Whence Cometh Faith?

Where Does Faith Come From?

The New Testament has a lot of verses on faith but not too many passages clearly identify where faith comes from. There are several Scriptural possibilities for where our faith comes from. One is that faith is from God, and the other is that faith comes from somewhere inside a person. A third possibility is some combination of the two.

Faith Comes From God

In many senses faith can be said to come from God. God, in the person of Jesus, is the object of our faith. Without God, there would be no object present for us to have faith in. Thus, faith at least comes from God in this important sense. This is the sense of Hebrews which says that:

Hebrews 12:2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Ephesians tells us that the entire package of salvation by grace through faith comes from God as a gift:

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Faith Comes from Hearing God's Word

Another passage tells us that we get faith by hearing God's Word as spoken through preaching.

Romans 10:15-17 How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!" However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?" So faith [comes] from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

But none of these passages completely addresses where faith comes from.

Faith Resides Inside Us

There are a couple of ways of approaching the question of whether faith resides in us. If faith does not reside inside us, then why would Jesus expect that we should have faith?

Mark 11:22 And Jesus answered saying to them, "Have faith in God.

There are a number of other verses which do not make sense if there is not a component of faith that comes from within a person.

Luke 18:8 "I tell you that He will bring about justice for them quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?"

Hab 2:4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

The next verse is particularly interesting. There are a lot of verses like it in the New Testament where Jesus marvels at the faith of someone.

Mat 8:10 When Jesus heard it, he marveled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

Faith Contrasted With Works

Is the idea that faith comes from within us contrary to the idea that we are not saved by works? Is faith a work? If faith is a work, then why does Paul draw contrasts between faith and works?

Romans 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Galatians 2:16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

There are a lot of verses to take into account when thinking about where faith comes from.

Luke 17:5 The apostles said to the Lord, "Increase our faith!"

Acts 20:21 solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Acts 26:18 to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.'


Romans 3:31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

Romans 12:3 For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.

Romans 16:26 but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, [leading] to obedience of faith;

Calvin on the Source of Faith

John Calvin's Institute of the Christian Religion, on faith. Calvin sees faith as being from God. For Calvinists, faith is a gift that is given by God to the elect. The reprobate are not given this same gift and are not saved (double predestination).

Christian Apologetics

What isn't Christian Apologetics?

Christian Apologetics is not giving an apology for the faith as if there is something deficient in the faith. The Christian faith is God's self-revelation to mankind. There is nothing deficient in that revelation.

What is Christian Apologetics?

Apologetics comes from the Greek word;

apologia, ap-ol-og-ee'-ah; a plea ("apology"):--answer (for self), clearing of self, defence.

The word is used frequently in the New Testament to describe Paul's defense of his calling. For instance:

Acts 22:1 Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.

1 Cor 9:3 Mine answer to them that do examine me is this,

In other passages, the word is used in the context of defending the Christian faith in general:

Phil 1:17 But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.

1 Peter 3:15 - but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.

Real or Imaginary Hypotheticals in Scripture

Real or Imaginary Hypotheticals

A hypothetical can be either a real or an imaginary hypothetical. It is important to classify the sort of hypothetical that is intended when reading an author who is using hypotheticals.
For instance, "if pigs can fly" is an imaginary (not possible) hypothetical. Pigs do not normally have wings. There could be a genetic abnormality that might grant an individual pig wings, but this would be the exception that proves the rule. The bottom line is that pigs don't fly.

Saying "if the duck has wings" is a real possibility. Ducks do have wings ordinarily. It would be an abnormal duck that has no wings.

Imaginary hypotheticals are frequently expressed as absurdities. They are meant to be seen as impossible hypotheticals and are clearly expressed as such. They are relatively rare in Scripture.

Hypotheticals in Scripture

A Bible passage with a hypothetical is a passage which contains an "if". The Bible presents us with a number of passages containing hypotheticals that are challenging to classify as real or imaginary.

Some interpreters say that these passages contain real possiblities. These interpreters say that the things warned against in these passages could happen if they are not guarded against.

Other interpreters say that these passages only contain imaginary possibilities. These intepreters say that these theoretical possiblities are not really possible. They are, in effect, empty warnings.

Differences in Motivation

It is true that positive motivators are typically more productive than negative ones. But is is also true that sometimes it is necessary to yell in order to warn someone that their behavior may lead them to destruction if they don't turn around.

Jesus gave us warnings of Hell. These warnings are real possiblities, not just theoretical ones. if the people being addressed do not repent, then they will go to Hell.

Mat 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Some might ask if this is the best way to motivate? Instead, why not motivate with love? Since Jesus in Scripture does it, it is sometimes appropriate to give a negative warnings. So one rejection of negative warnings that it is not the best method does not hold up.

A Scriptural Example

The difficulty comes with passages like:

1 Cor. 15:2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

The hypothetical here is the "if" of "if you hold fast". The question is whether or not it is possible not hold fast the word. If it is possible to not hold it than this is a really possible hypothetical. If it is not possible then this is not an imaginary hypothetical.

There is a desire with many exegetes to see this passage as an imaginary hypothetical. For a number of them this comes along with their Calvinistic presuppositions. The idea is that since election is from God, and man did not do anything to earn salvation, nor can man do anything to maintain salvation. Thus, the warnings against falling away have to only be imaginary.

There are many passages in Scripture which speak of not receiving God's grace in vain:

2 Cor. 6:1 And working together [with Him], we also urge you not to receive the grace of God in vain.

These passages indicate that is possible to receive the grace of God in vain and warn against that.

While it is tempting to want to view these passages as imaginary hypotheticals, this does not seem to be a sound approach to these passages. They lack the markers of absurdity of other passages. A better assumption is that when the Bible warns of something, it means what it says.

N. T. Wright on the Gospel and Justification

Anglican Bishop, N. T. Wright, writes:

By "the gospel" Paul does not mean "justification by faith." He means the announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus is Lord. To believe this message is to give believing allegiance to Jesus as Messiah and Lord" is to be justified in the present by faith (whether or not one has even heard of justification by faith).

Wright goes on to write:

But one is not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith, but by believing in Jesus.

Wright makes a key distinction here that can easily be missed. It's not our faith in our faith that saves us. It is our faith in Jesus. The question is one of object. Faith is the means.

This page is critical of Wright's position on justification.

Here is a page which presents a number of Wright's papers on various issues.

Law-Gospel Distinction

The founder of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, Dr. C. F. W. Walther, gave a series of lectures starting in 1884 on the distinctions between Law and Gospel. These are published as a set of thesis in a book entitled, "The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel". The book provides a set of six rules/guidelines for determining whether a particular passage is Law or Gospel.

Walther presents his distinction as an absolute one and states that an interpreter of the Bible must always start any exegesis with making this distinction. Walther is not alone in this, many other Reformed exegetes follow the same distinction. Walther freely credits Luther as the source of his understanding of Law and Gospel. Lutheran Seminaries today still use his book as a textbook in hermeneutical methods courses.

This distinction remains a guiding principle in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod today:

We believe that the two chief doctrines of Holy Scripture, Law and Gospel, must be constantly and diligently proclaimed in the church of God until the end of the world, but with due distinction.

The Law, as the expression of God's immutable will, is to be used by the church to bring men to a knowledge of their sins as well as to provide Christians with instruction about good works.

The Gospel receives the primary emphasis in the ministry of the New Testament, for it is the message that 'God forgives them all their sins through Christ, accepts them for His sake as God's children, and out of pure grace, without any merit of their own, justifies and saves them.

Six Guidelines to Distinguish Law From Gospel

Walther provides six guidelines to rightly divide any passage of Scripture. These guidelines are:

The Law and the Gospel differ in:
1 - These two doctrines differ as regard the manner of their being revealed to man;
2 - As regards their contents;
3 - As regards the promises held out by either doctrine;
4 - As regards their threatenings;
5 - As regards the function and the effect of either doctrine;
6 - As regards the persons to whom either the one of the other doctrine must be preached.(p. 7)

Generally, these distinctions are helpful, but there are some serious issues that can be raised with them.

