle Paul’s explicit statements regarding the role of women were not really inspired, but simply a mistake resulting from his cultural prejudices. Interesting to note that several of the popular “evangelical” feminists of the seventies have now come out of the closet announced their lesbianism and totally abandoned the historic Christian faith.
Since the doctrine of Scripture is a basic presupposition of the Christian faith, when we err here, every other aspect of the faith is endangered. One of the greatest contributions of the Great Reformation was freeing men from slavery to the Roman Church by returning the faith to its Biblical origins. Thus, we need to know something of how the doctrine of Scripture was understood from the earliest days of the Reformation in the Reformed creeds authored in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
An acorn has within itself all the genetic potential of a full-grown oak. Given the right conditions; fertile soil, sunlight and water, the acorn will naturally grow and develop, setting out strong roots and vibrant branches. So also, did the doctrine of Scripture grow and develop as the implications of Reformed theology were worked out over time. The Reformers did not discover new truths concerning Scripture; they merely provided the rich soil of a humble heart, the warm sunshine of open expectation and the refreshing washing of the Holy Spirit’s illumination. The same acorn under different conditions will develop slightly different forms of the same tree. In the same way, the historical situation facing each Reformed Confession subtly affected how the kernel of truth was expressed..
The earliest Reformed confession that deals with the doctrine of Scripture is the Scots of 1560. Penned in four days by the “Six Johns”; (i.e. Winram, Spottiswoode, Willock, Douglas, Row and Knox), the need was urgent since Scotland was going through Reformation but still had a Catholic Queen. The confession was quickly ratified by parliament with little opposition (Douglas 891). Though John Knox had been involved in a number of similar works on the continent, the Scots’ Confession is in some ways a polemical tract concerned more with stating the main points of Calvinism and refuting the heresies of Romanism than developing precise theological formulations. Accordingly, its treatment on Scripture is fairly brief and succinct. Scripture is dealt with in articles 18 and 19 where it is stated “…we beleeve and confesse the Scriptures of God sufficient to instruct and make the man of God perfite…” The intent was to refute the Romanist idea that Mother Church has authority over the Scriptures. The Scots’ Confession calls this idea to be “…blasphemous against God and injurious to the trew Kirk…”
Yet within the brief treatment given by the Scott’s Confession can be found the kernel of the whole doctrine of Scripture. Its authority is maintained, divine authorship understood and the right of each believer to have personal access to interpreting and applying it rightly. “For we dare non receive or admit any interpretation quhilk repugnes to ony principall point of our faith, or to on other plaine text of Scripture or zit unto the rule of charitie.”
Guido de Bres authored the Belgic Confession (primarily) in 1561, as the Netherlands was about to begin their war of independence against Spanish rule. Originally written in French it was quickly translated into Dutch and German and remains one of the three standards used in the Dutch Reformed Church. Again, undoubtedly because of the historical situation, it draws heavily on the 1559 Gallic Confession written by Calvin for the Huguenot churches (Douglas 117).
Scripture is one of the first doctrines treated (article 3) and since de Bres could depend upon the reflections of others in less urgent situations, its development is far more complete. The doctrine of Scripture is introduced in article II concerning the means by which God is known. While acknowledging the importance of God’s self-disclosure through creation, His holy and divine Word is necessary for us to know “His glory and our salvation.”
The inspiration of the Scriptures is stated in that the Word of God was delivered by “holy men… moved by the Holy Spirit…” who were commanded to commit His revealed Word in writing. “Pour cette cause, nous appelons tels ecrits; Ecritures saintes et divines” (Schaff 385). The historical situation is again evident in the repudiation of the Roman church’s insistence of ultimate authority. Scripture is to be believed, not because the Church approves of it, but rather because of the inner witness of the Holy Spirit in our hearts (Schaff 386). Scripture thus is self attesting and carries the evidence for its divine origin in itself.
The doctrine of the necessity of Scripture is hinted at in the statement that the canonical books of the Bible are received for the regulation, foundation and confirmation of our faith. Interestingly enough, the Belgic Confession makes an explicit claim for the inerrancy of Scripture when it says, “believing without any doubt, all things contained in them…” (Schaff 386). This is an important answer to those who claim that the insistence on inerrancy is a nineteenth century aberration of the Princeton theology of Hodge, Warfield and Machen. Furthermore, the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture is also explicitly stated here. The Scriptures “fully contain the will of God and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein” (Schaff 388).
By the time of the Second Helvitic Confession of 1566, the doctrine of Scripture is presented in a far richer, fuller way. Henrich Bullinger penned the confession on the request of Friedrich III (Douglas 459). The first Helvitic Confession of 1536 was thought to be too much a compromise with the Lutherans. Bullinger had been working on a lengthy statement of his own beliefs when the Elector Palatine (publisher of the Heidelberg Catechism of 1563) turned to him for help. He needed a confession to aid him against charges of encouraging religious dissension. Bullinger’s personal statement with slight modifications received a warm reception and quickly established a new standard (Douglas 459).
However, its origins as a personal statement of faith had implications in how it developed various doctrines. Theological precision is really not the main objective and thus though it contains a flowering of truth, it lacks a complete development. Much is implicit that could have been made explicit.
The Confession begins with Scripture as the very first chapter. The authority of Scripture is implied in that it is the “true Word of God” and has “sufficient authority of themselves.” Again, the Word of God is seen to be self attesting, not needing the testimony of men, councils or churches to establish their divine origins or authority (Schaff 831). Scripture is complete, nothing is to be added or subtracted.
The doctrine of the necessity of Scripture is implicit without being so stated; “from these Scriptures are to be taken true wisdom and godliness, the reformation and government of churches; as also instruction in all duties of piety.” While the Holy Spirit illumines the human mind and makes Scripture understandable, and He can do so without external ministry, even so God’s normal way of instructing men is through the preaching of the Word.
Personal interpretation (i.e., each man interpretation is as valid as another’s; meaning there is an objective meaning to every passage of Scripture) is ruled out (after all, this canard was a recurring charge levied by Rome and needed to be refuted) and Scripture is stated to be its own best interpreter (Schaff 833). First mention here is made of understanding the original languages and of respectful dissent of the church Fathers when their teaching can be shown to depart from Scripture. Human tradition is rejected and the authority of Scripture stated in that “in controversies of religion or matters of faith, we can not admit any other judge that God Himself, pronouncing by the Holy Scriptures what is true, what is false, what is to be followed or what to be avoided.”
The full flowering of the acorn is the Westminster Confession of 1643-46. The Westminster Divines had over a century of theological wisdom to draw on as well as the practical need of stating clearly and precisely true Reformed doctrine in the light of the dangers posed by a growing Arminianism (and an imminent civil war with Charles I). The Confession remains as the best expression of classical Reformed theology.
In regards to the doctrine of Scripture, as is to be expected, the Confession most fully develops the kernels of contained in the earlier works. It begins with the necessity of Scripture (I.i.). Though acknowledging the reality of revelation of God in nature, creation and providence, the Confession concludes that they are insufficient to give knowledge of God and His will necessary unto salvation. In article vi of chapter one, Scripture is considered necessary for the whole counsel of God concerning His glory, man’s salvation, faith and life.
Those things that are not specifically stated in Scripture can be deduced from it (though nothing is to be added). This is a new insight, not clearly articulated in previous Confessions. As well, the Confession recognizes that though absolutely true, the Scriptures are not exhaustively true; i.e., that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, government of the church etc., which are not specifically addressed and must be ordered according to general rules, rather than specific precept (vi.).
The authority of Scripture depends not upon the testimony of man or church but wholly upon God. Therefore it must be received because it is the Word of God. Though not neglecting the force of human argumentation for its divine character, the Westminster divines are careful to state that persuasion comes “from the inward work of the Spirit bearing witness by and with the Spirit in our hearts” (v.).
The Confession also introduces the doctrine of perspicuity; i.e., that though not all things in Scripture are easy to apprehend, all things necessary for salvation are clearly stated so that even the unlearned may attain a sufficient understanding. This takes the Bible out of the exclusive hands of the theologian/teacher/pastor and encourages lay reading and study. This is explicitly confirmed by paragraph viii which states: “…all the people of God, who have a right unto and interest in the Scriptures and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar [i.e., common] language of every nation unto which they may come…”
Finally, the Westminster Confession again echoes the fundamental principle of interpretation that Scripture is its own best interpreter (ix.). Scripture can only be understood by the illumination of the Holy Spirit (vi.) for it is the Holy Spirit Himself who speaks through the written word (x.).
Though the Westminster Confession is a full grown Oak tree, solid and steady, a sure anchor in perilous times, it never claims for itself to be the final statement of Biblical truth. It developed during a specific historical situation when certain doctrines were in jeopardy and needed careful definition. Some may consider it necessary, that without losing any of the truths of the Confession, to continue to develop those truths to counter the errors of our day (e.g. the inerrancy question, feminism, evolution etc.). However, sadly, we would be hard put to find a twentieth century assembly equivalence of the Westminster Divines. Their work will have to stand for a while yet. The branches are not so bowed, or the leaves so bare that we cannot still find shelter for a good time yet.
Works Cited
Douglas, J. D. The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974
Schaff, Philip. The Creeds of Christendom. London, 1877
Why I Believe We Are Not Living in “The Last Days” »
Sunday, April 20th, 2008Introduction
Christians have been debating views of the end times since the second century. Though certain positions have been recognized as heresy (and vigorously condemned), the historic church has not made a particular view of the “Last Days” a test of orthodoxy. All true Christians will agree that Jesus is going to come back. All agree that He will resurrect His saints, judge evil and usher in the eternal state. However, in regards to the details, sincere, godly men coming to the same passages, have arrived at different conclusions. Thus the church has made room for a variety of positions.
In different ages, some views have enjoyed more popularity than others. But the issue must never be “which view has the most proponents” but rather, “which view best interprets the Scriptural data in a proper manner.” This principle is especially important when considering the New Testament phrase, “the Last Days.” Many Christians are so certain that they already understand what it means, they never really examine its use in Scripture. They assume that the “last days” refers to the Second Coming of Christ. But is this really how the Bible expects us to understand this? Many Christians will close this booklet right now saying, “Of course! What else could it mean?” But be careful. What we think really does affect what we do. Our theology of the last days really does have a great influence on our ministry, time, money and efforts. If you’re willing to do a little work, I think you may be surprised at what the Bible actually says. Go on, take a chance! Truth will bear investigation. And who knows, God just may want to teach you something you’ve never thought about before.
What Does Matthew Really Mean?
Matthew 24 is one of the best known prophetic passages in the New Testament. But just what exactly is Jesus prophesying here? Many assume it is His second coming. But is this necessarily so? The greater context is clearly the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. In Matthew 23:29 Jesus pronounces judgment on the Pharisees with the time table set in verse 36. He then weeps for the coming desolation of Jerusalem in verses 37-39. In 24:1-3 The disciples marvel at the beauty of the temple. Jesus then predicts that the temple, and the city will be destroyed. the disciples then ask “when will this happen?” Everything from that point on is Jesus answer to their question.
The only real reason why this passage is assumed to refer to the Second Coming, and not the events of 70 AD seems to be the prophetic imagery in 27-31. Since these events “obviously” did not happen in 70 AD, the entire passage must therefore be manipulated to make the Second Coming fit into the schema of events that Jesus details. Some even go so far as to require a new temple, new sacrifices, new abomination of desolation, etc., in order to replay 70 AD all over again.
While other views do not have to go quite so far, even so, their interpretations sometime stretch one’s credulity. It is a difficult passage to interpret.
Yet Jesus Himself gives a temporal marker in verse 34. Jesus specifically says that all these things will happen during the lifetime of “this generation.” Again, all sorts of exegetical and hermeneutical gymnastics are attempted in order to get around the clear implications of this passage (i.e., generation really means “race”, the generation that sees the “fig tree,” etc.). But the text seems clear, whatever is happening in Matthew 24 is supposed to happen completely and fully within the lifetime of the people Jesus is addressing. This is the normal sense of the terms. However if Matthew 24 was supposed to be fulfilled during the lifetimes of the disciples, and if it does refer to the Second Coming, then Jesus made a mistake. Obviously this cannot be accepted by evangelicals. Thus another solution must be found.
There is another alternative. This is the view that the phrase “the last days”, “end times,” etc., refers primarily to that period of time between the ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ and His judgment and destruction of apostate Israel in 70 AD. The “last days” are not the brief period of time before the Second Coming. The “Last Days” were the final days of the Jewish dispensation culminating in the first judicial act of the Lord Jesus Christ ruling the nations.
