The false prophet makes itself known by its fruits.
"Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon." (Rev 13:11)
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
Sunday, January 27, 2019
Saturday, January 26, 2019
Biblical Theology XLVIII: 1 Thessalonians
Paul writes his first letter to the Thessalonians because he is concerned that their hearing of his persecutions/sufferings might cause them to turn away from the faith. The bulk of the letter is actually personal. Only in Chapters 4 and 5 does Paul give instructions in theology and ethics that go beyond what they already know or are doing.
Theology: Paul divides the letter up between faith, love, and hope in that order (1:3). He first encourages them in their strong faith that led them to turn from idols to a living God (1:9-10), and to endure severe persecution/suffering, becoming a model for all the saints everywhere (1:7-8). Paul conveys his love for them in Chapters 2 and 3, and then remarks that they know they are to love the brethren (4:9), but instructs them further to let that love be expressed in the obedience of Paul’s instructions to live in sexual purity with one another. Finally, Paul further solidifies their hope by explaining that even those who have died have not perished, but will return with Christ in the resurrection (4:13-18).
He encourages them to live in a manner worthy of Christ, knowing that Christ’s return is not known, nor does it need to be known, by those who live according to the world to come, and not in accordance with this world (5:1-11). Those who live according to the thought and life patterns of this world now will perish, but God has not appoint His people for wrath, so He pushes them to live in light of the world to come in holiness so that they do not perish as the world. He finishes this with an inclusio started in 1:3 by saying, “But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, putting on faith and love as a breastplate, and the hope of salvation as a helmet” (5:8).
Paul ends the letter in a blessing upon them that the Lord would purify/make them holy completely in body, spirit, and soul (5:23-24). Hence, sanctification is tied, not only to the inward man, but to the body, as the Christian looks forward in hope to the resurrection at the coming of the Lord.
Ethics: The faith, hope, and love of the Thessalonians is what has produced their continued work and perseverance in the faith (1:3). Hence, they have not given up the faith, but have continued to grow stronger. Paul informs them of what an encouragement they have been to him and now wishes to encourage them in the fact that they have done so well in their repenting from false theology and living out a godly life. He encourages them, however, to go even further, to keep growing, and not to think they merely have arrived (4:1-8).
He warns them to be careful to continue in their sanctification, specifically to refrain from sexual immorality and the defrauding of a brother or sister when it comes to sexuality. This could refer to avoiding adultery, where a brother or sister are defrauded by another believer stealing his or her spouse, or it could refer to defiling a fellow brother or sister by engaging in sexual activity with them when he or she is not married to them. Either way, Christians are not to take the rights with other Christians that only their spouses would have with them, nor are they to defile other Christians by taking advantage of them in a sexual way because God will be the avenger of these Christians (4:6). The word “avenger” here refers to God as the One who will issue the death penalty upon a person. Paul is basically saying that God will damn the one who does it, so it is a much harsher warning than many realize. He ends by saying that anyone who does not heed this warning is not rejecting human opinion, but God (v. 8).
Paul further expresses his encouragement that they love other believers, but urges them to go even further as a witness to outsiders by leading a quiet life and working if they are able so that they are not in need (vv. 9-12). In other words, they have their theology and ethics in place, but now they are to set their lives in order by being disciplined even more than they are already for the sake of the gospel.
Paul ends with various ethical instructions that should flow from their faith, love, and hope. They are to “mind those who labor among you, preside over you, and rebuke you,” and that they are to be held in “high esteem” (5:12-13). They are to not be at odds with one another (v. 13), rejoicing, always praying, and giving thanks (vv. 16-18), not grieving the spirit or ignoring God’s revelation to them (vv. 19-20). He sums up by saying they are to stay away from all forms of evil.
Assurance of Salvation in the First Epistle of John
One often hears that the assurance of salvation is based on assurance itself. This is a rather odd concept. It simply is not found in Scripture. I think it might be taken from Hebrews 11:1, where the definition of faith there is "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Of course, Auctor is arguing that these Jewish Christians need to keep their faith that God will give them what was promised in the future Sabbath and resurrection to come. This should help them from being tempted from apostasy. However, he is not giving a full definition of faith in Christ. It is partial in that it is dealing specifically with the issue of doubt leading to abandonment of Christianity.
Never are they told here that they can have assurance they are saved because they have faith, however; and they are certainly not told that they can have assurance by being sure of God's promises. The Judahites about to be punished in exile were sure of God's promises. That's why they ignored Jeremiah. They were so sure that God's grace for them would save them, they didn't feel the need to listen to the message of repentance this judgmental radical was preaching to them.
Lutherans talk about assurance based on their baptism. Again, where is this in Scripture? Luther argued that baptism was an objective means by which God assured an individual that his promises were for him; but how exactly does baptism do this unless no one who is baptized is ever damned? Was the BTK killer a baptized Lutheran? Can he rest in his baptism? Baptism may be a good sign, perhaps, a better sign than any a pagan has, but it cannot say one way or another whether someone is saved.
Scripturally speaking, the New Testament tells Christians how they can know that they are saved. First John argues that there are four things that let the Christian know, and therefore, have assurance, that he is saved.
The first is whether he is repentant of his sins, rather than continuing on in his sins. John argues that if, and only if, we confess our sins, Christ will cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Anyone who refuses to live in the truth and be honest with his sins so that he confesses them, is not saved and should have no assurance therefore (1:5-10; 3:6, 9; 5:18). "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God" (3:9).
The second is whether someone keeps his commandments and lives as Jesus in holiness (2:3-6). He purifies himself in anticipation of Christ's return, desiring to be like Christ, not just then, but now (2:28-3:3). The one who does what is right is righteous (3:7, 10). "We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands" (2:3).
The third indicator that one is saved or not is whether he believes the apostolic/orthodox teaching concerning who Christ is (2:18-25; 4:1-4). This may be broadened to understand the Person of Christ representing all core apostolic theology concerning God, Christ, the gospel, etc. If one believes orthodoxy, it is one of the indicators, when accompanied by the others, that he is saved. If one does not, he should have no confidence that he is saved. "No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also" (2:23).
The fourth indicator is whether one loves God by loving other Christians (2:9-11; 3:10-18; 4:7-21; 5:2-4). Love is expressed in two ways in John. First, it is giving resources to a Christian in need (3:16-18). Second, it is praying for his repentance when he is in sin (5:14-18). "This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love his fellow Christian" (3:10). "We know that we have crossed over from death to life because we love our fellow Christians. The one who does not love remains in death (v. 14).
All of these are put together by John to form a visible basis for assurance that goes beyond mere wishful thinking and false assurance. John has written these things down so that "you may know that you have eternal life" (5:13). If one believes apostolic orthodoxy, loves God by keeping God's instructions, repents when he fails to do so, and loves his fellow Christians by seeking his physical and spiritual restoration with whatever means he has, he may know with full assurance that he knows God, has come out of darkness into light, has become a child of God, and has eternal life.
Never are they told here that they can have assurance they are saved because they have faith, however; and they are certainly not told that they can have assurance by being sure of God's promises. The Judahites about to be punished in exile were sure of God's promises. That's why they ignored Jeremiah. They were so sure that God's grace for them would save them, they didn't feel the need to listen to the message of repentance this judgmental radical was preaching to them.
Lutherans talk about assurance based on their baptism. Again, where is this in Scripture? Luther argued that baptism was an objective means by which God assured an individual that his promises were for him; but how exactly does baptism do this unless no one who is baptized is ever damned? Was the BTK killer a baptized Lutheran? Can he rest in his baptism? Baptism may be a good sign, perhaps, a better sign than any a pagan has, but it cannot say one way or another whether someone is saved.