Explanations/Analysis of the Six Guidelines

The explanation of each of these according to Walther is:

Point 1
1a - Man was created with the Law written in his heart and the Law may be preached to every man since it is already revealed as true in his heart (p7).
1b - The Gospel is not revealed in the heart of every man (p8).

One verse that challenges 1a and 1b is Colossians 1:23 since the passage says that the "gospel was preached to every creature which is under heaven". Here the exegete has to distinguish the preaching of the Gospel to each man in Colossians from the revealed in 1b. Yet, this passage cannot be referring to actual preaching of the Gospel since it had not been preached to every person. It must refer to the revelation of God to every person, much like John 1:9 "That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."

Point 2
2a - The Law tells us what to do (p9).
2b - The Gospel reveals to us only what God is doing (p9).

There are verses which show what God is doing and tell us what to do. One such verse is Revelation 14:6-7 - And I saw another angel flying in midheaven, having an eternal gospel to preach to those who live on the earth, and to every nation and tribe and tongue and people; and he said with a loud voice, "Fear God, and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made the heaven and the earth and sea and springs of waters."

This passage produces a challenge to the rules of distinction that Walter presents since it states that the message of the angel, which is called the eternal gospel, is to fear God. This forces the understanding that the passage is about Law, not Gospel. Yet what is preached by the angel is clearly Gospel.

Point 3
3a - The Law promises everlasting life and salvation (p 10). But the promises of the Law are conditional on perfect obedience.
3b - The Gospel is a free gift and has no conditions (p 10).

Galatians says something quite different about the Law when it says that the Law was not able to give eternal life. Galatians 3:21 - Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.

Point 4
4a - The Law contains threats (p 11).
4b - The Gospel contains no threats, only words of consolation (p 11).

The criticism of this point from Revelation 14:6-7 applies here as well.

In Matthew 14:27 Jesus comes to the disciples and says "Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid." This is a command using the imperative "Take" courage. It is also not a threat but a word of consolation. Which is it, Law or Gospel?

Point 5
5a - The effect of the Law is that the Law tells us what to do but does not enable us to comply with its commands. The Law uncovers a man's sins. The Law does produce contrition. But it has no comfort.
5b - The Gospel demands faith but it provides that faith. The Gospel takes away all terror and fills man with the Holy Spirit.

The Law says in Deuteronomy 30:11-14 - "For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. "It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' "Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' "But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.

Acts 13:39 - and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.

Point 6
6a - The Law is preached to secure sinners.
6b - The Gospel is preached to alarmed sinners.

This is often said as afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted. It is basically sound pastoral advise but it is not often found in this way in Scriptures.

The final point is not one of determination but of method. Jesus went and preached the Gospel to everyone. When Jesus came He preached - Mark 1:15 - saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." This seems to be both Law and Gospel.

Conclusion

This method has some value. It is useful to understand that this is the paradigm used by Lutherans and other Reformed. Dialog with many Reformed and Lutherans can be greatly helped by understanding that they see the Bible in such black and white categories. It also helps to understand how they can be dismissive of commands as "that's just law". For many, since it is impossible to follow the Law completely, to put something in the category of Law gives them a free pass. The reason that they do this is admirable, they want to give all the glory to God. But the result can be that while something is commanded by God, accomplishing the command is impossible. If something is impossible, why even try? Rather than grace being present when we fail, there is a pre-admission that this exercise is bound to fail. Few would put it in such a crass manner, but often this is the result of the system.

There are many verses which mix Law and Gospel such as:

Romans 8:2 - For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.

Galations 6:2 - Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.

Perhaps the reason that many exegetes confuse the two categories is that it is not quite as straightforward as they would like to say. The Law of Christ is the Gospel in this case.

Another problematic passage is:

1 Corinthians 15:2 - by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

Clearly this passage is right in the middle of the great text which defines the Gospel for Paul, but the passage has a threat in it so this part of the passage is Law. If the danger against the Gospel is to add works to the Gospel, then why is the threat here against no longer believing? Is no longer believing secret code for substituting works in place of belief?

Confused?

An ordinary distinction is to ask whether something is Old Covenant or New Covenant. The radical Law-Gospel distinction as presented by Walther blurs this distinction for there is much in the New Covenant which is Law. In the end, it is questionable just how helpful this distinction might be in practical pastoral ministry.

Models of Pastoral Caregiving

The dominant method of pastoral caregiving today is based on Rogerian therapy. In this method, the therapist repeats back the words of the person being cared for. The therapist may ask probing questions, but those questions are always to be based upon something that was given from the patient in the conversation.

In this method, the pastoral caregiver does not lead the conversation. The person receiving therapy will usually tell what is up with them in the first 30 seconds of any coversation. This method of therapy can produce change but it can alse leave some patients in many years of therapy with not all that many results. This method is like the Socratic method.

Leading questions are not usually allowed. When dealing with a seriously ill patient the therapist may receive a dump of all of the problems of the patient at once. To get down to the core, the therapist may as "what do you want, and how are you going to get it?" This is a very effective means of getting to the one thing that is the core issue as well as letting the patient come up with their own approach to solving their problem.

Provocative Therapy by Frank Farrelly and Jeff Brandsma uses an entirely different method. This method uses humor to show the ridiculousness of the patient's position. The patient is encouraged to take their fears to the extreme and then laugh at them. This method produces very rapid changes in people. Farrelly would sometimes use obscentities to provoke a response from his patients. His method was a bit like a shock treatment but with provocation instead of electricity.

There are times and places for each type of interchange. Not every pastoral care interchange has to be directive. The patient may never feel that they know the caregiver. Sometimes there is just a place in being quiet and being with someone in their pain. Other times draining off the pain is helpful.

In all pastoral caregiving, it must be remembered that the object of the care is the parishioner. It's not about the pastor, but about the parishioner.

What is the Gospel?

I have been thinking a lot lately about a question that is deceptively simple. The question is "What is the Gospel?" The answer is surprisingly evasive for a number of reasons. One of these is that there are few clear definitions of "the gospel" in Scripture. Another reason is that the word "gospel" seems to be used differently in the Gospels than it is in the writings of Paul.

Why is this complicated? I Thought the Gospel is Simple!

The gospel, literally, means the "good news". In the four Gospels (the New Testament books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) Jesus comes preaching the good news. They show Jesus preaching the Gospel in passage after passage. But few passages tell what that good news is. Is it the arrival of the Kingdom of God? Is it the sacrificial death of Jesus? Exactly what good news is it in the context of the Gospel books?

The Gospel of the Kingdom

The inbreaking of the kingdom was good news to the down and out of society:

Matthew 4:23 - Jesus was going throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people.

The good news was that the God's kingdom was coming and the preaching of Jesus to the poor and downtrodden was a signal of that kingdom.

Paul on the Gospel

Paul declares the Gospel in 1 Cor 15:1-8:

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

This is a concise statement of the Gospel. The elements here are:

- necessity of belief
- necessity of holding fast
- Jesus died for our sins
- Old Testament predictions of the death
- Jesus was buried
- Jesus was raised on the third day
- Jesus appeared to Peter
- Jesus appeared to five hundred
- Jesus appeared to James
- Jesus appeared to the eleven
- Jesus appeared to Paul

Putting this into categories:

Necessity of holding to belief
- Death of Jesus for our sins
- Burial of Jesus
- Resurrection of Jesus
- Post resurrection appearances

Gospel of Paul in the Gospels

This may seem to be a radical claim, but it seems like the Gospel books describe the Gospel as something different in emphasis than Paul. The first part of each of the Gospel books focuses on the inbreaking of the Kingdom of God. The second half of the Gospels focuses on the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

In the Gospel books it isn't until Jesus is well into His ministry that He announces that He is going to die. There are hints of it quite a bit earlier. For instance Mary is told at the dedication of Jesus that her heart would be pierced - pointing to the death of Jesus on the cross. John the Baptist refers to Jesus as the "Lamb who takes away the sins of the world". Each of these refer to His death. Jesus plainly tells the disciples that He will rise again.

