I've begun a post backing up my apocalyptic understanding of the world, why I feel the world is spiraling downhill and why those who constantly seek "peace in the world" are crazy. In that, I ran across this today, makes me sick:
In 2002 the Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalize euthanasia. This year, the Dutch government decided to expand its euthanasia policy to include newborn babies. Many doctors in the Netherlands have been practicing infanticide for years, even though it was illegal, but the Dutch government has chosen not to prosecute offenders.
This past year, there have been an increasing number of human rights violations in connection with embryonic stem cell research and cloning. In the Ukraine reports have emerged of child trafficking. According to officials, a number of babies have been snatched at birth and used to harvest stem cells, tissues, and organs for sale on the black market. Also, it was revealed that poor Ukrainian women were being paid $200 to get pregnant and have abortions. The aborted babies were also exploited as a source of stem cells - the cells were being used in beauty treatments and ineffective "miracle cures"...
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Finding Peace and Joy in a Life with Christ
Must Read List
- Grace Matters - Chris Rice
- How Soccer Explains the World - Foer
- We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families - Gourevitch
- The Quest for Cosmic Justice - Sowell
- Four Souls - Peterson, Kronberg, Medefind, Sklar
- Infidel - Ayaan Hirsi Ali
- Dark Star Safari - Paul Theroux
- The Bitch in the House - Cathi Hanauer
- The Bastard on the Couch - Daniel Jones
- A Long Way Gone - Ishmael Beah
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(183)
-
▼
December
(17)
- If John Edwards announces that he is running for P...
- A few comments/quotes from the Erre book I just fi...
- I posted the Scripture below late last night after...
- You diligently study the Scriptures because you th...
- I began Mike Erre's "Jesus of Suburbia" last night...
- Since Lisa will never go to the movies with me, I ...
- A while back I saw an ad for "How Soccer Explains ...
- Related to my last post, below, what little respec...
- TMQ adds a voice to the Christmas discussion:As We...
- I've begun a post backing up my apocalyptic unders...
- In ten years we are going to be watching movies a...
- Usually when I receive email links that begin with...
- I was just ready to begin a post on my disdain wit...
- As you may have noticed, my brother linked a web s...
- I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with Chuck Missl...
- Suburban poor? What, those with their $200K homes,...
- I guess this is old news, and I shouldn't be that ...
-
▼
December
(17)
16 comments:
source?
Chuck Missler - KHouse news.
i think it depends on how you "seek peace in the world," as well as why you are seeking peace.
like, we embrace a kingdom that is here and yet still is coming. that was a fact of X coming and something he repeatedly pointed to during his time on earth. so, yes, i want peace in this world, and seek to make God's kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven. but, i also recommend that it won't happen in it's entirety until the return of X, when all things are made new again.
i also think we are given the example of our behavior to be: love your neighbor as yourself, to pray for those who persecute you, and so on. how do i show love through war? how do i embrace the way of Christ and embrace the way of the world? so, in this way i seek peace in this world, but i know that again, it won't come about through my work but through the work of God. i may be an instrument of this though. but, ultimately, peace (shalom) will not be complete until God there is a new heaven and a new earth, and God is there in communion with all of his people.
finally, i also am reminded of the words of jer 29:7, when he tells us to seek the peace of the city which you live in, and as Babylon has been so will you. (nlt & tniv use peace, nrsv uses welfare, hebrew uses shalom. nrsv & nlt use seek, tniv uses work - work for the peace of the city.) if the prophet was telling the Israelites to work for peace in evil bablyon, shouldn't we also be working for peace?
i don't deny that the world is a difficult place, and that circumstances are frequently horrible. as for the netherlands article, i had trouble verifying it. well, i saw several that indicated how it was proposed and then went on to rant about hillary clinton, but i also read a ny times article that just talked about how it was proposed by a few doctors who wrote up a proposal of some ethical standards, but no law being passed, or anything about the dutch gov't deciding not to prosecute anyone.
i'm not saying that all is right in the world. in fact, i think we have verifiable attrocities being committed in the sudan (as well as other parts of the african continent). i think that aids is pandemic that we could be doing more to stop.
I am SO tired of hearing about “world peace” – especially at this time of year! Give me a break.
And the chutzpah of Christians who believe that “world peace” can come without Christ amazes me. Sin anyone? Total depravity anyone? The god of this world anyone?