Scripturally speaking, the New Testament tells Christians how they can know that they are saved. First John argues that there are four things that let the Christian know, and therefore, have assurance, that he is saved.
The first is whether he is repentant of his sins, rather than continuing on in his sins. John argues that if, and only if, we confess our sins, Christ will cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Anyone who refuses to live in the truth and be honest with his sins so that he confesses them, is not saved and should have no assurance therefore (1:5-10; 3:6, 9; 5:18). "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God" (3:9).
The second is whether someone keeps his commandments and lives as Jesus in holiness (2:3-6). He purifies himself in anticipation of Christ's return, desiring to be like Christ, not just then, but now (2:28-3:3). The one who does what is right is righteous (3:7, 10). "We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands" (2:3).
The third indicator that one is saved or not is whether he believes the apostolic/orthodox teaching concerning who Christ is (2:18-25; 4:1-4). This may be broadened to understand the Person of Christ representing all core apostolic theology concerning God, Christ, the gospel, etc. If one believes orthodoxy, it is one of the indicators, when accompanied by the others, that he is saved. If one does not, he should have no confidence that he is saved. "No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also" (2:23).
The fourth indicator is whether one loves God by loving other Christians (2:9-11; 3:10-18; 4:7-21; 5:2-4). Love is expressed in two ways in John. First, it is giving resources to a Christian in need (3:16-18). Second, it is praying for his repentance when he is in sin (5:14-18). "This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love his fellow Christian" (3:10). "We know that we have crossed over from death to life because we love our fellow Christians. The one who does not love remains in death (v. 14).
All of these are put together by John to form a visible basis for assurance that goes beyond mere wishful thinking and false assurance. John has written these things down so that "you may know that you have eternal life" (5:13). If one believes apostolic orthodoxy, loves God by keeping God's instructions, repents when he fails to do so, and loves his fellow Christians by seeking his physical and spiritual restoration with whatever means he has, he may know with full assurance that he knows God, has come out of darkness into light, has become a child of God, and has eternal life.
Thursday, January 24, 2019
Applying Biblical Sojourner Texts to Illegal Immigrants
Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying,“Bring out of the camp the one who cursed, and let all who heard him lay their hands on his head, and let all the congregation stone him. And speak to the people of Israel, saying, Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin. Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death. (Lev 24:13-16)
I sure hope no one crossing the boarder says the Lord's name in vain. Liberals are going to kill him!
I sure hope no one crossing the boarder says the Lord's name in vain. Liberals are going to kill him!
Wednesday, January 23, 2019
The Church Has Guns
It's interesting to see how people think of pastors. Overseers are really priests of priests. For the most part, they function the same as the priests in the Old Testament who teach the people of God's instructions and administer the sacrifices, applying them to the people and pronouncing them either clean or unclean, i.e., acceptable to be present in the community and partake of God's protective care or not acceptable, and therefore, to be placed outside the camp.
However, what people usually think of when they think of pastors today is largely similar to how they think of Jesus. For most American Christians this means seeing Jesus as a Mr. Rogers figure who is there to listen to them, give them great advice for living, and then to stay out of their business. Certainly, they are not to make any judgments about a person's salvation/cleanliness/fitness to be considered a member of the kingdom.
Instead, pastors in the American imagination are really nice, non-judgmental people, positive thinking, encouragers who are like Jesus, as long as Jesus looks like Mr. Rogers that is. One might imagine some stoic or friendly monk who, when not smiling and shaking hands with everyone, spends his time singing to birds and butterflies while he walks through a tranquil garden of blooming flowers.
Of course, this is the church on satanic sedatives. It's been drugged to think this way by a culture bent on taming the Lord Jesus Christ and His ministers. In reality, Christ is a shepherd and so are His elders. That's why they are called pastors, i.e., "shepherds." A shepherd both nurtures sheep and exercises authority over them to keep them safe. He also violently roots out wolves parading themselves around to be sheep as they devour other sheep with bad theology or ethics that destroy the flock, and Christ does this through His ministers, not in spite of them.
In Exodus 32:25-29, in response to the sin of people in the assembly of God, Moses relates the command of God to the Levites to go kill their closest friends and relatives for their evil.
Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies. So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, “Whoever is for the Lord, come to me.” And all the Levites rallied to him. Then he said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’” The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, “You have been set apart to the Lord today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day.”
In Numbers 25:1-13, those who shepherd Israel are to kill a huge amount of them. Phineas, a priest, is praised for his killing of an Israelite man engaged in gross sin known to all of the people.
While Israel was staying in Shittim, the men began to indulge in sexual immorality with Moabite women, who invited them to the sacrifices to their gods. The people ate the sacrificial meal and bowed down before these gods. So Israel yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor. And the Lord’s anger burned against them. The Lord said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of these people, kill them and expose them in broad daylight before the Lord, so that the Lord’s fierce anger may turn away from Israel.” So Moses said to Israel’s judges, “Each of you must put to death those of your people who have yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor.” Then an Israelite man brought into the camp a Midianite woman right before the eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel while they were weeping at the entrance to the tent of meeting. When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear into both of them, right through the Israelite man and into the woman’s stomach. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped; 9 but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000.
The Lord said to Moses, “Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, has turned my anger away from the Israelites. Since he was as zealous for my honor among them as I am, I did not put an end to them in my zeal. Therefore tell him I am making my covenant of peace with him. He and his descendants will have a covenant of a lasting priesthood, because he was zealous for the honor of his God and made atonement for the Israelites.”
These are verses the American church tries to avoid. They try to dismiss them as the Old Testament God, as though God has changed His mind about sin in the New Testament, or that Christ now doesn't remove the evil man from among us because Jesus is all about forgiveness even without repentance.
However, since the Church is spiritual Israel, we would expect its shepherds to be the spiritual version of these priests and judges. Whereas the Church is not a physical nation, it does not deal out physical death for the crimes of wicked members of the visible covenant community. Instead, its shepherds employ a spiritual execution the church refers to as excommunication. The shepherd carries a sword, or in our day, a gun, a spiritual one with which he executes the wolves in sheep's clothing.
This spiritual gun is the judgment of the elders. In Matthew 18:15-20, Christ lays out discipline when one sins personally against another.
“If your fellow Christian sins, go and point out their error, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. “Truly I tell you, whatever guilty verdict you give on earth will be the guilty verdict given in heaven, and whatever you declare innocent on earth will be considered innocent in heaven. “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”
The two or three are the two or three witnesses agreeing that the person is unrepentant of his or her sin, and therefore, are to be put to spiritual death, i.e., excommunicated and handed over to the devil.
Notice that this, whatever the judgment of his ministers on such cases, is Christ's judgment. He has given such authority to His priests. They judge a professed believer to be unrepentant. They ask God to hand him over to Satan. And Christ says that the Father will do so, and that Christ is with them in their decision as well.
This is why Paul does this on a couple occassions, both in 1 Corinthians 5 and in 1 Timothy 1:18-20. This is done both to cleanse the community of communal guilt, as rebellion not only spreads like cancer or leaven, as Paul says, but also because sin in the camp defiles the whole community and makes it guilty before God, and to instill fear in the sinner, so that he feels the weight of the judgment of God as he is given over to the devil for destruction, so that it may lead to his repentance and cleansing as he is restored into the fellowship of God's people or to his final destruction.
What this means is that shepherds are nurturers through their feeding of the sheep and leading them to pure waters through the teaching of the Word, but that they are also warriors, policemen, soldiers, judges, executioners as a part of their protection of the larger flock, and even those individuals who rebel against Christ and still think they can proclaim themselves as Christians.