Not a Dichotomy

It impossible to draw a clear line between the Gospel books understanding of the Gospel and Paul's understanding. Clearly they are the same with the same focus on the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. But the emphasis is different in the preaching. Before the cross, the message was that the promised one was in their midst. After the resurrection, the message was radically clarified. Not only had the Messiah been in their midst, but they had killed Him. God turned it around and resurrected the Messiah. The Gospel message was good news. Man no longer needed to be bound by His sins. The Messiah was alive and had taken the sins of mankind. The message of the Apostles in the Book of Acts was quite different than that before Pentecost.

Methodist Group in Trouble

A recent story has the warned from Lyle Schaller warning his Northern Illinois Conference of the Methodist Church that they are headed to extinction.

Schaller's words ought to be listened to because he is a well-known expert on church growth. But more importantly Schaller is knowledgeable on church decline. Schaller sees all of the signs of decline in his own denomination. He is reported to have given the denomination less than 12 years until it goes out of business.

The key issue, per Schaller, is one of leadership. The leadership of the Synod is "ideologically liberal and institutionally ultra conservative." This is a double edged sword for any institution. Slow to adapt to change and yet ideologically liberal is a losing combination.

The second issue is one of increased competition. No longer can we rely on historical connections. As we have opened our doors to others so have others opened their doors.

Another issue that Schaller identifies is that the denomination has not kept up with technical innovation. The church has tended to curse the darkness rather than light a candle in the dark.

Schaller talks about how a newly graduated pastor who wanted to do a church plant and was told that he would have to take a circuit of small churches before he would be allowed to plant. He went to the Evangelical Covenant Church and was allowed to plant there. The church has over 8000 members in six years.

This newspaper article is about an Episcopalian church which has left the Episcopal church and is now seeking affiliation with the Evangelical Covenant Church.

The moral of the story isn't "look how good we are doing compared to the Methodists". Far from it. The moral of this story is: Take heed lest we too fall.

Scriptural Synthesis

The Grammatical-Historical-Contextual (GHC) method is the method used by many people to understand Scripture. Using the GHC method a person is said to be able to come away with the original meaning of the Scripture as the author intended. There is much in the GHC method to commend itself. There are also weaknesses in the GHC method that need to be understood when it is applied.

Grammatical Analysis

1 - Grammatical analysis includes both syntax and grammar of the original languages, in this case Greek in the New Testament and Hebrew (primarily) in the Old Testament. The semantic range of a particular word along with the context where the word is employed is used to help translate the word from the original language into the receptor's language. This is primarily the act of translation but extends itself into analysis.

Along with this analysis the perspective of the helps materials factors into the analysis. Even when reading a word in English we bring a meaning along with us to the word. This perspective may alter the semantic range of a particular word by expanding or contracting the possible translation choices.

It may also cause us to choose a meaning within the semantic range of the word which best fits with what we think the original intent. The problem is that we may not know that with certainty. We may be picking the wrong meaning.

Historical Analysis

2 - Historical analysis involves understanding the historical background. This is clearly helpful in a lot of cases. For instance, one helpful place is in expanding idiomatic expressions where the range of the word is understood from within the historical context.

There are a lot of idiomatic expressions that are not taken literally. To tell someone that their "goose is cooked" rarely means that their water fowl has completed baking. Sorting these out can involve finding places outside the Scripture were these terms are used.

It is helpful to know more historical data about the persons or people involved in the text. Study of historical data, for instance, can tell us a great deal more about the Assyrian people than we learn from Scripture. Some of this information helps us to better understand their place on the pages of Scripture.

Historical data can often be skewed and misused. For instance, knowledge of the Old Testament temple practices is useful information in understanding the Old Testament and such New Testament books as Hebrews. The problem comes in esoteric applications. For instance, one author uses the existence of the court of the Gentiles, the outer court and the inner court as evidence that man has separate body, soul and spirit. This is a long stretch from the text.

Another example of misapplication is the exegesis of some portions of Scripture by some in the Messianic Christian movement. In this movement it can be difficult to distinguish the interpretations from the assumptions brought to the text. Much that masquerades itself as historical data is in reality theological presuppositions. The historical data is then examined in order to justify pre-conceptions. This movement is based on a hyper-Dispensational paradigm. The place of Israel, as a people of God separate from the church, forms the whole foundation of the movement. It's adherent don't want to be called churches, they prefer synagogues. They don't call their leaders pastor, they call them rabbi. They are seeking to reclaim their own Jewishness but much of this is from the time after Jesus.

Contextual Analysis

3 - Contextual analysis helps us see a particular passage or phrase in the context of the chapter, book or the entire canon. This allows larger themes to be developed.

Synthesis happens when the underlying GHC work has been done. The great doctrines of the Bible, like the Trinity, do not come from one single passage but from a synthesis of the relevant data.

The Missing Fourth Category

A fourth category is also helpful. That is understanding the genre of the text. Some texts are narrative since they describe events as they took place. These are intended by the author to be historical recollections for the purpose of communicating some truth. The journey of Abram from his father's home country to the land of Canaan is a narrative. A metaphoric use is that his journey is like the journey of faith.

Apocalyptic text also have their own distinct rules of interpretation. One is the idea that there may be some consistency in the use of imagery. The phrase in the Olivet Discourse about the son being darkened and the moon turned to blood are not describing a literal decrease in solar output and hemoglobin cells on the moon. The same phrases are used in Isaiah 13:

Isa 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

In Isaiah these phrases refer to the historical judgment against the King of Babylon. Our contemporary idiomatic expression is that "he had is lights punched out."

This is a good way to avoid much of the speculation on eschatological themes that have resulted in so many spectacular failures in the past.

Over specification of types can result in error as well. This error is apparent in the fig tree. Some have identified the fig tree with Israel. This leads them to face a difficult issue in the narrative where Jesus curses the fig tree. Certainly there was a literal fig tree and Jesus really did curse it and it really did wither. But the problem comes in with the question of what does that mean about Israel? When Jesus says may fruit never grow on you again, if Israel is the fig tree does this mean that Israel will not come to God? This puts Jesus at odds with Paul in Rom 11.

This is Hard Work

In the end Bible interpretation is much more difficult than application of a scientific method. The Bible is a book about faith and the Holy Spirit plays a big part in enlightening the understanding of the reader. But the reader has to read and the listener has to listen.

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Parachurch Ministries

What is the place of parachurch ministries?

Should Christians participate in parachurch ministries? Does support of parachurch organizations take away from the church or does it add to it? Is the mission of the church diluted or built up by parachurch organizations?

Definitions

A few definitions are in order. A parachurch ministry is one that is not part of any church or denomination. A denomination is a collection of churches. A church is a collection of individual believers who gather together as the church.

Depending on the definition, a parachurch ministry is one that is either outside the church or beside the church. The distinction is an important one.

Types of Parachurch Ministries

There are a lot of types of parachurch ministries. They cover an entire spectrum of activities. There is some degree of overlap between the parachurch organizations and the church. There can be very little Christian witness in some of these expressions. In other examples there is a lot of Christian witness.

Good Works Parachurch Organizations

Some focus on "good works" such as food pantries and soup kitchens. Churches which are too small sometimes choose to participate in a community food pantry and share their efforts with others, Christians and perhaps even non-Christians.

How much of these good works should come with a string attached? Should someone be asked to listen to a sermon along with their free meal? Or should the meal be given without any strings?

Apologetics Parachurch Organizations

Other parachurch organizations focus on Apologetics as their ministry. Apologetics is giving a reason for the faith. While some of these apologetics ministries are not making a defense of their particular denomination it should be remembered there is no such thing as generic Christianity. Nor are there any generic Christians. Their defense of the faith is still formed by the denominational affiliation and doctrinal views of their participants.

With other parachurch organizations they may be making a defense of the denomination but it is not easy to discern that at first glance. One example of these is Alpha Omega Ministries which essentially functions as an apologetics parachurch organization for Reformed Baptists. Formally, they deny that they are a Reformed Baptist apologetics ministry, but practically that is what they are. This demonstrates the stealth nature of some parachurch organizations. They are not always what they claim to be. Anyone is good enough to send money into a parachurch - not anyone is good enough to be a part of the ministry.

But who watches these watchers? They have boards of directors that they hand select. Often, there is no effective oversight of these ministries.