Listen, getting people to stop shooting each other for a couple of hours may be a noble goal. But do NOT mistake that for peace.
True and lasting peace will come only when warring groups believe the Gospel, are changed from the inside out, and come together in mutual and authentic Spirit-filled love. True peace will only come to the world when the Prince of Peace comes and establishes it. ANY talk of “peace” without reference to Christ is laughable at best and heretical at worst.
I would encourage everyone to put aside all secularly-twisted thoughts of “world peace” this Christmas and recall, dwell on, and proclaim why Jesus came at all:
“And she will bear a son, and you shall call His name Yeshua; for He shall save His people from their sins.”
Here’s an excellent commentary from Dr. James White:
“God is coming into the world as a man to save a particular group of people that He will call His own. But what is God going to save them from? Sickness? Famine? Disease? Oppression and poverty? Every year, we are told by the secular media that the point of Christmas is peace, and that the birth of Jesus symbolizes God’s love, so we need to share that love and peace in order to end all the evils to which we are subjected every day. That’s what Christmas is all about, we are told.
But that is not what the angel says. The angel says that Jesus Christ came into the world with one objective in mind: to save His people from their sins. If Christ came to do anything other than this, then there is no hope for us. The evil in the world is not caused by wrong thinking, mismanagement, poverty, abuse by authority, or bad upbringing. Evil exists in the hearts of men because man is at enmity with God. Until sin is dealt with, man can never be at peace with God. And men cannot hope to have true, lasting peace with one another without first having peace with God. World peace does not begin at the UN; it begins with proclamation of the Gospel: “You shall call his name Jesus; for He will save His people from their sins.”
God has made provision for the sins of men. Peace on earth is now possible, because Christ has come to reconcile God and man. God’s perfect justice that demands payment for sin has been satisfied in Christ on behalf of His people.
This is the message of Matthew 1:21, and the true message of Christmas. As our world becomes increasingly secular, and the images of Christmas – and even the word “Christmas” – become replaced with warm feelings and empty platitudes, it becomes more important for us not to forget this. May the Lord be pleased to ignite our hearts with love and gratitude to Him for His awesome grace!”
Amen. Here’s a question Ed that I have asked before but it has gone unanswered: What was THE Gospel (i.e., Good News) that the Apostle Paul was referring to in 1 Corinthians 15: 1 - 4?
And a few more questions related to your seeming pacifism. While it’s easy in your position and in times like this to be a pacifist, I wonder how far you are willing to take it. I pass onto you George Orwell’s feelings toward pacifists in Britain during WWII:
“While Allied forces were fighting and dying to liberate Europe in the summer of 1944 Orwell took the pacifist tendency in Britain to task. He said that he judged pacifists by the subjects they avoided: ‘A courageous pacifist would not simply say that “Britain ought not to bomb Germany.” Anyone can say that. He would say, “The Russians should let the Germans have the Ukraine, the Chinese should not defend themselves against Japan, the European peoples should submit to the Nazis, the Indians should not try to drive out the British.” Real pacifism would involve all of that…’”
Is yours a “real pacifism” Ed? Or is it merely a convenient one? Should Iran be allowed to develop an offensive nuclear capability? Should their crazed President and the mad-mullahs behind him be blocked in their pursuit to dominate their people and the Middle East? Should Israel have to stand by while Iran builds a weapon in order to “wipe Israel off the map”? Should the people of Afghanistan simply allow the Taliban to retake their losses and once again set up their Islamic paradise? Should Taiwan just lay down all their arms and allow China to militarily enforce the “One-China” policy? Should the janjaweed and their supporters in Khartoum be allowed to continue their genocidal attacks on the blacks Muslims of Darfur?
Or is your pacifism merely one with a decidedly anti-western flavor? Orwell observed this as well:
“Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other; but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval, but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States.”
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Peace IN CHRIST!
i guess i'm not sure where you're going on the question about 1 cor 15:1-4. i think verses 3-4 explain the good news very well, although the whole of ch 15 present it much fuller. but, i also think that the good news here does not exclude other words of Christ, like, "blessed are the peacemakers."
my pacifism (a word i do not use to describe myself) is rooted in the experience of the Friends church, actively working for social change through nonviolent means. it is also influenced my the mennonites who were martyred for "radical" beliefs that the Kingdom should be lived out. i would also assert that it is following the example of Christ, nonviolent direct action.
i've not said anything about the u.s. and pacifism. so, no, i don't think iran should pursue nukes. but, i think they have a right as a sovereign nation to do so, even if i disagree with their president and his influences. i disagree with a lot of my president's advisors. in fact, i don't think the state needs to be pacifist. the state is not Xian.
but, i do question those who say they are followers of Christ and employ means he himself would not.