Some people will ask, “Why all this emphasis on 70 AD?” Modern Christians do not understand just how significant an event the destruction of Jerusalem was in Biblical theology. God had repeatedly warned Israel throughout her history that if she refused to obey Him, committed spiritual adultery with other Gods, rejected His Law and commandments, that He would utterly destroy her (cf. Deut 28). When Jesus the Messiah came, he was the fulfillment of all the Old Testament images, shadows, types, sacrifices, feasts and festivals. Everything in the Old Testament Law was designed to lead people to Christ. Thus when Israel rejected Christ, they were rejecting God. The Jewish nation also cooperated with the Roman Empire in persecuting those who did recognize Jesus as Lord. Therefore God brought the promised covenant curses against them in 70 AD. The Apostles and early church would have understood the phrase “last days” as the period of time from the Lord Jesus ascending into Heaven to when He exercised His Kingly judgment by destroying Jerusalem.
Now this view is not something that should just be accepted. It will have to be proved. Therefore we need to look at how the individual instances of the phrase “the last days” is used in Scripture, as well as what was meant by the word “coming.” Finally, we need to look at the “heavens shaking” terminology in Matthew 24 and see how Jesus expected us to understand it. This study requires us to be submitted to the Scriptures and to learn to read them as they were expected to be read. But you’ll be amazed what you can see if you learn to open your eyes!
Bad Translations
So many people look at Matthew 24 with preconceived ideas, that it has actually skewed the translation from the Greek. For example, in Matthew 24:30 states that the tribes of the earth will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds with power and great glory. Many immediately conclude this must be a clear reference to the Second Coming. And if one just looked at the English translation, this would appear to be the case. The phrase seems to say that “everybody in the world will see Jesus in the sky.” However, the phrase “tribes of the earth” is actually better translated “tribes of the land.” In Greek, the words “land” and “earth” are interchangeable. But in this context, “land is better because this phrase is a common referent to the land of Israel (Abbot-Smith 91).” Thus it is not the entire earth that is mourning, but rather Israel. This changes the entire perspective on the passage. If it is the whole earth that mourns, this suggests a universal event. But if it is only Israel that will mourn, it refers to something that could be quite local.
In the same way the phrase, “the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky” is literally translated, “and then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven” (Chilton 100). This translation makes two important points: First, the location spoken of is heaven, not just the sky. Secondly, it is not the sign which is in heaven but rather the Son of Man.
This translation is not only linguistically legitimate, it is also the only way to make sense of the prophecy from Daniel 7:13 quoted here. In the Daniel passage, the perspective is not on earth but the throne room of Heaven. The Ancient of Days is sitting on His throne and the Son of Man is presented to Him and receives from Him power and rule and dominion. Daniel 7:13ff and Matthew 24:30 are not prophecies of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ to earth, but of His Ascension into Heaven and Kingly inauguration! This majestic event is not for us a future event because it occurred at the Ascension! Jesus right now sits at the right hand of the Father and right now rules heaven and earth (Acts 7:56). Thus the sign mentioned in Matthew 24 is not Jesus appearing in the sky to the whole world, but rather Jesus being taken up into Heaven in Acts 1:11! This changes the whole focus of the prophecy.
The Use of Coming in the Old Testament
But the text does talk about the Lord Jesus’ coming doesn’t it? What else could His coming be except when He returns? Contemporary Christians, influenced by 150 years of millenarian agitation, are preconditioned to interpret the term “coming” almost exclusively in regards to the Second Coming. Yet the Scriptures themselves do not necessarily use the term in that way. Though there indeed will be a physical, bodily return of Christ at the fulfillment of time (e.g. Acts 1:11), Christ can also said to “come” many times in history. The term does not require a physical appearance because it is a metaphor for Christ exercising His power and dominion over the world and judging the nations.
For example, the phrase “coming on clouds” is a well known Old Testament term for God coming in salvation to His elect and judgment on His enemies. (Psa 104:3, Isa 19:1, Nah 1:3). “God’s coming on the clouds of heaven is an almost commonplace Scriptural symbol for His presence, judgment, and salvation” (Chilton, 102). For further development, see Russell, page 251ff. Regardless of one’s view of a future earthly kingdom, all must agree that Jesus right now rules the world and judges it temporally. “For the wrath of God is being revealed against all the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Rms 1:20). It is the Lord God who sets up kings and earthly powers (Jer 43:10, Rms 13:1). It is the Lord who also judges those powers and removes their thrones (Psa 2:12, 9:4-5,19-20, 10:16, 22:28, 47:8, 94:10, Hagg 2:22, etc.).
In the same way, the term “Day of the Lord” does not just refer to the final day of judgment that occurs at the end of time before the eternal state. “…the Day of the Lord could designate a day in the immediate historical future when God would visit His people in judgment…” as in Amos 5:18 and Isaiah 2:12ff (Ladd 554).
The Use of “Coming” in Revelation 2-3
Substantiating evidence for this understanding of the Lord’s coming is found in the Seven Letters to the churches in Revelation two and three. Jesus specifically warns /promises the churches in 2:5, 16, 3:3, 3:11 that He is coming soon. In each case, the context is coming in judgment. This judgment cannot be at the end of the world since it involved activities occurring right up to the coming itself. It cannot refer to the future at all because none of these churches now exist! It must refer to something that happened within the lifetimes of those specific churches.
While some have argued that the churches represent the entire array of Church history, no one has ever agreed which church represents which age. Even the best argument, that these churches are symbolic of the problems of all churches in all ages, fails to do justice to the text itself.
Seven historical churches are encouraged, exhorted and warned of impending judgment. Jesus promises specifically to come to four of them. Since He did not come to them physically, therefore His coming cannot refer to His Second Coming. It must refer to something else. Since the term is used of “coming in judgment”, therefore the simplest and best explanation is that Jesus is here warning His churches of impending trials (most likely of 70 AD and its earth shaking effects). Thus, Jesus as Lord of Heaven and Earth rules the nations with His rod of iron (Psa 2:1ff). He visits the nations in time, rising up and setting down according to His good will. Whenever He exercises His judicial powers in time, it can be said that He is “coming.”
The significance of the coming in Matthew 24 is that the destruction of Jerusalem was the sign that all authority had been given to Jesus and He would exercise that authority by bringing about the prophesied destruction of apostate Israel (cf. Deut 28). By Jerusalem and the temple being destroyed (as prophesied by Jesus), then Israel would know that Jesus was indeed Lord of Heaven and earth. “…the Lord comes upon the clouds to the judgment of Jerusalem, as a manifest proof that we are not to think merely of His coming at the last day, and that the words do not point to a visible appearing” (Russell 39).
Heaven & Earth Shaking Terminology
Some may argue that the earth shaking, heavens trembling terminology in Matthew 24 does not fit 70 AD. But this is typical prophetic imagery used throughout the Old Testament in regards to God bringing judgment against a nation. The Bible is a divine book, but it is also literature. God inspired the authors to write in literary styles that were well known and well understood. For comparisons see the following texts: Isaiah 13:9-10, 34:4, Amos 8:9, Ezekiel 32:7-8. In each instance, the same “heaven shaking” phraseology is used to describe the judgment on a historical nation. In each case, God did do just as He had promised, but the signs did not “literally” come true. This is figurative, prophetic language used in the Scriptures to describe the cosmic judgment by the Ruler of Creation.
It is especially relevant in regards to Israel because it was the end of one age and the beginning of another. “What Jesus is saying in Matthew 24, therefore, in prophetic terminology immediately recognizable by His disciples, is that the light of Israel is going to be extinguished; the Covenant nation will cease to exist. When the Tribulation is over, old Israel will be gone (Chilton 100).”
There are of course other interpretive issues that need to be addressed. It can be shown that the “angels” gathering the elect refers to the preaching of the gospel (i.e., the Greek word angelos can refer to either human or divine messengers, depending upon context). It is only our preconceived bias that interprets the Greek to mean a heavenly messenger when it well could be an earthly one.
However, at this point enough evidence has been marshaled to warrant a reexamination of the use of the term “last days” in other passages. In historical narrative passages, the disciples may not always have clearly understood the distinction between the impending temporal judgment on Israel and the future second coming of Christ (cf. Acts 1:6). However, in the didactic passages, (i.e., when doctrine is being taught) we will see that they knowingly taught that the imminent judgment on Israel would usher in a new age.
The Last Days and The Disciples Expectation
The disciples fully understood that they were living in a time of transition between one age and the age that was to come (Russell 255). The transition between the end of the Old Covenant and the beginning of the New was the outpouring of the covenant curses upon an apostate Israel. The first sign of Israel’s impending destruction was at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came in power and gave the gift of tongues. Contemporary debates about tongue speaking seldom address the fundamental reason why God gave this gift in the first place. Tongue speaking was a fulfillment of prophecy that God had removed His covenant from Israel, given it to the despised Gentiles and was about to bring judgment against them. Paul specifically teaches this in 1 Corinthians 14:21 when he quotes Isaiah 28:11: “By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers will I speak to this people, and even so they will not listen to me…”
The context of Isaiah 28 is the beginning of God’s covenantal judgment on Israel for her apostasy and rebellion. As a final indication of His righteous wrath on a rebellious and stiff necked people, God would speak to them in strange tongues. Hence Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:22 that tongues are a sign for unbelievers. The unbelievers here are clearly non-believing Jews.
Thus at Pentecost, the judgment clock began ticking down on Israel’s future. God had abandoned them and was going to bring upon them the covenant curses of Deuteronomy 28. Paul clearly understood this, and so did Peter, since he quotes Joel 2:28-32. The Joel passage (using the same prophetic, heaven shaking terminology as in Matthew 24 which did not “literally” occur) is a clear prophecy of the coming judgment on Israel.
Thus the Apostles, from the very beginning, understood that the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost and the gift of tongues were the first signs that Israel’s judgment was about to come. The Disciples would have had this understanding in the back of their minds whenever they discussed future events. Israel was going to be judged within their lifetimes. Jesus Himself would do so as an indication of His own rule and authority (Matt 28:19-21). The coming of the Spirit ushered in a new age and a new covenant (Jer 31:33-34). The Disciples therefore understood that they were living in a transition period between the judgment of the Old Covenant people and the New Covenant promises.
Specific Uses of the “Last Days”
The specific phrase “last days” (or “latter times”) occurs 9 times in the New Testament in the writings of Paul, James, Peter, John and Jude. A careful investigation of each of the occurrences shows that in context, the best understanding must refer to the impending judgment on Israel in 70 AD. For example in 1 Timothy 3:14-4:6 Paul warns Timothy of the importance of sound doctrine to the household of God because the Spirit has predicted that in “later times” some will fall away from the faith (1 Tim 4:1). Paul tells Timothy this so that he can warn the brethren and if he does so, he will be commended as a faithful servant of Christ Jesus (1 Tim 4:6).
But if the later times is in reference to a future event 2,000+ years in the future, why is Paul addressing the situation in Timothy’s church? Why should the Apostle Paul warn Timothy of something that neither he nor his people would ever see? Yes, it might be relevant to us, but what about the last two thousand years of Church history when this passage would have been completely irrelevant?
Some people have suggested that the phrase “later times” refers to the entire period of time between the First and Second Coming. Thus all Paul is really saying is that “this age is characterized by apostasy.” This does not make sense. The terminology itself argues against a prolonged period of time from the giving of the prophecy until its fulfillment. Last days are exactly that, a brief period of time at the end of an age. Yet the “last days” have now lasted almost as long as the entire age from Abraham to Jesus! Though one might stretch the period for a few decades, surely not 20 centuries!
Furthermore, how can an entire age be characterized by people deserting from the faith? If everyone, always deserts the faith, what are they deserting from? Some ages are characterized by great faith and obedience (e.g., the Reformation). Other ages are characterized by people leaving the faith (e.g., ours). But if all ages are characterized by apostasy, then no one would ever have been saved in the first place!
Yet if the “later times” refers to the period up to the judgment on Israel, then it makes good sense for Paul to issue this warning. As the time progresses and the judgment of Israel grows closer, many people who have made professions of faith will desert the true Church. Therefore Timothy, do not be alarmed when men desert you, or turn aside to foolish myths and genealogies, for all this has already been prophesied and taken into consideration. It will not affect God’s plan and it will soon be over. Therefore, do not be afraid, warn the people, prepare them for what is going to shortly come to pass and trust in God. This makes sense. For Paul to be warning Timothy of something that will never happen to him or his people, just does not fit the context.