Ministries targeted at Specific Groups

Some parachurches focus on a particular group, like Campus Crusade for Christ focuses on college students. These groups state that they are do not want to replace the local church but in some cases they end up doing just that for some of their participants.

Integration of these groups into the local churches in the area of the college is important. Local pastors can to reach out to these groups in order to bring students into a relationship with the local church. The local groups also need to reach out to local churches and make an effort to promote them inside the parachurch.

Lay-led Parachurch Organizations

Gideons International is a lay led organization that provides Bibles free of charge to hotels and hospital rooms. Gideon's does not allow clergy to be a member preferring to stay lay led. They have a high degree of financial accountability and are known particularly as a group where 90 cents out of every dollar given goes directly to Bibles. They reach into most nations in the world, possibly into more nations than a single denomination could ever reach.

TV Evangelists

Another example of a parachurch group might be a television evangelist who has no local church of his own but uses the TV as his media. The televangelist may have some good work where poor children are fed and clothed. In some cases, these are legitimate works but the cost of TV time runs over a hundred million dollars per year. Most of the money that goes into these ministries is used to pay for air time to raise more money to pay for air time...

The strength is that these TV evangelists often reach into the homes of people who are shut-ins. This is often the criticism as well since they convince poor widows to send in their Social Security checks to their ministries. Financial oversight is frequently lacking in these ministries.

Ecumenical Movement as Parachurch?

An ecumenical meeting, formed for the purpose of working towards Christian unity might be said to be parachurch but since the delegates are under their respective church denominations it would not be an accurate description to call them parachurch in the way it is being identified here.

Needs Based

The common thread in all of these parachurch structures is that they are needs based. They are filling a need that the church does not seem to be meeting at the time. Does that mean that they should be permanent or only temporary institutions? By their own charters, they are doing these things because the church is not doing them.

Focus of Parachurch Organizations

Parachurch organizations are focused inside or outside the church. Some are focused on bringing people from outside the church into the church. The question here is what church? In the case of Billy Graham meetings the answer is that the people who make decisions are steered to the local churches which choose to participate in the meetings in a proportional number based on the number of volunteers from that local church.

Gift Based Ministry

It has been saved that there are people who are gifted and that these gifts are not always recognized in their local church. These people may feel a call to a particular ministry or another but not be encouraged in their local churches to pursue that ministry. Sometimes they look for a church where they can use their gifts, other times they don't exercise the gift and yet other times they start parachurch ministries.

There have been times when the church has been at fault in not recognizing the gifts of its members.

But there have also been times when the church has discerned that the ministry is best not pursued for various reasons. Someone may have been rejected as a leader in the local church due to their immoral behavior, as an example.

Are the gifts of God given for the building up of the church or for the building up of parachurches?

Why are Parachurches not Churches?

Parachurches are not churches because they lack the marks of a church. They do not administer the sacraments such as communion and baptism. That does not mean that their CEOs are not ordained. In fact, for them to receive minister's tax deductions they are often ordained either in a friendly denomination that they are loosely affiliated with or by some parachurch ordination mill.

Judging Parachurch Ministries

It is tempting to judge parachurch ministries on their results. Some of them do very good things. But is this the right way to judge parachurch ministries? Clearly they are meeting a need both of those that feel a need to minister outside the church as well as for the objects of these ministries.

To say that people can only minister within the church seems to be saying that all ministry is inward not outward. But the focus ministry from inside the church can be either inside or outside the church.

There are good and bad examples of each of these types of ministry. It seems like there is another corrupt televangelist exposed in the public media every few months. The question always gets raised of how did these men and women get so corrupt? Wasn't there any sort of oversight?

Asking the Right Questions

There are a number of questions that need to be asked about parachurch ministries:

- How long does the ministry foresee being be in existence?
- Will this ministry go away if a local church takes up the responsiblity?
- What are the financial oversights of the ministry?
- Can the 1099 be reviewed?
- What percentage of donations goes to the designated objects of the ministry?
- What is the intended relationship of the parachurch to the local churches in the community?
- Is there a contact person for local churches?
- What is the doctrinal bias of the parachurch?
- What are requirements for participation in the parachurch?
- What are the requirements for leadership in the parachurch?
- Who is on the board of the parachurch?
- Is there a statement of beliefs for the parachurch?

Greek Text of Eph 2:8

Ephesians 2:8 is often quoted as evidence that faith is a gift. The Greek text makes this interpretation a difficult one, however. It may be the case that faith is a gift from God but this verse is inconclusive as proof.

Greek has a concept known as gender agreement. Nouns, pronouns and adjectives share the same gender if they are focused on the same object. Spanish has something similar with "La Bamba" and "Los Lobos".

There are verses, like Eph 2:8 where a pronoun or adjective are ambiguous as to which noun it is referring. One way to eliminate possibilities is to examine the gender of the noun object and the gender of the pronoun or adjective. If the gender does not agree, the pronoun or adjective is not describing the noun.

Eph 2:8 is one such example of this. The English text shows this:

Ephesians 2:8 - For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God

At first glance this passage seems to show faith as the gift of God. But for this to be the case, the gender of the "it is" must agree with the gender of faith and it does not agree in gender. Hence, the "it" which "is" is not faith. But neither is grace in the passage. It has the wrong gender as well.

What is the gift, then? There are a number of possibilities. All that can be said with certainty is that it is not faith nor is it grace. One likely possibility is that it may be the entire package of "salvation by grace through faith" that is the gift. If this is the case, then God has given men the great gift of salvation and uses the means of grace through faith in order to accomplish this.

Calvinist or Arminian?

For some, this question is like asking "Reformed or Pelagian?" They view things in particular categories that were historically formed hundreds of years ago or more than fifteen hundred years ago in the battle between Augustine and Pelagius. Today, for many, calling someone "Arminian" is a curse.

Who was Arminius?

Jacob Arminius was a Dutch Theologian who lived after Calvin. He was a doctor of Protestant theology and came to reject the more extreme predestinarian views of Calvin and the early Luther. After he died his followers put together the Five Points of the Remonstrants.

Arminians Before Arminius?

From Bangs:

In 1555, before Arminius was born, Valanus rejected the predestination theory that was already blowing off the Alps. Specifically, he denied any distinction between God's secret will and God's revealed will. When God says he wants all men to be saved, he means it, both secretly and openly.

The Five Points of Calvinism, with the clever acronym TULIP, were drawn up as a response to the points of the Remonstrants. The Synod of Dort settled these issues at the moment.

Moving Beyond Name Calling

Recent scholarship by Richard Muller and Carl Bangs has placed Arminus soundly within the range of theological opinion of his day. In particular, it has Muller demonstrates that Arminius was pretty typical of the Protestant Scholasticism of his day. He relied heavily on Aquinas and the Summa Theologica for basic understanding. Far from being a heretic that was out of step with the Reformation, Arminius is being reclaimed as a father of the Reformation by church historians today.

Creeds of the Non-Creedalists

Relecting a bit this morning about creeds and the the purposes they serve.

Function of Creeds

Historically, creeds served a purpose. They were the road markers for the faith. Issues were clearly delineated by the creeds. If a person strayed from the creed they went too far from the faith.

Creeds provided a confessional unity. Either one could say the creed or one could not. The saying of the creed implies conformance to the creed. This was true when a man's word was their bond.

A person could be said to be a heretic if they strayed from the path marked by the creed. Councils produced anathemas against people who rejected the contents of the creeds. Civil authorities were able to prosecute and in some cases put to death, people who publicly rejected the teachings of the creeds. Calvin's Geneva was one such place where a theonomy with the death penalty for violating theological standards existed.

How do Creeds Work Today in Other Churches?

How creeds work in other churches depends upon the church. Some have not dismantled the Creeds as common confession but have added an unwritten clause allowing individual conscience in matters of disagreement. In that case, the creeds don't so much provide road markers as historical markers near the road. That way someone can take the side street off their own highway and view the historical marker. Sometimes the marker is close to the highway and sometimes the marker is a long way off the highway. Either way the confession of the creed by the confessor no longer is a sign that the confessor agrees with the content of the creed but rather admits that the creed is a historical statement of what the faith once was.