I agree that the Apostle Paul is perfectly clear in 1 Corinthians 15. The reason I ask Ed is because too often you have come precariously close to preaching a social “gospel” – demonstrated again here when you add a phrase spoken by Jesus to disciples – which is no gospel at all. THE Gospel - the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation - is about who Jesus is (the Messiah) and what He did (died for our sins and rose again). If Christ did not REALLY do that then our faith is completely useless and we stand condemned in the Courtroom of Eternal Justice. We are commanded to preach this Gospel to the ends of the earth. “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel,” NOT “Go into all the world and become non-violently socially active in order to eliminate the great social problems of our day.”
I wanted to make certain that when you say Gospel you are in agreement with the Apostle Paul. But I am still not convinced given your insistence on adding to Paul’s Gospel message which was and is “the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1: 16; cf. Galatians 1). There seem to be a plethora of new forms of the old lie that is the social “gospel,” which has very little, if anything, to do with repentance and turning to Jesus for justification through His blood. Yes, sacrificial love and service follow believing the Gospel and becoming a true convert. Yes, this should include helping the poor and taking care of orphans and widows. But that is NOT the Gospel. Good works are NOT a substitute for repenting and believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Now, you can believe that nonviolent means are always the “Christian” way in this fallen and chaotic world; I’m just looking for principled consistency. And I don’t see it. Can we use violence – or the threat of violence – to stop the harming of the innocent and the defenseless, to oppose a tyrant, to stop ongoing violence?
And you didn’t answer the other very relevant questions: Should Israel have to stand by while Iran builds a weapon in order to “wipe Israel off the map”? Should the people of Afghanistan simply allow the Taliban to retake their losses and once again set up their Islamic paradise? Should Taiwan just lay down all their arms and allow China to militarily enforce the “One-China” policy? Should the janjaweed and their supporters in Khartoum be allowed to continue their genocidal attacks on the blacks Muslims of Darfur?
Cheers!
so, we separate the reality of who Jesus was, the actions that he lived out, and what he told us to do, and we only tell people about eternal salvation? does our eternal salvation not influence our lives here on earth? to which i say, yes, and our example for living is the person of Jesus. if his actions take on "social gospel," well fine. because i don't ever see a Jesus that is one or the other. i see a Jesus that brings the Kingdom of God then, now, and in the future.
my principled nonviolence, again, is an attempt to model Jesus' behavior. i feel that applies wholely to my life, and to the life of the church. it does not apply to things like the state, which is not a Xian entity. but, i do think this raises the question of the role of the Xian within the state.
so, should Israel stand up to Iran? well, they are a secular state with every right to do whatever they want. should the people of afghanistan allow the taliban to set up an islamic paradise? well, if they're in agreement with the taliban, yes. if not, then no. should taiwan lay down their arms? no, why should they. should the janaweed...i think you see where i am going.
did Xian take down the roman empire through force? no. they overtook the empire by being Xians. and by being Xians at all cost. not through violence.
“I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the Gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1: 6 – 9).
And what again Ed is this “Gospel of Christ” the Apostle Paul is referring too, which he said was “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believes” (Romans 1:16). It is the Gospel “by which [we] are saved” (1 Corinthians 15: 1 – 2). Paul said the Gospel is “the Gospel of your salvation” (Ephesians 1:13). And again it is a Gospel – the only Gospel that saves us from God’s judgment on sin – that is clearly defined in the Bible:
“[T]hat Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15: 3 – 4).
The content of our faith as Christians must be this Gospel, which involves the substituionary death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It’s interesting that baptism, good works, going to church, helping widows and orphans, helping end the AIDS “pandemic,” becoming a vegetarian, etc. are conspicuous in their absence. But what is clear is that if you or anyone add anything to the one true Gospel it becomes a perverted, different “gospel” which has no power to save souls. And the preacher comes under Paul’s anathema in Galatians 1! Paul is so cautious about this. Only one Gospel saves, and because of that we dare not change it – for souls are at stake!
