Blog of A Plodding Visionary
The Church
“A Scandalous Freedom” available on Google Books!
04 years ago
For those who read my earlier series based on “A Scandalous Freedom” — I discovered that the text of the book is available on Google Books!
Check it out:
Interlude: Unity in the Church
24 years ago
Why is freedom important? It’s one of the major things that destroys unity in the church. People will have opinions on things such as doctrine (consider topics such as dispensationalism, baptism, free will, election), dress, music, church government, etc. They’re free to have those opinions. But when one person holds their convictions over another and expects them to conform, they take away freedom and also divide the church body. When another person becomes so isolated by their views so that they will not accept or associate with someone who does not share the same views, they are depriving themselves of freedom and dividing the church body. Yes, differences exist. There are many denominations and no end to opinions. But if we demonize all who disagree with us, we tear apart the Body of Christ.
And in Him we should be united.
–LINK– Recommended post by a friend
Dangerous Crusaders for the Faith
04 years ago
Growing up, Martin Luther probably seemed to be just like the rest of his peers. He was raised Catholic, went to a lay Catholic school, and then went on to college. Upon earning his master’s degree at the age of 22, he enrolled in law school at his father’s wish. Within months, however, he had left law school and joined a monastery. He was dedicated to religion, performing long fasts, spending hours in prayer, and both learning more about God and striving to please Him. Luther had a fervor for pleasing God that is very rare among young people today. In modern terms, he would have been the type of individual that seems very spiritual, almost perfect in walk and talk. He did all that was outwardly required and then some. He also had a heart devoted to serving God.
Yet something was missing. As he tried harder and harder to please God through his actions and lifestyle, he only became more and more aware of how sinful he really was. The church, however, did not see things this way. In the Catholic church that he had been raised in, these outward actions were seen as the visible signs of a Godly life. As he studied Scripture, he began to see that Scripture did not support the views he had always been taught and believed, but rather that they taught a different doctrine — something that he had not heard of in church or in his prior studies. He came to a realization that it was not his good works that made him righteous. It was not even God meeting him on his level and accepting his good works. No, it was purely an act of God that could justify him as righteous. His salvation was not something that happened in cooperation between God and himself, but rather something that God freely gave even though he was undeserving. His Godly lifestyle and high standards did nothing for him. They didn’t even provide a platform to make him level with God so that they could together work out his salvation. They were nothing, but God’s work was everything.
It was one young man against an established church. The concept of unmerited favor was unheard of among the religious of the day. In fact, if directly questioned on the meaning of grace and unmerited favor, they might have made the statement that grace meant exactly the opposite of “unmerited favor” but rather tried to label it as “the desire and favor to do God’s will”. The church fully believed that it was by good works that people found favor with God. Going against all that he had been taught during his upbringing and higher education, and going against the view of the church, Luther determined instead that God’s grace is entirely free and not based on any human action or effort.
It was not long until the first semblance of a division or conflict occurred. The church attached monetary value to forgiveness and allowed people to buy and sell forgiveness both for themselves and for others. This fit perfectly with a doctrine of human effort, but flew in the face of a concept of salvation by grace. Seeking truth and protesting error, Luther nailed a document with 95 objections to church practices on the door of the church — the equivalent to a bulletin board today. And thus was his departure from the theology in which he had been raised and had once been a fervent follower. He was offered a chance to withdraw his statements or else be excommunicated from the church. Not only was he excommunicated; he also had to stand trial regarding his controversial writings. When asked if the writings were his, he confirmed that they were. He was then asked if he stood by the writings. After much prayer, he responded, “Unless I shall be convinced by the testimonies of the Scriptures or by clear reason … I neither can nor will make any retraction, since it is neither safe nor honourable to act against conscience.”
Today, how often do we stand up this strongly for truth? Isn’t it easier to silently conform to others’ beliefs in order to keep the peace and be accepted by our peers? If the main cause of unity is that everyone believes the same and acts the same, then a change such as this can be grounds for complete loss of fellowship. Luther experienced this by being entirely excommunicated from the church — of which his family and friends remained members. But he realized that the truth was of greater importance. It would have been wrong to let his conscience down.
It’s easier to conceal truth for a feeling of false unity. It’s easier to conform rather than be shunned. But is it right to do either?
