The Thunker Blog.

Jumping Ship

2006-01-14T15:35:00.000+10:00

I am moving on to bigger and better things. It has been a dream to have my own website address. Through a friend, I now do: kiwiandanemu.org What to do with it? Well, I have exported this blog there, so all future posts will be at that address.

So, if you're looking for me, that's where I'll be. I've jumped the Blogger Ship.

Thanks for your help Glen.

All word and no pray makes Jack a powerless boy.

2006-01-13T15:25:00.000+10:00

I was wondering what to put under such a great little take off of the common idiom and viola! Adrian Warnock posted a Piper quote I am going to steal (though, I have the book where, if the quote does not directly come from there, the essence of it does, i.e. Let the Nations be Glad. First British Edition, 1994, p65)

"Not only has God made the accomplishment of his global purposes of salvation hang on the preaching of the Word; he has also made the success of the preaching of the Word hang on prayer. God's goal to be glorified in a world full of white-hot worshippers from every people and tongue and tribe and nation will not succeed without the powerful proclamation of the gospel by people like you and me. And that gospel will not be proclaimed in power to all the nations without the persevering, earnest, global, faith-filled prayers f God's people. This is the awesome place of prayer in the purposes of God for the world. They won't happen without prayer."

Struck Down By God?

2006-01-07T20:20:00.000+10:00

When my wife and I saw the news about Ariel Sharon's stroke, I turned to my wife and said, "Someone is going to say that Ariel Sharon has been punished by God for giving up the Gaza Strip."

As I said that, I was thinking of Muslim extremists or angry Jews - I didn't expect it to turn out to be Pat Robertson. But why not? His theology of the end-times and the way of thinking of those who adhere to the same eschatology leads easily to that conclusion.

Now I think it is possible for God to punish or strike down people for their actions - against the interests of Israel and against God. God promises this (Gen 12:3) and the Bible gives us examples of this (eg. Obad 10-16). I don't think it beyond the realm of possibility that God would strike someone down for their actions against Israel's interests.

And yet there is another side. When Jeremiah was prophesying, he was prophesying to the King and all Israel that they should abandon Jerusalem because the Babylonians would take it and he was condemned as a traitor (Jer 38:1-4). This shows that God is not uniformly for Jerusalem, nor is He uniformly for fighting to keep the land of Israel in Jewish hands. Wisdom is needed to know how to deal with the situation in the Middle East, but one thing is sure, God will secure the land of Israel for Israel - it was not necessarily a wrong move for Sharon to work toward peace. Nor is it up to him or any other politician to hold on to territory in the face of a possible solution to the unrest.

Did God strike Sharon down for giving up the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank? I don't know, but I do know giving up the land like that was not ipso facto an ungodly move (Matt 5:38-42).

Are Husbands To Blame?

2005-12-27T11:59:00.000+10:00

A guy called Mike at Eternal Perspectives brought Joe Carter's marriage advice to my attention. It is Joe's contention that the best person to give marriage advice is a divorced person, whereas Mike thinks that a bizarre way of thinking, and cites the lamentable failure rate of remarriage after divorce. Of course, there is a grain of truth in Joe's contention, but on the whole I would agree with Mike. [Turns out that Joe's Post was a joke as Mike now notes at his blog]

But what I want to comment on is the very sad situation of some divorced men. For quite a few well-meaning people, when a marriage goes bad, it is the man's fault. This seems to be Joe's perspective. For example, here is a quote taken from the post linked to above:

Since my first wife left me for another woman, the idea that I could have been to blame came as a bit of a surprise.

"Let me get this straight," I said. "You turn gay and it's my fault the marriage didn't work out?"

"Keep in mind," she noted, "that I only lost interest in men after being married to you."

Touche

Or this one:

The key to working through these differences is learning to compromise. Normally this would mean finding common ground on which you both can agree. In marriage, however, compromise means that you let her get her way. You won't find that definition in the dictionary but its better that you learn the true meaning now rather than have it explained to you by her divorce lawyer.

Of course, it may be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but others are quite serious about this. For instance, Gary Smalley in his book, If Only He Knew. What No Woman Can Resist, puts the following in capital letters surrounded by a box:

IF A COUPLE HAS BEEN MARRIED FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, ANY PERSISTENT DISHARMONY IN THEIR MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIP IS USUALLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE HUSBAND'S LACK OF UNDERSTANDING AND APPLYING GENUINE LOVE. (p80)

And as you read further in the book, you can do away with the word, "usually" - he says he's still looking for his first exception.

And there are others. I could be quite wrong in this instance (of course, I don't think I am), but I seem to pick up in Glenn Miller's writings an overwhelming sense of responsibility for his divorce. This may well be justified, but it seems to have developed into a self/male inferiority complex when dealing with anything to do with gender. Another man who believes this is my pastor, who is happily married/never divorced. He believes and tells people that it is the husband's responsibility to make a marriage work, not the wife's.

Friends, I'm sorry, I just do not agree.

Are there guys who wreck their marriage because they do not understand their wives or apply genuine love? Absolutely. Do husbands have a responsibility for the health or ill-health of their marriage. Yes. But it is not always the case that primary responsibility falls on them for the state of their marriage.

I believe that marriage reflects Jesus and the Church - and by extension, Jesus and the individual believer. If someone walks away from their relationship with Jesus, is Jesus to blame? No. Has Jesus evidenced a lack of understanding and failed to apply genuine love? No. Then why should husbands necessarily bear responsibility for marriage problems or the break-up of a marriage? Yes, there is a horrifying dearth of responsible men in the world, but this is not a reason to place the ultimate blame on every male divorcee.

Men do not play their part as husbands perfectly - they are not Jesus. Women do not play their part as wives perfectly - they, too, are not Jesus (in relation to the Father). Men often not understand or apply genuine love, and women often do not know how to communicate their disappointment or hurt. There are different areas of strength in men and women, and there are different areas of culpable weakness. Some husbands respond positively to being told they are responsible for the problems in the marriage - usually because in those cases they are. But men are not automatically to blame for the marriage problems any more than Jesus is to blame for those Christians who walk away from Him.

People, - especially you men who are divorcees - stop slapping "Husband To Blame" on every marriage problem that comes your way. Self-flagellation is not a healthy thing.

I Love My Wife.

2005-12-27T11:40:00.000+10:00

My wife beat me at Scrabble last night.

It was unbelievable. Out of all the letters I picked up, only about 8 of them had a point value above one, and at least half of those had a point value of two. So, it was luck - though she was pretty skilful at times, too.

What made it worse, however, was her gloating. "I've got 243. 243, Ali. I've got 243. And you've got..." and, "Hey, if I win..." about three turns before the end of the game when the result was not in doubt.

Then there was the condescending flattery, "You're doing really well."

And even after the game as we got into bed, "Good night, Loser."

But she did win. Yes, I checked her scoring while she went for a shower. She won. Shocking. Tragic. True.

But somewhere in between losing and going to bed, I realised I love my wife, and I would rather lose every game of Scrabble I played with her than lose her.

Now, I'm telling you - that's love.

Christmas Is Over.

2005-12-26T10:48:00.000+10:00

I feel the need to tip my hat to Christmas, now that it is all over. It's a nice time and it's a nice tradition. If Western missionaries went to another culture they would jump at such a God-given opportunity firmly embedded in the culture and use it to tell people the gospel. And that is what many churches do, but I wonder whether Western people are hampered in their use of the Christian season for gospel purposes by themselves being so firmly embedded in the culture of Christmas and all the extraneous cultural add-ons. I really feel I am, which is why I would prefer to call the day Incarnation Day, though, in reality, that would possibly alienate more non-Christians than open hearts.

Suppose that instead of concentrating on a baby in the manger, we go back and explain why the baby is in the manger. And instead of concentrating on the three wise men and the shepherds in the fields, we make them the periphery and major instead on Jesus Himself. Or perhaps if we don't start from the conception and birth of Jesus and instead begin from the pre-existent Son and emphasise that this is God in the manger. Not that I think there is anything wrong with more traditional starting points, but they are so common that all impact is gone.

What about fresh, more God-centred ways of looking at Christmas. I mean, often when the Christmas story is told, there is a lot about the characters around the baby Jesus, but never any real explanation of Jesus. The wise men worshipped Him - yes! The shepherds left their flocks to go see Him - yes! He is the Saviour and King - yes! But why? What does that mean to us today? Preachers telling non-Christian listeners that they need to worship the baby too; that they need to leave what they're doing to find Him too; that the baby can be their Saviour and King too, usually do not explain why. They usually do not push home the full plan and the future. Jesus is left in the manger, or he is suddenly and mysteriously transported to a cross with no real explanation as to why and we are left in the past with a cursory application to the present and no reference to the future - as in the consequences for accepting or rejecting the Christmas message.

Anyway, God still uses the time. Now Christmas is over, let's look for other opportunities to tell people about Jesus.

(Note: I have written two other posts on Christmas here and here.)

The Envy Behind Action.

2005-12-21T20:23:00.000+10:00

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 1 Corinthians 13:4 (NIV)

Sherlock Holmes and Watson walked in silence until Holmes spoke up. “No, Watson, we should go to the post office now to see if your doctor has posted that letter to you.”

Dr Watson was astounded. “How did you know that was what I was thinking? How did you know I am expecting a letter from my doctor?”

“Elementary, my dear Watson,” the detective drawled. “As soon as we stepped out the door, your hand went to your pocket to check you still had the keys to the house. Normally that would lead to a sense of security and freedom to think different thoughts, yet you seemed a little preoccupied with your keys, leaving your hand in your pocket and jingling them. The expression on your face indicated some thought, and I realized that there must be more on that key ring than merely the keys to the house. I remembered you telling me recently you had opened a post office box downtown, and surmised that you were thinking about some incoming mail. Since you have recently visited the doctor, I thought that perhaps an important letter from your physician might be expected. You then took your hand out of your pocket and pressed it against your abdomen and I concluded that I was right and that the incoming letter would contain some important information about pain in your abdominal area. Then you raised your head suddenly in a manner that people take when dismissing a thought from their minds, I daresay with the thought that you would check your mail another time. Hence my comment.”[1]

We are just as confused as Watson about our sinful actions, attitudes and words that seemingly come out of the blue, but the connection between envy and other sins is far more direct than the connection Holmes traced from stepping out the door to his comment to Watson. It is seems strange that most people would agree that envy is bad, but few people recognize it in action.

Gary [my pastor] provided a long yet still incomplete list of the different negative things that can develop as a result of envy – anorexia, adultery, bitterness, gossip, insecurity to name a few. I invite you to do the same. Sit down and trace a variety of sins to their beginnings. You will suddenly see envy everywhere. That is because, like love, envy can be an engine under the surface that unconsciously drives us – usually where we don’t want to go. There can only be one engine. Love does not envy. An important part of learning to love is to recognize and confess “false engines”. This requires honesty and humility. Ask God to help you see where envy has infiltrated your life and ask that he will help you replace that envy with love.

[1] This is based on a situation with different characters and details that I once read in a detective book. Unfortunately I haven’t been able to track it down.

[This is taken from "Love Does Not Envy", Day 2, Week 3 of the Love Devotions.]

The Seeing That Leads to Envy.

2005-12-21T20:00:00.000+10:00

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 1 Corinthians 13:4 (NIV)

Why does Jack Nicholson wear sunglasses inside at the Oscars? I mean, aren’t sunglasses meant to protect the eyes from the glare of the sun? There is no sun inside the building. I know from personal experience that wearing sunglasses inside actually limits your vision, so the question comes to mind: Is it because he doesn’t want to see anything? But if he doesn’t want to see anything, why go to the Oscars in the first place?

Of course, it is possible to see when you wear sunglasses inside, just not very well. If Jack wants to wear his sunglasses somewhere so that he can hardly see at all, I suggest a better place is outside in the country on a cloudy, moonless night. Lots of potential obstacles and interesting terrain to explore. Unfortunately, there wouldn’t be anyone there to see him, and of course he’d miss the Oscars.

In one sense, we are all Jack Nicholsons. We all voluntarily wear sunglasses in the dark. It is only when Jesus comes along and takes them off that our eyes begin to adjust and we can see more clearly. The things that we were limited to before, the world that we could touch and see expands and we understand that what looked good with our sunglasses on is nothing compared to what we can see with our sunglasses off!

Then we put our sunglasses back on.

Jesus came and lived and died, demonstrating a life that was lived for treasures in heaven, not for treasures on earth (Matt 6:19-21). Yet we look around at people whose vision does not extend beyond this life and this world and envy what they are storing up for themselves! God’s love has told us there is more than that. Our satisfaction is no longer achieved by money, fame, achievements and other things limited to this world. Our satisfaction comes from pleasing God and being pleased by God. We don’t need to envy because we have all we need.

Of course, that is the theory. The truth is that our flesh is still riddled with sin and envy is an integral part of our society and a deceptive part of our life here on earth, even when we do have our sunglasses off. God has given us a new perspective through Jesus Christ, but we are still learning to walk it.

Envy is antithetical to Christianity. It is important, therefore, to learn how to live without it.

[This is taken from "Love Does Not Envy", Day 1, Week 3 of the Love Devotions.]

Santa talks tough but does he follow through?

2005-12-15T16:23:00.000+10:00

No, he doesn't! When was the last time you heard of a kid not getting Christmas presents from Santa because they had been naughty that year?