Our culture loves the Mr. Rogers minister, but makes a joke out of the minsters they should actually fear with a godly fear. The church with Mr. Rogers at its guard is a disarmed church, and every villain and dark thing creeps into it. Christ spits such a church out of His mouth. But the true Church is armed with judgment in love for God's holiness and the holiness of His people, and it is only a joke in so far as one thinks God's damnation is a joke. Make no mistake of this nurturing entity called the church. It's leaders are patient and seek life rather than death, but it is, in fact, heavily armed. Every minister carries with him life and death, the protection and destruction of individuals. The Church has eternal food and water and shelter for the repentant soul. But the wicked who do not repent will meet God's wrath instead through it because the Church has guns.
However, what people usually think of when they think of pastors today is largely similar to how they think of Jesus. For most American Christians this means seeing Jesus as a Mr. Rogers figure who is there to listen to them, give them great advice for living, and then to stay out of their business. Certainly, they are not to make any judgments about a person's salvation/cleanliness/fitness to be considered a member of the kingdom.
Instead, pastors in the American imagination are really nice, non-judgmental people, positive thinking, encouragers who are like Jesus, as long as Jesus looks like Mr. Rogers that is. One might imagine some stoic or friendly monk who, when not smiling and shaking hands with everyone, spends his time singing to birds and butterflies while he walks through a tranquil garden of blooming flowers.
Of course, this is the church on satanic sedatives. It's been drugged to think this way by a culture bent on taming the Lord Jesus Christ and His ministers. In reality, Christ is a shepherd and so are His elders. That's why they are called pastors, i.e., "shepherds." A shepherd both nurtures sheep and exercises authority over them to keep them safe. He also violently roots out wolves parading themselves around to be sheep as they devour other sheep with bad theology or ethics that destroy the flock, and Christ does this through His ministers, not in spite of them.
In Exodus 32:25-29, in response to the sin of people in the assembly of God, Moses relates the command of God to the Levites to go kill their closest friends and relatives for their evil.
Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies. So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, “Whoever is for the Lord, come to me.” And all the Levites rallied to him. Then he said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’” The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, “You have been set apart to the Lord today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day.”
In Numbers 25:1-13, those who shepherd Israel are to kill a huge amount of them. Phineas, a priest, is praised for his killing of an Israelite man engaged in gross sin known to all of the people.
While Israel was staying in Shittim, the men began to indulge in sexual immorality with Moabite women, who invited them to the sacrifices to their gods. The people ate the sacrificial meal and bowed down before these gods. So Israel yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor. And the Lord’s anger burned against them. The Lord said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of these people, kill them and expose them in broad daylight before the Lord, so that the Lord’s fierce anger may turn away from Israel.” So Moses said to Israel’s judges, “Each of you must put to death those of your people who have yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor.” Then an Israelite man brought into the camp a Midianite woman right before the eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel while they were weeping at the entrance to the tent of meeting. When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear into both of them, right through the Israelite man and into the woman’s stomach. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped; 9 but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000.
The Lord said to Moses, “Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, has turned my anger away from the Israelites. Since he was as zealous for my honor among them as I am, I did not put an end to them in my zeal. Therefore tell him I am making my covenant of peace with him. He and his descendants will have a covenant of a lasting priesthood, because he was zealous for the honor of his God and made atonement for the Israelites.”
These are verses the American church tries to avoid. They try to dismiss them as the Old Testament God, as though God has changed His mind about sin in the New Testament, or that Christ now doesn't remove the evil man from among us because Jesus is all about forgiveness even without repentance.
However, since the Church is spiritual Israel, we would expect its shepherds to be the spiritual version of these priests and judges. Whereas the Church is not a physical nation, it does not deal out physical death for the crimes of wicked members of the visible covenant community. Instead, its shepherds employ a spiritual execution the church refers to as excommunication. The shepherd carries a sword, or in our day, a gun, a spiritual one with which he executes the wolves in sheep's clothing.
This spiritual gun is the judgment of the elders. In Matthew 18:15-20, Christ lays out discipline when one sins personally against another.
“If your fellow Christian sins, go and point out their error, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. “Truly I tell you, whatever guilty verdict you give on earth will be the guilty verdict given in heaven, and whatever you declare innocent on earth will be considered innocent in heaven. “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”
The two or three are the two or three witnesses agreeing that the person is unrepentant of his or her sin, and therefore, are to be put to spiritual death, i.e., excommunicated and handed over to the devil.
Notice that this, whatever the judgment of his ministers on such cases, is Christ's judgment. He has given such authority to His priests. They judge a professed believer to be unrepentant. They ask God to hand him over to Satan. And Christ says that the Father will do so, and that Christ is with them in their decision as well.
This is why Paul does this on a couple occassions, both in 1 Corinthians 5 and in 1 Timothy 1:18-20. This is done both to cleanse the community of communal guilt, as rebellion not only spreads like cancer or leaven, as Paul says, but also because sin in the camp defiles the whole community and makes it guilty before God, and to instill fear in the sinner, so that he feels the weight of the judgment of God as he is given over to the devil for destruction, so that it may lead to his repentance and cleansing as he is restored into the fellowship of God's people or to his final destruction.
What this means is that shepherds are nurturers through their feeding of the sheep and leading them to pure waters through the teaching of the Word, but that they are also warriors, policemen, soldiers, judges, executioners as a part of their protection of the larger flock, and even those individuals who rebel against Christ and still think they can proclaim themselves as Christians.
Our culture loves the Mr. Rogers minister, but makes a joke out of the minsters they should actually fear with a godly fear. The church with Mr. Rogers at its guard is a disarmed church, and every villain and dark thing creeps into it. Christ spits such a church out of His mouth. But the true Church is armed with judgment in love for God's holiness and the holiness of His people, and it is only a joke in so far as one thinks God's damnation is a joke. Make no mistake of this nurturing entity called the church. It's leaders are patient and seek life rather than death, but it is, in fact, heavily armed. Every minister carries with him life and death, the protection and destruction of individuals. The Church has eternal food and water and shelter for the repentant soul. But the wicked who do not repent will meet God's wrath instead through it because the Church has guns.
Tuesday, January 22, 2019
Monday, January 21, 2019
Martin Luther King, Jr. Didn't Get Anything Right
I constantly hear that we can praise MLK for what he got right, which usually means his ethics concerning civil rights. Let me suggest that his ethics flow from his heresies, not counter to them.
First, King was an enemy of orthodox Christianity and fully embraced what he called liberal theology, but was more of a combination between neo-orthodoxy and liberation theology. Of course, he held classically liberal views that declared the Trinity, deity of Christ, virgin birth, substitionary atonement, resurrection of Christ, second coming, etc. to be all mythological nonsense that orthodox, what he called "fundamentalist," Christians have believed throughout the centuries.
His Christ was a man who sensed the divine within by depending upon God fully and seeking justice in every place. Man is one united entity made by God and so all of humanity is the image and children of God. This is where his heresy connects to his liberation ethics.
Inclusivism is not a Christian idea. It is the religion of the Western, Enlightenment-oriented deity, who wishes all men to stop fighting and be united under the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. Hence, racism is a product of exclusivism and exclusivism is wrong because God is not exclusive and all mankind is one group that is not distinguished by God.
Inclusivists rightly argue that racism is a result of exclusivism, but wrongly argue that the answer is seeing God contrary to the biblical revelation, i.e., the only way we would actually know what God is like, as inclusive. Nor is it right to see mankind, again, contrary to the way God sees mankind, i.e., in two groups, not one. I've argued before that the answer is seeing the right kind of exclusivism rather than excluding based on sinful criteria.