Once again, the Gospel is all about who Jesus of Nazareth is (God in the flesh/Messiah) and what He did (died for our sins, was buried, and rose again). The work of redemption is complete. “It is finished!,” Christ declared triumphantly from the cross. It’s what He did, not what we did, do, or will do. “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy he saved us” (Titus 3:5). And again we are told that it is “by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Ephesians 2: 8 – 9).
So there is no separating of the reality of who Jesus is and THE action He accomplished – to die as a sacrifice for our sins! Concerning telling people to do all that Jesus commanded, that is clearly for new BELIEVERS. Once someone is born again we take them aside, as is the Scriptural pattern, and teach them the whole counsel of God. But first things first. First we ought to determine to know nothing other than Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
And absolutely our eternal salvation influences our lives here on earth. And I said as much. “Yes, sacrificial love and service follow believing the Gospel and becoming a true convert. Yes, this should include helping the poor and taking care of orphans and widows. But that is NOT the Gospel. Good works are NOT a substitute for repenting and believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.” We as Christians have the Gospel message that saves souls eternally from God’s judgment! And we are to preach it! The world is just as suited as we are logistically too help save the whales, save the dolphins, save the rain forests, save Africa, save the polar ice caps, stop the spread of AIDS and West Nile Virus, provide clean drinking water, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And note once again Ed that I am NOT saying that it is in any way necessarily wrong for Christians to take part in these activities. As Galatians 6:10 teaches, “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.” (Notice that our brothers and sisters are to come first). But simply bear in mind that social work is not preaching the Gospel and is not apart of the Great Commission. And exalting it too that position is disobedience to the Word of God.
You’re right that the early Christians didn’t “turn the world upside down” by coercive force (Acts 17:6). How did they do it, according to Scripture? Well, the early believers did NOT set up great social projects in order to try to stop the plague. No, they preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ and discipled true converts and organized them into city fellowships. They believed that the time was short. Christ could return at any moment. That was true for them, and it is also true for us. While the unredeemed can and do partake in social works (although hopelessly ineffectively), it is only believers that can preach the Gospel. And if believers choose to concentrate on other projects, then the Gospel is more often than not neglected – just as we see in so much of the Church today.
One more thing on your pacifism (of which I agree with you on many of your points). Does it apply to self-defense as well? Do you have a sword, for example? And if not, have you sold some belongings to purchase one? I do wonder why the Master would tell His presumably pacifist disciples to purchase swords (Luke 22). Why would pacifists need swords? To clean their toenails?
Concerning your nonviolent ethic, does it end at physical death? As you think about this recall the words of Jude:
“Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, ‘Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him’” (Jude 14, 15).
So we believers will come back with our Lord Jesus to “execute judgment,” and from other verses we learn this is going to be a violent, bloody scene. How does that fit into your theology?
Interesting dialogue as always. Cheers!
1. the early church in fact did set up social programs to care for the poor of the roman empire. this association with the poor led to criticism, rumor, and eventual persecution (this is not the only reason, but contributed to it).
2. why would the master, who told his servants to buy a sword, then tell them that this is not His way (matt 26:52).
3.my nonviolent ethic continues on through the reign of X, when the lion lies down with the lamb. does that mean that there will not be judgement for sins, no. but does judging sinners = bathing in their blood? not as i understand scripture. because, frankly, i've read credible scholars on both sides, that interpret these scriptures with very different results.
more partial answers to come...sometime
why did paul emphasize the collection for the poor?
Nice discussion guys, I've enjoyed following it. I think one of the key points here is the one Adam brings up, that being to identify who we are speaking to. If it is believers, then yes, we need to teach them the whole counsel of God and the life of being a true convert. However, be it a nonbeliever we need to realize that going to church, becoming involved in social issues, these will not bring us to Christ. Rose Mutunga, wife of Dr. Stanley Mutunga, founder of Tumaini, caught my good friend Dan and I one time as we were discussing this issue and the importance of building relationships, etc. She used the example of her father, great man, socially involved, helped people in need, but never knew Christ. Everyone assumed he was a Christian but she didn't believer he had come to Christ. Interesting.
I know my church deals with this same thing. A lot of what we are teaching and preaching is directed at believers, but my concern is that a nonbeliever could be in the audience and get the wrong message. We need to be careful of that.