"If you're not good, Santa won't give you any presents this year!"

Yeah, right. Empty threats, that's all that is. Santa is a soft touch. Worse, he has his favourites. Notice how the richer a kid is the better the presents? Why would Santa distribute gifts that way unless he's trying to get in good with the wealthy few? The whole thing is a crock. Santa never follows through on his threats and he perpetuates economic inequality. He's a fraud, and yet he receives the adulation of millions around the world. Wake up people, you're being taken for a ride!!!

Compare that with the God of the Bible. On the face of it God and Santa may look the same. Threats of consequences for wrong behaviour, and still we are given gifts despite the way we act. But the difference is found in Jesus. In Him we find the threats made take on a harrowing reality as the consequences of our sins are beaten into His body during His crucifixion. And through the resurrection of Jesus the gifts we are given are beyond the best and freely available to all - young and old, rich and poor. (In fact, it seems that the poor are more often recipients of these gifts because they seem more able to take them.) And all this is made possible through receiving that one Gift - Jesus Christ.

God has integrity; Santa's never follows through. God gives the best gifts indiscriminately; Santa chooses the rich over the poor. But Santa doesn't require anything of you and God does - not just at Christmas, but throughout the year. So millions still choose Santa over God. How sad.

Time Zones

2005-12-14T18:38:00.000+10:00

I have just changed countries for a short period of time, so who knows when posts will come. I will be able to post two more that are in draft form over the next couple of days, but then it may be a week before I get back to it.

Just so you know.

Is she a Christian?

2005-12-13T19:11:00.000+10:00

I know a lady who grew up in a Christian home, but it wasn’t until her early twenties that Christ became real for her. She points to a meeting at her church as the time she became a Christian, and since then, though she knows she could do better, she has lived out her Christianity with sincerity and integrity of heart.

Today, when she’s at work and she’s stressed out or annoyed at someone or something, she prays while she works, “I’m doing this for You, Lord. This is for Your glory,” and the results show it. She treats everyone with incredible grace and her prayers have to be some of the more beautiful prayers I have heard. She is, quite simply, a fantastic example of genuine Christian living.

Now, the problem. For fifteen years she lived with a man and had his children and only got married to him four years ago.

Does this negate her claim to Christianity?

I don’t think so.

For a start, I don’t know what knowledge she had growing up. She comes from a culturally Christian society, but whether Christian morals were taken seriously, I don’t know.

Secondly, she was not promiscuous but stayed with the one man. In essence she was married in all but name. Should she have been married before they lived together? Yes, I think so, but I don’t think failure in this negates her Christianity.

Thirdly, though it may surprise people, I don’t think those sort of sins are as Biblically heinous as we evangelical Christians often make out. Yes, there is a right way about marriage, but I don’t think getting it wrong sets you outside the family of God. Look at Mordecia, a righteous man who married encouraged his cousin to marry a foreign king (against the Mosaic Law) and Esther, a righteous woman who willingly married a foreign man with many wives and concubines.

I am in no way condoning living with someone outside of marriage, but I am saying that it is not necessarily evidence of a lack of Christian faith, or a lack of Christian character. Is the crass materialism of so many Christians in the West necessarily evidence that their faith is not genuine? Is the blatant racism of Christians in South Africa and the Southern States of America necessarily evidence that there is/was no genuine faith? Just what is the evidence of genuine Christian faith?

I think Jesus in a person’s life is the telling factor. Do they confess that Jesus is the Son of God (1 John 4:15)? Do they have the Spirit of Jesus in their life (1 John 4:13)? Do they act from the love of Jesus (1 John 4:7)? Then whether they are living with someone outside of marriage, throwing stones at people of another race, ignoring the poor by feathering their nest, even refusing to believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God – the evidence is that their Christianity is genuine.

Now, take pride...

2005-12-13T08:53:00.000+10:00

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 1 Corinthians 13:4(NIV)

If someone said, “This chair rocks!” they could either mean one of the legs is shorter than the others or they really like the chair. If someone said, “I’m fixing that presently,” they could mean they were fixing it right then, or would fix it some time in the future. If someone on Monday says they’ll meet you next Friday, do they mean the Friday coming, or the Friday after that?

When Paul says, “Love is not proud”, what does he mean? We all like being told we have done a good job. We like the praise of people who are important to us. I’d say everyone would like to hear their father say, “I’m proud of you.” (See Prov 17:6) Is it unloving to say to someone, “I’m proud of you”?

In case you are tempted to say it’s okay to be proud of someone else, just not yourself, take this example. You’ve worked hard at some project and someone else comes along and says, “Wow! That’s great! You should be proud of yourself!” Is it wrong to be proud of the good work you have done?

The sort of pride Paul is talking about in this verse is arrogant pride – being puffed up. The idea is that you make too much of something you have, do or are. A prime example is the plethora of stars that gain respect and public adulation merely by being able to act in a movie or TV programme. Why is it that we accept that someone who can act has some sort of greater worth than other people? Or someone who can sing? Or someone who is beautiful? Does the fact that I earn a certain wage mean I am better than those who earn less, or that I’m less than those who earn more?

Love recognises that our life is bigger than these things and that we cannot puff up our success in one area and apply it to the rest of our lives so that others can marvel at the complete package that is us. Our worth is measured not by any success, but ultimately by God’s love for us, first because we are made in his image, and secondly, through Jesus Christ we are his children.

But that does not mean we cannot have pride in ourselves. In my NIV Bible, the word “pride” is used in seven New Testament verses and in six of them “pride” is used positively! Spirit-led commonsense also tells us that being happy about achievements and work and people is not wrong, but unfortunately many people, in a sincere effort to follow a mistaken understanding of the Bible, adopt a false humility and refuse to accept anything positive said about them and their work. As long as pride is kept within its proper limits (2 Cor 10:13) and is not used to determine our personal worth – or other people’s personal worth by comparison – then being proud of oneself in that sense is not unloving. It is simply being honest.

[This is taken from "Love is Humble"Day 3, Week 4 of the Love Devotions.]

Incarnation Day

2005-12-12T17:36:00.000+10:00

As he wanders further and further from addressing the questions he posed of a couple of days ago, Ali gets caught up in the wonder of Christmas. Christmas...the time of year where radio personalities remind us that the real meaning of Christmas is forgiveness and good family feelings...

[Warning: ramble ahead. Unedited. Interrupted by dinner. Probably will remain that way.]

Ever notice that non-Christians expect everyone to act like Jesus at Christmas? "Come on, give him some money. It's Christmas." "Nobody should be alone at Christmas." "Can't you forgive her? It is Christmas, after all!" Why? Because Christmas is a time of forgiveness and peace and good-will to all men. But while they may hear that year after year in the Carols they sing, non-Christians have totally missed the point.

Is Christmas a time of forgiveness and peace and good-will to all men? Yes, but it is that because Jesus has come to earth to live and die and be resurrected - that is the only way you're going to get forgiveness, peace and good-will and it's the only way you will be able to truly give it to others. Non-Christians want the benefits of living in a Christian community without actually living in a Christian community.

What is more, they base a change of behaviour on a time of year. But how can you decide to be nice and forgiving just because it is a certain time of year? I think many of us can testify to the fact that as much as we would like to spend a joyous, harmonious time with others at Christmas, the reality is that the expectations drive our blood pressures up and the whole period is more stressful than any other time of the year. Trying to generate feelings of good-will and brotherhood with people you may not really know that well; trying to be pleasant to people you actually find incredibly irritating and may not even like; that's asking a lot of people. And it is exactly that truth that Jesus came to help us with: we cannot be righteous without Him.

So, remember, if you want to be forgiving and spread peace and good-will, don't try to be empowered by the time of year, be empowered by Jesus Christ, and you will find that you are able to be that way all year.

Analogy of the Gospel

2005-12-12T08:51:00.000+10:00

To be honest, I thought this a little clumsy, but when I used it in a message not long ago it seemed to be received with favour. So, here is an analogy of how we can understand God loves us through Jesus' death and resurrection.

A father and son begin a law firm. Through hard work and commitment to quality and integrity the pair build their firm into one of the largest and most prestigious lawyer’s companies in the city. Their clients range from government officials to the man on the street.

One day, the father and son become aware of a section in their company where every junior employee has been using the company name for their own illegal purposes. So the father has his son resign from his position in the company and sends him as a junior employee to that section of the company. He then has all the junior employees in that section arrested – including his son.

When in custody, the son pleads guilty to all the charges and so was brought before the court. His father was the prosecuting lawyer and made sure he was sent to jail for a number of years allowing all the other junior employees to go free on condition that they returned to the law firm and accepted a promotion.
What sense does that make? The junior employees had no claim on the affections of the father. They were employed in his company and they betrayed his trust. It would have meant nothing to him to send them to jail. Yet he sent his own son to take the punishment on condition that they return to the law firm and accept a promotion?

Isn’t that exactly what God has done for us in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ? We have no claim on the affections of God. We were part of His good creation but we corrupted ourselves. It would have meant nothing to Him to scrap us and start again, yet, because He is love, He sent His Son Jesus Christ to take our punishment on condition that we return to Him and be made new.

In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God send His only Son into the world, so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (1 John 4:9)

Quick heretical thoughts.

2005-12-10T23:12:00.000+10:00

Not that my thoughts are heretical - I hope - but thoughts regarding the questions I asked below about heresy.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to write extensively about it today, so I will just make bold statements without any argumentation or scriptural backing and hopefully come back to them.

1. Heresy and false teaching are not necessarily the same.
2. Heresy has to do with the centre of Christianity.
3. The centre of Christianity is Jesus. As long as a group/person has a "correct enough" understanding of Jesus, he can be considered Christian, despite whatever other errors they/he hold to.
4. What is "correct enough" requires some thought and qualification. For example, what amount of revelation is a person exposed to, how long have they been Christians etc. etc. It is not hard and fast. Ultimately it is in God's hands.
5. Not everyone we consider heretics are necessarily unsaved.
6. Not everyone that should be excommunicated is necessarily unsaved.
7. Christianity is not a matter of just belief, it is a matter of belief, Spirit and love-in-action. Put another way, it's a matter of thinking, feeling and doing. All of these things need to be present for genuine Christianity to be present.
8. Sometimes what is perceived as heresy is more an imbalance of these things.
9. And so on...

Shoddy Scholarship

2005-12-09T17:10:00.000+10:00

I have to confess I could not believe that Catherine Kroeger engaged in the sort of shoddy scholarship that Wayne Grudem shows she did. And I suppose if a well educated scholar like her can engage in such transparently one-eyed usage of primary sources (to the point of misrepresenting what the original author actually said - intentionally or unintentionally) I should not be suprised that a far less educated man did the same thing. But I am.

[Name blanked out] is a Christian author committed to the eschatology espoused by the Left Behind series. Never heard of the guy before a few days ago, but it seems he has written quite a few books solely on that topic. Now, that doesn't worry me - I'm quite happy for people to believe that and even write about it, though personally I find the evidence for that particular position to be singularly lacking - but what does worry me is the lengths people will go to bolster their position.

In one of his books, [name blanked out] provides quotes of writers in the early Church to "prove" that the Early Church believed in a very similar eschatology to he and his crowd - specifically the pre-tribulation rapture. Unfortunately for him, the quotes do nothing of the sort, as anyone who actually bothered to go and read the quotes in context (all freely available on the internet) would be able to see. It's not a matter of interpretation, it's a matter of reading the text. There is only one quote that might possibly be taken as describing a pre-tribulation rapture, but the same early church author clearly talks about the church going through the tribulation elsewhere, so it is likely that was not the intent of this particular quote.

[I wish I still had the book on me. I would then feel free to use the guy's name and give examples.]

How could this guy be so shoddy? Did he just skim those writings and pounce on any fragment of a sentence that looked like it might possibly support his view, cry Eureka and copy it down? Or is he just so committed to his point of view that he cannot see that these ancient authors are not saying what he wants them to say? And yet he has the audacity to declare that people who say that doctrine of a pre-tribulation rapture is only a couple of hundred years old do not bother to actually read early church texts!!

How many more examples of this type of shoddy scholarship are there out there????

["Harsh," said my wife, when she came into the room and looked over my shoulder at this post. You think so? I think I'm just calling an implement for digging holes an implement for digging holes.]

Success through weakness.

2005-12-08T08:47:00.000+10:00

I know this is an old truth - but what truth isn't? I guess all I'm doing here is pointing out examples. I've already mentioned the individual excesses that men of God seem to have - excesses that He used/uses to do great things. Whether that is a rule that can be applied across the board, I don't know, but it has four related results that I can see.

First, being able to recognise and acknowledge faults in a man of God helps us escape idolatry - they, too, were/are only men.

Second, the fact that God uses their faults gives glory to Him, rather than to the men themselves.

A third result is an encouragement to us: God can use us in spite of our faults.

A fourth is a caution: God can use others despite their faults.

Now I want to broaden the scope to include other historical illustrations. The first one that jumps to mind is John Wesley's Arminianism. I'm sorry for anyone who doesn't agree that it is false doctrine - I do think it is false. And yet, God used this belief to bring many people into the Kingdom. It was because Wesley believed it was people's own decision that determined their salvation that he was so doggedly evangelistic.