The orthodox, biblical answer to racism is to understand that all who are in Christ are united as brothers and in harmony with God as His children. They are the images of God because they are united to the image of God, who is the fullness of deity dwelling in bodily form. They can be reconciled because Christ was a substition for them on the cross, where He paid the price for all of their sins, including all of their hatred toward one another. Hence, they can forgive one another, not by sweeping it all under the rug, but with confidence in their Savior's work, that he has taken ALL of their sins against Him and against one another, and fully paid for every single one. There are no more pounds of flesh to take. His death is more than sufficient to reconcile us to one another.
Outside of Christ, however, this isn't true. There is no basis for reconciliation except injustice, since one has to ignore the evil done and just move on without ever punishing it. This was King's view of course. Others who disagreed with him still wanted, and want, a punishment of those who performed acts of hate themselves, or are related to those who performed those acts by race. This is also unjust because it punishes people who did not commit the crime, and in fact repudiate the actions of those who did, for simply having the same skin color as those who did. Hence, there is no just way the world can deal with the issue.
In King's theology, Christ isn't a perfect sacrifice who can reconcile anyone to God because He isn't God and wasn't born of a virgin. He didn't die to pay for sins, so there is no basis in King's theology to move on without doing so unjustly.
Furthermore, it is not merely in his denial of orthodox theology concerning the deity of Christ and His work that makes King a heretic. It is the very nature of inclusivism itself. Inclusivism denies the necessity of Christ as mediator to reconcile man to God. Man already is in relationship with God as His children. There is no need to be reconciled to one another through Christ and His work on the cross, as we just need to realize that we already are brothers who just need to get along.
The celebration and quoting of a man who presented an antichrist (i.e., replacement Christ) and the religion and ethics that directly follow from them by the average Christian is rather alarming. King's civil rights ideas were a result of, not despite of, his heretical theology that damns mankind by lifting it up apart from Christ and tearing the true biblical Christ down as necessary for any genuine and just reconciliation to take place.
King is not a hero. He's a villain. This is not even to mention his unrepentant sexual immorality, which although can hit anyone, we are told that it is a staple characteristic of false teachers.
I urge any Christian to celebrate Christ on this day, and realize that if someone doesn't get Christ right, they get nothing right.
First, King was an enemy of orthodox Christianity and fully embraced what he called liberal theology, but was more of a combination between neo-orthodoxy and liberation theology. Of course, he held classically liberal views that declared the Trinity, deity of Christ, virgin birth, substitionary atonement, resurrection of Christ, second coming, etc. to be all mythological nonsense that orthodox, what he called "fundamentalist," Christians have believed throughout the centuries.
His Christ was a man who sensed the divine within by depending upon God fully and seeking justice in every place. Man is one united entity made by God and so all of humanity is the image and children of God. This is where his heresy connects to his liberation ethics.
Inclusivism is not a Christian idea. It is the religion of the Western, Enlightenment-oriented deity, who wishes all men to stop fighting and be united under the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. Hence, racism is a product of exclusivism and exclusivism is wrong because God is not exclusive and all mankind is one group that is not distinguished by God.
Inclusivists rightly argue that racism is a result of exclusivism, but wrongly argue that the answer is seeing God contrary to the biblical revelation, i.e., the only way we would actually know what God is like, as inclusive. Nor is it right to see mankind, again, contrary to the way God sees mankind, i.e., in two groups, not one. I've argued before that the answer is seeing the right kind of exclusivism rather than excluding based on sinful criteria.
The orthodox, biblical answer to racism is to understand that all who are in Christ are united as brothers and in harmony with God as His children. They are the images of God because they are united to the image of God, who is the fullness of deity dwelling in bodily form. They can be reconciled because Christ was a substition for them on the cross, where He paid the price for all of their sins, including all of their hatred toward one another. Hence, they can forgive one another, not by sweeping it all under the rug, but with confidence in their Savior's work, that he has taken ALL of their sins against Him and against one another, and fully paid for every single one. There are no more pounds of flesh to take. His death is more than sufficient to reconcile us to one another.
Outside of Christ, however, this isn't true. There is no basis for reconciliation except injustice, since one has to ignore the evil done and just move on without ever punishing it. This was King's view of course. Others who disagreed with him still wanted, and want, a punishment of those who performed acts of hate themselves, or are related to those who performed those acts by race. This is also unjust because it punishes people who did not commit the crime, and in fact repudiate the actions of those who did, for simply having the same skin color as those who did. Hence, there is no just way the world can deal with the issue.
In King's theology, Christ isn't a perfect sacrifice who can reconcile anyone to God because He isn't God and wasn't born of a virgin. He didn't die to pay for sins, so there is no basis in King's theology to move on without doing so unjustly.
Furthermore, it is not merely in his denial of orthodox theology concerning the deity of Christ and His work that makes King a heretic. It is the very nature of inclusivism itself. Inclusivism denies the necessity of Christ as mediator to reconcile man to God. Man already is in relationship with God as His children. There is no need to be reconciled to one another through Christ and His work on the cross, as we just need to realize that we already are brothers who just need to get along.
The celebration and quoting of a man who presented an antichrist (i.e., replacement Christ) and the religion and ethics that directly follow from them by the average Christian is rather alarming. King's civil rights ideas were a result of, not despite of, his heretical theology that damns mankind by lifting it up apart from Christ and tearing the true biblical Christ down as necessary for any genuine and just reconciliation to take place.
King is not a hero. He's a villain. This is not even to mention his unrepentant sexual immorality, which although can hit anyone, we are told that it is a staple characteristic of false teachers.
I urge any Christian to celebrate Christ on this day, and realize that if someone doesn't get Christ right, they get nothing right.
Thursday, January 17, 2019
Why the God of Molinism Cares More about Numbers than Individuals
Molinism teaches that God ponders all possible universes and then actualizes the one where most people will be saved. This means that God is looking for quantity. But that also means that God likely damns individuals who would have been saved in other universes, but are not now saved in this one since the situations and environments that would capture the majority have changed from those situations and environments of other possible worlds.
What this ultimately means, whether Molinists want to admit it or not, is that the environment and situation, not the human via freewill, determines whether the individual will believe. In fact, that seems to be the entire point of actualizing a world where the most people will believe. If it were merely due to the freewill of the individual, the same amount of people would believe regardless of the situations and environments in which they were placed. Hence, it is not the person who determines their fate, but the world around them that God has made. This means that different people will be saved in different worlds, and the world that is actualized, i.e., this world, may see the largest numbers believe, but will logically lose people who would have been saved in other worlds.
Ironically, this places Molinism in the same camp as those who believe in double predestination. If Person A would have believed in Situation XYZ, but would not believe in Situation WYZ that replaces XYZ, then God could have saved that individual by creating Situation XYZ, but chose not to do so by creating Situation WYZ instead. This means that God not only predetermines the salvation of those who would be saved by creating the situations and environment that would cause them to believe, as opposed to other situations and environments where they would not have believed, but that He also predetermines the damnation of other persons who would have believed under Situation XYZ, but now will not under Situation WYZ. Hence, people who would have believed, given the right circumstances provided by God, are chosen for damnation because they were not given those circumstances in favor of the larger group chosen for salvation.
Ultimately, Molinism ends up denying the orthodox, Augustinian view of man in favor of a Pelagian view, but assumes the same doctrine of predestination, even double predestination, that so many Molinists are trying to avoid in Calvinism.
Even more, it says something very different about God's love, as in Calvinism, God's love is for individuals and He is willing to damn the majority for the sake of those He has set His love upon. In Molinism, however, God does not love individuals. He merely loves the majority number, the large group, and is thus willing to damn individuals who would have loved him in another world to save the nebulous blob of humanity, as long as it is bigger than the smaller blob who are damned.