Similar language in 2 Timothy 3:1 requires a similar interpretation. Why should Paul warn Timothy of future events that neither he nor his church would ever live to see? In the same way if these were characteristic of the entire age, why specify “the last days.” Again, there is the problem of understanding how an entire age can be characterized by apostasy. One has to have growth and fruit in the kingdom before one can then have massive defections from it. But if the entire age is characterized by such defections, when, where and how did they ever join the kingdom in the first place? However, if the apostasy was in fact a brief period at the end of a specific age (Matthew 24:10), then one can easily understand why Timothy needed to be reminded of it.
In Hebrews 1:1-2 the reference is clearly to the time when the Apostles were living. “God, after He spoke long ago… in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things…” Here the reference is to the giving of Scripture. Since the Son was “appointed” heir at the Ascension, the speaking refers to the Spirit’s work through the Apostles and therefore can be equated with Scripture. The point is that Christ was giving Scripture in the “last days.” There is no compelling reason to suggest that this refers to anything except the period of time between His Ascension and His judgment on Israel. One could make an argument that Hebrews was written on the eve of the destruction of Israel. This, by the way, then makes 10:26ff perfectly clear.
James 5:1-3 also fits perfectly well within the context of an impending judgment on Israel and makes no sense otherwise. “Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are come upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth eaten. Your gold and your silver have rusted; and their rust will be a witness against you and will consume your flesh like fire. It is in the last days that you have stored up your treasures.”
James is warning the rich of a soon to come judgment. They are not to trust in their material possessions. In fact because they have done so, their very wealth will be a cause of their destruction. The rich Jews had stored up their wealth in the “last days” and it would be useless to them when the Romans sacked the city, murdered most of the inhabitants and sold the survivors into slavery. This verse simply makes no sense unless it is a direct reference to the impending judgment on Jerusalem. If the entire age is the “last days,” then the prophecy here is incomprehensible. People buy and sell and amass great wealth and leave this life in luxurious coffins. Granted it does them no good in the age to come, but James is saying that it does them no good in the “last days.”
However if it refers to the coming judgment in 70 AD it makes perfect sense. All their wealth and power would not prevent their utter destruction. One is reminded here of the Jews who tried to escape from Jerusalem during the siege with some of their wealth by swallowing gold. Josephus records that when the Roman solders discovered what they were doing, all fleeing Jews were murdered and eviscerated on the spot in the hopes of finding booty!
The passage in 1 Peter 1:5 is a little less clear. Peter says that there is an imperishable inheritance reserved in heaven “for you who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time…” Here the phrase could be understood as a reference to the Second Coming but it can be argued otherwise as well. In 70 AD Israel was destroyed, but the Christians living in Jerusalem were spared (they left the city when Vaspasian was called back to Rome). Furthermore, as Christ brought judgment against Israel, He was revealed as indeed the Lord of Glory.
Thus Israel’s destruction was also the Christian hope of salvation vindicated. Thus our salvation was revealed in 70 AD. Yet even if this explanation is not accepted and if it is insisted that this reference must be to the Second Coming, please note that the term here is “last time” which can be equated with the “last day.” There is a Day of judgment coming at the end of the world (Matt 7:22, Rms 2:16, 1 Cor 3:13, 2 Tim 4:8 etc.). There is a final Day that is yet to come. Thus the reference here could be well be to that Day, which still leaves the “last days” as a primary referent to the period of time between 35-70 AD.
The specific terminology here may also be significant. As opposed to “the last time” in 1:5, Peter refers to the “last times” in 1:20 as existing during the lifetimes of his hearers. The “last times” were clearly times that the original audience of Peter’s letters were living. The plural use of the term in 1:20 contrasts significantly with the singular use in 1:5. They could well be speaking of two different events, using similar terminology (since one is a type or prefiguring of the other; e.g. all temporal judgment is a down payment on hell).
The context in 2 Peter 3:3 is again a reminder from Peter to strengthen the disciples concerning events they themselves were having to face. Peter is thus relating their experience to a prophetic event. “Know this that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation…” While it is common to take this passage as a reference to the Second Coming, the text itself does not require us to do so. The major reason for insisting on an end of the world scenario is the “heavens shaking” terminology in verse seven. As noted before, this same terminology is technically used in prophetic language to describe the cosmic events occurring when God brings salvation / judgment. Peter may well be referring here not to the end of the world, but the end of the Jewish age. Again, why else would he warn people of things that were not in their future, or in any one else’s future except those few living at the end of the world? “He is patient about you…!”; a specific group of people Peter was addressing with specific problems and specific needs.
The “last days” passage in 1 John 2:18 fits beautifully in the destruction of Jerusalem understanding. The internal evidence for assuming that John was written prior to 70 AD is potent. He no longer uses the phrase “last days” but instead says that it is the “last hour.” No longer is the event even in the near future. John fully expects it to happen at any moment. John specifically says that the antichrist has come (as had been prophesied). All prophetic ground work has been laid. The promised event is about to happen. If John is referring to the Second Coming then, frankly, he was dead wrong. If he was implying some long period of eschatological preparation, why speak in such imminent terms?
But if the destruction of Jerusalem was about to occur, if the land was invaded and the city about to be surrounded, how much clearer could he make it? The 70 AD scenario is the only one that really does justice to John’s sense of expectancy.
Finally, Jude 17-18 contains the last specific reference to the “last days.” “But you beloved ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they were saying to you, ‘In the last time there shall be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.’ These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly minded, devoid of the Spirit…” Notice the tense of the verb. The promised mockers had already come and were causing problems in the church. They were not a future problem to be encountered, but rather a present reality. The “last time” had come and the Church needed to be encouraged to endure and to resist the promised apostasy. Does apostasy come in every age? Yes. Is it more characteristic in some ages than others? Yes. It is characteristic of all ages? NO! As mentioned earlier, if this is supposed to be the character of this age, how then is the New Covenant any better than the Old? Our covenant is not like the one at Sinai, we have the Law written on our hearts.
The Biblical characteristic of the church is not a defeated organization that barely manages to hold the loyalty of a few stalwart members but rather a victorious army, marching to the gates of Hell! Greater is He who is in us than he who is in the world! We are not a defeated people! Yes, there are times when the situation may be grim. But that is not the characteristic of the age, but only of that brief period of time at the end of the last age. That age ended 2,000 years ago. This age is an age of the wonderful victory of Christ over sin, death, Satan and his parasitical kingdom (Rms 16:20, Col 2:15, Hebs 2:14, 1 Jn 3:8, 2 Cor 2:14 etc.)
Conclusion
If the above understanding of the “last days” is correct, then it has profound effects on our concept of Christianity and its relationship to the world around us. Rather than defeat, we ought to expect to see the Lord Jesus lead His church to victory. The assumption that Christian progress in the world will be ultimately undermined by an end times apostasy is no longer valid. Yes, apostasy and heresy come, but Christ is greater than either and has already defeated and disarmed their ruler (Col 2:15). Christians ought to expect the gospel to go forth with power, to meet the devils of this age and scatter them to the pit. There is nothing that stands between the Christian church and the victorious fulfillment of the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-21 than our own obedience.
Some may complain that this sounds like Postmillennialism. Though that discussion is beyond the scope of this paper it must be answered, if this is what the Bible teaches, so what? Though now largely out of favor in American evangelicalism, it ought to remembered that Postmillennialism is the historic eschatological system of American Presbyterian and English Reformed groups. The Westminster Confession is unabashedly postmillennial in the Longer Catechism. In New England, Postmillennial Puritans settled the wilderness in hopes of building “a city on a hill” which was further fueled by the expectations of world wide revival during the Great Awakening. In Northern Presbyterianism, Alexander, Both Hodges, Warfield and Machen all taught general Postmillennialism as a part of the Princeton theology. In the South, Postmillennialism was taught by Thornwell and Dabney (Kik 6).
A final objection is that our experience does not fit the doctrine. We do not see this promised victory in the world, that our age especially, is one of growing apostasy and departures from the true faith and that the forces arrayed against the church seem insurmountable. There are two quick responses to this objection. The first is that we need to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, not the headlines in the papers. We must place our faith in the promises of a sovereign God, not the fears of the enemy. We must take our eyes off the “giants in the land” and keep them fully on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith.
The second reason why perhaps the church has not been more successful in seeing the promised victory is because she has been disobedient. When called to trust and obey, we encourage fear and dismay. When called to “Be holy for I am holy” we have settled for a sentimental religion of pious affections and insipid doctrine. Christianity in the past 150 years has been characterized by pietism and antinomianism. In some respects Enlightenment Humanism won the battle for American culture because Christians failed to show up for the war. Consequently, our faith has been undermined and the church’s ability to meet the challenges of the modern world undercut by a pessimistic eschatology. But to automatically concede defeat, in fact to encourage it because of recent defeats is completely unwarranted. The Church has faced great heresies before (Arianism, Docetism, Sabellianism, Donatism, Islam, Romanism) and the Lord was pleased to grant victory. Why should not the present heresies of Arminianism, Marxism and Humanism not go the same way? But wars are not won by single combats, unruly mobs, rebellious troops or a people convinced defeat is inevitable.
Perhaps the real reason why Christians are willing to accept an eschatology of defeat is that it gives us an excuse for irresponsibility. One of the first results of Adam’s sin was to try and shift the blame from himself to his wife and ultimately to God (i.e., the woman, you gave me…). When we live in disobedience, and God spanks us with trials, tribulations, adversity and afflictions, rather than repent, we look for something else to blame our problems on. Christians don’t tithe, don’t witness, don’t send out missionaries, and use the Church of God for a religious social club. How convenient, then to blame the widespread lack of faith, the acceptance of vice, the growth of crime, etc., on the “last days.” The simple fact is that Christians right across the world are living in open disobedience to God. We flaunt His laws and commandments, we choose churches that tickle our ears, we fight and bicker among ourselves and the world ignores us.
Some say it’s because it’s the “last days” and nothing can be done. I say it’s because we are in sin and God is disciplining us! How many Christians are horrified by abortion, yet would never think of having a prophetic witness by carrying a sign outside a clinic? How many Christians are aghast at the humanism of our public schools, but are too busy to take responsibility for their children’s education? Why did 46% of American evangelicals vote for a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, openly immoral man for president in 1992? And will God just stand idly by while we sin? Does He not love us as much as ancient Israel on whom He brought correction, after correction, so that they might repent? Maybe all the bad things happening in the last 50 years are God’s warning signs, not of the end of the world, but of His displeasure with a sinful, irresponsible and disobedient Church. And if we repent, and start obeying Him, will He not bless?
How we view the period of time in which we live has a direct affect on how we conduct our lives. It colors our expectations and priorities. It determines the values we hold, and the use of our resources. If these are “the last days” then this world has no real value, no genuine purpose, no meaningful future. It is simply a waiting room for transients. Furthermore, it is a waiting room destined to fall into decay, to become a breeding ground for vice and crime. And nothing we can do will ever significantly alter its condition. Therefore, there is no motivation to even try.
However, if we view this present world as a ministry God has given to us, as a thing of value in His sight that we are responsible to care for, if we believe that this age is the age which has been entrusted to our care, then we will be motivated to work for victory, because we expect victory. We are galvanized to make a difference because it is not just a layover spot, but our home for a good long time to come. There is nothing standing between us and a safe, clean healthy domicile except obedience to God’s Word.
There were some last days before King Jesus came and exercised His royal judgment over Jerusalem. There is a last day wherein King Jesus will come and exercise His royal judgment over all men, living and dead. For Christians, a significant portion of that future judgment will concern what we have done in the time between.
Works Cited
Abbot-Smith, G., A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament. Edinburgh: Clark,1977
Berkhoff, Louis, Systematic Theology. London, The Banner of Truth Trust, 1971
Chilton, David, Paradise Restored. Tyler: Reconstruction Press, 1985
Chilton, David, The Days of Vengeance. Ft. Worth: Dominion Press, 1987
Ferguson, Sinclair B., ed., New Dictionary of Theology. Downers Grove: IVP, 1988
Hoekma, Anthony A., The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids:
Wm Kik, J. Marcellus, An Eschatology of Victory. Philipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed, 71
Kimball, William R., What the Bible Says About the Great Tribulation. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1984
Groh, Ivan, Jesus Has Returned to Planet Earth. Peterborough: Inspirational Publications, 1984
Gundry, Robert H., The Church and the Tribulation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979 Ladd, George Eldon, A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991
Morris, Leon, Apocalyptic. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974
Russell, J. Stuart, The Parousia: A Study of the New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord’s Second Coming. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985
Ryrie, Charles C., Dispensationalism Today. Chicago: Moody Press, 1981
Conquest of the Pod People »
Sunday, April 20th, 2008Rev. Brian M. Abshire
They are among us. They look like us, they talk like us, and they act like us. But they are not of us. They are… Pod People…
In a recent essay, entitled “Pod People” I used an admittedly silly analogy from badly made 1950’s Science Fiction movies to illustrate the dangers of the unregenerate in the church. “Pod People” are those who have experienced a psychological “conversion” to the Christian faith, but not a spiritual one. Thus, at the core of their being, they are still in rebellion to Almighty God, even though they may have adopted Christian “camouflage” in their outward speech and behavior. I argued that despite the orthodoxy of their profession, in reality, their hearts were still in rebellion to God. Furthermore, these “pod people” have entered the church in vast numbers since the revivalism of the 19th century. I suggested that such people might well be responsible for much of the apostasy of the modern church; over time, they move churches, denominations and the accepted standards of the Faith as they become consistent with their rebellious presuppositions.