A man well known in NZ (with some international fame) called Barry Smith was an end-times prophecy guy who related current events to Biblical prophecy. He was also an evangelist, and the number of people I have met who became Christians through his eschatology meetings and books and tapes (even if they no longer believe in his eschatology) is astounding! God used his - what I consider false - teachings to help people see that the Bible applied to the here and now.

Another example is that of the ridiculous disagreements over the mode of baptism. Interestingly, the majority of the movements that hold most firmly to immersion are also the movements made up of common people who hold to the uncluttered view that the Bible is the word of God. Is there a connection? I believe so. I believe that the issue of the mode of baptism helped normal people to take the Bible as an authority against more learned men. But I guess that is more a suspicion than a proven fact.

There are many more examples of incorrect beliefs actually pushing those who hold them in a good direction. Therefore, I believe that the four above results can also be applied to movements:

1. Being able to recognise faults in a movement helps free us from idolizing that movement (the Reformation, the Great Awakening, the Welsh Revival, the early Church etc).

2. The fact that God used those faults for His good purposes gives Him glory and takes glory away from the movement.

3. Our own movement (or even personal belief system) does not need to become perfect to be used by God (ie. don't major on minors). This also means that just because God is using our movement - even something specific within our movement - does not mean that it is right. I think that is an important factor to keep in mind. God is incredibly gracious to us and this fact should keep us humble and keep us from trying to get Christianity to "work" mechanically.

4. Be careful of writing off another movement just because you can see such blatant errors and mistakes. (Word of Faith Movement?)

That last point, of course, leads to the questions: How do you deal with heretics and heretical movements today? How was it done in the Bible? How heretical is too heretical?

Might try and answer that tomorrow.

The Death Penalty

2005-12-07T08:48:00.000+10:00

Last week an Australian was executed in Singapore for drug smuggling. Many people consider this horrific. Personally, I think Singapore is right to follow through on itslaws. Whether in this recent case there was cause for clemency, I don't know for sure. However, though I support the use of the death penalty, when I heard on the radio reports of moving "the body",emotionally I found it repulsive. And yet...

Here are my questions...

1) Does the lack of death penalty in Australia and New Zealand contribute to the lack of fear of "possible" eternal judgment? In our minds, do we as a society have nothing to hang hell on and so think the worst that can happen to us is not really that bad or permanent?

2) Is the argument that "civilised" countries do not use the death penalty (sorry America) merely man protecting himself against thoughts of the seriousness of sin?

3) Is the anti-death punishment feeling merely part of the "no conequences" philosophy found in the anti-smacking philosophy in child-rearing/schools?

4) Does the lack of the death penalty in Australia/New Zealand cheapen mercy? Instead of thinking that mercy is an undeserved reprieve, it becomes a right that the death penalty takes away.

I don't like the death penalty - I much prefer mercy - but I think it is something that a state can legitimately use. There are consequences to actions, and Biblically this is one of them.

Excess = Success?

2005-12-06T15:28:00.000+10:00

When the Internet Monk commented that while he really likes the guy, John Piper is a bit too intense and extreme in some areas, something clicked in my brain. (The actual post I'm thinking of has been taken down, but you can find similar comments about Piper on Imonk's site).Can't the same be said of virtually everyone God has used in a mighty way in history? Is there a correlation between being extreme in one area of your life and being used by God in a big way? That is, do mighty men of God have extreme tendencies?

Doing a quick mental revision of historical figures (I'm afraid a very limited one) the only person I can think of off-hand that did not show much extremism was Andrew Murray, and even there I may be wrong. (My reading of him was actually the opposite - he encouraged people to live in the freedom Christ gives. He allowed the young men in his congregation to use the church to practice boxing for goodness sake! I doubt many evangelicals would like that today.)

So, is there someone there who can give me examples of historical figures used of God that either prove or disprove my idea ie. that people of God who are used greatly have a tendancy to be extreme in at least one area.

Is This True?

2005-12-05T09:28:00.000+10:00

Here's a short quote. I want to know if the bit in bold is generally applicable.

Maybe you are at a place in your life where the hopes and dreams you expected to be fulfilled in Jesus are dying or dead. You were excited once, now you are discouraged. What on earth is God doing? Why?

Maybe you are struggling with a problem that seems insurmountable, and you don't see how you are going to get over it. Where is God in this? Why isn't He answering?

It's at times like these that you need to hand on to Jesus. Love Him, despite everything that's falling apart. Trust God, that though you have absolutely no idea what's going on, He does. As painful and confusing as it is, Good Friday is only the beginning, and come Sunday, we find out that God does His very best work in the dark.

The reason I ask is that a friend who's going through a dark time mentioned this line, and since I was the one who wrote the above I thought, "Is it true? Why?"

Love leads to Glorification

2005-09-24T19:02:00.000+10:00

Imagine, if you don't see this as too disrespectful, the Father and the Son playing table tennis. At the Olympics. In the finals. Now, the Father and the Son are both equally powerful, equally skillful...equal in every way. Therefore, Neither would be able to win. Not only would Each be able to return whatever lobby the Other sent Their way, They would know what Each Other would do in every situation. A deadlock. Except...

The Father is the head of the Son (1 Cor 11) and the Son brings glory to the Father (John 14) so the Son would forfeit the game so that the Father would win.

When the Father was on the podium, He would invite the Son to stand next to Him to share His glory with Him because the Father loves the Son. (John 17:24)

This is interesting when you compare the Christ/Church relationship. The Church submits to Christ and Christ glorifies the Church (Romans 8). Also with marriage. The husband is the head of the wife, the wife submits to the husband, the husband is to love the wife and by implication, glorify her (Ephesians 5).

So, the biblical pattern is, in terms of glory, the one submits and gives glory to the other; the other loves and gives glory to the one.

Love leads to glorifcation.

[Of course, beyond this simple framework, there is the fact that the Son is given the glory of the Father to glorify the Father (John 17:1), the Church is given the glory of Christ to glorify Christ (John 17:22, 10) and husbands...give glory to their wives? In many ways yes. In our culture husbands give their name, protection, provision etc. for the benefit of their wives and their wives honour and respect and give (and are called the) glory of the husband (Prov 31:23, 1 Cor 11:7). Oi, have to think that through a little...]

Katrina

2005-09-19T17:04:00.000+10:00

A lot of time has passed since Katrina hit the US and I have felt a little guilty for not saying anything about it. Of course, I haven't said much about anything recently, so perhaps I can relieve myself of guilt that way :). But in truth, what do I have to contribute? Every other blog on the net is commenting and I myself live so far away that anything I typed would seem a little contrived. What do I know of that type of situation?

But I was preaching at church on Father's Day and in the days leading up to that Sunday I saw the awful devastation and thought, "I cannot preach without addressing this." And so I did. To see what I said, go here.

Baptism - how?

2005-09-19T15:18:00.000+10:00

There's been a lot of comment on baptism recently, due mainly to Bethlehem Baptist (pastored by John Piper) opening up the possibility of allowing membership in their church to those who believe that biblical baptism includes sprinkling, pouring and baptising infants/children. This has been opened up for consideration because the qualifications for eldership have been tightened to include the need for elders to believe and teach believer's baptism by immersion.

Jollyblogger, a Presbyterian pastor, has made characteristically wise and generous comments about this move.

I, on the other hand, have recently come to the conclusion that, biblically, the "how" of Christian baptism is limited to using water. This came from feeling the tension of being able to read the Biblical accounts as supporting both pouring and immersion (though on further investigation I have decided that pouring is the most likely biblical method). This tension along with the conclusion of one particular article (it's argument leading to sprinkling as the method is interesting, but not what I value it for) lead me to the position that using water is the only requirement for Christian baptism.

I may explain my arguments in full later, but right now I want to look at some ramifications if this belief is correct. Consider this:

1. Nowhere does the Bible explicitly state how Christian baptism was performed (though the Bible does explain fairly precisely how other baptisms were performed).
2. The arguments for sprinkling, pouring or immersion are all indirect and all the indirect arguments can be read to fit into each view.
3. Nowhere does the Bible even hint that the method of Christian baptism is important (though the method of OT baptisms are explicitly laid out).
4. Therefore, any division over the method of baptism is a division based on something God chose not to specify in the Bible. Why, then, do we argue over it as something so important?

Now, before the "yes, but"'s get too loud, consider the following.

5. If the amount of effort that has gone into figuring out the exact method of baptism went into figuring out the exact method of the other protestant sacrament - communion/eucharist/the Lord's Supper - the celebration of communion would look far different in most churches than it does today. Use wine? Why not? The Bible is clear that wine is the correct drink for communion. If you use grape juice you are not really celebrating communion. And unleavened bread should be the type of bread, otherwise it is not communion you are partaking in. And communion should be celebrated while having a shared meal. How many churches do that? Does this mean that most churches do not actually celebrate communion? No, because the Bible does not specify that all these things must be present for communion to be shared.

6. On the other hand, 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 lays out direct and explicit instructions about what to do when Christians gather together. How many churches who are so concerned about the indirect evidence of something the Bible draws no explicit attention to (i.e, the method of Christian baptism in water) pay attention to 1 Cor 12 and 14? Very, very few.

My only conclusion is that the church has been and continues to be divided over an issue that the Bible pays no attention to itself.

How are we to be baptised? I agree with the conclusion of the above article: WITH WATER! Can the disagreement over method not be considered non-essential opinion? Could it be...might it be...possibly...that divisions over this matter are, in themselves, sin?

Pro-homosexual Evangelicals?

2005-09-11T21:51:00.000+10:00

I know they are not a new phenomenon (depending on how you define "new") but self-described evangelicals who accept homosexuality as ok raise interesting questions.

Christians have always disagreed on how to interpret the Bible and yet were able to call each other brothers and sisters in their common conviction of some basic truths of the gospel, convictions such as the deity of Jesus, salvation through faith alone and so on.

So what do you do with someone who believes everything an evangelical believes but they do not interpret the Bible as being anti-homosexuality? They are not saying the Bible is wrong, they are saying that the Bible has been interpreted wrong. Complementarians accept people who believe women can be pastors and elders as Christian. Why not those who accept homosexuality as ok?

This is a different liberalism to that of the early 20th century. That liberalism did not believe the Bible was God's Word, hence the distinction. What is the new distinction between liberal and conservative in this case?

My thoughts at present are that a person who becomes a Christian and continues in the belief that homosexuality is ok can be educated otherwise. Those are Christians and then decide homosexuality is ok according to the Bible...I've got to say I'm question their salvation. Sounds harsh, yes, but I don't know how else to see it.

Pro-homosexual Evangelicals? I suppose if the term evangelical continues to change it might be true. Pro-homosexual Christians? No, I don't think so.

A Challenge!

2005-08-23T08:51:00.000+10:00

To all my 1.4 readers out there, this is my challenge:

Show me why the definition of love is not valuing.

Adrian Warnock kindly linked to me regarding this, but only made the comment that he thought I was "partly" right. Partly??? Why partly? Tell me why someone, tell me why!

Quite honestly, I am happy to be shown that the definition of love is not valuing, but I haven't come across a reason why it is not. Sure, implementing love is more than valuing, and valuing itself is more than love, but for the life of me I can't see why love is not, or only partly, valuing.

Help me out here! Then I might carry on with my thoughts about the relationship between love (valuing) and glory (recognising value).

Love and Glory

2005-08-08T05:59:00.000+10:00

This is something I want to come back to but right now don't have the time, ie. the fascinating thought that if love is valuing and glory is demonstrating the worth of God, love and glory may have a closer relationship than I have realised before. Eg. love leads to glorification because love values and will ultimately demonstrate the worth of the object of that love. God the Father therefore glorifies the Son because he loves him; in other words, demonstrates the Son's value/worth to him.

Of course, it is possible to recognise worth and not value it, as the unregenerate will do when they confess Jesus as Lord...

Interesting link...

Further food for thought.

Love Devotions

2005-08-08T05:52:00.000+10:00

I decided to put the 8 week devotionals I wrote on 1 Cor 13:1-6 on the web. I refer to them in my head as the "Love Devotions".

They were written for our church as a supplement to the Pastor's sermons on this passage so they may have a reference to people or those sermons that mean nothing to others. I also managed to get away with quite a few spelling mistakes, typos and unwieldy sentences! Oh well, the meaning is still there. I have noticed, however, that they give the most benefit when all the scriptures used are looked up and read.

Have a brief look if you like.

Schapelle Corby #2

2005-08-06T11:10:00.000+10:00

That is Schapelle Corby post #2 - there is not another (publicized) case like the present Schapelle Corby one.

I have to say that I have become more and more convinced of the girl's innocence. To this untrained eye she exhibits all the behaviours of a person acting with complete sincerity. One of those is the fact that she has not given up! So I now support Schapelle Corby's innocence, though I am not convinced that she will be released. My only hope if she is not given any more opportunities to defend herself is that she will find Christ through her difficulties. (Of course, I hope she finds Christ regardless, but at least such a nightmare as she is going through would be worth it).

Spirit Baptism 9 - Conclusion.

2005-07-23T19:40:00.000+10:00

I'm in the bizzare position of having come to a conclusion I am not 100% happy about.

The only framework that fits all the scriptures as far as I am concerned, is to view conversion as regeneration then immediate indwelling by the Spirit through faith in Jesus, then a subsequent filling/baptism of the Spirit (usually through the laying on of hands).