Some churches retain the original purpose of creeds although death sentences are not pronounced today for disagreement with the creed. A person, in some churches, could be excommunicated for public disagreement with some part of their church creed. This happens in all sorts of denominations.

Modern Example From the Assemblies of God

The Assembly of God denominination provides s surprising example of this given that the AoG is commonly thought of as theologically progressive. If an ordained pastor gets convinced that Christ is returning after the tribulation, rather than before the tribulation, he will be tossed out. This leads some Assembly pastors to deliberatly not look at the subject. Others hold contrary opinions but keep them private. Change is difficult because even the implication that someone does not hold to the pre-trib rapture leads to the assumption that they are out of the faith.

Certainly the Assembly of God, or any other group for that matter, has the right to define what makes them distinctive. It's just hard to grant that one's view of a particular aspect of Eschatology should be such a strong determiner of who is in and who is out.

Role of the Augsburg Confession in the Church of Sweden

The Augsburg Confession was the Lutheran symbol of faith in the state church of Sweden. In the state church of Sweden, the fences could not be transgressed. The state church forced out those who did not hold the confession and this led to the formation of the free church in Sweden.

Why Did the Covenant Reject Creeds?

The Covenant Church in America, under the influence of Waldenstrom, rejected creeds when it formed in 1885. The reason for this was due to the treatment of Waldenstrom by the state church of Sweden. Waldenstrom had rejected the prevailing theory of the atonement of his day, namely the Anselmian view. For Waldenstrom, this had to do with the wrath of God. Waldenstrom taught:

The fall of man did not change God's heart.
Wrath was not in God's mind afer the fall.
The change after the fall was in man.
The atonement takes away man's sin.
The atonement is in Jesus Christ.

Waldenstrom's view of the atonement led Waldenstrom to reject the Augsburg Confession (1530). Waldenstrom, interestingly, remained a member of the state church all of his life.

Have Waldenstrom's Views Stood The Test of Time?

For the most part, Waldenstrom's view of the atonement has not endured in the Covenant Church but the idea of not having creeds has remained. The fence posts were too constraining for unity of the church.

Certainly unity of the church should not be based on sharing a Midieval view of the atonement otherwise there would have been no church before Anselm formed his view of the atonement.

What Part Remains?

The ideal of automomous local congregations proved durable. And the ideals of individual conscience in those local congregations proved yet even stronger.

So Where Do We Stand?

An even better question than where do we stand might be to ask how do we stand? Without the fenceposts of creeds, what is the basis of the faith? How keeps up the roadmarkers? If nobody keeps the roadmarkers the road will wander all over the place.

To some degree that is allowed to happen. Fence posts can move. It would probably have been unthinkable to the founders of the Covenant that less than 100 years later there would be ordained women in ministry in their church. Other social changes threaten to upset the applecart even now.

There are still control points, however. Since the church is relational there is some control in the mutual accountability of Godly relations. For a pastor to get approved for ministry they must go through the seminary or the external orientation program. There are psychological examinations and personal interviews. There is a monitoring of character and interaction with others. There are seen and unseen control points in this process.

Analogy to the Growth of the US Federal Government

With time, the United States saw the growth of the power of the Federal government. States and individuals were the ones to lose power with this growth.

Simiarly the Covenant Church has seen the growth in strength of the ministerium. The ministerium controls who gets to be a pastor. The ministerium functions as an Episcopal form. Every pastor is a member of two congregations. One of the congregations is the local church. The other congregation is the ministerium.

Although the Conference Superintendent lacks the formal power of a bishop, he still has significant control as the representative of the ministerium.

In the Covenant Church, the Executive Board of Ministry bears significant power in discipline of pastors. This is the point of control.

Esau Have I Hated

Romans 9:13 is frequently by double predestinarian advocates as Biblical evidence of individual election. The passage has:

Romans 9:13 - Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

At first glance it appears that this passage is referring to the historical individuals, Jacob and Esau. The story is so familiar that we may even automatically assume that this is the case here. But is this passage talking about the individuals, Jacob and Esau or to something or someone else?

Exegetical Question Raised

The exegetical question is raised when the referring passage is examined. The first part of Romans 9:13 says "at it is written..." But, where is this written? Again, the common assumption is that the answer is to be found in Genesis. After all this passage is talking about Jacob and Esau, so it must be the place where their narrative is contained, which is Genesis. The problem is that a check of Genesis finds no such passage.

Finding Where "As It Is Written" Is Written

At the risk of being overly obvious, the phrase, "as it is written", refers to the quotation of a particular Old Testament passage by a New Testament writer. In some cases, it may be written as a paraphrase or as a combination of passages, but it most typically refers to an actual Old Testament passage. Exceptions are rare and well-known.

Interesting Notes From Genesis

In this case, when reading through Genesis a number of passages jump out of the pages:

Genesis 27:41 - And Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him: and Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then will I slay my brother Jacob.

According to Joshua, both Jacob and Esau received an inheritance.

Joshua 24:4 - 'To Isaac I gave Jacob and Esau, and to Esau I gave Mount Seir to possess it; but Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt.

Where Is the Quote From?

The actual quote is from Malachi 1:2

Malachi 1:2 - "I have loved you," says the Lord. But you say, "How have You loved us?" "Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the Lord. "Yet I have loved Jacob;

This is where the exegetical question becomes most serious. Looking at the context of the passage in Malachi reveals that Esau is representative of Edom. Jacob is the son of the promise.

The rejoiner is that Paul is reinterpreting Malachi in some other way than what the text shows. If that were the case, then why would Paul be quoting this passage as proof of his position? If he is taking the text in a manner other than a faithful and contextual one, then the audience he is trying to convince would be able to easily show that his argument is not supported by the text he claims.

Conclusions

This passage is not about individual election at all. Jacob and Esau stand for those with faith and those without.

Pair o' Dimes

Paradigms. That's the fancy word for systems of belief. Definition #3 at dictionary.reference.com gives the definition of paradigm as:

A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.

Everyone has a paradigm. In fact, everyone has a paradigm whether or not they know they have a paradigm. The paradigm is the set of glasses that we put in when we look at things. Our paradigm colors everything we see. Another word for paradigm is worldview.

Christians have paradigms. There are many Christian paradigms. In fact, those who assert that there is only one Christian paradigm is someone with a particular paradigm.

This is not relativistic thinking. Some paradigms explain reality better than others. Relativism is but one paradigm. Under a relativistic paradigm all paradigms are relative. There is nothing about the idea of paradigms that implies relativism. It is merely the recognition that people view the world in different ways. These ways are often seen in clumps of people.

There is a value in talking about paradigms. The purpose of talking about paradigms is to help us recognize where we are thinking outside of Christ. Sometimes we buy into paradigms based on things other than the Gospel. It is easy to recognize this in others, but most difficult to recognize this in ourselves.

Many of the Jews in the New Testament trusted in Moses and the Law. They thought that was the basis of their salvation. To be more precise they trusted in their own ability to follow the Law. That was their paradigm.

Jesus came to shake up their paradigm. He showed them that even in their paradigm those who found God did it though faith and not through their works. It really was never about works. Jesus wanted to move them into his paradigm. He showed them that others understand this paradigm already.

Salespeople have a term called "mindshare." Apple Computer understands mindshare. That's why they put their computers into Public Schools. They understand the value of mindshare. Get the kids used to using Mac's and when they are older they will not depart (borrowing Biblical language). In the case of Apple Computer, they have a very hard task given the widespread usage of the IBM PC clones. They have to work harder and be smarter.

In some sense, the church is like Apple Computer and that is why we have long targetted young kids with Sunday School. The thought is that if we teach them young, they won't switch from the faith when they are older. And we have been pretty successul with this strategy in the past. In many places, this is still quite successful. In others, this method is not working any longer.

For preachers, it's not so much the existence of paradigms that is interesting as the question of how to get someone to switch between paradigms. Paul talks about this a lot in his letters to the churches. In Romans 12, Paul wrote:

Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Some paradigm shifts are quite serious and some easier. The bigger the shift the harder it can be to make.