Time and space however, in that essay, did not allow a fundamental question to be addressed; how do you recognize the difference between Pod People and the real deal (i.e., those who have been truly regenerate) and even more importantly, what do you do about them?
First, just to reinforce the seriousness of the problem; our Lord Jesus Himself said that there would be “wheat and tares” in His church (Matt 13:25ff) and that an ultimate disposition had to await the end of time. Jesus warned about wolves dressed as sheep (Matt 7: 15) and the Apostle Paul was concerned about wolves entering the fold (Acts 20:29-30). In fact, Jesus Himself warned that on the Day of Judgment, many who give every outward indication of being among the elect were in reality, never known by Him (Matt 7:21-23). “Not all Israel is Israel” warns the Apostle Paul (Rms 9:6).
However, only God knows the Elect for only God knows what is really in a man’s heart (Acts 15:8, 1:24, 1 Sam 16:7, Jer 17:10, Rms 8:27, etc.). Therefore, we cannot know what is really going on inside of a person. Is this man a “pod person” or just an ill-informed, immature Christian who needs love, discipline and instruction? The fact is, we cannot know and therefore must be extremely cautious in making judgments about the eternal status of others.
Yet, as we noted in the previous article, our Lord Himself told us “by their fruits you will know them” (Matt 7:15-20). Therefore, we DO have an objective basis to make a reasoned and informed judgment. If in fact, a man’s heart has not been regenerated, then it will be demonstrated in the “fruit” of his life.
I argued that this “fruit” would be his attitude and his compliance with the Law of God. Jeremiah 31:33 says, “…I will put my law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God and they shall be my people.” The promise of the New Covenant is clear; those who belong to God have His Law written on their hearts. The preeminent sign of true, spiritual conversion is that men are transformed from those who hate the Law of God, to those who love it (Psa 119:97). The unregenerate man hates the Law of God because his very nature is to be autonomous, living according to HIS standards, rules and values. The Christian however, loves that Law because it represents the holiness and righteous character of God.
Now, sometimes, men are better than their theology. For the past 200 years, the doctrine of the Law of God has been under constant assault both from within the church, and the secular culture. Many Christians (yes, and I do mean Christians) have a poor, sometimes even heretical understanding of the Law caused by bad teaching. They may even preach, teach and write against the Law of God because their theology is sub-Biblical (see Matt 5:19ff). But when you meet these people, fellowship with them, examine their lives, you discover that they actually live completely inconsistently with their theology! Technically, they are antinomian, but practically, they are theonomists! In daily life, they acknowledge the Lordship of Christ by humble submission to His commands, even when theologically they deny that they are under any obligation to do so! They worship the Lord in Spirit and Truth, protect His great name, keep His Sabbath, honor their parents, and protect the life, reputation and good name of their neighbor. They abhor immorality and strive to keep themselves pure from sexual sins. They love the truth, they respect another man’s property and they humbly repent before God and their brothers when they sin even in their hearts. But, if you asked them if a Christian should keep the Law, they will respond by saying, “No, we are under grace, not Law.” But their actions deny their words. The Law is written on their hearts; they want to please God, and serve their brothers.
Sadly, their truncated theology often leads them astray (sincerity is no substitute for truth), but from the fruit they do produce, one can see that despite their words, they love and keep the Law. Remember the words of our Lord Jesus that there will be those who speak against the Law, and who will be least in His Kingdom, BUT, they are still IN His Kingdom! (Matt 5:19)
Now compare this with a “pod person.” Since his heart is unregenerate, he is still a slave to his own will. His very nature is in opposition to the Law of God, and he hates it with a passion. He does not just speak against the Law, but actively seeks to undermine and break it. Wanting to be a god in his own eyes, and determine good and evil for himself, the essence of a “pod person” is a commitment to autonomy. No one, no thing holds his ultimate allegiance except his own self will. If his will happens to coincide with God’s Law, then fine, he may go along for a while. But the “acid” test is what does he do when God Law requires one thing, and he wants to do something else? His response may be most enlightening as to the true nature of his heart.
Never forget that Man, by nature is religious, and loves religious things. Ritual and mystery are appealing to people. Hence, many people LOVE the church, but hate God. They derive a sense of personal satisfaction from serving on boards or committees. They like programs that make them feel as if they are accomplishing something. They like going to church services just because it gives them a feeling of being in touch with the ultimate. But in effect, their “worship” is little different than a naked savage dancing around a human sacrifice because the essence is meeting God on THEIR terms, rather than His. Thus, just because a person “loves” church, and is involved in many activities, says NOTHING about the condition of their heart.
As mentioned above, even the Lord Jesus Himself said that we would always have tares among us. Furthermore, he warns his workers NOT to tear out the tares lest some of the wheat be torn out inadvertently. The only reason why Jesus allows the tares to continue in His church is for the benefit of young wheat stalklings that might be confused for a tare!
However, it is most interesting to note that tares only look like wheat when they are young. But over time, as they mature, they become quite distinct so that by the final judgment, the wheat and tare can be safely separated. However you cut it though, our Lord does not give us either the right or the responsibility of removing tares from the church; He reserves this job to Himself and His holy angels at the end of time.
Are we then just stuck with the situation as it is? Is there nothing we can do about wolves entering the fold, destroying the peace and purity of the church? Well, even though our Lord will make the final judgment, we can create an inhospitable environment for tares that will inhibit their growth. If nothing else, they might tend to migrate to other, more comfortable churches and leave ours alone. Does this sound cynical and self-serving? Perhaps so, but it seems only realistic. We cannot discern the heart and therefore cannot know who is a pod person and who is regenerate. But we can create a climate where Pod People’s growth and influence is inhibited.
Preach, Teach and Discuss the Law
Now not everyone is in a position to formally preach the Law of God on Sunday mornings, but that is the “sacred/secular” dichotomy anyway. All of Israel was to love the Law of God, to meditate upon it, discuss it, teach it and encourage each other to obey it (cf Deut 6:4ff). Therefore, all of God’s people today have a responsibility to teach each other (Col 3:16). This is not some upper story, academic and theoretical discussion about arcane aspects of intellectual theology; but rather the practical application of Biblical principles to real life situations (Josh 1:8). This is the essence of true, Christian fellowship; gathering together for encouragement, discussing the things of God and exhorting each other to practically relate this Law to real life. Isn’t it really sad and pathetic for Christians to find the only thing they have in common is supporting a particular sports team? Isn’t true, Christian fellowship about helping each other grow in grace, humility and obedience to our Great King (Hebs 10:24-25)?
Pod people on the other hand, hate the Law because they are autonomous. They do not want to change their lives, but rather want to change the Law to justify themselves. They want to be approved by men, not God and will back down from real, life-changing application of the Law. Oh, some might like to discuss the intellectual and philosophical aspects, but they do not want to put it into practice.
Now, never forget that Pod People want to enforce THEIR law on others. Hence, pod people are by nature legalists. They have all sorts of man-made rules, regulations and proscriptions they want others to follow. This is the heresy of the Pharisees. The Pharisees were not men who loved the Law of God, but rather those who loved the traditions of men! Furthermore, they were PROUD of their adherence to man-made rules and judged everyone else by their own standards. The Christian though has liberty of conscience under God’s Law. Where God speaks, we must obey. But our gracious Lord has also given us many areas where we can make legitimate moral choices freely and responsibly under that Law. Pod People literally cannot stand such liberty, and will seek to overturn the Law of God and bind men’s consciences to their own little rules and regulations.
Thus, a church where the people KNOW the Law of God, LOVE the Law of God and encourage each other in OBEYING the Law of God is inherently hostile to pod people. Because such people know the Law, pod people cannot manipulate them with false guilt and control them. Pod people find that they cannot enforce their own will on others because the objective standards of the Law bear constant witness against them. They may sneak into weak women’s homes and deceive them (2 Tim 3:6) but over all, the truth of God’s Law is a shining light that drives them away. Usually, they will give up and seek some other, more “hospitable” church where they can control people without being interfered with.
Hold to A Confession or Some other type of Objective Doctrinal Standard
In the same way, a church that has and enforces an objective doctrinal standard is inherently inhospitable to “pod people.” Remember, the essence of the unregenerate is autonomy. The unregenerate man wants to live autonomously from God and His Word. He may say that he loves the Scriptures, but so does every cultist and heretic. What he really wants to do is use the Word of God to bolster his own claim to power and authority. When a church has an objective Confessional Standard (Such as the Westminster Confession and Catechisms), and enforces those standards, Pod People go crazy. They can no longer twist and distort the Scriptures to give their power claims the illusion of authority. They are forced to admit that their beliefs, actions and attitudes are contrary to the church’s official standards. It therefore inhibits their ability to gain unlawful power over others.
Sadly, “pod people” are devious, and in many confessional churches, proclaim their submission to the Standards, while actively subverting or ignoring them when it suits their purposes. Elders are especially commissioned and responsible for enforcing sanctions against Confessional violations, but if the pod people have infiltrated the leadership, then often, they will simply pretend the Confession does not say what it clearly says. If they can get other elders to support them, then the church is well down the road to eventual apostasy. Just having good doctrinal standards is not enough; one needs to have men of integrity and guts who are willing to enforce those Standards to keep the pod people in check.
Follow Matthew 18
Our Lord Jesus gave us a wonderful mechanism in Matthew 18 designed to preserve both the peace, and the purity of the church. The procedures of Matthew 18 confront sin, resolve personal differences and allow us to live in peace and harmony with each other. It also requires individual men to assume godly responsibility to take certain actions. Matthew 18 protects the church against gossip, slander, tale bearing and other vicious attacks of the adversary, which do more damage to her ministry than outright persecution.
But since pod people HATE God’s Law, therefore, they HATE Matthew 18. Instead of going to a brother with whom they have a problem and confronting him in private, they will go to anyone and everyone else to make their case. They will whisper, backbite, assassinate men’s characters, all to make their case and destroy their opponents. But they will not follow Matthew 18.
If you see a man who refuses to follow Matthew 18, odds are, you are dealing with a pod person. If you then go to such a person, (via Matthew 18) and lovingly confront him with the requirements watch carefully how he responds. A regenerate man will be convicted of his failure, will repent and will seek to make restitution. A pod person on the other hand will rationalize, justify, and excuse his actions. If you push him hard enough, he may even reveal his real heart; an obstinate refusal to obey Christ, which is a sure sign of an unregenerate heart. He will not follow Biblical principles for resolving conflicts because he cannot; he is still enslaved to His own will.
One of the marks of the true church is discipline and all discipline begins with Matthew 18. Churches that will not follow Matthew 18 are already horribly compromised. Matthew 18 requires personal responsibility; it is hard to go to someone with whom you have an offense and confront him. And most people today are looking for the easiest route possible. But Matthew 18 is essential for the peace and purity of the church. Pod people flock to churches weak on applying Matthew 18 because they can work in the background without interference. They can lie, cheat, break their word, undermine authority, disrupt whole households and no one will ever confront them on it.
But in churches where Matthew 18 is understood and applied, their evil deeds are exposed. They are confronted in love, privately, just in case they really are regenerate. If they do not repent, then two witnesses are called to verify every fact. If they still do not repent, their wicked deeds are to be exposed to the entire church. Pod people HATE having their evil deeds exposed. They much prefer doing their dirty work in the darkness (Eph 5:11-13). Like fungus, pod people hate the light of God’s Word being shown on their deeds, and if you and your church practice Matthew 18 consistently, they will flee to some dark, dank place where they can grow and spread their poison without interference.