Again, my feeling is that Ed, you are concerned about believers living out their faith and Adam, you are concerned about preaching the Gospel. It's the perfect example of the evangelist vs. pastoral heart (Adam, remember our reading from Wolfgang Simpson, "Houses that Change the World," and how he said to expect this and that it is healthy).
Blessings to you both! Keep the dialogue going!
jp, i think you may have hit the nail on the head. we are talking past each other, and it's probably due to intended audience.
Thanks Ed, I think that is a big problem, especially among emerging folk, something we need to be careful with...
Have a Merry Christmas!
Good morning and Happy Saturday all! Great discussion is right JP. Iron sharpening iron.
I do disagree that Ed and I are talking past one another, however. That is too easy of an excuse in this (supposed) age of post-modern deconstructionism. There does seem to be more or less of a red herring in the works here, as Ed has switched to the gear of “good works” of believers as a diversionary scheme away from the larger issue at hand – that being works in relation to salvation. First things first Ed. That is why I asked what the Gospel that Paul preached was (which is why I went straight to his definition in 1 Corinthians 15). That could have very easily settled that issue. But it seemed that works were being added when you went back to the Sermon on the Mount, delivered to disciples, and seemed to associate this with the Gospel. That’s not only sloppy soteriology; it is a false gospel of works.
We would do well to recall Oswald Chambers warning that Christians not, in a zeal (without knowledge) to get more people to trust the Gospel, construct a false gospel that is more acceptable and more “user-friendly” to people. Why would this be harmful? Because it defies God and produces false “converts” who are not saved from God’s judgment. One of today’s most popular perversions of the true Gospel is the “social” gospel, which attempts to offend no one with truth and brings supposed “Christians” together to “do good” and “help people” and “bring peace to the world.” Such a “gospel” may leave a person feeling justified by all the “good” they are doing, but on their way to hell nonetheless. How tragic!
The Bible is clear that even our “works of righteousness” are filthy in God’s sight prior to justification. And the biggest obstacle of people coming to trust Christ and His finished work is their own prideful self-righteousness and in truly believing that they can somehow contribute something toward their salvation. That is why the attraction of a “works-based gospel,” no matter how subtle, is so dangerous. It perpetuates the lie that people can in fact find favor with God through their own efforts. But as I have shown from Scripture, we can do NOTHING! Works, no matter how good or noble, avail nothing to the unredeemed. Works, no matter how good or noble, are NOT a means of salvation. Rather, they are the result of salvation. Good works are NOT the cause of salvation; they are the consequence of salvation. Good works are NOT what a person must do to be saved; they are what a saved person does.
Now as believers, who have been justified by the blood of Christ and have hope based on His resurrection, we should be following John Wesley’s maxim: “Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, to all the people you can, as long as you ever can.” We ought to obey the Apostle Paul, who told Titus to “affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works” (3:8). While the self-righteous unsaved person will perform a good work in a futile attempt to obtain God’s favor, we the redeemed will perform a good work because we have already obtained God’s favor.
“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works” (Titus 2: 11 – 14).
And the greatest work we can do is preach the Gospel! And in fact the good works that God produces in us are a great tool in preaching the Gospel. “For this is the will of God,” Peter tells us, “that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men” (1 Peter 2:15). Foolish, unsaved people can and will disagree with our message, but when we maintain our Father’s good works, they keep silent and move on – freeing us to preach on!
Now, you ask a good question as to why Jesus would tell his servants to buy a sword. BUT WAIT – I asked that question! And you’re the one with the burden of proof here. But I won’t split hairs :-)
So let’s set the scene. Jesus and His disciples are in the Upper Room the night before the crucifixion and having their last supper together. Jesus is giving some final instructions to His followers concerning past and future dependence:
“And He said to them, ‘When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?’ So they said, ‘Nothing.’ Then He said to them, ‘BUT NOW, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: “And He was numbered with the transgressors.” For the things concerning Me have an end.’ So they said, ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’ And He said to them, ‘It is enough’” (Luke 22: 35 – 38; emphasis mine).
Recall that when Jesus has sent them out before He had instructed His disciples to travel with only light provisions and depend on other people’s hospitality. BUT NOW something was going to change. They would now need to plan more accordingly and provide more for themselves (recall the Apostle Paul working and preaching and teaching) and – get this – PROTECT themselves.