Furthermore, this means that God's love would change from one universe to the next, calling into question the aseity and immutability of God. If in one universe God loves Individual X more than the others who are put in situations that determine their damnation, but in another universe God does not love Individual X more than others put in situations that determine their damnation, then God's will and love is contingent upon what universe He makes, making God contingent upon a finite creation.
The God and humanity that Molinism has created, therefore, no longer resembles that of orthodox Christianity, where humans are totally incapable of loving God in their fallen state, regardless of what situation and in what environment they are placed, and God loves individuals and is not willing that any of His chosen should perish, even at the cost of the masses. Yet, the reason Molinism came about was to provide for a free will that is impossible since man chooses in accordance with his environment, the types of choices given, his upbringing, education, mental capacity, cultural ideals, etc. This supposedly presents a better picture of God. I hardly think that it does.
What this ultimately means, whether Molinists want to admit it or not, is that the environment and situation, not the human via freewill, determines whether the individual will believe. In fact, that seems to be the entire point of actualizing a world where the most people will believe. If it were merely due to the freewill of the individual, the same amount of people would believe regardless of the situations and environments in which they were placed. Hence, it is not the person who determines their fate, but the world around them that God has made. This means that different people will be saved in different worlds, and the world that is actualized, i.e., this world, may see the largest numbers believe, but will logically lose people who would have been saved in other worlds.
Ironically, this places Molinism in the same camp as those who believe in double predestination. If Person A would have believed in Situation XYZ, but would not believe in Situation WYZ that replaces XYZ, then God could have saved that individual by creating Situation XYZ, but chose not to do so by creating Situation WYZ instead. This means that God not only predetermines the salvation of those who would be saved by creating the situations and environment that would cause them to believe, as opposed to other situations and environments where they would not have believed, but that He also predetermines the damnation of other persons who would have believed under Situation XYZ, but now will not under Situation WYZ. Hence, people who would have believed, given the right circumstances provided by God, are chosen for damnation because they were not given those circumstances in favor of the larger group chosen for salvation.
Ultimately, Molinism ends up denying the orthodox, Augustinian view of man in favor of a Pelagian view, but assumes the same doctrine of predestination, even double predestination, that so many Molinists are trying to avoid in Calvinism.
Even more, it says something very different about God's love, as in Calvinism, God's love is for individuals and He is willing to damn the majority for the sake of those He has set His love upon. In Molinism, however, God does not love individuals. He merely loves the majority number, the large group, and is thus willing to damn individuals who would have loved him in another world to save the nebulous blob of humanity, as long as it is bigger than the smaller blob who are damned.
Furthermore, this means that God's love would change from one universe to the next, calling into question the aseity and immutability of God. If in one universe God loves Individual X more than the others who are put in situations that determine their damnation, but in another universe God does not love Individual X more than others put in situations that determine their damnation, then God's will and love is contingent upon what universe He makes, making God contingent upon a finite creation.
The God and humanity that Molinism has created, therefore, no longer resembles that of orthodox Christianity, where humans are totally incapable of loving God in their fallen state, regardless of what situation and in what environment they are placed, and God loves individuals and is not willing that any of His chosen should perish, even at the cost of the masses. Yet, the reason Molinism came about was to provide for a free will that is impossible since man chooses in accordance with his environment, the types of choices given, his upbringing, education, mental capacity, cultural ideals, etc. This supposedly presents a better picture of God. I hardly think that it does.
Tuesday, January 15, 2019
Point to Ponder
If Jesus said that you are to love your enemy and not just your neighbor, but everyone is your neighbor, then why didn't he just say love your neighbor?
Sunday, January 13, 2019
Biblical Theology XLVII: Colossians
The Letter to the Colossians is written by the Apostle Paul from prison to a church that Epaphras started. In fact, it is Epaphras that brings him news concerning how the church is doing and its struggles to remain faithful to Christ amidst alternative religious ideas. The book is essentially the Gentile version of the Book of Hebrews, although the religions dealt with are not those found in Judaism, but rather various Greek religions or perhaps hybrid ideas stemming from various Greek religions like Epicurianism, Stoicism, and Platonism. There seems to be a common goal of escaping ultimate suffering, and each looked for wisdom to answer the question concerning how one escapes it.
Theology: Christ is supreme and sufficient. Paul counters these Greek religions by arguing that Christ is the highest authority as God Himself dwelling in bodily form (1:19; 2:9). He created all things (1:16-17). He is preeminent above all, since He is the firstborn and image of God, i.e., the one who inherits and represents the Father (1:15). Hence, he rules all other rule and authority, a reference likely to lower spirits and deities in other religions. In 1:18, it states that He is the head of the church (i.e., no angel or any other spirit is). Hence, He not only made the Colossians and all creation, but His work on the cross redeems all of them as well (1:20-23; 2:10-15). He alone, therefore, is worthy of their lives and devotion. In fact, the very “gods” the world worships are actually spiritual powers that Christ humiliated and disarmed through His work on the cross (2:15). The implication seems to be that if this is true, why would anyone worship or follow them instead of their Conqueror?
Greek religion looked to spirits to reveal knowledge and wisdom that was hidden from mankind. They wanted to know about mysteries that would allow them to escape the bondage of the physical world. Hence, they looked toward religions that emphasized knowledge gained through spiritual experiences. Paul counters this by saying that all true knowledge and wisdom is bound up in Christ, and that Christ and His work among them, as Gentiles, is the mystery with which they should concern themselves. In other words, the gospel is that which sets them free, not occultic knowledge from some Greek guru.
Whereas, these religious ideas might promise glory/exaltation, the hope of being exalted from one’s base existence is the person and work of Christ that is to be believed and lived out in every believer.
Ethics: In some Greek thought, religion is about obtaining special wisdom and knowledge to uncover mysteries concerning escape from ultimate suffering. There was little concern to live out a transformed life by the antinomian division of Greek thought. We might consider these people the “spiritual but not religious crowd” today. They are looking to get help in living their lives, but not necessarily looking to be conformed to the image of God through Christ’s work.
Conversely, part of having these religious experiences that bring visions and knowledge are acts of self-denial. Hence, some of these schools taught that one must deny himself pleasures like eating and drinking, partaking in celebrations, etc. It is the pathway through asceticism that reveals the mysteries of ultimate freedom and harmony. This would be the “spiritual through abstention” crowd, who think that being spiritual is denying oneself temporary pleasures in order to obtain ultimate pleasure or harmony.
Paul makes it clear that his sufferings are for the sake of Christ, who is worthy to be worshiped by giving one’s entire life to Him and the gospel to spread the hope of glory that is offered in Christ, and that they are not self-inflicted in some attempt to obtain spiritual insight, since he already has all of the insight he needs in Christ through the gospel (1:24-2:4). No other means is effective in curbing the enslavement of the flesh, and may instead actually feed it (2:20-23). Instead, whoever has been placed in Christ has been given a new nature that is made in the image of God (3:10), and hence, victory from enslavement has been gained through the death and resurrection of Christ that can now be lived out by those who are baptized into His death and empowered by His resurrection to live out the role of the image in all spheres of life (Chapter 3). Christ is, therefore, the supreme, sufficient, and only path to pursue for the one seeking fulfillment. The faith, hope, and love of the Colossian believers began when they believed the truth of the gospel and not by some mystery religion (1:6-7), and that is why so many are working to see the gospel proclaimed and lived out (Chapter 4), as the Colossians should also set their minds to work on this as well, using every opportunity to proclaim it to those inside and outside the church (3:12-17; 4:5-6).
Hence, as an application, rather than spend one's time in pursuing conspiracy theories, trying to figure out life through different philosophies and religious traditions, or seeking to find freedom through psychology, a Christian should seek the revealed gospel and its fruit of creating one in the image of God in one's life as it is described in Chapter 3.