Practice Church Discipline
Formal church discipline is the last actual step of Matthew 18. It is a formal declaration by the lawful authority of the church that a person is in unrepentant sin, and therefore is to be treated as a gentile and unbeliever, outside of the covenant of grace. If a man is truly regenerate, he will repent of his sin and be restored to the Church. But if his heart is unregenerate, he will continue in his rebellion.
Formal church discipline, especially excommunication is a serious thing indeed, and never to be used lightly or as a club to threaten people. Yet, sadly, church discipline today is seldom used wisely or justly. Usually, formal discipline is not used against heretics, apostates, church-splitters, backbiters and others who may well be pod people, but only against people who are obnoxious. And yes, there are some of God’s children who are hard to love sometimes. They have rough edges, they don’t relate to others quite the way we would like them to. They are sometimes a burden, and since some people are concerned only for the “peace” of the church, pressure is put on such brothers with OPD (obnoxious personality disorder) just so we can get back to holding hands for Jesus without some annoying nob making us think about things we would rather not deal with.
Churches that refuse to practice formal discipline allow pod people to breed unchecked. Even worse, when their unregenerate natures are exposed in certain recurring sins, sometimes we don’t confront because we are afraid that we might LOSE them! So many churches today are so concerned with church growth that they deliberately create an environment where pod people are welcomed and encouraged! After all, every pod person in the pew is another number on the church growth charts. The more pod people we attract, the better we look! After all, we must be doing SOMETHING right if we manage to build a huge facility and get all those warm bodies to fill it.
Conclusion
One solution that is actually quite often proffered for dealing with “pod people” is in fact no solution at all; removing oneself from the visible church. An amazing number of people are willing to excommunicate themselves from the church, because the church won’t excommunicate the pod people. This is no solution. The visible church will always have pod people within our ranks; only the Lord Jesus Himself can separate them out. All we can do is love the Law, submit to it, and help the church rediscover her true calling.
The average Christian in the pew is unaware of just how powerful his love and submission to the Law of God is to the health and effectiveness of the Church. All it takes is a few people, loving, discussing and applying the Law of God to turn a church around. If the church is past saving (i.e., has become in effect “no church” as the WCF puts it), then the few Christians left will be driven out. Praise God! After all, He is sovereign, and isn’t it a great blessing to suffer for righteousness sake (1 Ptr 2:19). However, we have the Spirit of the living God within us, filling us and empowering us. We have God’s own promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church. If more Christians would embrace the Law, meditate upon the Law and APPLY the Law in their churches, they would be amazed at how quickly the pod people would flee, the elders encouraged and the entire church be revived.
And if the pod people drive you out, why I know a great little church in eastern Washington…
Invasion of the Pod People »
Sunday, April 20th, 2008Rev. Brian M. Abshire
For the past twenty odd years (and some of them have been very odd), I have been writing and lecturing about the tragedy, futility and sheer insanity of the broad evangelical church in America. My doctoral dissertation, while on the surface a treatise on the sociological effects of Puritan theology on the formation of distinctive American cultural values, was in reality an attempt to examine academically what I saw personally every Sunday morning: the failure of modern American Evangelicalism.
My Great Miscalculation
Throughout this study, and all the years of ministering in various churches and organizations, I made a serious, but understandable miscalculation — I assumed that the real problem was ignorance; i.e., that my poor brothers suffered from a truncated and distorted view of the Christian life. If only they could be exposed to a consistent, coherent and fully Biblical worldview, then they would abandon the irrelevant mush they had been fed all their lives and adopt a more Biblical form of the Faith! Personal lives would be transformed, families reformed, the church invigorated, and maybe, just maybe, God might grant us true reformation for the nation.
And, for the past fifteen years, I have tried to find ways around the buzzwords that offend so many, break down difficult intellectual concepts into bite-sized chunks that someone without a Ph.D. could understand, and give people a taste for the ebb and flow of Christian history so they could get a “feel” for what our Reformed ancestors had accomplished. My hope was that once broad evangelical Christians discovered the power of a fully orbed Christian Faith, they would abandon their defeatist compromises with humanism and join the battle to restore Christian civilization.
And it seems, I failed as often as I succeeded. Oh, many people loved the academics, flocked to my lectures, and really seemed to love a complete Christian worldview, until they realized that something more than simply adopting a new theoretical paradigm was required. It seems that the minute that many “Christians” understood that this new worldview actually required them to change in one area or another, I went from being a hero to a bum! And lest anyone think this is just my problem, please sit down and talk with your favorite pastor, elder, writer or speaker. Repeatedly, the same message comes through: people not only hate, but will actively persecute, men who insist that we have to live in conformity with the Scriptures.
The Real Problem
I suspect, that the real problem facing the American church is not a lack of intellectual ammunition, but rather something far deeper and more serious; a lack of regenerate hearts. It is quite possible that the reason why so many “Christians” hate and fear the truth, adopt deviant theology, practice heterodox ethics and mire themselves in subjective religious experiences, is because, at rock bottom, their hearts have never been regenerated.
Think with me for a moment. Social scientists have been studying the mechanics of “conversion” for well over a century. Men are converted all the time; cults and pagan groups “convert” men to their godless religions regularly. Other men “convert” to the Communist or Nazi parties, still others to various humanistic philosophies like Darwinism or Naturalism. Men regularly “convert” from a “religious” worldview to a “secular” one: according to some studies, about 70% or more broad evangelical Christian children will do so by the age of 25. One can scientifically study the process wherein a person undergoes a life-changing experience, adopts a new worldview and develops the values, beliefs and behaviors associated with it.
Social scientists, of course, rule out a priori the supernatural; therefore, they attempt to study genuine conversions by the same methodology as they do “naturalistic” ones. Therefore, few Christians have found much interest in examining their research studies because we assume, a priori, that God does supernaturally regenerate wicked hearts. Therefore, the naturalistic mechanics are simply irrelevant because only God can convert a sinner.
However, in effect, the Christian theologian, and the secular social scientist are both correct (from a certain perspective), because they are talking about two different things. Regeneration is a change of heart, while conversion, psychologically speaking, is simply a change of the mind.
Admittedly, conversion of the heart should result in the mind’s being changed, or in Scriptural terms, “renewed” (cf. Eph 4: 23). From the heart of a man flows every other aspect of His being. Therefore, if a man’s heart is changed, so also should his beliefs, values and behaviors (cf. Eph 4:18ff). Therefore, we can and should speak about a “converted life.” But there are conversions, and there are conversions!
In other words, you can change a man’s mind, without necessarily changing his heart. Many well-known, time-tested and effective means of changing a person’s beliefs and behaviors have nothing to do with changing his inner nature; the Chinese proved that to Allied POW’s during the Korean War. Numerous 12-step programs out there do have a remarkable success record. Furthermore, over the past 150 years since the rise of revivalism, there has been a tremendous amount of practical experimentation going on inside the evangelical church to “sell” the gospel; i.e., to get men to make a profession of faith. Then, using principles of conformity behavior, modeling, etc., the church can then shape and mold a person’s external behaviors to resemble some aspects of Biblical character.
Such a “convert” may well look much like the real thing on the outside. He is a person whose social habits will mirror those of his peers. He is likely to find great personal peace and comfort from his private religious experience. He will normally live a self-controlled and respectable life just so long as the social support structures remain to keep him on the “straight and narrow.”
But, he is not really “converted,” because his heart has not been changed. He still thinks from a godless and Christless presuppositional perspective. He does not really value the things of God, nor desire the things of God, because his heart is still spiritually dead. I acknowledge that, for the most part, such a man is better off than his self-consciously consistent pagan peers. He is apt to refrain from drunkenness, immorality and vice. He is likely to hold down a job and provide for his family. Often, he is a “nice” guy (which many people confuse with being godly). But the essence of his life is still his own subjective, religious experience, not submission to Almighty God.
The Reason for the Apostasy
Now, here is the hypothesis for investigation: what if over the past 150 years, especially since the great Baptist and Methodist revivals overturned the Reformed consensus in this country, legions of these unregenerate men have entered the church? Disguised as sheep, they are really goats. Would this not help greatly to understand the widespread apostasy so common in broad Evangelicalism? Think about this: in the opening decades of the twentieth century, every mainline denomination apostatized into heresy by adopting theological liberalism. How could so many different churches, from so many different backgrounds and theological perspectives all go wrong within just a short time, unless their members were in fact largely unregenerate?
While we cannot read a man’s heart, we can read his fruit; Jesus was quite specific here — bad trees produce bad fruit (Mt. 7:17-22). Good trees produce good fruit. Therefore, “by their fruits you will know them.” And sadly, the modern American evangelical church has produced some fairly nasty fruit over the past 100 years. The most successful churches seem to be the ones most willing to compromise on Biblical truth by offering a “threat-free” gospel. Immorality runs rampant through many evangelical churches (quietly covered up or ignored by most evangelicals). Many, many, “Christians” hate and fear the Law of God with an unholy passion and are willing to lie, cheat, pervert justice, slander and destroy those with whom they disagree. Too many “Christian” men are spiritual wimps dominated by shrill, acerbic and vicious women, who tear churches apart with frightening regularity.
Let me suggest that these people are not Christians, no matter how “orthodox” their profession may be. They are pod people, like in those cheesy old 50’s movies, where aliens look like, talk like and act like human beings, but are really something nasty and sinister. They are among us, they fellowship with us, sometimes they preach from our pulpits, teach in our seminaries and serve on our elder boards. And the pod people threaten the stability, prosperity and future of the church.
I would argue that the key to spotting pod people is whether they really love and obey God’s Law (cf. Jn 14:15, 21, 1 Jn 3:24, etc.). For example, social pressure may keep a man from adultery, theft or murder; but how about those sins that are almost universally practiced in the average church? What about those who gossip, slander, backbite, whisper and bear false witness? Scripture says that they are just as likely to be pod people, as the humanist, the fornicator and the apostate (cf. Rom. 1:28-32, 2 Tim. 3:1-5, etc.). Of course, all Christians sin, but if the Spirit of God has regenerated a person’s heart, then he will repent of that sin. He will not justify, rationalize or deny; he will repent and take the proper corrective action. But these sins go unrebuked, every day, in churches all across America.
And thus, the pod people continue to tear apart the Church of Christ with lies, slander, innuendo, creating divisions, factions and schisms. We are so busy dealing with the mess they make of the church that we have no time left for evangelism, discipleship, restoring marriages and families, and doing the work of the ministry. If the church is to survive, flourish and disciple the nations, we will have to start by cleaning out the pod people.
Position Paper On Voting Requirements in Presbyterian Churches »
Sunday, April 20th, 2008Rev. Brian M. Abshire
A fundamental problem that afflicts confessional churches concerns the issue of voting membership. Members have to elect officers, ruling elders, and as occasion demands, teaching elders to rule over them. The problem arises because elders are held to a different standard than the average member of the congregation. Elders must subscribe, by oath, to the confessional standards of the church. Voting members, usually, do not.
Hence the difficulty is that in growing churches, the voting members must chose men to rule over them according to a confessional standard that they themselves may neither understand nor necessarily accept. Granted, the problem is not always this severe, but there is a tendency for men to acquire teachers who will “tickle their ears” (2 Tim 4:3). And over time, the less committed the congregation is to Reformed doctrine and polity, the less likely they are to recognize truly Reformed elders from those who are weak on doctrinal issues. Thus over time, a vicious cycle can set in wherein the church becomes increasingly less Reformed as the members fail to call men with the right qualifications. A weak congregation calls weak elders, who are then ill equipped to teach the congregation, resulting in less and less commitment to Reformed distinctives.
Gary North in his important book on the loss the Northern Presbyterian Church to liberalism (”Crossed Fingers”) suggests that Presbyterian churches should have a two-tiered membership. There is a general membership, based upon a simple profession of faith in Christ and subscription to one of the ecumenical creeds of the church (such as the Apostles’, Nicene, etc.). These simple creeds contain all the basic elements of Christian orthodoxy and do not tax a new believer with philosophical and theological concepts that might be too difficult for him to understand. Such members are under the discipline and government of the church, admitted to the sacraments, etc., but are not allowed to vote.
The second tier of church membership is composed of those who have been instructed in the confessional standards of the church, understand the doctrine, theology and polity of historic Presbyterianism and take a vow that they will live and operate under those doctrinal standards. These individuals are the only ones allowed permitted to vote to elect elders (or in other church business).
Now while I am not known as Gary North’s biggest fan (see my essay, “Shootout at the Y2K Corral”) his approach has much to recommend it. The responsibility of choosing elders would fall on those who affirm and adopt the same doctrinal standards to which the elders themselves are to be held accountable. Hence, both elders and voters are under the same covenant obligations and sanctions. This would inhibit placing unqualified men in positions of responsibility over the church and leading the church into error. This process would also force the church to increase its level of theological understanding. There would be incentive to study the scriptures and confessions of the church in order to participate in choosing elders. It would appear that everyone would benefit.