Are we willing to be “dangerous crusaders” for the faith? Are we willing to stand up for truth so that we end up feeling like nobody loves us? During the course of his life, Luther found very few that agreed with him doctrinally. The Catholic church was in fierce opposition. The Anabaptist church also strongly opposed his work and even succeeded in swaying some to their equally false views on grace and salvation and a legalistic lifestyle. Yet in the face of this opposition he stood firm. God’s approval was more important than momentary accolades from men.
Just like in the time of the Protestant Reformation, we live in a time where people still distort the meaning of the free grace of God. Churches today still sell a gospel of works, standards, and appearances. Do we have the faith to stand strong against this, instead leading the way to a true, relentless grace? When those closest to us decide to follow the teachings of men that distort truth, will we stand for what we believe, even when it means losing everything else in the process?
“What is right is not always popular, what is popular is not always right.” (source unknown)
“Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you…”
05 years ago
“Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you…”
The literal reading of this sentence at first appears to give credence to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, or that by being baptized one receives salvation. However, this doctrine is contrary to what the vast majority of Protestant Christians believe, and does not seem to be supported anywhere else in Scripture. If we do not accept that one is saved by the water, then how does one interpret this verse? Note that I am not advocating discarding this view because it does not line up with what I want to believe, but rather that I see no other support in Scripture for baptismal regeneration.
First, some background information. The act of baptism, itself, is relatively new in that there is no evidence that it was practiced prior to the time of John the Baptist. It does, however, build on some previous imagery and concepts. The concept that it is most often associated with (and probably the strongest connection) is the Old Testament doctrine of circumcision. (Eph. 2, and others) Another Old Testament connection that is typically considered much less is the association with the Flood. This seems to be what Peter is referring to in the passage.
In the previous verses, Peter refers to Christ preaching to the spirits in prison “when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah”. We know that these individuals did not heed the message and thus remained in prison (and death) while Noah and his family were saved. But what saved them? It was not the water, as the water meant death rather than salvation. The water itself did not save (but rather the contrary). The ark, however, preserved their lives, setting them apart from all those who died in the judgment.
Peter actually clarifies that it is not the water that saves when he writes, “not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience…”. The water itself does not do anything to save. It represents trial and judgment in this analogy to the flood. In baptism the individual appeals to God, the Judge. Salvation is an act of God, not a magic reaction of coming in contact with water.
Baptism, then, is not the means of salvation but an appeal to God. One must have faith in God for salvation, not faith in some mystical power of the water. Whether circumcision under the Old Covenant, or baptism under the New, the blessing of salvation and eternity with Christ can only be realized by faith. If one does not have faith in Jesus Christ, or if one rejects Jesus Christ, his baptism will do nothing to save him. In fact, Hebrews 6 teaches the grave warning that this individual cannot be brought to repentance. This is one reason why baptism and salvation are so closely linked, even though the act of baptism itself has no salvific properties.
2 Peter 1:10
Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. 11For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Disunity and Standards
05 years ago
A recent letter by Bill Gothard indicated that varying standards are the cause for much of the disunity in churches today. This letter, which was included with a recent mailing from Gothard’s Institute in Basic Life Principles, addressed the topic of a lack of unity in conservative churches due to some members having one particular standard and others having another standard, so that they are not unified and risk offending each other rather than being united in worship. The solution that Gothard seemed to be suggesting was that individuals should conform to the standards of the “weakest member” in order to be united and not cause others to sin or be divided.
The basic premise may be fairly accurate, but the application is not. Yes, there is much disunity because people are not willing to budge on their own lifestyle preferences, not considering that others who don’t share the same view might at least be somewhat right. We tend to hold the view that we alone are right so that others can only be right if they are identical. So we’re each certain of our righteousness and thus the error of another. And as a result, unity is lost. There is also a lack of unity when we fail to realize that some people are weaker in faith or more prone to sinning in a certain area, and it is insensitive to ignore this and flaunt freedom in the face of one who has not been given that freedom. Gothard is right on this.
But there’s an element that’s overlooked. When people differ over a “standard”, who is right and who is wrong? There are issues of morality where there is clear direction in Scripture. There are issues of conscience where something must be avoided in the presence of another so as to not cause temptation. But there are also issues where neither applies, and it is simply a war of preferences. The answer that I detected that Gothard was suggesting was that people conform to the “highest” standard as that is the safest way to achieve unity. But if both are right, then wouldn’t it be wrong for one to conform to the other?