Unfortunately, I don't see the Scriptures clearly teaching a double reception of the Spirit - the language to describe both the indwelling and the filling/baptism is so similar that if I didn't have to balance out the examples in Acts and Heb 6:2 on one hand and Galatians 3, Romans 8 and 1 Cor 12:13 on the other, I would be inclined to say they are one and the same. In fact, in some way I cannot yet see, they may be.

Still, in all good conscience I cannot ignore either, and must unhappily take the above as my best explanation.

In practice, I would encourage the laying on of hands for the Baptism of the Spirit after water baptism, expecting to see some sign of the filling of the Spirit. For those who have not experienced anything they would identify as the Baptism in the Spirit, I would encourage them to seek the Lord about it, and ask to receive whatever he has for Christians, even going so far as going to another (pastor/elder/mature friend) and asking the other believer to lay hands on them.

Those who have not experience anything they would identify as the Baptism of the Spirit and who do not believe it to be valid, I would encourage them to simply seek the Lord. While I believe they are missing out on a great blessing, I do not see them as any less a person, and, in fact, it is likely that they are stronger in other areas because they have not had that experience (as seems to happen eg. the average Chinese Christian without a Bibles is much better at praying than the average Western Christian with many Bibles).

I do not see that there is a two tiered church today. I do believe, however, that it is possible for Christians to be uneducated about some of the blessings of the Holy Spirit. I do see Christians also uneducated about some of the blessings in Scripture. I don't see that as higher or lower Christianity - it is an example in both (and many other) cases of incomplete Christianity - such as we all will experience in one degree or another until Jesus returns.

Spirit Baptism 8 - The Theology C

2005-07-23T19:22:00.000+10:00

Understanding conversion as regeneration, indwelling and filling (to change the term on you) is useful in explaining a few things.

1) It explains how people in the Bible were filled with the Spirit, but not permanently indwelt - though God is not that limited that he cannot stay when he wants and leave when he wants, making His decision the sole determinant of whether he is indwelling or merely filling.

2) It explains how a false believer can be filled with the Spirit but not indwelt without outsiders being able to tell the difference eg. victory over sin, working miracles etc. - though the comment above applies to this also.

3) It explains how a believer can be told to be continually filled, but still be indwelt by the Spirit - though it is possible to see an "unfilled" believer having the Spirit as indwelling, but not overtly influencing unsubmitted parts of a person, and the "filled" believer as submitting to the indwelling Spirit to enable their filling.

There is also the possibility that the separate Spirit Baptism I described is the both the indwelling and the filling. That would indicate that there are many who are regenerate but have not received the Spirit (though God will have graciously filled some despite their lack of knowledge). That would also explain the powerlessness of many Christians today. But I have already explained why I do not think this is the case.

Well, I have less to say in this post than I thought. Next conclusion...for now.

Spirit Baptism 7 - The Theology B

2005-07-23T18:08:00.000+10:00

Well, I must confess that I thought I would have more trouble with 1 Cor 12:13, but I think I have proved (to myself at least) that the baptism talked about there is not the Lukan Baptism in the Spirit. As John Piper said, Paul uses the words differently from Luke. I wasn't sure I agreed with Piper until I did that little study. I'm now happy with that statement.

The next verses are ones Aaron has used a few times in the comments here and he also briefly mentioned verse 2 on his blog - Galatians 3:1-5.

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 4 Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? 5 Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?
The New International Version, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House) 1984.

(I'll leave the publishing reference there from now on).

Paul here is talking to the Galatian church who have turned back to relying on the Law of Moses for their salvation i.e. they believed they needed to obey the Law in order to be saved, even though they originally trusted in Christ. Paul asks how they received the Spirit - through obeying the Law or believing the gospel? The answer is believing the gospel, and Aaron talks at this point about how the Spirit is received when they were converted.

Now, this is not something that necessarily contradicts Spirit Baptism as separate from conversion. When applying the conclusions from the last two verses - ie, that the Spirit dwells in someone who becomes a Christian, and is also received subsequently for empowerment - nothing here explicitly contradicts this idea. A person is regenerated, indwelt by the Spirit and then baptised in the Spirit. Even verse 5 which talks about God giving his Spirit and working miracles can be seen as talking about the two different ways in which the Spirit works upon a person.

But this passage does give me difficulty. If the Spirit came to regenerate and indwell in one act, I would have less difficulty, but here Paul says the Galatians received the Spirit by believing - something that happens after regeneration, and therefore indicates two acts. This still fits with the above sequence of regeneration, indwelling and baptism, but while this is the best way I can see for all the passages to fit, it still seems a little forced. For example, verse 2 talks about receiving the Spirit and verse 5 about God giving the Spirit, both of which are ways Luke describes the Baptism in the Spirit in Acts. I also cannot see where the Bible explicitly talks about an indwelling that is clearly distinguished from the baptism (filling is also how it is referred to). For that I need to go on to my next post - but I want to say, I find it difficult to get a good "feel" about how I understand this passage in Galatians with regards to a separate Spirit Baptism.

Spirit Baptism 6 - The Theology A.

2005-07-23T15:42:00.000+10:00

It is here I admit difficulty.

I am convinced that the accounts in Acts combined with Heb 6:2 indicate a regeneration, water baptism and a real subsequent baptism in the Spirit through the laying on of hands (or sovereignly from God) as normative for a Christian. If Heb 6:2 did not exist, I would probably eventually side with the view that the Acts accounts were non-normative in their separation of regeneration and Spirit reception, but as it is Acts and Hebrews seem to indicate quite the opposite - regeneration and Spirit baptism are temporally separate.

The problem for me comes when trying to understand the rest of the NT in light of this. I want to look at three scriptures that present problems and look at possible solutions.

[I have not seriously looked at all that has been written about "confirmation" - the name given to the laying on of hands - in the historical church, so it is possible that that could help me. Right now, however, I will type where my thinking is at the moment.]

Romans 8
9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

Four views I am aware of:
1) "The Spirit of God" refers to the Spirit given with the laying on of hands. "The Spirit of Christ" refers to the Spirit given when regenerated. Despite the fact that this doesn't make any sense in this context, such a division is totally bizzare. I've heard it, but I definitely don't agree with it.

2) The Spirit referred to here is the One Holy Spirit, but it is referring to the Spirit's work of sanctification (received when regenerated) as opposed to the Spirit's work of empowerment (received through the laying on of hands). It is true this is talking about sanctification, so this is a possible way of fitting this into Spirit Baptism as separate from regeneration. This is what I would like the answer to be, but I am not 100% sure that the Bible actually teaches such a strict separation between these works in a believer.

3) It is referring to the Spirit's work of sanctification (received when regenerated) as opposed to the Spirit's work of empowerment (manifested at the laying on of hands). If this were the case, I cannot see how Acts 8 could say that the Samaritans had not received the Spirit if all they were wanting for was a manifestation of the Spirit already in them. The fullness of the Spirit carries the same sort of idea, though it can refer to the idea in no. 2 above also.

4) The Spirit is the Holy Spirit received through the laying on of hands which if you do not receive, you do not belong to Christ. This is a difficult position to maintain in light of the accounts in Acts - the apostles, the 120, the Samaritans and the Ephesians are all described in terms that indicate they were Christians before they received the Holy Spirit. I would put Saul (Acts 9) in that category also.

The second option seems most preferable to me here.

1 Cor 12
13 "For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit" (ESV)

(Aaron mentions this verse (and the next) on his blog and comments that some versions translate the phrase "in one Spirit" as "by one Spirit". He prefers "in" and compares it to the verses in Matt 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16 and John 1:33, and draws the conclusions from there).

The first thing to note is the two references to our relationship with the Spirit here. One, in one Spirit we were all baptised into one body, and two, all were made to drink of one Spirit.

Why the two references? Back in 1 Cor 10:1-4 Paul refers to being baptised into Moses in the cloud and the sea and ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink - the drink being from Jesus. The fact that one relates to Moses and the other to Christ clearly differentiates between the baptising and the drinking - they are not the same thing - and it seems that Paul is repeating the same ideas a couple of chapters on. In chapter 10 baptism was into Moses; the drink was from the rock/Christ. In chapter 12 the baptism was in one Spirit into one body - Christ's; the drink was of one Spirit who is given by/from Christ - Matt 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:33, 4:10, Acts 2:33 etc.

The same divide is evident in Acts 2:38

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

First there is baptism in/into the name of Jesus Christ (one body), and second the reception of the Holy Spirit (from Christ).

This is seen also in Acts 8 when the Samaritans had not yet received the Spirit, but had still been "baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus" (v16). Again, in Acts 10, after the Gentiles had the Holy Spirit poured out on them they were baptised "in the name of Jesus Christ". Again in Acts 19:5-6 the Ephesians were baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus and then received the Spirit.

So what do we have?

1 Cor 10:1-4 Indicates the Baptism and Receiving are not the same.
Baptism into Moses (cloud and sea)
Receiving from Christ (food and drink)

1 Cor 12:13
Baptism into Christ (in one Spirit)
Receiving from Christ (one Spirit)

Acts 2:38
Baptism into Christ (water)
Receiving from Christ (the Spirit)

Acts 8:15-16
Baptism into Christ (water)
Receiving from Christ (the Spirit)

Acts 10:47-8
Baptism into Christ (water)
Receiving from Christ (the Spirit)

Acts 19:5-6
Baptism into Christ (water)
Receiving from Christ (the Spirit)

It is true that the Acts accounts do not talk about the Spirit when mentioning people being (water) baptised into Christ, but comparisons so far reveal far more similarities to the symbolism of water baptism (and therefore the conversion it symbolises) than the baptism in the Spirit that is mentioned in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts. The continued analogy from 1 Cor 10 gives a reason why Paul would talk this way, and his desire to emphasise unity in the Spirit explains why he refers to "in one Spirit being baptised into one body". Surely the emphasis on the Spirit by putting it first indicates this also.

Therefore, I understand the verse to be talking about conversion and Lukan (et al) Spirit Baptism, not Lukan Spirit Baptism and continual filling up (another possible interpretation but the totally different actions of baptism and filling up seem not to go together).

One last note: despite (or perhaps contributing to) the Corinthians confusion outlined in 1 Cor 1, Christ did not ever baptise anyone into his name (1 John 4:1-2). 1 Cor 12:13 doesn't give the identity of the baptiser - I wonder if there is anything in that? Just a quick little-thought-through thought.

Spirit Baptism 5 - The Ultimate Example.

2005-07-23T15:31:00.000+10:00

I have a feeling not everyone will like this example, but there is one instance of Spirit Baptism after water baptism that I have not yet mentioned - that of Jesus Christ.

Matthew 3
16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

Mark 1
9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

Luke 3
21 When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened 22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

John 1
29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ 31 I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel."
32 Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. 33 I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God."

For some reason many, even those sympathetic to Spirit Baptism separate from water baptism, do not like the use of Jesus' baptism and reception of the Spirit as a model. For the life of me, I cannot see why. It is obvious that he needed no regeneration, but he was baptised (a fact used by many Baptists to support their arguments for baptism) and then received the Spirit - and something happened. As the author and perfecter of our faith, the One we are to emulate, his baptism and Spirit reception should be a model also for us.

Or am I missing something?

Spirit Baptism 4 - Tongues and Prophesy

2005-07-23T14:46:00.000+10:00

It is the classical Pentecostal view that Baptism in the Spirit is signified by speaking in tongues and prophesying, taking their understanding from Acts 2, 10 and 19. I have some sympathy with this view because there are no other Biblical descriptions of what happens when someone is baptised in the Spirit. To say that Acts 8 and Acts 9 do not include these things does not necessarily preclude the idea that they actually happened, and the argument that Paul in 1 Cor 12 clearly implies that not everyone speaks in tongues or prophesies may be talking about in a church service as opposed to the occassion of their Spirit Baptism.

Yet, ultimately I reject the view that a person will speak in tongues and prophesy when baptised in the Spirit. This is why:

1) When the Bible says that the 120, the Gentiles and the Ephesians spoke in tongues and prophesied (or praised God) there is no indication that everyone spoke in tongues and that everyone prophesied (unless I am missing something in the grammar of the original language.) It may well be that some did one and some did the other. As it is, it is not clear enough to make tongues and prophesy a necessary action of all involved, and the fact that some onlookers considered the 120 to be drunk, tongues and prophesy may not have been the only thing going on.

2) Peter's quote from Joel does not mention speaking in tongues. Maybe a case could be made that prophesy is to be expected (the Spirit coming on people in the Bible very often results in some sort of speech), but dreams and visions are also mentioned by Joel, and none of them are reported at the times of Spirit Baptism. Surely a sign of Baptism in the Spirit like tongues would have been mentioned in Joel's prophesy if it were to be a sign. And since dreams and visions were not mentioned in Acts 2, 10 and 19, even those things that are mentioned in Joel's prophecy need not be seen as necessary signs.

3) Acts 9 describes something like scales falling off Saul's eyes, but mentions nothing else. While I do not think it necessarily would be the case, I think it likely that if he spoke in tongues and prophesied at that time it would have been recorded too. I don't believe this to be a strong argument, however.

4) The 1 Cor 12 verses where Paul indicates that not all speak in tongues or prophesy is, again, in my view not fullproof, but I do think Paul would probably include the occasion of Spirit Baptism.