However, the issue is not whether it is pragmatic, but whether we have a specific Biblical warrant for making this kind of distinction between church members. For some, a specific warrant is not necessarily required since the Confession itself allows that there are some aspects of church government that are open to the light of human reason and good order. Perhaps, this two-tiered approach falls into this category.
However, for many convinced Presbyterians, something as central as “who may vote in electing officers” is NOT just something to be worked out by the light of nature or reason. It is too important, to central to the wellbeing of the church. Hence, the need for a specific Biblical warrant becomes of paramount importance. What does the Bible actually require?
Old Covenant Church Precedent
Fundamentally, our concept of church government is a natural outgrowth and logical development of the system of government used by God to govern Israel, both in church and state. Moses had the people choose judges, over ten’s, fifties, etc., which he then confirmed. This rule by elders eventually resulted in the Sanhedron (or council of seventy) ruling over the civil aspects of the nation, but there were also elders over the priesthood as well. Thus, we have divine precedent for the most fundamental aspect of Presbyterian government, i.e., ascending courts composed of elders chosen by the people.
But notice this, the people were ALL under the same law and doctrine. They were voluntarily submitted to the Law of God. There was not one law or doctrine for the elders and another for the people. But rather, elders were to be chosen out of the people COMMITTED to the Law.
Thus, there is at least one aspect of North’s idea that has some Biblical precedent; the people have to be under the same covenant obligations and sanctions as the people they elect to govern them. The argument then proceeds to whether there is another class of people, included in the covenant, but excluded from certain aspects of it.
There is at least one such a category in the Law. When pagans came to faith and converted, they were excluded from certain aspects of the covenant community for ten generations. They were members of the covenant, under the obligations of the covenant, received all the blessings of the covenant, but were not allowed certain privileges of the covenant. Therefore, there IS at least one Scriptural example of a two-tiered membership within the covenant community.
Now whether or not this can be applied to the church remains yet to be seen. No direct statement in the New Testament applies this procedure to new converts (i.e., believing Jews were in one category and converted Gentiles in another). To the contrary, the emphasis in the New Testament is on the unity of Jew and Gentile believers. However, notice please that even in the pleas for the unity of the faith, there is still recognition that there are distinctions. Some people ate meat sacrificed to idols; others did not. Some kept holy days; others did not. There was to be a certain degree of toleration on some matters of conscience (cf. Rms 14:1ff). So even in our unity, there was recognition of diversity.
Taking a different tack for a moment, there IS a category of members in our churches who are given ALL the blessings of the covenant, but not entrusted with all the RESPONSIBILITIES of the covenant; our covenant children. We presume them to be among the elect (until they prove otherwise). We give them baptism. We catechize and instruct them, but normally speaking we do not give them voting privileges in the church (granted, to be consistent with both the Scriptures AND our Reformed heritage, only heads of households should vote anyway). But the point is before Presbyterian churches allow children to vote, they must pass certain tests to be “confirmed” as members, admitted to the Lord’s Table and must reach a certain age. Even if we do hold to voting by covenant heads of households, then still children are excluded from voting until they set up their own households. (Furthermore, in this case, godly wives and covenant children are admitted to the sacraments but cannot directly vote on church business).
Why then can we not consider “baby” Christians in the same way? They are babes in that they do not yet understand or necessarily accept sound doctrine (cf. Hebrews 5:11-14). Even if they are 70 years old, perhaps they have been in antinomian, arminian or dispensational churches where they have been starved for solid teaching. Regardless of their physical age, they have a child’s understanding of the faith. Therefore, though they can be members and under the care and government of the church, just like children they are not yet to be entrusted with all the responsibilities of members of the church until they can demonstrate a maturity of understanding.
Obviously, just as we endeavor to teach, train and educate our covenant children, we can and must seek to bring such brethren to a consistently Reformed world and life-view. But that takes time, and until they are ready to assume all the responsibilities of covenant membership, they should not be entrusted with all the duties thereof.
However, going back to our original question, the above may be consistent with our historical Presbyterian practice, but is there any Biblical mandate for doing this? For example, in Acts 6, the people are called to elect at least one type of church officer, the diaconate (though some dispute that these men were deacons since their duties do not precisely match up with our practices today). When a dispute arose about the distribution of food, the Apostles instructed the people to “select from among you, brethren, seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task.”
Now several interesting aspects to this decision have direct bearing on our present discussion. First, there is no mention of the Apostles asking for or receiving special revelation about this issue. While arguments from silence are always suspect, the text seems to imply that the Apostles were presented with a problem, and then simply gave a solution. It may well be that they did not NEED special revelation, but simply referred back to the leadership principle of Moses by having the people chose men from among themselves. This would certainly be consistent. If leaders were to be chosen from among the people (as were the judges, Saul, David and even Solomon), then it would certainly be the natural pattern that when faced with a leadership need, that the Apostles would use a similar method.
Secondly, notice that the people CHOSE, but the Apostles ordained; i.e., “whom WE may put in charge of this task…” Hence, this was NOT a pure democracy. The Apostles held genuine spiritual power and authority and DELEGATED that authority.
Thirdly, notice the difference between the way that deacons were chosen in Acts 6, and the way that elders are established in the pastoral epistles of Paul. The congregation chose deacons, but elders were APPOINTED by either Apostles or apostolic representatives. Titus was instructed to “appoint elders in every city as I directed you.” In other words, contrary to our historic Presbyterian practices, it certainly appears that elders were NOT chosen by the people, but appointed by a higher authority.
Now unless we want to go back to Episcopalism, concerned Presbyterians must interact with the implications of Paul’s instruction. Certainly, the people chose deacons (who also preached and baptized) in Acts six, but had elders appointed over them by Titus (and presumably Timothy). What was going on here?
Now it could be argued because of covenantal continuity that the method of selecting elders was a priori based on the Old Testament model where the people chose, but Moses confirmed. This happened as well in Acts 6; the people chose, but the Apostles ordained. Therefore, we should simply understand Paul’s words here to mean something like, “examine the candidates the churches chose and confirm those who meet the following qualifications…”
However, to find this in the text, we must first assume what we are trying to prove. It may be just as legitimate to say that the two processes are different in Acts and Titus because the two situations are different. In other words, there is a difference between the levels of spiritual maturity between the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and the pagan converts in Ephesus, Crete, Greece, etc. Jewish Christians, trained from childhood in the faith, understood that Jesus was the fulfillment of all the Old Testament shadows, types, signs and symbols. They therefore had a theological head start over their pagan peers. Because the degree of theological understanding was greater, then they could have been even greater freedom and responsibility.
Notice that in the book of Acts, elders are already present (cf. Acts 15 where the elders and apostles meet together to decide on the problem with the Christian Pharisees) but there is NO record of how certain men BECAME elders. We CAN assume that the early church naturally followed the process of Moses, but it is not present in the actual text, apart from the selection process for deacons.
But we DO have explicit instruction from Paul that Titus was to “appoint” elders. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the difference between Acts 6 and Titus 1:5 was the degree of spiritual maturity amongst the two groups. The Gentile churches were not yet sufficiently mature in either their understanding, or their practice of the Christian faith to reliably choose who would rule over them. Hence, the Apostles (or apostolic representatives) chose elders for them.
Think about this, in modern Presbyterianism, the Presbytery recruits and empowers a man to start a new work. If he is given the powers of an evangelist, he is authorized to take people into membership. If not, potential members must be examined by Presbytery. Regardless, before the church can become particularized, the Pastor must recruit, train and prepare some men for eldership. The Presbytery examines such men and approves them. Then and only then, can the church vote on such men to be their elders.
But notice that UNTIL the church is particularized, that we have a de facto two-tired membership. The church CANNOT vote on elders, until the candidates have been examined by Presbytery. They cannot call a man to be a pastor, UNTIL they are given the authority to do so by Presbytery. Their responsibilities are limited, until certain qualifications are met; i.e., they have a pool of qualified men who have met the doctrinal and character standards we set. In other words, our actual practice is NOT all that different from what may have happened during Paul’s ministry.
Hence, there is both some Biblical warrant and historic Presbyterian precedent for a two-tiered membership, i.e., those who can sincerely adopt the churches Confession and those who for whatever reasons, are not yet ready to do so.
An Alternative Solution
However, some may argue that rather than have a two-tiered membership, why not require ALL the members of a church to subscribe to the Church’s confession and standards? After all, we receive the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms just because we believe them to be reliable and accurate summaries of the Bible’s own teaching. Therefore, when a person comes to faith in Christ, or wants to join our church, our confession and catechisms ought not to be optional for they are the Bible’s own message.
The problem of course is that not all men understand or believe everything in the Confession and Catechisms (sadly, not all elders believe these things either, but that is a different topic). If a person confesses faith in Christ, has been baptized, does he not belong to Christ, despite imperfections in his theology? And if he belongs to Christ, does he not have the right to belong to one of Christ’s churches? Where do we get the right to exclude a person from membership simply because he either does not understand or even if he disagrees with us on certain issues (cf. Rms 14: 1 again). And if we do allow him to become a member of the congregation, does he not have the right to participate in choosing the elders who will rule over him?
But that brings us right back to the practical question with which we began. If a church has a significant number of members who do not believe the doctrinal standards of the church, it is inevitable that they will move the church, over time to their doctrinal position. Hence, they will become increasingly less and less reformed.
One can argue that a person who does not believe in the historic Reformed faith, is implicitly under another law. The people of Israel COULD choose their own judges and elders BECAUSE they held to a common confession. Therefore, it IS Biblical to require people to submit to the government and doctrine of the church in order to be members. In other words, the membership vows they take MUST require that they will affirm the church’s confession, and if later they come to believe differently, they must make their change known and be held accountable, just as every elder is.
Granted, a person may not always understand all the implications of the Reformed faith when they join a Reformed church. It is our job to teach them. But might they not be allowed to join that church if they are willing to be governed and taught by that standard? And if they come to believe otherwise, if they are not convinced of election, covenant Baptism or any other Reformed distinctive, then let them be men of integrity, announce their beliefs and find a fellowship that is more compatible.
However, the reality is, that people are often NOT men of integrity. They will give lip service to a belief due to peer pressure, personal advancement, etc. There may be no practical way to weed such people out because we cannot read the human heart. In fact, we are forbidden to do so. Such things belong only to God. But the fact is that people may SAY they are willing to believe something, then later on, deny those things and not be open and honest about it (do we not have the same problem with some elders?).
If a person comes to membership, and we want to be honest with them, then before we admit him we ought to give him SOME understanding of what he is getting himself into. Therefore, we often have some kind of instructional class where the Reformed faith is taught. However, technically speaking, such a person is excluded from the sacraments because they are yet not members of an evangelical church (unless we are willing to change this requirement). Hence, their children cannot be baptized, they cannot take the Lord’s Supper and are technically not a member of the covenant community UNTIL they have finished the class.
Furthermore, since we do not unreasonably want to exclude such people from the sacraments any longer than necessary, we usually make the class as simple and superficial as possible. But the reality is that you cannot cram a lifetime’s education into a 10-week course. If we think we can, we simply cheapen the faith and give people a false sense of security.
Therefore, educating a person BEFORE we allow him to become a member, while better than nothing, is no solution in the long term. He still does not know or understand what he needs to know and understand in order to make wise decisions about who will rule over him. He will then likely still make less than optimal decisions and likely lessen the church’s commitment to the Reformed faith.
Conclusion
Therefore, I would suggest that we do have a precedent in Scripture in the way that Gentile churches were governed by having elders appointed over them, and historic Presbyterian precedent in the way we handle our own covenant children. Both groups are real members of the church, without all the adult responsibilities. Those who come to our churches, but do not understand the Reformed faith, or necessarily accept it, are in the same category as covenant children. They need to be taught, encouraged, loved, accepted and ministered to. They can still be members of the covenant community, just not given all the responsibilities of the covenant community.
How to Start A Bible Study that Works »
Sunday, April 20th, 2008Rev. Brian M. Abshire
We’ve all been to them. And suffered in them. And wondered whether they were really worth the time or trouble to go to them. We’re talking about Bible studies. Over the twenty years of my own professional ministry, I have started, led, organized and participated in hundreds of Bible studies. Furthermore, before I ever received my call to the ministry, I attended Bible studies led by Navigators, Campus Crusade, local churches, Christian Serviceman’s centers, etc. In fact, I suspect that my experience was not unlike that of many other Christians. Bible studies were a fact of life. Christians went to church on Sundays and Bible studies during the week. I know some brothers who were Bible study junkies, going to different studies every night. It almost seems sometimes that for evangelical Christians, Bible studies are the equivalent of pagans meeting in a bar; i.e., it provides the context for the most basic human desire to belong to a group.