This is why I asked that question Ed concerning the sword IN THE CONTEXT OF self-defense. The small, Roman sword was standard equipment for travelers in dangerous territory, where Jesus’ followers would be taking the Gospel. The sword was for PROTECTION, not – NOT – AGGRESSION! And Peter’s act in Matthew 26 that you reference was aggression. The governing authorities, whom followers of Christ are too respect, had come to arrest Jesus and their legal authority was to be honored. Peter was acting lawless. He was taking the law into His own hands. And John MacArthur notes well that “Jesus’ reply [in Matthew 26] was a restatement of the Genesis 9:6 principle: ‘Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed,’ an affirmation that capital punishment is an appropriate penalty for murder.”
So there is no contradiction here. But there is still a problem for your pacifism that you now have to account for. Does your pacifism apply to self-defense? Do you have a sword? And if not, have you sold some belongings to purchase one? Why, according to your reading and theology, would the Master tell His presumably pacifist disciples to purchase swords? Why would pacifists need swords?
You did say that your “nonviolent ethic continues on through the reign of [Christ], when the lion lies down with the lamb.” Actually Jesus has already come as the Lamb of God and was sacrificed as such. At His Second Coming He will return as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. Yes, the lion will lay down with the lamb, once the curse if lifted. You claim that in your interpretation of the Bible the Second Coming won’t be a bloody scene. I would argue that your presuppositions and traditions have forced you into this eisegeis. However, you say that you have “scholars” to back you up on this. There is nothing at all wrong with quoting authorities, but your appeal to their authority here brought to mind what Basil, as early Church Father, once said in response to his opponents concerning the relevancy of customs and traditions in a debate:
“If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore, let God-inspired Scripture decide between us and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.”
Let me rephrase this for our purposes:
“If pointing to scholarly interpretation and opinion is to be taken in proof of what is right then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the scholarly interpretation and opinion which obtains here. Let God-inspired Scripture decide between us and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.”
Ed you and I could find “scholars” who claim to be Christians to support nearly any position, no matter how completely contrary it is to the Word of God. The main question here for our purposes is how you – and they – exegete Scripture. Do you believe in a literal reading of the Word? Or is the term “literal” objectionable to you? How about “normally”? Would you still object? Do you object to any of the so-called “Four Laws of Interpretation” developed by Dr. David L. Cooper?
1) The Golden Rule of Interpretation: “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning, unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”
2) The Law of Double Reference – no summary maxim, but will explain it if there is confusion.
3) The Law of Recurrence – again no summary maxim, but will explain it if there is confusion.
4) The Law of Context – “A text apart from its context is a pretext” or “Any text without context is a pretext for a proof-text.”
Are you willing to apply these laws of interpretation to non-prophetic passages? Are you willing to apply them to the prophetic portions of Scripture, specifically many Old Testament passages yet to be fulfilled and the Book of Revelation? Your presuppositions and interpretive scheme(s) will influence your answer, and influence how you interpret passages such as this:
“Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He JUDGES AND MAKES WAR. His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He SHOULD STRIKE THE NATIONS. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself TREADS THE WINEPRESS OF THE FIERCENESS AND WRATH OF ALMIGHTY GOD. And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. Then I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that fly in the midst of heaven, ‘Come and gather together for the supper of the great God, That you may eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, both small and great.’ And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh” (Revelation 19: 11 – 21; emphasis mine).
WOW! Jesus will judge. He will make war. He will strike the nations and tread the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
Consider this:
“Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and on the cloud sat One like the Son of Man, having on His head a golden crown, and in His hand a sharp sickle. And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to Him who sat on the cloud, ‘Thrust in Your sickle and reap, for the time has come for You to reap, for the harvest of the earth is ripe.’ So He who sat on the cloud thrust in His sickle on the earth, and the earth was reaped. Then another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle. And another angel came out from the altar, who had power over fire, and he cried with a loud cry to him who had the sharp sickle, saying, ‘Thrust in your sharp sickle and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth, for her grapes are fully ripe.’ So the angel thrust his sickle into the earth and gathered the vine of the earth, and threw it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. And the winepress was trampled outside the city, and blood came out of the winepress, up to the horses’ bridles, for one thousand six hundred furlongs” (Revelation 14: 14 – 20).