5) Nothing in the epistles even hints at the idea that tongues and prophesy are necessary signs for receiving the Spirit. In fact, tongues are described in 1 Cor 14 as a sign for [leading to] unbelievers (see here for the best explanation of 1 Cor 14:20-25 I have read) not a sign of baptism in the Spirit.

6) On a personal level, I have known and met people who have not spoken in tongues or prophesied when baptised in the Holy Spirit, yet very definitely were. This isn't the best evidence to go by, but still it is a factor.

For those reasons, I do not agree that Spirit Baptism must be accompanied by tongues and prophesy (though it may be), but I do think that the Acts accounts indicate there will be some indication at the time and after a person is baptised in the Spirit.

Spirit Baptism 3 - Heb 6:1-2.

2005-07-09T17:06:00.000+10:00

I have gone through the explicit examples in Acts of Spirit baptism separate from conversion, and explained why I don't see that the significance of the accounts has any bearing on the question of Spirit baptism apart from conversion. In fact, in Acts 8 it just does not make sense if separate Spirit baptism and manifestations were not normal.

Still, when discussing this issue, the question comes up: What about the other accounts of conversion that do not include a description of a separate Spirit baptism? I'd like to answer that via Hebrews 6:1-2.

Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

These two verses describe elementary teachings about Christ. You will see that the six areas mentioned can be divided into three pairs:

1) repentance and faith
2) baptisms and laying on of hands
3) resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.

In the church today it is easy to see how repentance and faith are elementary and how they go together; it is easy to see how resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment are elementary and how they go together; it is easy to see how baptisms are elementary...but how does that go together with laying on of hands, and how is laying on of hands elementary?

Looking again at Acts, baptisms and laying on of hands are closely related. Water baptism is the commitment (among other things) and laying on of hands is how people are filled with the Holy Spirit.

Now in case people protest, I invite them to explain how else laying on of hands can be elementary. The practice is seen in the Bible when praying for healing, setting aside missionaries and ordaining elders, but none of these are elementary to Christianity. It only makes sense when seen in conjunction with baptism, and in Acts it is seen to be the means by which people are baptised in the Holy Spirit.

This may seem strange if someone is not used to this, but Paul confirms this by his question in Acts 19. After asking if the Ephesian disciples had received the Holy Spirit, he then goes straight to the question: "Then what baptism did you receive?" It is clear that Paul links receiving the Holy Spirit with water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ - it was normal. And the author of Hebrews indicates that it was an elementary teaching that everyone should know.

Let's go back to the query about the conversion accounts in Acts where a separate Spirit baptism is not exclusively mentioned.

Acts 2:41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
Acts 8:35-38 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus. As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?" And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.
Acts 16:14-15a One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. When she and the members of her household were baptized...
Acts 16:31-33 They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household." Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized.
Acts 18:8 Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized.

These are the only verses I've found in Acts that mention conversion and baptism, but it is not too much to understand that when baptism is mentioned, laying on of hands is assumed. After all, the teaching of the epistles (Heb 6:1-2) should inform the interpretation of bibilical narrative :). In fact, many of the accounts of conversion do not even mention baptism, and yet we can assume that baptism took place (see Acts 18:8 where the English seems to read that Crispus and his household weren't baptised, but other Corinthians were!)

Spirit Baptism 2 - Acts 9, Acts 10, Acts 19.

2005-07-09T16:16:00.000+10:00

I've looked at Acts 2 and Acts 8. Without preamble let me go on to Acts 9.

3. Saul's heavenly vision. This is one account I would agree is not normative! When did he become a Christian? Acts 26:19 has Paul saying he was not disobedient to the vision. I am guessing that during the vision he was regenerated. But then why, in the midst of Ananias explaining he was going to pray for Paul's his sight to be restored did he include "and be filled with the Holy Spirit"? Another example of the Holy Spirit not being received at the moment of conversion. And why? Ananias was not a leader of the church as far as we know. What was the purpose of it, unless that it is actually something normal for a Christian to receive the Holy Spirit after he is converted. I would suggest that the more abnormal thing here is that Paul received the baptism of the Holy Spirit before he was baptised.

4. Acts 10 has Peter at Cornelius' house. This is definitely a special case, not because of the tongues and prophesying, but because of the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles. The special circumstances were that these people received the Holy Spirit in the same way the apostles and the 120 had in Acts 2 (see Acts 11:15). All other examples - even that of the great apostle Paul - showed the Holy Spirit coming via the laying on of hands - another fact that helped me come to my present decision as I will explain later. As seen in the last post, outward manifestations would not be the surprising part of the situation for Peter and his companions - even the text tells us the surprise was that the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit at all!

5. Acts 19 has some Ephesian disciples lacking the Holy Spirit. Among the many suggestions as to the significance of this account is the one Aaron recounts: that the gospel had come full circle. Regardless of whether that is right, Spirit Baptism separate from conversion cannot be made to be the marker of it, nor can the evidence of tongues and prophesy. As to the first, Aaron doesn not agree there was a delay, but unless those Ephesians were born again when Paul lay his hands on them instead of when they believed (and why get baptised if you don't believe?), I cannot see how he can maintain that position.

Instead, it seems most reasonable to understand this to be an account of some disciples made through the preaching of Apollos when he was knew only the baptism of John (Acts 18:24-25). The disciple's situation fits with what Apollos preached (knowing about Jesus accurately but knowing only the baptism of John) and the mention of Apollos in 19:1 would seem to support this. Again, this was an unusual example, but it seems to have more to do with the results of inaccurate teaching by Apollos than the progress of the gospel.

That is the end of the explicit examples in Acts. I have more to say with regards to why I believe the Baptism in the Holy Spirit to be separate from conversion in the next post, but before finishing here, I want to affirm again that I agree that the mention of these accounts indicate their significance in the spread of the gospel "in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth" (Acts 1:8) but I do not agree that their significance teaches that the description of baptism in the Spirit separate from conversion was non-normative.

Spirit Baptism 1 - Acts 2 and Acts 8.

2005-07-09T15:31:00.000+10:00

After giving Aaron over at Maranatha a link to a John Piper sermon on Spirit Baptism, I had decided to write about the topic myself. Aaron beat me to it. This leaves me wondering...do I go ahead with what convinced me that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is separate from conversion, or answer Aaron's post? I think I'll do the former tie up any loose ends in another post.

I have already written why it is a problem for reformed folks to hold that Spirit Baptism occurs at conversion. The mere presence of biblical examples where people are converted without having received the Holy Spirit creates, at the very least, a problem for those who hold it cannot happen. Quite apart from that, I have always found the contention that all of the examples in Acts where Spirit Baptism and conversion are separate are highlighting "breakthrough points" of the gospel to be taking a good idea and extending it too far. Sure, the mere fact that they were mentioned indicates that they were important, but I don't see how that relates to the issue of Spirit baptism unless someone is predisposed to see it that way. So, despite the many fine people (including Aaron) who take that view, I cannot agree. Let me go through the examples and show you why.

1. Acts 2 is the first example. The apostles recieved what they had been promised - the baptism with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5. Aaron seems to have accidentally missed this verse. See also, Acts 11:15-16). The identification of this experience as being baptised with the Holy Spirit sets up every other occurance to be similarly identified. Acts 2:38-39 indicates that this is a promise available to all. (Notice the word "gift" in verse 38 is also found in 8:20, 10:45, and 11:17, refering also to a separate experience of the baptism in the Holy Spirit). So while there is no explicit reference to the three thousand and further converts in Jerusalem receiving the Holy Spirit separately from conversion, it would seem that they did. This is re-enforced when...

2. ... in Acts 8 when the Samaritans believed, the fact that they had not received the Holy Spirit was cause for Peter and John to come and lay hands on them. Now think in terms of being there at the time. Do you think that the apostles would have said to each other:

"Golly, this is a new frontier - we didn't think that Samaritans would believe in the Lord! Even though we have just baptised over five thousand people who we know received the Holy Spirit merely because they responded and believed and without benefit of any outward manifestations, we know these people, who have also responded and believed in the same way, have not recieved the Holy Spirit."

Huh? That would make no sense, yet that is what we are asked to believe. Did the apostles also say:

"We know that there should be a difference between those we have just baptised and those in Samaria, because Samaria is a new frontier and whenever this gospel reaches a new frontier there needs to be outward manifestations. We need to send Peter and John up there to get those manifestations going so that everyone will know this is a new thing!"

I'm afraid I just can't see it. I believe that the delay (ie. waiting for Peter and John as opposed to being filled just after baptism) was likely to keep the unity of the church and establish the authority of the apostles, but I don't believe that this passage shows the reception of the Spirit separately from conversion is a special case and not normative. It just doesn't make sense.

I hope I am not being seen as disrespectful, I am trying to point out that to me the reasoning presented just doesn't fit and, to me, seems absurd.

This is getting long. I'll continue in the next post.

Why Reformed Believers Contradict Themselves if they Do Not Believe in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

2005-07-09T14:07:00.000+10:00

It seems learning Reformed Theology peicemeal is not conducive to always getting it right! Aaron has told me in these comments that my understanding of this particular peice of Reformed thought is incorrect, that regeneration and Spirit Baptism are theologically distinct, but that both occur at conversion (and for Aaron, this includes from belief to baptism to laying on of hands). Well, even though I ran this past a strongly reformed person in the past without correction, I have obviously not got it right. I'll leave this post as it is except for this introduction, admitting that I need to check out Reformed theology a little better before my next comment on it!

The title of this post is admittedly provocative. It would be better to say that the theological argument many reformed believers use against the Baptism in the Holy Spirit contradicts another reformed belief - that of the need to be regenerate to believe.

In reformed thought, a person is totally unable to save themselves - they are unable to apprehend, let alone respond to, the gospel. In keeping with salvation being of God from beginning to end, reformed theology states that when a person a person becomes a genuine Christian, as they hear the gospel the Holy Spirit regenerates them (they are born again) and so the person responds in faith to the good news. (I agree with this, by the way).

When it comes to Baptism in the Holy Spirit, many reformed people identify the reception of the Holy Spirit with this regeneration, i.e. a person is baptised in the Spirit when they become Christians/are born again - it is one and the same thing.

Here is the contradiction:

John 15:3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.

Acts 1:4-5 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

In the first verse Jesus is declaring the apostles clean because of the word spoken to them - saved. Then, after this he tells them to wait for the baptism with the Holy Spirit. So, which is it? Are the apostles not genuinely saved in John 15:3 because they must have Holy Spirit to believe and must wait until the Spirit comes in Acts 2, or are they saved in John 15:3 and then they receive the Spirit in Acts 2?

But it will be argued that this was a special case. That may be, but then how do you explain it theologically? It must be possible for a person to be regenerated through the Holy Spirit and not have received the Holy Spirit. And this is what we find in other examples in Acts.

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 8:14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

Here is another example of an apparent theological impossibility - the Samaritans believed, accepted the word of God, something that is impossible without being born again by the Spirit, and yet they had not received the Holy Spirit! How does this work unless it is possible to be born again without actually receiving the baptism of the Spirit?

Acts 19:1-2a While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

Acts 19:5-6 On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

The common argument against this being an illustration of baptism in the Holy Spirit apart from salvation is to say verses 1-2 do not indicate the "disciples" were Christians, but rather that they were disciples of John the Baptist. I myself do not find the arguments for this to be very strong, but allowing that this were true there still remains the problem of the disciple's response through baptism before the Spirit came on them. Theologically, no genuine response should have been possible without the Spirit unless it is possible for someone to believe and yet not have received the Holy Spirit. Certainly, the way Paul asks his question in verse 2 would indicate this is so.

One solution proffered has been that the baptism in the Spirit is a manifestation of the Spirit who has been actually received at conversion. This does not fit the language of the three examples above. The apostles, Samaritans and Ephesian men had not received the Spirit. The Bible does not say they had not manifested the Spirit.

Another solution is the idea that Christians receive the Holy Spirit at conversion, and after receive the fullness of the Spirit. This could be taken more than one way, but I'm not happy with that language. It also doesn't really fit the wording of the Scriptures - all three groups had not received the Spirit, not the fullness of the Spirit.

Unfortunately when discussing this issue those who do not believe in a separate Spirit baptism get nervous and have asked, "Are you saying we are second tier Christians? Are you saying we aren't as good as you?" Before we go on I want to assure everyone - that is not what I am saying. In fact, I believe that there are many who do not believe in the Baptism in the Holy Spirit as separate from conversion who have, regardless, been filled with the Spirit. But I am saying that I think reformed believers who argue Spirit Baptism occurs at conversion are in a quandry.

Terrorist Attacks.

2005-07-09T13:44:00.000+10:00

The news that London has been victim to 4 terrorist bombs is horrible. My condolences to all those affected. I first heard about it while reading Adrian Warnock's blog, himself from England.

I found it interesting that in one of his posts on the attack, he and others from England share a more measured response to the situation which they put down to their long history of dealing with terrorism. America, however, have not had such experience to fall back on, and the 9/11 attack elicited - understandably - greater shock.

I agree with John Howard that Australia also is a target. Australia has been and continues to be a great supporter of the US in the fight against terrorism and this has not gone unnoticed. One wonders how Australians will cope when terrorist attacks begin on their own soil. I have faith in them. They are a sturdy bunch (as I can testify living among them).

What is evil?

2005-07-09T12:51:00.000+10:00

Taking the previous three posts into consideration, I would state that no action, feeling or desire is, in and of themselves, evil. Yet all of these things are often considered so. This, I believe, is a big mistake.