The problem of course, is that all to often, Bible studies never actually did what their name implies; i.e., study the Bible. To the contrary, usually, they are the “share your ignorance” type where no one comes prepared, and everyone shares his opinion and nobody has the authority to make a decision or resolve a dispute. Part of the problem is undoubtedly leadership, most Bible study leaders know little more than the people they are leading. All they know comes in the little “leaders” book. One leader’s manual I once used actually stated, “the process of thinking through an issue is more important than the conclusion reached.” Heresy! But what do you expect from people who do not have a clue on sound doctrine?
Secondly, usually, no one wants to do any work. If you want to run everyone out of a Bible study, just require homework. Yup, that’s right, just make people actually PREPARE for Bible study by actually looking at the passage before they come to class and people will drop like flies. Let’s face facts, most of us are pretty lazy and need a strong incentive to do additional work. Therefore, adding the requirement to actually read a passage of Scripture, work through the grammar, syntax and theological implications is often just too hard and there are too many other demands on our time.
Thirdly, most Bible studies are actually fertile ground for heresy. Since no one is prepared, and everyone’s opinion is just as valid as anyone else’s, the weirdest sorts of doctrines start springing up at the drop of a hat. And once someone spouts a heresy, how do you gently correct him without offending him?
Fourthly, most Bible studies destroy the covenant community because women of course MUST be allowed to participate, and most women in America are more verbal and articulate than their husbands. And women, generally speaking (with exceptions noted) want to RELATE rather than reason. The kind of verbal give and take as men wrestle with the meaning of a text is foreign to them. A man can be proven wrong on an interpretation of a text, with no hard feelings. However, many times a woman will see disagreeing with her ideas as a direct attack on her worth as a person. Furthermore, she does not like people arguing about things and wants to make peace, seeking to find some compromise position. Add this to the tendency to heresy and you have a mix destined for disaster. Furthermore, if the leader has to correct a man’s wife, and she becomes offended, he now must come to her defense… Arrgh!
The Root Problem
As a result of these and other reasons, I gave up on Bible studies years ago. They simply did not work. I could not in good conscience allow heresy to flourish, it had to be squelched but I could never find a mechanism to do it without risking serious offense. I could not let women take over the study but I did not want to offend other men by correcting their wives. Bible studies, for all their high esteem in Christian circles, just did not seem like a good option.
However, as time went on I realized that the problem was that we had the right idea, but the wrong format. Self-governed men OUGHT to be able to meet to discuss the law. That’s what the elders used to do in the city gates. They would meet, discuss the law and apply it to their local situation. In fact, they were doing Bible studies. The studies were not academic, intellectual or primarily social, but practical. So how can we do what they did without all the attendant vices of modern evangelicalism?
First, I discovered that the proper place for teaching women and children were not in “Bible Studies” but in the home. Every man who is the head of a household has a responsibility to lead his family in daily worship, catechize his children and teach the Scriptures to his family. Most of the problems associated with “Bible Studies” were in fact, a problem because I was trying to do the job that the husband was supposed to do. So, instead of supplanting the husband, I began encouraging them in family worship. Each day, the head of the household met in secret worship, praying, reading the Scriptures, etc. Then he led his family in family worship, teaching his entire family. Finally, the Dad took responsibility of catechizing the children which meant the kids were getting a first class theological education. Guess what, whether he realized it or not, every man began doing his homework! By teaching his children sound theology in catechism, he was also teaching himself! By reading the Scriptures privately and in family worship, he was becoming familiar with them himself! The key it seemed to getting men into the Scriptures was NOT have a small group in the church, but in have a small group IN THE HOME! Wow, what a concept!
But these men do need to know more than their families if they are going to lead them. So, I junked the idea of small groups and went instead to training the fathers once a week. Yup, just men. No women allowed. The men, if they are going to be men, need to be taught by men, exhorted by men, trained by men to think and act as godly men. It is their job to teach their wives and children. It is my job to teach them. It is not that the women are unimportant. To the contrary, they too are joint heirs and have the right to the Scriptures. But the person who has PRIMARY responsibility to teach them is their husbands and fathers. I can best serve the women in my church, by giving them husbands who understand the Word of God, love it, study it and can make it work in their homes.
Sure, women need fellowship just like the men. And we provide it. While the men retire to my office for Bible study, the wives and daughters meet together and teach each other domestic skills. The older women teach the younger women how to love their husbands and children, be workers at home, sensible, pure, etc. (Titus 2:5ff). If they have questions about theology, doctrine, or the application of Scripture, they now turn in confidence to their husbands who are being equipped to provide the answers (1 Cor 14:34). Now this is not going to win us any feminist awards and most broad evangelical women will be out-raged but I am happy letting them argue with God.
Going back to the men, since this is not a democracy where everyone’s opinion is equal to everyone else’s, I also stopped the “share your ignorance” format. Instead, I lecture. After all, that’s my job. As a pastor, I am SUPPOSED to be the one with the training, gifts, calling and ability to teach the Word. That’s what they pay me for! So now, I teach. I abandoned the “encounter group” mentality that was all the rage in the seventies where everyone comes together and shares what’s meaningful to them, and instead do what I am called to do. I teach. The men listen.
We have the Westminster Standards that contain the best summary yet developed of Bible doctrine and I teach the men those standards and their Biblical basis. Now of course, effective teaching demands interaction and so as a part of the teaching process, I ask questions, hard questions. I try to make our men think. We have wonderful arguments (never combative) where I play “devil’s advocate” intentionally asserting ridiculous and foolish arguments (often culled from broad evangelical books and articles) and make the guys beat them down. The men therefore wrestle with both the meaning of Scriptures and common misunderstandings about them. They work through the implications of sound theology. And we ALWAYS bring it home with practical applications.
The men love it! It is rough and ready, sometimes heated, but never acrimonious study reminding me of a Big Time Wrestling Match where all the grunts and groans are scripted in. Women would hate it! But we are committed to helping each other become the men God wants us to be. Military basic training is no one’s idea of a summer camp. It is HARD! But it is also necessary. And men look back with pride at the adversity they faced the challenges they met the goals they achieved. And as a result of our tough and tumble men’s study, every man is now more convinced than ever of the need for secret worship every day, mastering the content of Scripture, and the importance of teaching them to their families.
How to Start Such A Study
Sadly, there is no quick fix. Once I understood my calling as a pastor, I also saw that not everyone could do what I do. I cannot fix computers, drive a nail straight, perform heart surgery, add a column of figures (and get the same answer twice in a row!) or a million and one other skills that men in our study do every day as a part of their calling. I cannot do these things because they are not my calling. And therefore, why should I expect other men to do mine? Therefore, a Bible study that works first has to have a leader with the calling. There is no short cut around this. If EVERYONE could lead a Bible study, then there would be no need for elders. But God does call some men to be elders and they have a job to do that no one else can do (Jas 3:1ff).
The Importance of Fellowship
One crucial element of a Bible study that works is fellowship. We ARE relational creatures. We do need each other. There is a great joy in being part of a like-minded group of men who share the same values, are growing in wisdom and discernment, etc. I would argue that the real appeal of having traditional Bible studies is the opportunity it gives people just to enjoy fellowship. In fact, they way they are structured is deliberately intended to foster relationships (hence the de-emphasis on doctrine because doctrine can be so divisive).
However, you can have the benefits of fellowship, without having to sacrifice sound doctrine. Our men’s study not only concentrates on teaching sound doctrine, but also intentionally provides a social matrix where godly relationships can be formed. We are unapologetic that one of the primary purposes is to provide men with the fellowship of other men. So, unlike teaching a course in college or seminary where a certain amount of material must be covered by a certain date, we hang just a bit loose. It is OK if the discussion wanders a bit off the track as men take the principles and start trying to work them out in other areas. I may be a leader, but I certainly do not know every aspect of men’s lives that God is working on. So it is no big deal if in our discussion on the implications of the providence of God, someone goes off track. We have great fellowship (and the men often do not leave until way after my personal bed-time).
But don’t our wives and children need the same kind of fellowship? Of course they do. Part of this need is met with our women’s domestic skills class (and we also do something similar with the boys occasionally). But more importantly, as a church we meet together regularly for Pot-Providence fellowship dinners every month all day Sunday. We encourage families to open their homes and invite people in for fellowship. We have quarterly all church fellowships (but guess what, at our all-church functions, invariably the women congregate in one area while the men drift to another. The women talk about relationships, and feelings and other icky stuff while the men usually end up discussing politics, guns and theology. Go figure).
Obviously, a vital feature of any church is rich, warm, fellowship. Church ought to be a place where people really do feel as if they belong to a covenant community. But the key is teaching people to open their homes to others. Invite people in. Share a meal. Go for a walk. You do not have to baptize such fellowship with a “Bible study” that never studies the Bible to enjoy just this kind of fellowship. Instead, have someone over for dinner. Do family worship together (great way to teach people who have never seen it done before). Go on camping trips together. Go for a walk in the park. Whatever! The fact is that the self-governed man ought not to need a bureaucracy in the church to manage his social life! Just take personal responsibility!
In fact, I might even argue that often, when good men try to get good Bible studies going, and they fail, the reason might well be the lack of fellowship. Men want to belong to a group. If they do not feel like they belong, then they will have no incentive to continue. Simply by each household taking personal responsibility to open their homes, invite people in and just spending some time together, can do wonders for building a sense of unity, camaraderie and fellowship.
Conclusion
First, if the purpose of a Bible study is to better understand God’s word, make your focus on real teaching, rather than simply swapping opinions.
Secondly, since not every man is called to be a teacher (Jas 3:1) don’t try to be what you are not. Instead, use another resource. There are tons of good tapes, books, articles, etc., available (and of course, hopefully that is one reason for our web-site!)
Thirdly, restrict the study to men and avoid the problem of undercutting another man’s head-ship. Do not be afraid of strong men, with strong opinions meeting and interacting. Make it your stated purpose to encourage each other to be the kind of men God wants you to be.
Fourth, gather at a convenient time and place using a good book or tape to provide the content. Sunday night is a good time, or Saturday morning or evening mid-week. There are no rules here. Just pick a time and stick with it.
Fifth, develop a good series of study questions. We do this for our people at RHC but there is no reason why you cannot design questions based on the material that are better suited for your situation. Do not be afraid to encourage frank and open discussion. Don’t be afraid if the men act like men and the testosterone level sometimes gets a little high. Obviously there are specific behaviors forbidden by Scripture, but let men, be men.
Sixth, make sure that you open your home and spend time together doing things other than just Bible study. Invite others into your home on a regular basis. Do common family worship occasionally. Enjoy lots of fun activities. Try to get to know people so you can minister to them.
Finally, learn to lighten up and enjoy people. Our God is a gracious God. Our commitment to His immutable truth should never blind us to the fact that we need each other. Teach the law, discuss the law, apply the law. But never forget that the summary of the Law is to love God and one another.
Evangelism in the Early Church »
Sunday, April 20th, 2008Some Necessary ConsequencesRev. Brian M Abshire
The Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20 is often summarized as the Lord Jesus’ final marching orders to His church. In one of the last specific commandments given to the Disciples, He recapitulates the Dominion Mandate of Genesis 1:26, demonstrating that the Gospel is the means by which the earth is to be subdued as the nations are discipled. The Book of Acts continues the ministry of the Lord Jesus through His Holy Spirit in His church and as such has much to say about HOW He intends to fulfill His Great Commission to disciple the nations.
The issue of “how” is significant. Granted, the Apostles were given miraculous powers such as healing, prophecy and even the ability to raise the dead as a means of authenticating their message. And indeed, God raised up powerful evangelists such as Peter, Paul, Stephen, Philip, and others who proclaimed the message. True, God specifically entrusted certain duties in the church to Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists and Pastor/Teachers. But an examination of Acts reveals that there was more going on, under the surface so to speak that illustrates the phenomenal evangelistic growth that turned the ancient world upside down.