I’m told that “one thousand six hundred furlongs” is approximately two hundred miles. This distance is filled with human blood and will be so deep that blood actually will reach a horse’s bridle! Isaiah seems to be describing these events in chapter 63, verse 1 – 6. First a question is asked:
“Who is this who comes from Edom, With DYED GARMENTS [dyed with blood] from Bozrah, this One who is glorious in His apparel, traveling in the greatness of His strength?”
And Jesus – the Lion of the Tribe of Judah – answers:
“I who speak in righteousness, mighty to save.”
And another question from Isaiah:
“Why is Your apparel red, and Your garments like one who treads in the winepress?”
Answer:
“I have trodden the winepress alone, and from the peoples no one was with Me. For I have trodden them in My anger, and trampled them in My fury; their blood is sprinkled upon My garments, and I have stained all My robes. For the day of vengeance is in My heart, and the year of My redeemed has come. I looked, but there was no one to help, and I wondered that there was no one to uphold; therefore My own arm brought salvation for Me; and My own fury, it sustained Me. I have trodden down the peoples in My anger, made them drunk in My fury, and brought down their strength to the earth.”
WOW. Quite a scene. This is yet another reason to motivate us to preach the Gospel before time runs out. Jesus is coming back as a Lion. He will crush and demolish His enemies (i.e., those that have not trusted Him and His finished work). I once heard it put like this: “If one does not accept the shed blood of Christ, Christ will shed that person’s blood.” We may not like that, but the Bible clearly teaches it.
You closed by asking why Paul emphasized a collection for the poor. Well, it wasn’t as a down payment on their salvation. The collection for the poor was a good work to be done NOT to work for salvation, but for believers to work out their already-possessed salvation. Also remember that while we are in no way saved by works, we are normally not saved without works. In other words, if time allows, a true Christian will demonstrate the truth of their conversion by their good works. Our salvation is by grace alone, received by faith alone, placed in Christ alone. Works have no place in the Courtroom of Eternal Justice. Yet if we have left the Courtroom justified we will do good works. So a faith that is devoid of works is a not a true faith. A faith that is devoid of works is an evidence of death.
Well, this has again gotten entirely too long. But these distinctions are Biblical and they are necessary. Appealing to authority or appealing emotion are not credible logically or Biblically and are not excuses for a sloppy theology in general or a sloppy soteriology in particular.
Anyway, great discussion and have a great day. Cheers!
adam,
i agree that there are many difficult texts to be considered by those who embrace nonviolence. but, i also think there is a problem when either side says, "how do you deal with this text?" and then disallows the answer. so, you point to some difficult texts and interpretations that support your side. i point to biblical texts and interpretations that support mine. and, we both have tradition of the church on our side.
i do often wonder why the Prince of Peace, one that is described as doing no harm, that would unequivicably call for forgiveness and love of enemies, who would tell his disciples to put down their swords would also tell his disciples to take a sword with them in travels.
but, self defense rarely is war. nor does allowing for self defense negate seeking the peace of the city, praying for peace, and asking for God's kingdom to come on earth as it is in heaven.
furthermore, X allowing his disciples to take along a sword is not the same as telling them to go attack another nation.
what i do strongly disagree with is this, "Ed has switched to the gear of 'good works' of believers as a diversionary scheme away from the larger issue at hand – that being works in relation to salvation."
no, i haven't. what i have said, repeatedly, is that our salvation requires action. and, it is a false dichotomy to split our good works as believers from presenting the good news of salvation. this dichotomy was not present within the early church, which is why i present the example of the collection for the poor. i could also point to the feeding of the widows in acts 6. this latter example shows that different people may take on the duty of social care, but this duty is never lifted. neither is our duty of presenting the good news to a world that is dying. after all, Jesus himself says that we will do the same works that he has done.
i have not anywhere in this thread said that peace will come without X. in my response to the stories that jpn mentioned, i said that peace will not come in completely until the return of X (although i mistakenly typed recommend instead of realize). but, i have said that we should seek peace, the Kingdom come, and love our enemies, as diirected.
Merry Christmas Ed (and all)!