It used to be in some Christian communities that to dance was a sin. Or playing cards. Or (as is still the case in some) drinking alcohol. While there were usually good reasons to begin these prohibitions, usually to do with what they were associated with, they were made universal and binding on all - the action was confused with the associated sin. This has caused a good deal of heartache and legalism.

Feelings, also, have a sad history of being defamed by the church. The belief that anger was sin led (and still leads) many people to deny their own anger and suffer incredibly. The same with hate and sadness and a myriad of other emotions. In fact, sometimes Christians can be the most repressed people you will meet because they are not allowed to feel what they actually do feel. Personally, I'm not sure that I can even think of a context where a feeling is sinful. Is there a Biblical example?

Desires likewise are ill-treated. When faced with a desire that is wrong, Christians are taught or assume that the answer is to stomp on it. Yet all wrong desires arise out of a right desire. Fulfill that right desire and the wrong desire will lose it's power. Even more, however, many of the so-called wrong desires are only wrong in the way someone wants to fulfill it, rather than wrong in itself. But again, the church often teaches implicitly and explicitly that the way to thwart evil desires is to ignore them.

I will try to return to this later.

Are there any desires that are evil?

2005-07-09T12:34:00.000+10:00

You may have noticed a pattern by now :). This question, however, has a bit more to it. The Bible talks about evil desires, but when looking to the root of those desires, is there anything - divorced from person and circumstance - that in and of itself is evil?

To return to killing, for instance (ok, I'm reading Agatha Christie novels at the moment - I admit it!). If someone desires to kill another, in normal circumstances the desire would be considered evil. But why do people have that desire? One example could be to get rid of a hated object. Yet, the same process could be applied to sin or anything harmful. We righteously hate some sin, and desire to be rid of it by taking extreme measures. This is not necessarily wrong.

This can be applied to any desire. In fact, as I wrote here I believe the basic desire that underlies all others is the desire for love which is in itself not evil, but right.

So, I want to posit that desires are evil only when applying context.

The next post will explain what on earth I am going on about :).

Are there any feelings that are evil?

2005-07-09T12:25:00.000+10:00

My question is the same as the last post: Are there any feelings that, divorced from person and circumstance, is in and of itself evil?

Hate? We are to hate sin.

Jealousy? Husbands and wives are rightly jealous if their spouse goes off with someone else.

Anger? We are not sinning if we are angry against sin. In fact, are we sinning if we are angry about anything?

What think ye?

Are there any actions that are evil?

2005-07-07T07:46:00.000+10:00

Question: Is there any action - divorced from a particular context and particular people - that is either good or bad?

Not sure what I mean?

Take for example Killing (which seems to be the first thing that springs to people's minds). It is sinful if you kill your neighbour, but it was not sinful if you lived under the Mosaic Law as a punishment for some sins. Many people would argue it is not sinful in battle. The act of killing, therefore, is not automatically sinful. But is there some act that is?

Speaking untruth. You can either tell an untruth and deceive someone, or say something that is not true while telling a fictional story.

Taking something that isn't yours. This could be the action of a thief, or the act of confiscation of a judicial system as punishment.

Is there any action that is in and of itself evil?

Glenn is the Greatest!

2005-07-05T19:16:00.000+10:00

Just because he is.

We got a Scooter!

2005-07-02T23:14:00.000+10:00

Wifey (in a vain attempt to protect my wife's privacy, I'm not using her name :) ) and I bought a new Honda Today yesterday. What a cool little thing. It's a one seater, goes a maximum of 55 km/h and is incredibly economical. Now we are a 1.5 car family. Makes me want a motorbike.

God's "Rules" for Gender.

2005-07-01T19:12:00.000+10:00

For quite some time was immersed in a discussion board made up mainly of Christian gender egalitarians. As a complementarian - someone who believes God has ordained some differences in function - it was interesting, frustrating, annoying, enlightening and more.

Just today I came across an answer I composed to a statement made by one of the egalitarian participants. The person stated that should complementarianism were true, then God would be breaking his own "rule about male leadership" if a woman were ever to be found leading (eg. Deborah in Judges 4).

I answered with this example:

Suppose that a Woman's Health Clinic had decided that they would only employ female doctors, but when they advertised the position, only a male applied. They rejected him, but then after months of searching and the need for a doctor increased, they finally decided that a male doctor was better than none.

Did they break their own rule? Was it a rule in the first place? Extenuating circumstances led them to that decision - it was not the way they wanted to staff their clinic long term. The male doctor understood and was temporarily hired on the proviso that when a suitable female doctor was found, she would be given his job.

Then suppose a female applied for the job, but she was not up to speed. Would the clinic be betraying their principles if they allowed the male doctor to train that woman up to take his place?

Not in my opinion and I think the same applies in the church and in ancient Israel. Does God break his own rule if a woman is used and blessed in leadership (eg. Deborah)? Is male headship a "rule" in the first place? The situation may arise where a female teaching and having authority over men in the church arises, but that is not God's vision for the long term situation.

Just or Not: Calvinist and Arminian Approaches.

2005-06-13T15:26:00.000+10:00

I also wish to make one last comment about the people who will approach the topic of whether eternal punishment is just. It is my guess that those who are committed to Reformed or Calvinistic doctrine will have less trouble with the idea of the justice of eternal punishment than those of a more Arminian persuasion. I say this not to suggest that Reformed or Calvinist Christians are less concerned about people or about justice (I hold to most of the same doctrines), but rather, many of those Christians have already had to struggle with God's justice when considering God's sovereignty in predestination compared with human responsibility. I don't know of any who have come to a conclusion that does not include trust in God's justice, even though it is not able to be understood. The same conclusion can easily be held with regard to the justice of eternal punishment.

Those with Arminian sympathies, on the other hand, often hold those views for the very reason that they cannot accept the idea that God would be just if he predestined some to be saved and while others were not. Therefore, when faced with the seeming injustice of eternal punishment, they are more likely to look for a solution than just trust that God is just even though they cannot see it.

This is not a criticism of either, but merely an observation.

Am I being far too unjust?

Thoughts on Eternal Judgment - Some Sort of Summary and Follow-Up Questions.

2005-06-13T14:28:00.000+10:00

In answer to the question, "Is it fair that finite being's finite actions in a finite period of time can incur eternal punishment?", I answered "Yes", and then tried to figure out how. (What I haven't mentioned before is that I do not really find the idea that people are eternally sinning through rebellion while being punished and so continually perpetuating their punishment to fully satisfy my intellect, though it works on a logical level and could be 100% right.)

My conclusion was that the presupposition of a human's finitude was wrong; that while humans are finite in any number of ways, the Bible indicates that they will exist eternally and in that way they are not finite.

The sin of a human being is the sin of an eternal being, and the sin is against (or at least affects) other eternal human beings i.e. the sin has consequences (including physical, emotional, psychological etc. pain) that can and will last eternally for others. Following the statements in Lev 24:17-21, punishment should fit the crime - eye for eye, tooth for tooth. A person's sin should therefore reap for the sinner the same eternal effects their sin had on others. Hence, their punishment should justly be eternal.

This, of course, does not take into account the fact that sin against any human being and enacted by a human being is automatically a sin against God, in whose image they are made.

Accepting the above idea as true allows the consideration of some interesting ideas. For instance, if a person is to be punished to the same degree that they harmed another, if a victim is healed through other means (eg. the Spirit of God), does this lessen the eternal punishment of the sinner (even though unrepentant) because the effects of that particular sin did not carry to eternity? Does this mean that our attitude toward the sin of others has a very real effect on the state of their eternal destiny? (This is assuming that unrepentant people are punished to differing degrees depending on what they have done). Does John 20:23 have anything to do with this?

What my possible solution here doesn't do is consider the possibility that a person could repent while being punished, in some sort of purgatory, though it is safer from this possibility than the idea that unsaved people continue a process of sin and punishment in hell. In keeping with my guess that the unsaved will lose all vestiges of the image of God in them, this possibility is less feasible as they will not have the ability.

Anyway, I'm going to leave it there. I have presented a possible solution to the seeming injustice. Would love it if someone could give me some feedback.

Thoughts on Eternal Judgment - Is it fair?

2005-06-13T12:55:00.000+10:00

I began approaching this question in my first post on eternal judgment by looking at whether judgment was just for actions, or whether it also included what people become. I was thinking of heading in a certain direction, but since then my thoughts have progressed and I would now like to approach the question in a different way.

Why does God judge wrong (evil) actions as wrong? Because:
1. Wrong actions are out of his will.
2. Wrong actions are evidence of the state of the person performing the act.
3. Wrong actions affect other people in a multitude of different ways.
4. Wrong actions further pervert the one who was made in his image.

1. Wrong actions are out of his will. This is pretty basic. Matt 7:21-23 is an example of the Bible telling us this. Rom 2 is another example.

2. Wrong actions are evidence of the state of the person performing the act. Matt 12:33 and 15:19-20 state this clearly.

My original thought was that the who the person was - i.e. less and less the image of God - was also a reason for judgment. Their final lack of the image of God would render their beings worthless (in the words of Rom 3:12), their eternal "worthlessness" would present a reason for continued judgment resulting in continued punishment for eternity, making eternal punishment, though horrifying, fair.

However, this does not necessarily follow. In fact, in our own experience, if we have something that is worthless, we tend to throw it out, something annihilationists and conditional mortalitists (is that a word?) would say God will do - by causing the unsaved to cease to exist. This idea does not explain the justness of eternal punishment, but it could help describe the destruction vs. eternal punishment of the unsaved, i.e. the image of God in them is totally gone along with any worth they have in themselves, yet they remain as worthless, pitiful creatures. (Arrghh! Horrible idea).

3. Wrong actions affect other people in a multitude of different ways. The Bible is clear that how sins affect others has a bearing on how God will treat the sinner. For example, Matt 18:7. And Lev 24:17-21 says:

If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death. Anyone who takes the life of someone's animal must make restitution - life for life. If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured. Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death.

Verses like this Leviticus one would be used by annihilationists and CM'ists to say, "If this is an example of the justice of God, then obviously the unrepentant sinner should only be punished to the same degree that they sinned, and a finite human cannot sin outside their finitude. Therefore, eternal punishment is unjust." (Personally, I would have thought, following that logic, that being annihilated would be punishment greater than a finite person could warrant as well.) This is what Scot McKnight is saying he struggles with.

However, perhaps a re-examination of presuppositions would open up some possibilities, in particular the presupposition that a human is finite.

To my mind, the Bible does not teach that humans are finite in every way. Yes, we have finite capabilities; yes, we are finite in terms of where we can be at one time; yes, we are finite in any number of ways, but the Bible does not seem to teach that we are finite in the length of our existence - though we die, we will continue to exist.

This puts a new spin on sin against another human being - deliberate or otherwise. The effects of that sin could last for eternity. If we are to apply thprinciplele of eye for eye, tooth for tooth, the sinner should therefore suffer the same effects for eternity. To take an example, a person can be physically, emotionally and psychologically wounded for the rest of their life as a result of sexual abuse, and there is no biblical reason why they do not carry these wounds with them for the rest of their eternal existence. I would suggest they do. According to Lev 24, the person who inflicted that on them should suffer the same. Or suppose a company executive makes a decision that harms the development of people in the two thirds world? These people will carry the consequences of that decision for their life, they will be shaped by it. There is no reason they will not carry this with them for the rest of their eternal existence. The company executive should, according to Lev 24, suffer the same way in punishment.

When we sin, our sin affects eternal people and so has eternal results. In line with Lev 24, our punishment should therefore be eternal. In this way, unrepentant sinners are justly eternally punished for their actions - actions which have eternal consequences.

There is more, however. Since humans are made in the image of God, to sin against a human is to sin against the image of God, and therefore against God himself. Why is it illegal in America to burn an American flag? Why is it unacceptable in Thailand to stand on a coin? To burn an American flag is to sin against America. To step on a Thai coin is to step on the image of the King and so show disrespect to the King. To sin against a person made in the image of God is to sin against God (see James 3:9 for an expression of this idea). Thus our guilt multilplies.

I think the reason people think that eternal punishment is unjust comes down to not realising how serious sin is and the eternal consequences it ensues.

4. Wrong actions further pervert the one who was made in his image. Following the last point made above, i.e. that to sin against a human is to sin against God. A person's sins lead to the distortion of God's image in themselves, and the rejection of God's best for them. This also has eternal consequences for the sinner, and these also could be understood to be added to the eternal punishment, something that would not be unjust due to the eternal nature of the person.

In my next post I want to sum up what I've said here (so, if you have waded through this - sorry, you could have just read the next post) and look at a couple of other points about this topic.

Thoughts on Eternal Judgment - Is it fair? (Preface)

2005-06-13T00:12:00.000+10:00

I guess I'd better state that my approach to this question is to answer, "Yes, it is fair" and then try to figure out how it might be fair. This doesn't mean that I don't want to listen to those who say, "No, it isn't fair" - I am merely approaching it from my bias.