What about the possibility of one person being offended by another’s different standard? If a person is offended, shouldn’t the person causing the offense stop what they are doing for the sake of unity? In theory, yes.
There are cases where it is an issue of tempting another to sin. As a church is a hospital for sinners, it would not be wise (for example) for a woman to enter in a string bikini as this is the kind of exposure that many men are not immune to. This woman would not be considerate of her fellow brothers if she came to church in this fashion. But the man can’t be forced by the woman into sin. (Adam tried that excuse…) It’s still an act of his will, and thus a fault on his part. There is a responsibility for both individuals. It can’t be made to be all one and none the other. As a result, it is also not right to adopt a “burqa, bag, or floor-length skirt” dress code. This places the main load of the responsibility on the woman and seems to absolve the man from responsibility… while in reality if he is struggling with sin, it just leaves more to his fallen imagination.
But in the standards debate, most of the time it is not a moral/sin issue but rather a preference that is being violated. If someone is always being held to an expectation of conforming to another’s preferences, then the one with the high preferences is enslaving those around them to coerce others to be as they are. This is just as wrong; the blame for the disunity cannot be applied more to the person who violates the preference than it can be applied to the person who expects others to adhere to their own preferences. This is the issue where I will strongly agree with the suggested solution in Gothard’s letter. The solution is not to have everyone conform to the same preferences but rather for each person to realize that they are not alike and then have a greater appreciation for their diversity. If this is realized and put into practice, then it is that diversity that spawns unity in the Body of Christ. Not all are hands, feet, etc. Each member is unique. It is a dangerous and wrong idea to think that all Christians will be identical if they are at the same place in their walks with Christ, or to think that the closer each person is to God, the more alike each person will be.
C.S. Lewis wrote, “…life is not like a river but like a tree. It does not move towards unity but rather away from it and the creatures grow further apart as they increase in perfection. Good, as it ripens, becomes continually more different not only from evil but from other good.”
This is a topic that I may return to in some future posts. For now, I will close with the reminder that there is no such thing as a “cookie cutter Christian” and that as people draw closer to God, they may actually become more and more different from each other.
Merry Christmas!
05 years ago
The scene opens with the devil and his host celebrating their accomplishments in deceiving the nations. All across the globe, they counted their trophies and saw how every nation was fully in their grasp. Even Judea, the remnant of the once-strong covenant nation of Israel, had fallen into his grasp. Few people there followed the commandments. Of course, there were always a few who would not listen to him and still followed Yahweh, but they were the minority. Conquering armies from nations fully under the devil’s domination had taken over Judea and the entire region, and thus while victory was not complete, the devil and his hosts still felt secure. Perhaps their greatest accomplishment was their hold on the Gentile nations, which nationally pledged their devotion to him and his (fallen) angels. But Satan was still concerned — in fact, greatly distressed — over one thing. He knew of the Scriptures which prophesied that the Messiah would come and light would come to the Gentiles. This meant the utter collapse of his domain. However, as the epitome of pride, he believed his stronghold would survive any attack from Yahweh and his hosts. The writings, then, could be proven false. Yet he wasn’t sure. Something still caused him to feel very nervous. The hosts of fallen angels surrounding him were all eagerly recounting their victories.
Suddenly a messenger arrived on the scene. He was distraught and terrified. He gasped, “Lucifer, your excellency, it has happened. The Child has been born in Bethlehem, in Judea.” Satan roared in anguish. This was the end. The prophecies were playing out, as deep down inside he knew they must. He also knew he had little chance of altering the plan… his fate was secure. He knew what would happen. However, he also realized the task ahead for his hosts. They would have to fight for victory. Though it would be a losing battle, he pledged to win as many victories as possible. Summoning all the dark host, he gave instructions: “We will not be able to do anything to this child. We cannot do anything to harm him. But we can inflict great harm. Perhaps the great losses will persuade our enemy to reconsider.” Turning to the fallen angel known as the prince of Judea, he ordered him “All baby boys in Bethlehem must die. We may not get this Child, but we will still inflict great distress and harm. This is how we must now conduct war.”