To switch from a non-Christian paradigm to a Christian paradigm involves something called conversion. Christians call it "getting saved." The word repentance in the Greek literally means to change one's mind. What does this consist of for a non-Christian? It means that the non-Christian has to change their mind on who Christ is.

What makes this paradigm shift happen? It requires something cracking the old paradigm in a crucial point. This can happen in a lot of ways.

For many, they meet a person who holds the other paradigm and it makes them question their own paradigm. The person with the other paradigm has a better grip on something in life than they do and it makes them question their own paradigm. Reflection on one's paradigm is the start of it all.

The intentional act of helping others shift paradigms is known as evangelism. The church uses outreach events in order to facilitate this paradigm shift. Individuals use personal friendships and relationships to facilitate this shift. Confronting other paradigms in others is challenging something near and dear to them. We risk losing them as friends when we care enough to challenge them to change. We risk our own paradigms being challenged. This can be hard if we are insecure about who we are.

We are not left alone in this task. Not only do we have the church to help us (and others) in our paradigm shift, we also have the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is sent to convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgment. From John 1 we know that Jesus lights every man which comes into the world.

The convert from one paradigm to another often becomes a strong opponent to the paradigm that they previously supported. It is a truism that there is no one more zealous than a former smoker. That is part of what made Paul so pursuasive with the Jews. This is why Acts finds Paul every Sabbath in the synagogue trying to pursuade the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah.

Eternally Secure

I've been thinking quite a bit about eternal security and thought I'd lay out my own thoughts. Take them for what they are worth. There are a lot of different ways of approaching this subject and mine is not unique by any means.

I need to start with a confession of humility of what I don't know before I proceed to state what I claim to know. In spite of thinking about this subject for many years, I don't claim to have it all figured out. I have been on both sides of this issue at various times during my Christian life - sometimes even at the same time. Since God is the one who does the saving, it is folly for me to claim to understand all of this. But I will attempt the folly nevertheless.

The first point is to admit that this is an issue that divides some people and some churches. As such, it is an issue inside the church. This issue is not something that I believe should divide Christians from each other. There are people who are Biblically savvy that hold either position and do it with equal conviction that their view is Biblical (and with an equal number of prooftexts as well). Most of the disagreement is terminological and semantic. Some of the disagreement is based on real differences.

For many who hold Eternal Security, their position arises out of Calvinism and the P in the TULIP; where the P stands for Perseverance of the Saints. Stated simply it means that those who are elect will perseverance in their faith. At the worst, this is tautological since the elect will be the ones who are the elect. At it's best this provides great comfort for those who are in moments of doubt.

For a particular person to know that they will persevere presumes that the elect are known, at least to the person who claims to be one of the elect. Historically, there have been Calvinists who say that one cannot and should not claim to be one of the elect (from memory, the Church of Scotland in the 1800s is one such example). Although they would formally admit that the elect will persevere, they would not claim to be one of the elect in their own individual case. In fact, it was considered a heresy to state that one was one of the elect.

For some today that say it is OK to say one is elect, in the end it may turn out to be a claim based on their good works. Because they have the works of a Christian, they know that they are saved.

One possible danger here is that of trusting in works. What happens when they sin? Do they feel that they may not really be a Christian since they have non-Christian works? This is the charge most often made against those who deny eternal security, but the point can be said against either side of the issue. Any system based on our good works is doomed to fail.

Faith has to be the keystone to either view, not our good works. We were not saved by works, nor should we trust in our works. The only one we should trust in is Christ.

Others make a claim based on some subjective experience or another with the Holy Spirit. It is impossible to answer such claims since they are personal. Certainly, the Spirit bears witness to our spirit that we are children of God but much of this is about how others view us.

A second big point is that Eternal Security depends upon the perspective from which the question is asked. Through foreknowledge, God knows who will persevere, but that is not what the Calvinists mean by the P. For them, this is based not on foreknowledge, but on election. The P gets tied into the other four letters TULI. Each are logically connected and each tie together.

As an example, if grace is Irresistable (the I in TULIP), and the Atonement Limited to the Elect (the L in TULIP), then it could be said to follow that those who are elect will persevere. This follows logically. This system may be internally coherent but that does not prove that it is true.

Others point to specific examples of people that they know who left the faith. Calvinists quoting 1 John and other passages, claim that they "never really were", hence they are not leaving. Non-Calvinists, such as Arminians, claim that the person actually apostacized and left the faith. In the end, what is the difference if the person is condemned to Hell?

There are some basic questions for those that assert Perseverence of the Saints.

- What parts do works play in Assurance of Salvation? Certainly works are not salvific but they are part of sanctification under most understandings of Salvation.

- What part does the Holy Spirit play in Assurance of Salvation?

- Given the pernicious nature of sin and the deceptive nature of the human heart, how does a person know that they are not fooling themselves?

- Is the will no longer free to reject God once a person has been saved?

Both sides have their issues. Those who reject Eternal Security have a set of questions that apply to them as well:

- Does a person lose/regain their salvation?

- On what basis does a person lose their salvation? Is it sin? What conditions could happen to someone to lead them away from God?

- Does the Holy Spirit come and go from a person when they are saved and leave?

In the end, either position should be tested on the basis of Scripture. Anecdotes of people who left are not Scripture. We never knew the hearts of such a person. All we had was their confession. That they left was not a surprise to God, since God knows all things.

We all need to be cautious when we put on our glasses. By that I mean that we all view texts through lenses. We bring along a paradigm when we come to Scripture. Sometimes our paradigms cause us to form Scripture to suit our paradigm. Scripture should form us, not us form Scripture. Easier said than done, right?

This is a good discussion topic even if we disagree about the answers. Along the way we learn about some fundamental questions like:

- What is the Gospel?

- What is election?

- What does God know vs What do I know?

- What things are essential in the faith?

- How does the Holy Spirit interact with the world and with the believer?

In the end, no matter which system we adopt we need to realize that faith in Christ is what matters. We need to trust Christ to save us whether or not we are Eternally Secure. If we do not trust Christ, there can be no security.

Please note that I have deliberatly avoided prooftexting here.

Female Angels

Are there female angels? In the book of Genesis, the angels that visit Abraham were men. Other angels in the Bible have masculine names (Gabriel, Michael). These names describe attributes of God. Genesis 6 describes the sons of God that married the daughters of men. In all of these examples, angels are manifested as men.

But is it correct to go from specific examples and create a general rule? After all, there are no verses that say that angels are only masculine. In fact, there is one verse that shows what appear to be angels as women:

Zec 5:9 Then lifted I up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came out two women, and the wind was in their wings; for they had wings like the wings of a stork: and they lifted up the ephah between the earth and the heaven.

Angels don't reproduce but that doesn't prove that they don't have gender. There is more to gender than the ability to reproduce. And there is more to gender than physical parts. Is gender a characteristic of the person?

At one point, some scientists believed that gender was only a matter of environment and hormones. There was a young man who was the victim of a failed circumcision as a child. But for him, something even worse was yet to come. The doctor told his parents that he should be raised as a female. He always knew that something was wrong in his life. It wasn't until he was much older that he was told what had happened to him.

Welcoming Homeschoolers into Our Churches

Homeschooling is a movement which is growing quickly in the United States. The Covenant Companion (published by the Evangelical Covenant Church) ran an article on Homeschooling. Twenty years ago there were very few homeschoolers. Now there are more than a million homeschooled kids. See the Homeschool Legal Defense Association website for information about homeschooling. For an understanding of the philosophy behind homeschooling check out the book that spawned the movement, The Messianic Character of American Education by Rousas John Rushdoony.

As a result some churches are being faced with homeschoolers and their families for the first time. Most at least know some homeschooling families in their area even if they are not in their church yet. This raises a question - What can churches do in order to be welcoming to homeschool children and their families? Here are a few suggestions:

- Understand that the priority of homeschooling families is often less on academic achievement than on development of character. This is not to say that homeschoolers don't have high performance in academics. They consistently score above average, in most cases by a couple of years, as compared to public schooled kids. They just may do it at a different rate than other children. As an example, some follow the "better late than never" philosophy of introducing subjects like reading.