Friday, January 11, 2019
Hermeneutics of the Obvious
Hermeneutical Rule #1: If an ambiguous text is your strongest biblical support for your view, and your opponent's position has clearer texts in favor of it, you're position is probably wrong.
Apostasy Is Being Stubborn and Unteachable toward the Truth of God's Word
It was not the lack of, or deception concerning, the truth about YHWH that was the sin for which He condemned Israel, but for their unwillingness to learn otherwise. They were stubborn, hard-hearted/minded, stiff-necked (i.e., unable to change direction). The disciples were just as wrong about the Messiah as the Pharisees were, but the difference between them was their humility. The heretic is a heretic, therefore, not because he believes what is wrong, but because he is unwilling to change his mind when corrected.
Why Presbyterian Polity Is Unfaithful to the Biblical Text (or Why We're Not Presbyterian)
Our church has, from time to time, looked for a Reformed affiliation with which we would feel comfortable. Presbyterianism has come up, also from time to time, as one we should consider. Apart from taking certain issues with the Presbyterian departure from historic Christian practices, like paedocommunion, the church's universal stance before the Reformation against remarriage, etc., we take issue with their traditional polity, where they divide up elders between teaching elders and ruling elders. This seems convenient so that they only need to pay their teaching elders, and can elect men to eldership who are, frankly, laymen. Their strongest support from this idea biblically is from a single verse.
Οἱ καλῶς προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι διπλῆς τιμῆς ἀξιούσθωσαν, μάλιστα οἱ κοπιῶντες ἐν λόγῳ καὶ διδασκαλίᾳ.
The NASB translates this text as follows:
The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.
From this verse, it is surmised that there really are two kinds of elders: those who do the main preaching and teaching and those who just help out with ruling (and perhaps some teaching as well, but not to a degree as to be paid for it). Hence, the idea of the senior pastor is thought to be vindicated by this verse.
First off, if the verse were to be divided, it still does not support this idea. Notice, it is the ruling elders who rule well who are to be given double honor, i.e., paid. If those who teach and preach are a separate group, it must be concluded that all elders are to be paid (although I don't know how one especially pays group B within group A if the command is that all are to be paid. This is part of the problem in not understanding the word malista, which has been mistranslated here as "especially."
One could say that the ruling elders don't rule well, but then they should probably be rejected as elders, which is what Paul is really implying by saying that only the elders who are doing their jobs should be paid, and by extension, considered elders at all. This is consistent with what he says about giving financial resources to widows as well (i.e., not all widows but only those who are faithful as women who have served the church [5:3-16]).
So even in the alternative translation, Presbyterians are unfaithful to the Word of God by only paying their teaching elders. However, as I will lay out, they are unfaithful to the Word by even teaching a distinction between the elders.
Let's take a look at the important word here that the NASB and many other translations translate as "especially." The English word "especially" usually means that what has come before is a larger group and what comes after the "especially" is a more specific group, or subgroup, of the whole, that is to be distinguished from the larger group. Hence, we get the idea from this translation that there is the larger group of elders who seek to help each other manage the church, but that there is a different set of elders who work hard at preaching and teaching as well.
Another thing to notice that those who work hard at preaching and teaching is plural, not singular. One could argue that Paul is writing to Timothy in Ephesus and could be referring to the many elders from multiple churches in the city of Ephesus. However, Presbyterians have usually used such verses to justify multiple elders in a single church. I would agree and argue that even if there are multiple sites in a city, it is seen as one local church by the apostles, not many. I would also argue that they all seem to be in one place when depicted, not many. What this means is that there are multiple elders who are teaching and preaching in one church who then should be given double honor, not one. So, again, even if one takes malista in the traditional way, Presbyterianism is unfaithful to the text.
However, even though the word can mean something specified as distinguished from the larger group in Greek literature, the word malista, translated here as "especially," does not take upon the connotation of specifying a group within a group, but rather specifies the reference for purposes of clarification. It can be argued that the larger New Testament does not use the word this way either. In other words, the NASB, following the traditional understanding of the word, views the word as follows:
Acts 20:38 "grieving malista over the word which he had spoken, that they should see his face no more. And they were accompanying him to the ship."
Acts 26:3 I consider myself fortunate, King Agrippa, that I am about to make my defense before you today; malista because you are an expert in all customs and questions among [the] Jews; therefore I beg you to listen to me patiently.
Gala 6:10 So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, malista de to those who are of the household of the faith.
Phil 4:22 All the saints greet you, malista those of Caesar's household.
1Tim 4:10 For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, malista of believers.
1Tim 5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his own kai malista for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever.
1Tim 5:17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, malista those who work hard at preaching and teaching.
2Tim 4:13 When you come bring the cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus, and the books, malista the parchments.
Titu 1:10 For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision,
Phle 1:16 no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, malista to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.
2Pet 2:9-10 [then] the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, malista those who indulge the flesh in [its] corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties,
Οἱ καλῶς προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι διπλῆς τιμῆς ἀξιούσθωσαν, μάλιστα οἱ κοπιῶντες ἐν λόγῳ καὶ διδασκαλίᾳ.
The NASB translates this text as follows:
The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.
From this verse, it is surmised that there really are two kinds of elders: those who do the main preaching and teaching and those who just help out with ruling (and perhaps some teaching as well, but not to a degree as to be paid for it). Hence, the idea of the senior pastor is thought to be vindicated by this verse.
First off, if the verse were to be divided, it still does not support this idea. Notice, it is the ruling elders who rule well who are to be given double honor, i.e., paid. If those who teach and preach are a separate group, it must be concluded that all elders are to be paid (although I don't know how one especially pays group B within group A if the command is that all are to be paid. This is part of the problem in not understanding the word malista, which has been mistranslated here as "especially."
One could say that the ruling elders don't rule well, but then they should probably be rejected as elders, which is what Paul is really implying by saying that only the elders who are doing their jobs should be paid, and by extension, considered elders at all. This is consistent with what he says about giving financial resources to widows as well (i.e., not all widows but only those who are faithful as women who have served the church [5:3-16]).
So even in the alternative translation, Presbyterians are unfaithful to the Word of God by only paying their teaching elders. However, as I will lay out, they are unfaithful to the Word by even teaching a distinction between the elders.
Let's take a look at the important word here that the NASB and many other translations translate as "especially." The English word "especially" usually means that what has come before is a larger group and what comes after the "especially" is a more specific group, or subgroup, of the whole, that is to be distinguished from the larger group. Hence, we get the idea from this translation that there is the larger group of elders who seek to help each other manage the church, but that there is a different set of elders who work hard at preaching and teaching as well.
Another thing to notice that those who work hard at preaching and teaching is plural, not singular. One could argue that Paul is writing to Timothy in Ephesus and could be referring to the many elders from multiple churches in the city of Ephesus. However, Presbyterians have usually used such verses to justify multiple elders in a single church. I would agree and argue that even if there are multiple sites in a city, it is seen as one local church by the apostles, not many. I would also argue that they all seem to be in one place when depicted, not many. What this means is that there are multiple elders who are teaching and preaching in one church who then should be given double honor, not one. So, again, even if one takes malista in the traditional way, Presbyterianism is unfaithful to the text.
However, even though the word can mean something specified as distinguished from the larger group in Greek literature, the word malista, translated here as "especially," does not take upon the connotation of specifying a group within a group, but rather specifies the reference for purposes of clarification. It can be argued that the larger New Testament does not use the word this way either. In other words, the NASB, following the traditional understanding of the word, views the word as follows:
Elders › Elders (indicating a smaller group of elders within a larger group of elders)
But the word actually conveys the following:
Elders = Elders (indicating that the specific group clarifies the intended referent of the larger group)
In other words, the word malista specifies the preceding with a clarification of the following. For instance, if a painter came to paint my living room, he might say, "I'm here to paint your house, malista your living room. The word would mean "specifically speaking," "namely," "more specifically," etc. He is not here to paint my whole house, but specifically the living room. Thus this type of speech is used even our language.