Before I get into it, however, I do want to say that I do not take eternal punishment lightly, though I must confess I do avoid considering the full implications of what it means every time I look at the issue. It is a frightening, frightening doctrine. I have felt the fear in the depths of my bones, the even more frightening thing being that I don't think my fear does the reality justice. So I am not wanting to give the impression that I do not take the horrifying idea of eternal punishment seriously. But in my musings about the justice of such judgement I need to be a little detatched in order to consider the options. My wife is a nurse. If she considered the gravity of the illness the patients she works with are suffering from, it is likely that she would get nothing done. And yet, I don't know of anyone who would question her compassion. Likewise, on this important subject I am not dwelling on the horribleness of eternal judgment, but the justice of it, and I'm sure that my humanity could be questioned if I didn't make this clear. It may still be questioned. I hope not.

I am aware of the perspectives that treat many of the passages traditionally understood to be speaking of hell as historical - I find some of the argumentation quite convincing - but I am not persuaded that the near-far (i.e. double or multiple fulfillment) view of prophecy cannot be applied here. Certainly it is in line with many Old Testament prophecies to have two or more fulfillments - often, if I recall correctly, the last being the more accurate to the prophecy than the first. (I may not recall correctly :) ).

I am also aware of at least some annihilation and conditional immortality arguments, but I have not looked deeply into them. From what I know of them, some of them would seem strong to me only if I had already accepted their view; other arguments are stronger. Right now, however, I would rather look at the question of fairness, which for many is the confessed motivation behind finding different interpretations on the theme of eternal judgment in the Bible.

Thirdly, I am aware that the Biblical doctrine of eternal punishment has more to it than people going to hell instead of heaven when they die, and even the use of the word 'hell' raises a more simplistic view than the Bible (traditionally understood) portrays. Yet, I don't think the specifics of sheol, hell, gehenna etc. impinge of the overall question of fairness, so I will not be going into a detailed account of exactly how to define those things.

As said in the previous post, Scot McKnight, a scholar I respect and would like to read more of (gotta get that book, Jesus Creed) has long had serious misgivings about the justice of eternal punishment for finite people's finite deeds during a finite time. In the next post or two I want to chase a few ideas about how this may not be so unjust in a way we can understand (as opposed to just relegating it to one of God's mysteries).

Change, change, change.

2005-06-09T18:53:00.000+10:00

I'm having a bit of fun in my frustration. Fun frustration. Changed the name again. "I Thunk It Good, Man". I was going to just have "I Thunk", but it sounded too much like "Imonk" which is definitely taken. Then changed it to "Thunking", then "Thunker", then "The Thunker". Yeah, "The Thunker Blog" (though I know I'm only a thunker).

Thoughts on Eternal Judgment

2005-06-09T14:31:00.000+10:00

Scot McKnight has posted on hell (here, here, here, here and here). And I want to say something. And I'm scared!

Look, despite growing up in New Zealand, one of the most egalitarian English-speaking countries in the West, I find I have a fear of contributing in a conversation where I really feel like a know-only-a-very-tiny-smidgen-of-it-all pretending to actually be a know-a-good-portion-of-it-all. If the guy didn't have a few degrees more than me and wasn't paid to know what he was talking about, I might feel a little more comfortable, but as it is...

Enough excuses! This is what I want to say:

Scot (I'm egalitarian enough use his first name, though) says he has long questioned the justice of sending people to hell eternally for acts done by finite people during a finite period of time. It sounds, from what I have read, as though he reluctantly accepts the reality of hell and eternal punishment, but this seeming injustice bothers him and he opened it up for discussion (co-incidentally touching on a point about hell also made in Brian McLaren's book, The Last Word and the Word After That.) There have been a number of comments on his blog about this.

I noticed, though perhaps I was reading too quickly, that both McKnight and his commenters talked about people being sent to hell for what they had done, but I can't recall any talk about people being sent to hell for what they had become. I'm trying to think of Biblical support for this - it is slow in coming. My unsupported-by-specific-verses-at-this-time-thinking, however, is that the eternal sinning of those eternally condemned could also be the sinfulness of what they are.

We are taught to value (love) people because they are made in the image of God, but what if their rebellion took them to the extremes where they were no longer in the image of God? A lecturer at the Bible College I went to suggested that those eternally condemned would lose the remaining "image of God" that is in them and so the difference between the saved and the condemned would be that the saved were glorified humans, and the condemned were no more than animals (not that animals have no worth, of course). My lecturer also suggested that these ex-humans would be living with the redeemed on earth and not in hell. I want to suggest that the condemned will be in hell, but use his ideas to explore what they will be.

I'll do that in a later post.

Change of Blog Name.

2005-06-09T14:21:00.000+10:00

After emailing Aaron the Aaronator about how I liked his blog, he wrote back saying that he thought one comment I left was from a girl because I signed it "Ali". Here I was thinking people would think I was a Islamic Fundamentalist! So, I decided to change the blog's name. At this stage, "How blog of me!" has won the day, but expect it to change every now and then for a little while - I'm not even sure there is anyone but me reading this, so I don't expect a huge outcry! :) At some stage I'll have to settle down on a name, but that day has not yet come.

Schapelle Corby

2005-06-09T11:55:00.000+10:00

What a tragic situation. Who knows whether she is guilty or not, but really, despite the reports that Australians think she is innocent, I really don't see what else the Indonesian courts could do. She went into the country with the drugs. She protests her innocence, but where is the proof? Even if I were convinced of her innocence, there is nothing compelling in the evidence that would support it. What are the courts to do? You can't go freeing someone just because there's a big noise. Imagine what would happen if they freed her. There would be a flood of people importing drugs and if caught, they would claim someone else put them there, and to be consistent, they would have to be set free.

Quite apart from that, Indonesia is not wanting to lose face, and I can totally understand that. Why should Schapelle Corby be set free because she is not Indonesian? They have already reduced the sentence from death to 20 years.

So, while my heart goes out to the woman - especially if she is innocent - I really cannot see that there could be any other outcome.

What love is...

2005-06-08T21:03:00.000+10:00

In a recent series of sermons my pastor preached, he made the comment, "Love is action". His meaning was a bit more involved than that, but basically he was saying that you can't love without action - love's essence is action.

I had trouble with that. I was writing some devotions for the series, so we had a discussion to make sure we were on the same page. In practical terms we were - in the outworking of love...but we still disagreed.

You see, I have heard love defined as action or an act of your will or feelings or commitment...and none of those "do it for me". (Not that "doing it for me" is necessarily a good indicator of what is right or wrong, but you want to get to the point where the truth "does it for you" if you can.)

My problem with all the definitions (except feelings) was that it didn't have to involve the heart, and I just cannot conceive of love without heart. In fact, in my talks with my pastor, I stated that if love is in essence action, I don't want it.

So, feelings were the closest I could get to a definition for a time, but I knew that love defined as feeling wasn't going to wash in the real world. And then one day, as I was sitting on...well, it doesn't matter where I was sitting...it came to me...

Love is valuing.

What? you say.

Valuing. Love is holding something or someone as valuable. It should involve action, it can involve an act of your will, it can involve commitment, and it can involve feelings...but none of those things are necessary! Not only that, but it fits every different way we use love in our language today - I love ice cream (I like ice cream - it has some value for me), I love my wife (My wife is valuable - precious to me), I love riding motorcycles (Riding motorcycles is fun and so has value for me) etc. etc.

Now, can you believe it? I told my pastor this, and he still thinks you can't love without action! But I disagree. The Bible warns against loving only with word and tongue, but it doesn't say love can't be only word and tongue. In fact, the way the Bible uses "love" fits in better with valuing than action. Action should be the outworking or demonstration of love, but it is not love.

Still, I need to make qualifications. Love is only part of the semantic domain of the word "valuing". I believe you can value without "loving" in the Biblical sense of the word (our language equates loving and valuing more closely than the Bible does). Love is a royal way of valuing, something that involves the heart. You can't say to your wife, "I value you", and expect the same reaction when you say, "I love you", because valuing encompasses a wider meaning than "love".

Therefore, to value is not necessarily to love, but love is valuing.

My pastor and I have agreed to disagree. :)

All Sin Exists because of an Unmet Need.

2005-06-05T09:07:00.000+10:00

Many people would disagree that sin comes from unmet needs. Here's one example by someone writing a negative review of the book Boundaries by John Townsend and Henry Cloud:

"The "boundaries" concept is driven by the erroneous psychological assumption that human beings are fundamentally victims due to unmet needs, rather than sinners whose ungodly desires remain unsatisfied."

I don't know about the "victims" part - I believe humans are responsible for sins, even if they are driven to them...and I am under the impression that a lot of psychologists would think so too - but I do not see a problem with recognising "unmet needs" and even attributing sin to them.

Let me see if I can write this concisely...

God created the world to "run on love" [it makes things even easier if you realise my understanding of love is valuing]...
- The two greatest commandments are to love God with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself - do this and you will fulfill the Law (Rom 13:8-10).
- We only love because God first loved us (1 John 4:19).

People need God's love to live and function right. Without his love, people do anything to fill the gap. Trace any sin back to it's cause, and you will find a desire for love. Envy - you want what someone else has got because you think it will bring you love. Pride - you base your worth on what you have, are or do because you think it makes you worthy of love. Unforgiveness - you hold something against someone because they have not shown you love. Murder (crime of passion) - you are getting rid of someone who is in some way preventing you from getting love or something you interpret as giving you love.

This unmet need for love is at the bottom of every sin. Ungodly desires are the self-reliant, self-centred mans' attempt to - consciously or unconsciously - "get love". Read 1 Cor 13 and you will see that love is the antithesis of every sin listed there. When you have "got love", you do not sin.

Now, the human being is designed to run on God's love, and this love can (should) be supplemented by love from others. A person can find love at church and among family and friends - these things will help. But ultimately, for best performance :), a human should drink from the love of God in order to live a life of love - ie. godliness.

This love is found in Jesus Christ's death and resurrection, is believed by faith and is experienced through the Holy Spirit.

I am open to challenges :).

Eldredge's Good Heart and all that.

2005-06-01T18:57:00.000+10:00

There have been a whole lot of keyboard kinetics going into reviews and critriques of this particular author, especially Wild at Heart. And when some home groups at my church decided to study them, I thought I'd better check out what they were doing (being the Home Group Co-ordinator and all). Here is something I wrote for Home Group Leaders.

(Warning: It's no Shakespere, just a very basic look at bible verses. I just wanted to show how easily his idea could be questioned).

John Eldredge’s Waking the Dead.

Agreements…in no particular order.
There are a lot of things I agree with in John Eldredge’s book Waking the Dead. For instance:

I agree with John Eldredge that our hearts matter. They are incredibly important and central to who we are. We should pay good attention to them and take care of them.

I agree that Christianity is more than being forgiven, trying to be good and failing.

I agree that heaven is not all that Christianity is about.

I agree that the resurrection is incredibly important and often neglected. I’m not sure about his understanding that Jesus’ death was not as important in the early church – they celebrated it with communion every week.

I agree that humans were made to reflect God’s glory, and that Christians are to reflect his glory by being fully alive. We humans can do amazing things and God is pleased with that.

I agree that as Christians our potential should be more and more realised as we walk with Christ, and though we are corrupted, we are still made in God’s image and can live with our heart – biblically it is important too, in fact.

I agree that discipleship, counselling, healing and warfare (as Eldredge defines them) are areas that need attention and action in a Christian’s growth. I don’t know that they are an exhaustive list, or that Eldredge’s take on them doesn’t need discernment.

I agree that thinking mythically is good and helpful…as long as it is measured by the non-mythical message in the Bible. I don’t agree that thinking mythically is synonymous with seeing with the eyes of your heart.

I agree that we can hear God speak to us in our heart.

I agree that there is something new that God does in us when we become Christians – a transformation is begun.

I agree with all of the above and more. There are also things in his book I don’t agree with; most significantly the theological framework that states the Christian heart is good.

Disagreement: The Christian Heart is Good.
Firstly, there are verses that indicate the Christian heart is not necessarily good. For example:

Matt 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
This can be directed at non-Christians, but it is mainly for Christians.

Matt 15:18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean.’ 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.
Jesus is talking to the disciples saying these sins come from the heart. He makes no Christian/non-Christian distinction.

Acts 5:3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?
Ananias was a Christian (though some may debate that).

1 Cor 4:4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
If Paul’s heart was good, he could declare his motives innocent.

1 Cor 10:6 Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did.
If our hearts are good, how can they be set on evil things?

1 Thess 2:4 On the contrary, we speak as men approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel. We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts.
Why would God test their hearts if they were already good?

Heb 3:12 See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God.
If Christians’ hearts are good, this verse makes no sense.

James 3:14 But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth.
A good heart does not harbour bitter envy and selfish ambition.

Secondly, the verses that John Eldredge uses to back up his position do not necessarily back it up. For example:

Eze 36:26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.
This is found in Eze 11:19 also, and it is pointing toward a state of perfection for Israel – and by extension the church – a state that we haven’t attained yet, and therefore, neither have our hearts. Read the surrounding verses. Note also that a heart of flesh is not necessarily a ‘good’ heart. These are the only two places I have found the words “new heart” in the Bible.

Rom 7:17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature…20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it…22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law;…
Eldredge’s definition of the heart is our “true nature” which he considers Paul to be talking about in these verses when he says, “…it is no longer I…” Yet, in summing up this paragraph in verse 25, Paul says: “So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.” (see also v23). Therefore, our “true nature”, if we follow Eldredge’s interpretation of verses 17-22, is our mind, not our heart.