- Know that the homeschool family has already heard the standard arguments against homeschooling. It's not your job to tell them why you think that they have made the wrong decision. Most of them are nice enough not to fight back but you need to understand that they think you "don't get it." They have thought about socialization issues. That's why they have brought out their children to your church. They want them to be socialized and feel that of all the institutions available to them the church is the one that should be most open to them. This is not always the reaction that they get when they go into church.

- Be a safe place. By this I mean that many families homeschool because they did not feel that their kids were safe in public education. Questioning the academic performance of their children does not make them feel safe. They may feel that they will be turned in to CPS for "educational neglect." Their response will be to flee. Nobody should ever ignore signs of child abuse but you better be sure if that is what you suspect before you confront. Rest assured you will not see that family in your church again after an accusation.

- Most of all, talk with the parents. Ask them if any of the kids have any special needs. They may be homeschooling Johnny because Johnny is slow. Perhaps Johnny is a ten year old who can't read yet. Asking them what you can expect from their kids is the right way to set your expectations. Don't gossip about them or their kids. They will find out because walls have ears.

- They may not want to put their kids in your Sunday School program at all. They may want to keep their kids with them during church services. Don't take this personally. Many homeschool because they reject the notion of age segregated education. Putting their kids in Sunday School or children's church during a service may not be something that they are comfortable with - at least yet. They have to made to feel safe. That is your responsibility. Just because you know you are a safe person doesn't mean that homeschool parents know it.

- Consider hosting a homeschool group in your church facility. This gives exposure to your church facility to those who might not normally cross the threshold. It lets them sample the hospitality that Jesus calls us to give to others. Although most are, not all homeschoolers are Christians. It can be an outreach opportunity. A group allows them to meet together so that the mother/teachers can socialize and the kids can play together. Having a welcoming and safe playground helps a lot with this. Even if your church doesn't have many young kids, consider the question of whether you want to have more families. Few churches would say no.

- Add a few homeschooling books to your church library. There are a lot of introductory books out there. The Covenant Companion ran a story in 2003 on homeschooling in the Covenant.

It is often said that the threshold of the church is the toughest thing for most people to cross. Sometimes that happens because we don't make our churches a welcoming place for those who visit.

I hope that this helps you welcome homeschool children into your church. Your church has the choice of whether or not it wants to be welcoming to homeschooler. Your church should want homeschoolers. They share your values and are young families. They may have more time available for church activity once they are energized into church life. Each of these things are important to your church for growth.

Baptism in the Evangelical Covenant Church

The Evangelical Covenant Church has a fairly unique practice when it comes to baptism. Covenant Churches practice both believer and infant baptism. (The Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals also has the practice, but they are quite small.) Local churches may prefer to operate in one mode or the other but Covenant pastors are required to baptize an infant if requested to do so by parent(s). Thus, the burden for unity in the church falls to the pastor. They may have a personal preference in belief for believer baptism over infant baptism, but if requested are required to baptize the infant.

This webpage has a well developed explanation of infant baptism. The author was a former believer in adult baptism so his arguments are towards those who hold to adult baptism only. It's worth a read even if you hold to adult baptism since these are some of the best arguments out there. At least you will understand why infant baptism is so widely held.

The author of the page prefers to use the terms paedobaptism and credobaptism to describe the terms infant and believer baptism. These terms are helpful in the dialog since "infant" and "believer" tend to obscure the issues.

As the author of the paper correctly points out, it is a mistake to think that in churches where paedobaptism is practiced that adults are not also baptized. If there is a conversion, adults are baptized. Thus, the question is not believer baptism, since both sides hold to believer baptism.

There are two real issues at play here. The first issue is whether or not we should re-baptize someone as an adult believer who had been baptized as an infant and later came to faith. The second issue is if we withhold baptism of young children until they reach some particular age.

Ultimately, there is no way to be neutral in the question, but the Covenant Church has a workable way of handling the question of re-baptism. The Covenant Book of Worship (2003 edition) describes a service called the "Affirmation of the Baptismal Covenant" (pages 150-155). This service is recommended for those who come to faith as adults. They may want to be baptized and have been told that their infant baptism was meaningless since they didn't consent. Per the Book of Worship, they are not to be re-baptized but to be given the opportunity to reaffirm their earlier baptism. Water may be used in this service at a point in the service. This service acknowledges the previous baptism as a part of the service and calls the person to remember their baptism.

Why does the Covenant Church do it this way? This, in effect, says that infant baptism is a legitimate baptism. To do otherwise would be to say that the first baptism was not legitimate. The Scripture that is being preserved is:

Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,...

Preserving this "one baptism" is the goal of this service. This is sure to be a controversial point, but in the end, the Covenant Church is an paedobaptist church.

The difference is that while the Covenant is a paedobaptist church there is to be no force or compulsion with parents who want dedication rather than baptism for their children. It may be that after instruction, the parent chooses to not have one and switches to the other. This should not be a smorgasboard choice, but a reasoned choice based on reflection on the Scriptures.

The second issue relates to several other issues such as the idea of an age of accountability. Some people find an argument for an age of accountability in Scripture and argue that children should not be baptized until they reach the age where they can make a decision for themselves. The idea here is that the sequence of events matters. Believe then be baptized. The complication is for young children who have come to believe. In some cases, they might even ask to be baptized. For adults to say that they can't be baptized until they reach a certain age does a disservice to their child-like faith. Even as adults, we never will understand the full scope of what our baptism means. Even young children can be instructed in baptism. They can be questioned about their faith and even testify as to who Jesus is to them.

The Book of Worship also has the service of dedication of children (pages 145-149). Many pastors simply steer the person wanting baptism for their child towards dedication instead. This usually happens when the normal practice of that local church is adult baptism. This is a workable solution in many places and contexts. In Latin America, evangelical means the same thing as adult baptizing. The identification of paedobaptism with the Catholic Church is the reason for the contrast. They don't baptize infants because that's what the Catholics do.

In any event, baptism is best done after some teaching. If a young child is being baptized the parents should be instructed as well. They need to understand their responsibilities in raising their children in the faith. Both the Service of Dedication and the Service of Infant Baptism have the same charge to sponsors and the congregations to instruct the child in the faith as the child grows up.

Southern Baptists and Homeschooling

In yet another front of the raging culture wars, the Southern Baptist Convention has a proposal that its members withdraw their children from public schooling. If this clears the Resolution Committee, this would take the form of a resolution to the Convention. Home school or private Christian schooling is given as the means of education rather than public schooling with a preference for home schooling.

This is an interesting proposal and as far as I am aware the first of it's kind from any major denomination. If nothing else, it shows the prominence that homeschooling has achieved in a few short years. The movement that was barely a whisper twenty years ago is a major player in the culture wars.

For some, this proposal signals a further retreat from engagement with society at large. For others, it is a drive to reduce worldliness in the church.

Many homeschoolers are suspicious of the proposal for a number of reasons. An influx of homeschoolers would raise the profile of a movement that by and large prefers to stay quiet and not draw attention to itself. Some momeschoolers fear a backlash should the SBC proposal be adopted on a national basis. They fear that further state regulation would result.

Other homeschoolers see a value in increasing the economy of scale by having more homeschoolers. If the group is larger, they reason, then it will be harder to kill.

This whole question of how Christians are to engage their culture is an interesting question theologically. Are our children to be used as a point of engagement? Scripturally this would seem problematic. Scripture commands parents to raise their children in the faith. The problem is how can one hour of church or Sunday School a week counteract what happens in 30 hours of public school? The family is putting an expectation on the church which is hard to fulfill. When there is failure is the church blamed?

Credenda Agenda has an article which takes the position that our children are to be used as weapons in the culture war. This article illustrates the contrast against the position of the homeschooler and that of the other side in the debate.

Are our children our main point of contact with the world? If most of our friends are Christians then how do we contact the world? The answer is in the question itself. If we choose to have our friends be mostly Christians won't our kids do that in the public schools anyway? Given the choice, wouldn't we prefer that our kids hang out with kids that share their values. Bad company corrupts good morals is an old adage that has a value that has been proven over and over again.