In addition to the normal evangelistic endeavors of the Apostles and their associates, one of the primary methods of early evangelism in the early church was through household ministry; i.e., through individual families sharing the gospel of Christ with friends, families and neighbors. While the book of Acts itself concentrates on the evangelistic efforts of the Apostles, household ministry can be shown to be a necessary consequence of their ministry, undergirding and supporting it. In fact, it is likely that the majority of converts to faith in Christ, were not the direct result of Apostolic evangelism itself, but rather as a “snow-ball” effect; i.e., the Apostles reached certain people, who then reached others, who reached others, etc. Several lines of evidence will be used to support this proposition.
House-churches and Evangelism:
It is unlikely that the ancient church was structured exactly as ours are today. In the first century, the initial outreach of the gospel was within the synagogues. As Christians were driven out of the synagogues, they usually met in homes with wealthy families opening their homes for worship (e.g., Rms 16:1, Col 4:14, Phlm 2. etc.). There is no good evidence that the first century Church engaged in building meeting facilities. Especially during times of persecution, church buildings would have been primary targets for assault. Hence, in a particular city, Christians would meet together in various homes. The size of a home necessarily limits the number of people who could have been present at any one meeting. Sheer limits on facility space meant that in any given city, there would have been little opportunity for ALL the Christians to meet in the same place at the same time.
Now this does NOT mean that there was not ONE church in a particular city. It is clear from Acts 4:36-37 that the Church Jerusalem for example recognized some sort of unity. Land was sold and given to the Church for the ministry of the widows. Obviously therefore there was some sort of over-arching sense of community. However, though there was ONE church, that church would have had to meet in a variety of locations. This is clear from Acts 5:42, “and every day in the temple and from house to house, they kept right on teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ. (Acts 5:42)” Now it is possible that the Apostles here were just doing door to door evangelism. It is possible that they were doing what we call “pastoral visitation.” But neither option best fits the context. The Apostles were preaching. It is hard to imagine that they thought that door to door evangelism was the most effective use of their time, when people were crowding around them to touch them, be healed, etc. In the same way, pastoral visitation, a necessary and important function, is not essentially “preaching.”
Instead, it would seem likely that the Church was spread out through the city likely because there was no one place that the entire church could meet. Therefore, as a part of their ministry, it is possible that the Apostles ministered in various smaller house churches as a part of their larger ministry to the entire church.
Hence, already in place in Jerusalem, within just a few weeks of Pentecost, there was both ONE church, yet meeting in a variety of locations. Households in the ancient world were much larger than modern ones. Families were larger, and wealthier ones had servants who also had children. It is therefore likely that two or three households in the first century would have as many members as the average size evangelical church in America today (about 75). Thus, it certainly would have been worth the Apostle’s time and trouble to minister to these “house” churches throughout the city, some being larger, some smaller. It is also likely that people became associated with a congregation that was within a Sabbath day’s walk of their own home (a necessary consequence of living in first century Israel).
Now, to be fair, these house “churches” did not operate like modern churches. For example, there is no evidence that initially each house church had its own pastor, or deacons, etc. In Acts chapter six, seven men are chosen for the entire church, which easily numbered in the thousands. Yet, it is significant that at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, both Apostles and Elders of the church meet to consider the issue of whether or not gentile converts had to be circumcised (Acts 15:2). By this time in the church’s development, there were operational elders exercising leadership in the church. It is not a stretch to think that just as Moses had ordered Israel by placing an elder over every ten households, that the church in Jerusalem might have eventually been arranged in the same way. One church, many locations.
But our point here is that with thousands of members, the church had a very small “staff.” Seven men had responsibility to take care of the widows, but initially (at least until Acts 15) no pastors. There were only twelve apostles who were restricted by facility space and distance by how many people they could minister to at any given time (remember Jesus had to preach in the mountains to get enough space for his sermons). Now granted, Jerusalem in New Testament times was not a great modern metropolis. It probably measured less than fifteen hundred meters by a thousand meters in the city center. It was not impossible for the Apostles to travel about preaching at various locations. But it is also clear that the church lacked the kind of organization most people take for granted today. Apart from the diaconal work for widows, it would appear that individual households had to have taken personal responsibility to minister to people. Granted, at this point we can say no more than those households may have invited their friends, neighbors and family to come hear Peter, John, etc., preach. But the premise is laid out; small congregations scattered throughout a community with a limited ecclesiastical structure.
Furthermore, Jerusalem was a special situation. Until persecution drove them out, the early church lived in a hothouse environment. Jerusalem in the first few years of the church must have appeared to be a little like heaven. Here were the Apostles who knew the Lord Jesus personally and could talk about Him (what would we give to know more intimate details about the Lord Jesus). Here were probably gathered in one place the most powerful preachers in history! What they did not know by training, they might have learned through special revelation! But this situation was temporary and unique (as noted by their decision to hold everything in common. The Apostles were undoubtedly warned Jerusalem Christians that God was going to destroy the city. Therefore, they had to sell up their property before God destroyed it all anyway).
Antioch and Beyond
A more “normal” church situation would have been found in other cities. For example, three thousand people were converted at Pentecost. Many of these people came from cities all over the Empire. A significant number of these people would have stayed in Jerusalem as long as possible. But an even greater number would have been forced by finances and domestic responsibilities to return home. Hence, the first great wave of evangelism after Pentecost (fulfilling Acts 1:8) going into the Roman world would have been through these converts returning home with the gospel. Thus one finds a growing, dynamic and flourishing church in Antioch but NO mention of the Apostle who founded it. How did the gospel get from Jerusalem to Antioch in such a short time? Granted, many of the Christians at Antioch might have been refugees from Jerusalem when persecution broke out. But more likely, Nicholas one of the original seven deacons, was a proselyte from Antioch. Nicholas was likely a gentile convert to Judaism who then realized that Jesus was the promised Messiah when he heard the gospel at Pentecost. He may have settled in Jerusalem, but he undoubtedly had contacts back in Antioch, friends and families with whom he would have shared. Thus, the ground may have been already broken quite early.
However, we know from Acts 11 exactly how the church in Antioch started. “Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. 20And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. 21And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord. 22Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch…”
Notice what happened here. A general persecution begins after Stephen is executed. Who was scattered here might be open to question (was it just Christians in general, or the Apostles and church leaders?). But the “who” is not so important as the “how.” The gospel was preached to just the Jews initially. But some of those Jews were from Phoenicia and Cyprus, who in turned, shared the gospel with the Grecians at Antioch. There is no mention of the Apostles here, or evangelists. It was average, run of the mill type folks, who shared one with another. We know that this was NOT an Apostolic enterprise because when the church in Jerusalem heard about Antioch, they sent Barnabus to investigate. If they had started the work, why send someone up to see what was going on? This passage is crucial because it demonstrates a powerful evangelistic dynamic; it was NOT just Apostolic preaching, or associated evangelists who spread the gospel, but rather individual Christians sharing their faith whenever and where-ever they found opportunity.
Thus sharing the gospel was not being purely the purview of the church leadership, i.e., pastors, evangelists, deacons, etc. Clearly individual Christians were taking personal responsibility to spread the Word, and God was richly blessing their activities. While the Apostles stayed cooped up in Jerusalem, the Great Commission was being fulfilled through God’s people. In other words, what we conjectured might be happening in Jerusalem (individual believers sharing their faith and thus adding to the church) we now know DID happen in Antioch. The church in Antioch was begun, maintained, and grew through individual households sharing the gospel. Now granted, the Christians in Antioch were not to be left to their own devices; that’s why the church in Jerusalem sent Barnabus. He and others ministered to them, taught them, instructed them, etc. Not for a moment are we trying to undermine church authority or the need for sound preaching. We are simply showing that evangelism came, not just by the ministries of certain gifted men, but to the contrary, outside of Jerusalem, PRIMARILY through individual Christian households.
Therefore, since we see this dynamic so clearly in Antioch, it is not unreasonable to assume that this same principle was at work with all the Christians at Pentecost who returned home. Antioch might have been the most successful, but in every place where Christians returned, it is likely that they shared their new faith whenever and whereever possible. Hence, as important as the Apostolic witness and the work of various evangelists were, they would have found the way prepared before hand by laymen.
Paul and Beyond
The Apostle Paul is normally considered the “Apostle to the Gentiles” for his work in bringing the gospel to Asia Minor and Greece. Yet, his most famous book, “Romans” was written to Christians in the Imperial City, Christians he had never met. There was a growing, dynamic church in Rome to whom Paul wrote in preparation for his intended missionary work in Spain. Question; who started the church in Rome? Roman Catholic prejudices aside, there was already a church there when Peter arrived. The gospel had already penetrated to Caesar’s own guard! The simple answer is that the Roman church was founded by converts from Pentecost who returned home, shared the gospel and laid the foundation for Peter and Paul’s work later on.
In fact, think about this; Paul travels to various cities and preaches the gospel. Depending upon the circumstances, some believe, some don’t. Paul then leaves to go to another city. How did the gospel penetrate those cities? There were initially no trained elders or pastors. Sometimes a city might just have a few households professing faith in Christ. Yet, the church grew and thrived. All of Paul’s letters are written to churches (several of them in individual houses such as Philemon’s). Who did the work of evangelism when there were no pastors? The only answer is that the house churches were established, similar to the structure in Jerusalem. The same limits on facility space and transportation apply here. But the difference was that unlike Jerusalem, there was no council of Apostles that preached and taught on a regular basis. Obviously, traveling ministers would have visited occasionally, but this would have been the exception, rather than the rule. The only way for the church to have functioned, grown, thrived and flourished is if individual households had opened their doors and shared the gospel and ministered to people in their communities.
Granted, Paul spent two years teaching in Ephesus, and it is likely that in that time, he trained a number of men for the ministry. Furthermore, these men then would have traveled to various places teaching and preaching. But most of the New Testament records itinerant ministers, as opposed to what we might call today “residential” ministers; i.e., there was a critical shortage of pastors throughout the first century. Every pastor had to travel to various churches. By the time the New Testament was being finished, Paul has Timothy and Titus appointing elders in various cities; but the church had already grown enough in this time to support such men (cf. 1 Tim 5:17ff). How did the church grow without full time pastors? The only way would have been through individual households taking personal responsibility to share with their neighbors.
Church History after the First Century
Though space is limited, it is worth mentioning that Church history records that the national conversions occurring during the decline of the Roman Empire, especially after the fall was often due to Christians being taken as slaves in barbarian raids. Granted, there were great evangelists like Patrick who evangelized England, but he himself BEGAN his ministry as a slave. Historical documents also recognize the significant influence English Christian slaves had on evangelizing the Norse. Granted, there were national conversions as powerful evangelists won individual kings and then those kings in turn converted their entire kingdoms to the Faith. But from the fifth through tenth centuries, evangelism spread through the pagan world in large part through the evangelistic efforts of slaves. As one household embraced the gospel, brought to it by a Christian slave, that household would then reach out to others.
Conclusions and Applications
Though admittedly this is a brief and over-generalized view of evangelism in the first few centuries of the church, and at best, only a first attempt, it is intended to help clarify the means by which God uses the power of the gospel to transform not only individuals, but nations as well. There is no doubt that in the VAST majority of conversions recorded in the book of Acts, it was not just individuals who were reached but entire households. Limited facility space and the lack of mass transportation limited the distance one could travel necessitated small house churches. The lack of ministers continued right up to the close of the New Testament. The existence of functioning churches, growing and thriving without direct Apostolic ministry or a strong ecclesiastical bureaucracy all build a strong circumstantial case that the incredible rapid expansion of the church in first three decades was due not just to a few evangelists, but rather the entire people of God taking personal responsibility to share the gospel.
We know that modern sociological research indicates that almost 90% of those who come to faith in Christ and join a local church do so through the witness of a friend, relative or neighbor. This statistic is certainly consistent with what we know about early evangelism. In no way does such recognition denigrate the work of the pastor or the evangelist. To the contrary, the two ministries are interdependent. The pastor preaches and teaches the truth, but the individual household takes that truth and applies it in every area of life, including reaching out to others with the gospel.
There is a tendency amongst all people to shove off responsibilities on others. If the church has the belief that evangelism is primarily the duty of the pastor and elders, then they will not evangelize themselves. But if they are taught that household evangelism is not only acceptable, but a normal part of the Christian life, they will be encouraged and motivated to open their homes and reach out to the lost. Household evangelism thus cannot but help the church in an anti-Christian age.
It is true that the Great Commission is given to the church. But the Church is more than her institutions and bureaucracies. The ekklesia is the entire called people of God in all their work and ministry for the Kingdom. It is time to start seeing the broader aspects of the Church outside of narrow, institutional grounds. The Faith belongs to all, layman and clergy alike. And a Church that disciples the nations must use all her assets in extending the Kingdom of God.
You are currently browsing the site archives
for
April, 2008 .
Check the