1 Cor 6:19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?
Eph 3:17 … that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith.
Combining these verses Eldredge says our hearts are the Holy of Holies. Therefore, he says, our hearts must be good. But Eldredge is saying more than the Bible does. Eph 3:17 talks of Christ dwelling in our hearts due to the Spirit strengthening our inner being – not because our hearts are good. (This does not imply that Christ does not dwell there, but that he dwells there for a different reason).

Luke 15:15 But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop.
The problem here is that the person has a noble and good heart before they become a Christian, yet Eldredge maintains that your heart is good by becoming a Christian. (There are theological understandings that can rescue this verse for Eldredge, but he does not employ them). It is easier to understand this as a general description of the persons’ heart, as opposed to a blanket “totally good, not at all evil” statement.

Scripture does not back John Eldredge’s assertion that the Christian heart is necessarily good.

What Does It Matter?
The fact that Scripture does not back up the idea is enough for me to think it matters. If we take the Bible as God’s Word, then to accept something his Word does not agree with is wrong. However, it’s also useful to look at some difficulties with believing the Christian heart is good. Here are three:

1) While Eldredge does include God as an integral part of his book, the heart is definitely the centre. Biblically, however, we live by the Spirit of the good God, not our good hearts. Our minds are to be on what the Spirit desires, not our hearts (Rom 8:5), God-centred, not man-centred.

2) If our heart is good, we do not need to guard our hearts from sins’ deceitfulness (Heb 3:12-13) or ourselves from our hearts’ deceitfulness (Jer 17:9), and we don’t need God’s Word to expose what’s really going on in our hearts (Heb 4:12). If our hearts are not necessarily good, and we think and act as though they are, sooner or later we will get hurt or led astray.

3) We are less inclined to test what our hearts tell us, or what we think God is telling us through our hearts, if we think the heart is good. This has led people in the past to – little by little – deny other parts of biblical truth.

A Possible Alternate Framework: The Believing Heart.A word study on the word ‘heart’ in the Bible shows that biblically the heart can be good, bad, upright, evil, deceitful, pure, divided and many other things – Christian and non-Christian. From that evidence, it is simply unsustainable to hold that a Christian’s heart is necessarily good, or even static.

What seems to differentiate a non-Christian heart from a Christian heart is not that the first is evil and the second is good, but rather the Christian heart has faith (often described as ‘belief’ in the New Testament) and the non-Christian heart does not. It is the gift of faith from God that changes a non-Christian into a Christian and enables a person to access the Spirit who sanctifies the whole person. All of John Eldredge’s concerns and suggestions can be addressed and discussed using the idea of a believing heart and sanctification by the Spirit rather than using the idea of a good heart. It also frees us to realise that the heart is not just broken and attacked by the devil, but also changeable and sinful in ways we don’t even realise. This is not to lead us to despair, but to dependence on the Spirit (who, among other things, works through our hearts) through Jesus as he purifies us and makes us fully alive in God. The heart is not to be ignored, but is to conform to Christ.

So, what am I saying about Waking the Dead?Read it critically. Asserting the idea that the Christian’s heart is good is a big mistake and very close to an historic heresy. Nor is that not the only area where caution is needed. John Eldredge’s “mythical writing” deals in generalities and either/or thinking (e.g. the heart is either unusably evil or usably good) leaving out possible alternatives and careful clarifications. Quite a few times Eldredge also uses the Bible to support a not-quite-biblical myth rather than using the myth to illustrate biblical truth. His is attractive writing but unfortunately not always accurate.

But John Eldredge has put his finger on an important topic. His book could be entitled Don’t Abuse Your Heart, because a large part of his concerns are about the way people treat their heart after being told their heart is evil, i.e. lock it up and throw away the key. That is not how we should treat our hearts and I personally got a lot from what he says. My hope is that people will read his books, but also subject his ideas to Biblical truth so they can take what is good and leave what is not.

FCM Ali-view

2005-06-01T18:21:00.000+10:00

Look, I didn't expect this to take this long!!! All I want to do is offer a critique, but the article is long and I have so much to say...no one will want to read this!!!! Oh well. It'll build up the archives.

So...

First off, I get the distinct impression that the FCM Matty has in mind is the more extreme variety - a church where reformed doctrine is paramount and anyone who does not adhere to the doctrinal and church government constitution is not permitted to become a member. That means that there can be people who attend the church, are Christians and who are sincerely committed to Jesus but are not allowed to become an official member, deciding on the direction of the church, take responsibility, preach etc. because they don't have all their i's dotted and t's crossed. That is sad.

But Matty also makes it clear that this is not the only type of FCM he is referring to - he is talking about any membership process that sees itself as separate from salvation as being wrong.

I think Matty is going too far, and strangely enough, it was in discussion with him on this very topic that confirmed FCM as okay for me.

My perspective on FCM is that it is a normal, even inevitable, organisational tool for a group of fellowshipping Christians i.e. a church. Why do I say that?

FCM not about whether a person is a Christian or not, but rather whether they are committed to a local fellowship/church and its doctrine and structure (as opposed to the worldwide, eternal church). It can be as simple as the phone lists that Matty and non-FCM churches I have attended allow. And the formal initiation of being put on the list can be as simple as being asked if you want your name on it. Being asked, (or in some cases, being put on regardless) assumes that you have some commitment to the church and you agree to worship and fellowship within its structure and accept – to some degree – its doctrine. But if someone visits who is a Christian but is not intending to become committed to the church, are they a "member" regardless? In terms of the worldwide church, yes. In terms of the local church, no. The local church has a list or idea of who it's members (committed to that church) are. I see nothing wrong with that. (Many Brethren churches define membership by whether you are allowed to have communion. There's no list, but there is certainly a FCM system there).

Now, if someone sinned or was divisive or needed to be disciplined, they would be. And if they were asked to leave (after following the proper biblical guidelines), they would be taken off the phone list.

How is that different from FCM? My guess would be someone would answer that churches (such as mine) have both a phone list and FCM, and that is the sort of FCM that is not good. But is that not merely a dividing of purposes? The phone list then becomes merely a reference tool, and the membership function is fulfilled by the formal membership.

I'm not saying there won't be problems with FCM, and I think the biggest one is deciding what determines membership. On the whole, I personally would agree with Matty that the division should be between Christian and non-Christian, but I think those in leadership and teaching positions should adhere to stricter guidelines. I mean, what is wrong with having someone in the church who has Arminian beliefs even though the church stands with Calvin? Depending on the stance of the church, that person may not be allowed to become a preacher (though I think few churches are that worried about that issue anymore), but is there something wrong with having them as a member? If the person becomes divisive, then warning and exclusion should take place, but that has more to do with deliberate sin than belief (Tit 3:10).

Of course, there is the other side. In our church, the doctrinal requirements are so basic and the commitment so unassuming, I have to wonder why people wouldn't want to be a member! If they believe the right things and have a heart commitment to the church - what's the problem? It is helpful to those in leadership to know where people are at.

I can't help feeling I've rambled into incoherence here, but the main points (both what I have said above and what I have not) are these:

1. Every church has an idea who the committed Christians are in their church. They will accept people as members who are Christians and committed to the church. They usually have a list. If a member is disciplined to the point of excommunication, they are taken off the list. Is this not a form of FCM?

2. If there are Christians going to a church but are not members, one needs to ask why. Of course, in situations like Matty's where the requirements for membership were rather strict, that is perhaps not possible, but the issue becomes one of what should constitute FCM rather than saying all FCM is wrong.

3. I personally think excommunication is not accepting a person into church meetings or events (do not even eat with them), but FCM does provide an interesting option of allowing sinning Christians to attend church and still be under discipline.

4. FCM does have some organisational benefits. I don't think that is a good enough reason to adopt FCM, but it should be noticed.

Now, I am not really too stressed about the whole issue. I have not given it enough thought - perhaps I shouldn't even have said anything here because I truly don't think it is worth much angst. The only places I can see where FCM would cause a whole lot of trouble are churches where member requirements are too strict. In that case, move churches. If you can't join the membership of a church, I'd say you are in the wrong church.

(Feel free to point out my loose thinking here. I am happy to be challenged to tighten up my thoughts :) ).

FCM Overview.

2005-05-30T19:03:00.000+10:00

Here is a basic overview of the reasons Matty does not think FCM is a good thing:

1. It is not in the Bible – many people admit it is not there explicitly, but is there implicitly. Matty disagrees.
2. It adds to the simplicity of the gospel – “The bible syas repent and believe on the Lord Jesus, be baptised for the forgiveness of sins and you will be saved. It never says become a member…
3. It is divisive and judgmental – members are seen as Christians or approved Christians. Instead, anyone who is a Christian is a member of the body of Christ as long as they have repentance and belief “evidenced by their fruit”. Baptism is the only “formal sign” needed.
4. It creates more structure than the bible teaches, and this causes problems such as having women (FCMembers) in positions of leadership over men (non-FCMembers) and only recognises FCMembers as those allowed to exercise gifts, or encouraged to take responsibility.
5. FCM becomes the fund from which a full-time pastor is paid, fudging motives of the Pastor toward the church.
6. It is unnecessary. FCM leads toward a “lording over type church that demands commitment, rather than allowing the Holy Spirit to bring real commitment…”
7. Church members are “born into” the church when they become Christians. They do not become members after they are saved.
8. There is no instance of God requiring a person to make a vow or do something else to join the church.
9. FCM encourages casting out of Christians from the church instead of helping a sinning Christian. Disciplined Christians are put out without going through biblical guidelines.
10. FCM has been wrongly justified as an attempt to distinguish between the “visible” and “invisible” church. That is not man’s job.
11. FCM is not needed to vote pastors and deacons because they are appointed by God and should be recognised and confirmed by all in the church.

Well, there you go. Next, my perspective.

My Experience of Kirk Membersheep

2005-05-30T14:35:00.000+10:00

Matt started questioning formal church membership (FCM) while part of a church that practiced it. Unfortunately, he was badly treated by that church and I think that has influenced his weighing of this topic. I, on the other hand, have only had neutral-to-good church membership experiences, and I think this gives me a different perspective. Let me start with my experience of FCM so you know where I am coming from. Then I'll tackle the article.

I began attending my present (Baptist) church believing that formal church membership was an unnecessary burden – you didn’t need it and it got in the way, but it wasn’t a terrible evil. The last four churches I had attended did not have FCM and the one before that was Baptist but I didn’t sign up as a member. In fact, for years I had remained a member of the Presbyterian Church of my parents without attending it.

One Sunday evening, the pastor of my present church preached about commitment – committing your life to Jesus for the first time, committing yourself to baptism, and committing yourself to the church through church membership. I was surprised and shocked! I didn’t think (and I am still not sure) that it was appropriate to place church membership alongside baptism and praying “the sinner’s prayer”. So, I decided to ask the pastor about it. He readily confessed that you cannot prove FCM from the Bible, but he also said he believed in it for his church. Go figure.

His reasons had to do with knowing where a person stood doctrinally and whether they were committed to the church. This is important in the Baptist Church, especially because of the congregational vote. After all, you can’t have people turning up to a meeting with no commitment to the church and nothing known about them and voting on the church's business (especially where I live - there are a lot of tourists).

He also liked to put only church members in leadership positions (though he was flexible) because he understood that those were the people who agreed with the basic doctrine of the church and who were committed enough to go to the effort of becoming members (not that it involves much effort).

We talked about it a couple of times after that, and then, when I put up my hand to be a Home Group Leader, I asked if the pastor required that my wife and I become members. He replied that he would prefer it, but that it wasn’t a requirement. I thought, If a member means that you agree with the basic doctrine and you are committed to the church, that’s me. What’s the problem with joining? So I did, to keep him happy. I haven’t suffered. I have no huge love for the practice, but I haven't got a huge hate for it either. I can see it's uses.

Kirk Membersheep

2005-05-29T17:10:00.000+10:00

Well, here is the essay that my friend Matty has written on church membership. It is long. Very long. I would think that if anyone hasn't read it, they may want to wait for my response first, because that way they will be biased toward my way of thinking, and it will also save them time. But there are others, hopefully Matty himself, who have read the article and will interact with me on this topic.

Having said that, this article came out of a negative experience of church membership that Matty had and he has now moved on. It may be that he is confident in what he believes and feels no compulsion to go over it again. That being the case, I may be talking to myself. No matter. If that's the case, I'll write my thoughts and leave it there.

So, for me and those who want to know, the essay is here.

I'll post my comments soonish.

A New World

2005-05-28T10:38:00.000+10:00

I've entered the new world of blogging. Will this last or is this a mere brief foray into the fascinating arena of opinioning? We'll have to wait and see.

Actually, the main purpose for this blog is to communicate with others I know, to discuss ideas that they have put forward, or ideas that I may put forward, without having to resort to email. I've had the idea for a couple of weeks, but now that my main hotmail account seems to have become inaccessible to me (still trying to sort it out) I thought this would be a good alternative - and a good way to tell people that my main hotmail account is inaccessible to me.

So, what will hopefully appear here in the future (as time allows - which may mean gaps of weeks and months) are thoughts and comments on the following topics (in no particular order):

- Church Membership. A response to Matt Cameron's essay about how evil it is.
- Love - what is it?
- Spirit baptism
- Time
- Oh, and anything else I think of over time.

I may need to mention, of course, that they will be mainly Christian topics. Can't help it. I'm stuck. Got nothing else to talk about. Sorry.