Hating the Sin and Hating the Sinner

At church we been learning about the Love of God for this past semester. Today, we talked about what God hates. There are a lot of passages which talk about how God hates sin. We are familiar with many of them.

The Psalms are full of them. In the Psalms, sin is understood as falling short of the standard of the Old Testament Law. Any violation of God's Law is sin. The New Testament tells us that anyone who violates even a single point is a sinner. In the end, we are all sinners. That's why we need a Savior. But there's nothing new here from what we heard in Sunday School.

What was interesting was the Psalms where God talks about hating sinners.

The common line of today is to Love the sinner, hate the sin. A passage like this one says that God hates both sin and sinner.

Psalm 5:5 The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes;
You hate all who do iniquity.

In the New Testament we are commanded to love those who hate us. We are told that God does good even to those who hate him. We read that God so loved the world that He sent His Only Son to die for us. We also read that God is love.

Since He is and does all of these things we are to be like God and do them as well. We are to love as He loves.

Then how do we reconcile these Old Testament passages with what we read in the New Testament? Certainly, some people will tell us that the Old Testament is obsolete or that perhaps David didn't quite understand God. As appealing at this idea is at first glance, in the end it throws out the baby with the bathwater.

If the Old Testament is unreliable, Jesus didn't warn us. To the contrary, Jesus Himself, appealed to the Old Testament as evidence for who He is. A threat to the Old Testament is a threat against the New since the New testifies that the Old is valid.

Jesus told us that the Law will last as long as Heaven and Earth. This solution of disassociation from the Old Testament does too much damage to the text and disrupts the continuity between the Old and New Testament. This may be why some people choose not to preach from the Old Testament and stick with the New Testament. In the end, this solution renders the Old Testament god a different god than that of the New Testament.

Some in the history of the church tried to make just that claim. They were soundly rejected as heretics. They saw the Old Testament god as a demiurge - less than the real God. This was how they explained sin in the world. Blame it on the demiurge - the Old Testament god. They saw the New Testament God as the superior God. He is a closer approximation to the real thing, they might have said.

A better way to look at this may be that God loves us so much that he hates seeing us caught up in sin. They become what they worship. They become a personification of those sins. In the end, the sinner becomes indistinguishable from their sin.

At some point identifying people as their sin stops being redemptive. Perhaps that's why we are told not to do it. If someone is no more than the sin they do, where is the chance for salvation? We are to hope and believe the best. As long as there is life, there is hope. God alone can judge. That's why we are to surrender all judgement to Him and His timing.

With God, His patience and long-suffering will be long but not forever. If we believe in Hell, we have to believe that there are people God chooses to send there for rejecting His Son. His long-suffering comes to an end at some point in human history.

When Jesus returns all will be made right. Until then wheat and chaff remain in the field side by side.

Wrestling with the TULIP

Today I am looking at the baptism of John and the TULIP of the Calvinists. These verses seem problematic to the Calvinistic position with respect to the I in the TULIP:

Luke 7:29-30 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.

If the Calvinists are right and God can't be resisted then how could the Pharisees and lawyers reject God's counsel? The Calvinists divide the will of God into a moral and a decreative will. The moral will includes commandments which may or may not be done. The decreative will is the things which will happen. Yet this passage describes salvation so it can't be said to be in the moral category but in the decreative category.

History and Future of Education

Gary North has an interesting article (from 2001) on the history and future of education. North's tracks three stages of economic theory which he applies to education. These are: oligarchic/autarchic, the democratic, and the individualistic stages.

In the oligarchic stage only the children of the rich afford an education.

In the democractic stage, the rich are still privately educated but the poor and middle class are educated as a group, in public education. We have been at this stage in America for nearly 200 years. But North doesn't think we will be at this stage very long.

North sees the rise of the Internet as the key that will enable the move from the democratic stage of education to the individualistic. Free market forces will make this happen. Education will become very cheap and the best will be available to all.

North sees this as the stage where parents get back their children from the state which currently does the eduction. This is when parents can transmit their values to their children rather than the values of the state.

N. T. Wright on Various Social Issues

N. T. Wright is the Anglican ishop of Durham, England. Wright was interviewed by the National Catholic Reporter on various social issues including ordination of homosexuals, abortion on demand, ordination of women, and the current international crisis in the Anglican Church caused by the ordination of a homosexual priest. Wright even weighs in on the American election.

As usual, Wright makes for interesting reading. I can't say that I agree with his view of environmental issues such as global warming, but on theological issues and most social issues, he makes a strong case for a historical view.

Tim Enloe vs the Reformed Baptists

There are a number of people out "there" who call themselves Reformed Baptists. They are Calvinists, hence the part of the title, Reformed. They also hold to adult baptism only, hence they are Baptists. Where they run into trouble is when they try to show that the two systems are compatible.

Historically, the Reformed rejected adult baptism as taught by the anabaptists of their day. The anabaptists also rejected Calvinistic predestination of their day. Somehow, here in America, these two views have been fused with parts picked out of each and melted together into this theological melting pot known as Reformed Baptist.

James White, of Alpha Omega Ministries, is the leader of one subsect of this phenomenon. White and his followers are particularly certain that Calvin had it right in understanding salvation. They run a IRC channel called #prosapologian where they quickly ban anyone who argues effectively against their position. Other opinions are quickly deemed non-christian. It seems it's not faith that saves for them, but having a right doctrine of salvation is what saves. One is saved or unsaved based on what how one thinks that one is saved.

One of their own, named Tim Enloe, author of the blog Societas Christiana, started questioning the status quo with White and his followers and they came down on him like a load of bricks. Enloe got himself in trouble because he started reading the Reformation Fathers as well as reading the early writers of the late Medieval period- immediately preceeding the Protestant Reformation. Enloe found the Reformation Fathers substantially closer to Rome than to the Reformed Baptists and let the Reformed Baptists know that they were not in agreement with the Reformed Fathers. Being Reformed is more than having the doctrine of Salvation of Calvin.

Enloe has written an article titled, I Hate My Generation: Why I Left Modern Evangelicalism. Enloe also has a weblog, Societas Christiana, where he deals with issues of theology, culture, philosophy and apologetics. In particular, Tim Enloe traces his own trajectory of faith through the Reformed Baptist movement.

Even though I don't hate Evangelicalism or want to leave Evangelicalism, Tim does have some interesting points to consider on this page such as the relationship between faith and reason and the importance/meaning of the sacraments. For White and the Reformed Baptists to embrace a form of the sacraments more like the Anabaptists has caused them to depart in a substantive manner from the Reformation Fathers. But Enloe makes this point much more effectively than I ever could on his page. A google search for Tim Enloe and Reformed shows other debates, etc that he has engaged in. This debate has slid into other blogs like Coffee Conversations, 40 Bicycles, Reformed Catholicism, Theonomy, Douglas Wilson's Blog and Sweet Tea, and Theology. Note it takes a while to sort out the who is who in this running debate/dialog.

I think that this is an area where the Evangelical Covenant Church has a unique contribution to offer the Christian community. We affirm both forms of baptism because we believe that our unity is not based on having a particular view of baptism or salvation, but in on faith in Christ. We have a high view of the sacraments, rejecting the notion that they are just ordinances. Christ is present in the sacraments, but we don't define just how that is the case. We can come out of a Lutheran heritage that has been formed by revival.

Stanley Hauerwas

Interesting blog on Hauerwas and the Bible Gestapo. After reading Hauerwas in seminary and in the process acquiring a critical dislike for the contents of his writing, this critique comes as a breath of fresh air. The inconsistencies of Hauerwas are equally invisible to his disciples and obvious to his critics.

Hauerwas is an advocate of Virtue Ethics. While this system has much to commend it, it is also not without problems. The interesting quote in the blog is:

I do not believe, in the Church’s current circumstance, that each person in the Church thereby is given the right to interpret the Scripture

For Hauerwas, only those who have developed the virtues are capable of understanding the Bible rightly.

This begs a question in the case of Hauerwas. To make such a claim and have the claim not self-stultify, Hauerwas must be making the claim that he, himself, has the necessary virtue to make this argument. At the very least, wouldn't the virtue that he lacks then be humility?

The Gospel is simple enough that a child can believe.