In the case of 1 Timothy 5:17, the elders who rule/stand as guard well are the elders who work hard at preaching and teaching, i.e., that is how they guard the church well (remember the church is viewed as a household in Timothy and there are heretics trying to infiltrate it with false teaching--hence, the elders are responsible for guarding the household via teaching). There aren't two different groups here, one speaking of elders who rule and the other speaking of elders who work hard at studying the Word (lit. "the word") and teaching it. That is an erroneous understanding of the way the New Testament uses malista, which is simply an adverb expressing specification of some sort, but in this case it is specification in terms of clarification of the preceding, not in terms of specifying a group within a group.
The word appears 12 times in the New Testament. Some of them are ambiguous, and that means we interpret the ambiguous with the clearer texts. Let's look at them below:
Acts 20:38 "grieving malista over the word which he had spoken, that they should see his face no more. And they were accompanying him to the ship."
This use is ambiguous, but we can see how the translation of "specifically," rather than "especially" would work better here.
Acts 25:26 "Yet I have nothing definite about him to write to my lord. Therefore I have brought him before you [all] and malista before you, King Agrippa, so that after the investigation has taken place, I may have something to write.
Although this one may seem to indicate specification that distinguishes Agrippa from the larger group, I would say that it doesn't. The "you" here seems to indicate the royal court, but Paul is not being brought to the royal court for the royal court to judge him. He is being brought to Agrippa specifically. Hence, this is like saying, "the government, that is, the IRS, taxes me too much." The government here is a larger group, but by "government" I really mean the IRS specifically. Hence, I am not saying that both the government and the IRS tax me too much, but that the IRS does. In a similar manner, the "you" that refers to the members of the royal court, really is meant only for Agrippa who is a part of that court. Hence, the translation "specifically speaking," or "that is" might be more appropriate, as this is likely a case where the speaker references something too broadly, and then clarifies what he is referencing with malista.
Acts 26:3 I consider myself fortunate, King Agrippa, that I am about to make my defense before you today; malista because you are an expert in all customs and questions among [the] Jews; therefore I beg you to listen to me patiently.
"Specifically" seems more appropriate here, as Paul clarifies what precedes in his saying that he considers himself fortunate to make his defense before Agrippa. There is no larger group, or here, larger set of reasons why Paul feels fortunate. This is the only reason given. Hence, it is specification of why he feels fortunate to make his defense before Agrippa, specifically speaking because Agrippa is an expert in the customs and questions of the Jews.
Gala 6:10 So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, malista de to those who are of the household of the faith.
malista de here likely clarifies the referent "all men." Paul is not saying that we are to do good to everyone without exception. It's not that we shouldn't do good to everyone without exception, but I'm simply saying that this is not Paul's point here. The context indicates that Paul is referring to sharing either physical goods or spiritual goods with one another within the community. In other words, we are reaping and sowing good or evil with one another in the religious community. Hence, the statement begins with ara oun which is a double inferential that means "therefore accordingly" or just exists as an emphatic "THEREFORE" that concludes what Paul has just said about doing good to one another within the religious community. Hence, the better translation of malista de here would be "THEREFORE, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, specifically speaking, to those who belong to the household of faith." This may sound odd to some, as though Paul would exclude any of humanity from our doing good, but we must remember the context and that doing good here has to do with sharing physical goods and spiritual goods (through discipleship) that are reserved for the church alone.
Phil 4:22 All the saints greet you, malista those of Caesar's household.
It is clear that Paul is not saying that all the saints in the world greet the Philippians, but rather all the saints who belong to Caesar's household, i.e., Rome. In fact, if Paul meant all saints, then this would include the Philippians who are being greeted. This makes no sense either way. Paul is saying that the saints who are greeting them are those of Caesar's household. Hence, malista clarifies an overly broad designation and corrects it by saying, "What I mean to say by that is . . ."
1Tim 4:10 For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, malista of believers.
This verse is an interesting one, as it basically says that God is the Savior of all men. Of course, this is placing a common phrase given to Caesar with God, so it is a bit polemic; but the point is that it would in fact still say that God is the one who saves all men, not just believers. Notice it does not say that He is the potential Savior, but that He is the Savior of all men. But that is not what this says if the word malista is translated correctly as "specifically speaking." The adverb malista is simply specifying what was too broadly spoken, i.e., "all men" with its clarification "all believers." It really should be translated, "God, who is the Savior of all men, that is, of believers."
1Tim 5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his own kai malista for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever.
Here we have another instance of a conjunction appearing with the adverb that may function with it. I actually think that kai may go to the preceding clause and should be translated as "even," but nonetheless, it's irrelevant how we take it here. It is clear that "his own" refers to "those who belong to his household." There is simply no way to say that "his own," i.e., that which he possesses or belongs to him in terms of family could possibly refer to some larger group of people who belong to him and then "his household" refers to a smaller group of people, as that would basically be saying that he is responsible for his extended family, and if he doesn't provide for all of them, he has denied the faith. This would be an impossibility for most people and completely absurd. But, again, this is not what Paul is saying. The broad and ambiguous phrase is clarified by the specification of malista. The Christian is only responsible for his own household. Anything else places an impossible burden on him and he would be in absolute despair as Paul would be declaring that he is worse than an unbeliever for not taking care of people outside his household.
1Tim 5:17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, malista those who work hard at preaching and teaching.
We'll leave this one, since it's the one we're discussing.
2Tim 4:13 When you come bring the cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus, and the books, malista the parchments.
How exactly is Timothy "especially" bringing back anything? How does one "especially" bring something of a group that he's already bringing. Please note, he did not say, "Especially remember to bring . . .", but "especially bring." This is just nonsense. Obviously, the parchments are the books to which the apostle is referring, and malista clarifies that for Timothy. Hence, Paul is saying, "bring the books, that is, the parchments."
Titu 1:10 For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision,
Again, is Paul referring to all sorts of rebellious men and empty talkers everywhere, or is he just referencing the Judaizers here. It's likely the latter.
Phle 1:16 no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, malista to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.
Again, Philemon is a beloved brother specifically in reference to how Paul thinks of him.
2Pet 2:9-10 [then] the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, malista those who indulge the flesh in [its] corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties,
Peter is talking about the same false teachers here who engage in heresy and sexual immorality. It has been the theme in Chapter 2 the entire time (v. 2). There isn't another group of people to which he is making an analogy with the fallen angels. This is it. Hence, malista specifies the "unrighteous" that precede it as those who indulge in the flesh and its corrupt desires and despise authority. Those for whom judgment is reserved are the unrighteous, i.e., those who indulge in the flesh and despise church authority.
Most modern scholars have come to this same conclusion. The first study was done by a scholar named T. C Skeat, who looked at both secular Greek literature and the examples I gave above of the NT texts. George Knight in his New International Greek New Testament Commentary on the Pastorals argued the same. Other Greek scholars, like Mounce, I. Howard Marshall, etc. have done the same. Poythress, being a Presbyterian, attempted to argue against this view by saying that we shouldn't change our definition of a Greek word we've already understood to mean something else (perhaps the oddest argument I could possibly think of). This assumes some sort of set authoritative meaning of the word. Poythress' attempted refutation remains unconvincing as it does not adequately address the problems of such a translation I have stated above.