First off, this a good and important and profitable discussion. If I come across as a bit “snarky,” it’s because the issues are important and deserve to be addressed honestly and critically. Furthermore, many of the “emerging” theologies, though having a few appearances of a sound Biblical theology, are in the end erroneous, flawed, dangerous, and in some cases heretical. And because many “emergents” come across as “nice,” they get a free pass in the boxing ring/marketplace of ideas. This is flat out wrong, even immoral. Ideas must be engaged and defended. If found to be unbiblical or contradictory, they must be disregarded.
Now then, while I have certainly pointed out “some difficult texts and interpretations that support [my] side,” I am still the only one between us who has done some real, actual exegesis. You may have mentioned some random text but you have yet to provide any of your own interpretation. So far as I can tell you have merely mentioned the fact that you have “scholars” to back you up in certain areas. To which my reply was and is, “Who cares?!” Engage the text for yourself and back up your assertions. The same holds true for your claim that we “both have tradition of the church on our side.” Again, where is the relevancy here? Any appeal to antiquity or tradition is more often than not fallacious anyway given its extra-textual nature in addition to its numerous and conflicting stances.
And again you fail to answer my question about self-defense. Yes, you did make some more assertions that could be dealt with, but they were not the issue as hand. It’s a simple question Ed. Let go of your presuppositions and traditions, exegete the Biblical texts, and just reply to the questions: Does your pacifism apply to self-defense? Do you have a sword? And if not, have you sold some belongings to purchase one? Why, according to your reading and theology, would the Master tell His presumably pacifist disciples to purchase swords? Why would pacifists need swords?
Concerning works and their relation to salvation Ed, I have been as clear as one can be. I will only here add that we must strive to be as certain as we can be that when calling believers to good works that they are in fact believers in the first place. If not, we run the real and tragic risk of begging/shaming dead people into works of the flesh that unbelievers will do in order to try to gain justification in God’s sight. Works of the flesh, rather than pleasing God, actually infuriate Him. Even the very best an unsaved person does is in God’s eyes a filthy menstrual rag. Such “good works” are also repulsive and nauseating to our Holy Creator. Like menstrual rags they are impure and have to be completely separate from God’s holy presence.
Conversely, the truly saved – the truly converted – have works of faith that God produces in them. They are works that please God because they have there beginning in God. I should add here that if you are finding it necessary to continually prod men and women to “good works,” you may want to check (1) their spiritual pulse (you probably have a false convert on your hands) and (2) whether or not the “good work” you are calling them too is in fact Biblical and needed and necessary. I would hope if you are calling your brothers and sisters to “Save the Spotted Three-Legged Caribou” or to “Protest Climate Changes Affect on the Rights of Burqa Wearers’” in Jesus Name that they would extend you the middle-finger of fellowship. But hey, thats just me.
Look Ed, good works are important and true believers the world over are engaging in them. They simply are not relevant in the area of justification before the judgment seat of God. No requirements can be added to saving faith. If they are, the faith ceases to be saving. And genuine converts to Christ will in time perform the good works God has prepared for them, most important of which is the preaching of the Gospel. It is our most solemn and necessary task. One evangelist put it so well:
“The world sleeps peacefully in the darkness of ignorance. There is only one Door by which they may escape death. The steel bars of sin prevent their salvation, and at the same time call for the flames of Eternal Justice. What a fearful thing Judgment Day will be! The fires of the wrath of Almighty God will burn for eternity. The Church has been entrusted with the task of awakening them before it’s too late. We cannot turn our backs and walk away in complacency… [O]ur devotion to the sober task that God has given us will be in direct proportion to our love for the lost. There are only a few who run headlong into the flames to warn them to flee. Please be one of them. We really have no choice. The Apostle Paul said, ‘Woe is me if I do not preach the Gospel!’ (1 Corinthians 9:16). It was the ‘Prince of Preachers,’ Charles Spurgeon, who said the words, ‘Have you no wish for others to be saved? Then you are not saved yourself. Be sure of that.’ A Christian cannot be apathetic about the salvation of the world. The love of God in him will motivate him to seek and save that which is lost.”
Amen! Oh Lord that I would remember and call to mind often that every person I see who dies in their sins has a date with their Creator – the Holy and Righteous Judge of All. Oh Lord that I would remember and call to mind often that one day hell will open its wide doors to these people. Ed, we have been entrusted with the Gospel that is “the power of God unto salvation.” We dare not place that task any where other than front and center.
Merry Christmas!
Post a Comment