About thirty years passed. Jesus went out into the wilderness for a span of longer than a month (in human terms) and Satan followed him. Based on his understanding of the Scriptures, he knew that in just a few years his domain, greatly weakened thirty years earlier, was now on the verge of total collapse. Now desperate, Satan decided to directly tempt Jesus — to his face. If he could, by any chance, deceive him, everything would change and Satan’s kingdom would be established stronger than ever. Not a chance. Satan summoned his hosts. Grimly, he told the dark host that his time of power would soon be ending. “It’s now up to you” he told them. “Go into all the world and secure your dominions. Inflict damage, cause people to die, and stir up trouble. We may not win, but we will take as many people as we can with us. For a time I will not be able to win the nations, but you have been trained well. I am always with you in spirit.”
At that moment on earth, Jesus was also meeting with his band of followers. He was saying to them, “The harvest is abundant, but the workers are few. Therefore, pray to the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into His harvest. Now go; I’m sending you out like lambs among wolves… Know this for certain: the kingdom of God has come near.” And his small group of followers, seventy in number, went out in pairs.
Suddenly, Satan’s session of instructing his vast host of followers was interrupted by a presence of light, causing the entire host to writhe in terror. Strong angels, illuminated in white light, entered the scene. They seized Satan and hurled him from the scene. Like a flash of lightning, he was gone. The host of demons was left stunned. Their strongholds were collapsing. The followers of Jesus cast them out of their strongholds and they were powerless to do anything but submit.
On earth, the jubilant band of 70 returned, saying “Lord, even the demons submit to us in Your name.” And Jesus responded, “I watched Satan fall from heaven like a lightning flash. Look, I have given you the authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy; nothing will ever harm you. However, don’t rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”
Despite being cast out of the heavenly realm, Satan realized the immense opportunity he and his hosts still had. Meeting at locations on the earth, he told them that the time was short but they were now standing on their battleground. Desperate and militant, they set out to deceive the world, knowing that the death blow would be set in approximately three short years.
On earth, demonic activity reached an all-time high. Supernatural wonders on both sides occurred often. But Jesus continued to preach that the Kingdom of God was at hand. Perhaps of all the things Jesus taught, this one made Satan the angriest. He commanded his forces to instill doubt in the minds of people, even Jesus’ closest followers. They had great difficulty understanding the teachings on the Kingdom. Despite everything else, Satan was overjoyed. He could still win through the battle for the mind. If they did not understand, or if they believed lies, the Kingdom of God would not stand strong (or so he thought).
About three years later, there again was much cheering among the demonic realm. Jesus was dead. Yet Satan was greatly distressed once more. This was a huge battle. If he could keep Jesus dead, he still had a victory. But if Jesus rose from the dead, Satan would be defeated. He remembered a blow he had received not long before. Lazarus had been dead, fully in the power of Death. But Jesus had won, snatching Lazarus back. Could it happen again? He stood like a champion, reveling in the present: Jesus was dead. But suddenly, he again saw light, and strong angels. And Jesus… was alive. In terror, Satan turned to flee, but was seized and overpowered. He was cast out again, banished to darkness. He was defeated. But his forces remained strong. Would they be able to continue the mission? Furious, roaring like a lion, but confined to Hades — the realm of the dead — Satan paced angrily looking for those who could be devoured. Satan watched in glee as his forces continued the work of deception. They seemed to win victories — the demons succeeded in deceiving the leaders, who ordered the death of Jesus’ followers. But Satan also looked on in horror, as when they died on earth, rather than joining him in the realm of the dead to be completely devoured, their souls instead came to life! There they were, far off in heaven, reigning with Christ at the right hand of God! The host frequently checked in with Satan for instructions, and they continued their mission of destroying lives and bringing people to destruction. But those sealed by God were untouchable. Satan’s forces could win individual skirmishes, resulting in sin in those individuals’ lives, but none ever entered his realm. When their time on earth ended, they also reigned with Christ, cleansed and in white robes. But Satan looked forward in glee to the time coming when he would be allowed authority over the nations once more. There would be a time in the future when he could again turn the world in mass numbers against the followers of Jesus. He looked forward to that day with great anticipation. Could he yet win?