What this means is that malista in 1 Timothy 5:17 does not mean "especially" in the sense that the preceding group of elders describes one group and the following elders describe another group within that group. In other words, they are not two different groups, but that too broadly made reference to "elders' that might have been misconstrued as older men or men respected within the community needed to be clarified by specifying what the apostle meant by saying "elders who rule," and he does so by employing the word malista and saying that these elders rule well by their working hard at preaching and teaching. Thus, there is no Scriptural support for a hierarchy within the eldership, and there is no Scriptural support, therefore, for the idea of a senior pastor/teaching elder in distinction from ruling elders.
The text, therefore, should be translated as follows:
The elders who faithfully stand guard are to be understood as worthy of double honor, that is, those who labor in word [i.e., prayer or study of the Word] and teaching.
The text, therefore, should be translated as follows:
The elders who faithfully stand guard are to be understood as worthy of double honor, that is, those who labor in word [i.e., prayer or study of the Word] and teaching.
Hence, faithful elders who stand guard/rule are the same people as those who labor in word and teaching. There is no other group, and they are plural.
This also, then, explains why within the qualification of all elders is the need to be a "skillful teacher" (1 Tim 3:2), one who edifies with "teaching that is free from error" and capable of refuting "those who contradict it" (Titus 1:11). That's a description of a rabbi. Does that sound like most ruling/lay elders to you? It hasn't been my experience either. Hence, Presbyterianism is not an option for us, as we are unwilling to bend to such unfaithfulness, and it seems now that the many compromises made by Presbyterians is being judged by God as evidence of His giving them over either to be confounded by their unbiblical traditions on even weightier matters and/or to the acceptance of sexual immorality and gender disorder in their midst. Hence, we keep looking.
This also, then, explains why within the qualification of all elders is the need to be a "skillful teacher" (1 Tim 3:2), one who edifies with "teaching that is free from error" and capable of refuting "those who contradict it" (Titus 1:11). That's a description of a rabbi. Does that sound like most ruling/lay elders to you? It hasn't been my experience either. Hence, Presbyterianism is not an option for us, as we are unwilling to bend to such unfaithfulness, and it seems now that the many compromises made by Presbyterians is being judged by God as evidence of His giving them over either to be confounded by their unbiblical traditions on even weightier matters and/or to the acceptance of sexual immorality and gender disorder in their midst. Hence, we keep looking.
Monday, January 7, 2019
PCA 1973 - 2018
https://warhornmedia.com/2018/05/25/the-pca-on-homosexuality-covenant-theological-seminary-owns-the-future/
I was also stunned by the survey reporting an acceptance of abortion by the majority 54%? Maybe it's due to the belief in situational ethics by the majority 56%?
I was also stunned by the survey reporting an acceptance of abortion by the majority 54%? Maybe it's due to the belief in situational ethics by the majority 56%?
Friday, January 4, 2019
Biblical Theology XLVI: Philippians
Philippians is one of the epistles called “Prison Epistles.” Paul is thought to have written them from one of four different imprisonments that scholars believe he endured after his establishment of the Philippian church. The letter is written somewhere between A.D. 52-64. In it, Paul uses his own obedience in suffering and humility (as well as that of other workers with him) as an example of living out Christ’s obedience through suffering and humility found in the gospel in an effort to encourage other Christians to do the same.
Theology: Paul will argue that Christ’s life and work is not just substitutionary, but also an example for all Christians to mimic in their lives. In Chapter 2, he argues that Christ’s kenosis “emptying” of Himself in order to be subordinate to the Father and take upon mortality for sinful man is the supreme act of humility on Christ’s part, and that this should cause all of those who have been saved by Christ’s humble act to have the same attitude toward one another. In the kenosis, God the Son holds equality with God the Father. He chooses, however, to set aside this equality of position to take upon the state of a servant in the incarnation. He further humbles Himself by being completely obedient to the Father during His life, even to the point of dying on the cross to complete the Father’s plan of redemption. The emptying is a description of positional honor in the context, not some ontological emptying that is not in view. Although the Son was honored in His state of equality with the Father, He took on the state of a servant instead for our salvation and the Father's glory.
As a result, He obtains salvation for Himself via the resurrection and exaltation above all things, inheriting all things for everyone who is in Him. In other words, by being obedient to the Father in being willing to be humiliated and suffer, He goes from being a servant to Lord of all things, gaining more than He had before by virtue of inherent honor, and now obtaining earned honor, as well as all mankind and creation that had been lost, in the end. Only through His humility toward those who had been his enemies, is this all possible. Peter makes a similar argument in his first epistle. Christ’s humility is an example for all Christians to live out because this is an accurate picture of the gospel. What is ethical, therefore, is theological in that all ethical behavior paints a picture of Christ and His work or it paints a picture of a false Christ and a false gospel.
This is a katergazomai "working out," not a "working for" one's own salvation. In other words, sanctification is directly linked to the salvation that Christ has obtained in His humble obedience. The Christian is to now apply this in his daily life. Sanctification, therefore, is the only worthy response to faith in the gospel. It is the careful, reverant, fearful working out of a salvation already given that cost the Son of God His honorable position as God during the time He was securing it.
Ethics: Paul furthers Christ’s example by sharing examples of how other Christians, including himself, are living out this picture of the gospel. He is suffering in prison for the sake of the gospel, to humble himself, and be obedient to God over retaining his position as a prestigious Pharisee who could be living comfortably and honored as the rest among the religious community. Instead, he has decided to throw off all of that which brought prestige and comfort to his own mind and to other Jews, all the worth that one gains from being considered a good and righteous man by his religious community, and has instead considered it all waste so that he might obtain the reward of Christ, i.e., the resurrection, that only comes through the righteousness of Christ as well. This willingness to be humiliated for the sake of Christ is an accurate picture of what Christ has done for us. Hence, he runs the race to pursue the future reward that Christ has obtained for him, and not the immediate reward of being honored today.
Christ’s example, then, has real life applications for those who have choices to make concerning how they will live their lives. For Epaphroditus, the decision was to deliver life-giving teaching and financial support to those Christians who needed it, even at the cost of his health. For Timothy it was to serve Paul like a son and also spend his life serving the churches. For Euodia and Syntyche, it means humbling themselves to be the servants of one another in love rather than bickering and breaking fellowship with one another.
Then Paul tells them how they become these humble servants of God and one another. Rather than bicker and each seek his or her own honor, they are to rejoice in what Christ has done (4:4), become reasonable (i.e., not emotional/irrational) people, aware of the presence of Christ among them (4:5), make their concerns known to God in prayer (6-7), likely so that their fears don’t lead to anger, disputes, and bitterness, and so that they set their minds on heavenly concerns rather than emphasizing earthly ones over heavenly ones (3:17-21), which will give the shalom/right order/stability that guards the heart and mind in Christ (4:7). Hence, they are to focus on whatever is true, honorable, right, pure, lovely, worthy of praise, etc. according to what Paul has taught them, so that their minds are, in fact, set on the right things (4:8-9), displaying that wrong relationship with one another is due to an out-of-focus mindset. Paul ends by arguing that this mindset has allowed him to be content in any circumstance, since it is Christ and His example that strengthens him to endure it
Finally, he gives a last example of the Philippians themselves as those who have suffered to be partners with him in ministry by giving him the financial resources he needed to continue his ministry.
Hence, Philippians is really about working out one’s salvation with fear and trembling (2:12-13) by presenting a right picture of Christ’s humble work in the gospel. What that phrase really means in context is “live out the salvation Christ secured for you through His obedient humility by becoming obedient and humble yourselves, giving up that which is yours by right to become a servant of God and one another instead.” Christians are to have a humility toward one another as the outworking of the gospel that displays the lives of Christians as lights in the world (2:14-15). All of this is a result of pursuing Christ above our own rights, and even above our own lives (1:20-23) in the service of Christ and one another (1:24-25).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)