I married a Proverbs 31 woman and here she is...
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (pt 4)
E. God gave the man the right to name the woman.
Genesis 2:23, Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” The same Hebrew word is used throughout Gen 1-2, qara, meaning to call or to name. After the fall Adam “called” his wife a personal name. We read about this in Genesis 3:20, The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. In Genesis, the one who names a thing or a person has the authority or power to name. If you don’t believe me check out the following examples: Genesis 1:5, 8, 10; 2:19-20. In our country the parents (not the government, not the elder board, not the in-laws, thankfully); have the authority to name their own children.
Genesis 4:25-26, And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, ‘God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him.’ To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD. Genesis 5:3 records, When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. In unique situations, God changed the names of persons (for an example check out Genesis 17:5, 15). Dr. Grudem adds this helpful thought, “In every case the person who gives the name has authority over the person who receives the name.”
F. Adam was given the distinct role of representing the human race.
Who sinned first according to Gen 3:6? It was Eve. Yet who is ultimately held responsible for the fall of the human race? Adam was held responsible. 1 Corinthians 15:22 , For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:45-46 records, Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.
Paul shares some wonderful truth corresponding to this point in Romans 5:12-21, Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned - 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. 18 Therefore, as one trespass1 led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness2 leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Man had a unique position as leader and head. Therefore God holds Adam responsible for the sin of all mankind. God comes looking for Adam, not Eve, in Genesis 3:9. But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” Being the “head” is a privilege that carries with it many unique responsibilities. One day all men will give a special account to God by virtue of their role. Adam was given the special role of representing the human race. By way of a footnote, the doctrine of federal representation is actually a very necessary reality because Jesus Christ came and did what we could never do. Jesus Christ is called in Scripture our 2nd Adam. In Adam, the world fell. In Christ, the elect are saved. Our righteousness is imputed to our accounts through faith in Christ. The ground of our justification is not our faith but the perfect righteousness of Christ (see 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Romans 5). If you deny the role of Adam as head of the human race you mess with the 2nd Adam's role as well. Let’s return now to the discussion at hand.
G. God named the human race “Man” not “Woman”.
Genesis 5:1-2 notes, This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. Genesis 5 records some of the events that happened before the fall. The Hebrew word translated “Man” is adam. The word man represents the Hebrew word adam in Gen 2:22, 23, 25; 3:8, 9, 12, and 20. I would encourage you to check these verses out for yourself. Dr. Grudem explains the significance of adam, “In the early chapters of Genesis, the connection with the man in distinction from the woman is a very clear pattern. God gave the human race a name which, like the English word man, can either mean a male human being or can refer to the human race in general.” Ray Ortlund Jr notes, “God’s naming of the race ‘man’ whispers male headship.”
Genesis 1-2 helps us see the following observations:
A. God made Adam the central character.
B. God created Adam first (the creative order).
C. God formed the woman out of the man.
D. God created the woman for the man.
E. God gave the man the right to name the woman.
F. Adam was given the unique role of representing the human race.
G. God named the human race “Man” not “Women”.
Next time we will look at Genesis 3 and examine some of the consequences of the fall. Don’t forget in all this the first key we observed from the first chapter of Genesis. Men and women are equal in value, dignity, and personhood. Different gender defined roles do not undermine that central truth.
Genesis 2:23, Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” The same Hebrew word is used throughout Gen 1-2, qara, meaning to call or to name. After the fall Adam “called” his wife a personal name. We read about this in Genesis 3:20, The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. In Genesis, the one who names a thing or a person has the authority or power to name. If you don’t believe me check out the following examples: Genesis 1:5, 8, 10; 2:19-20. In our country the parents (not the government, not the elder board, not the in-laws, thankfully); have the authority to name their own children.
Genesis 4:25-26, And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, ‘God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him.’ To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD. Genesis 5:3 records, When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. In unique situations, God changed the names of persons (for an example check out Genesis 17:5, 15). Dr. Grudem adds this helpful thought, “In every case the person who gives the name has authority over the person who receives the name.”
F. Adam was given the distinct role of representing the human race.
Who sinned first according to Gen 3:6? It was Eve. Yet who is ultimately held responsible for the fall of the human race? Adam was held responsible. 1 Corinthians 15:22 , For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:45-46 records, Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.
Paul shares some wonderful truth corresponding to this point in Romans 5:12-21, Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned - 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. 18 Therefore, as one trespass1 led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness2 leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Man had a unique position as leader and head. Therefore God holds Adam responsible for the sin of all mankind. God comes looking for Adam, not Eve, in Genesis 3:9. But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” Being the “head” is a privilege that carries with it many unique responsibilities. One day all men will give a special account to God by virtue of their role. Adam was given the special role of representing the human race. By way of a footnote, the doctrine of federal representation is actually a very necessary reality because Jesus Christ came and did what we could never do. Jesus Christ is called in Scripture our 2nd Adam. In Adam, the world fell. In Christ, the elect are saved. Our righteousness is imputed to our accounts through faith in Christ. The ground of our justification is not our faith but the perfect righteousness of Christ (see 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Romans 5). If you deny the role of Adam as head of the human race you mess with the 2nd Adam's role as well. Let’s return now to the discussion at hand.
G. God named the human race “Man” not “Woman”.
Genesis 5:1-2 notes, This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. Genesis 5 records some of the events that happened before the fall. The Hebrew word translated “Man” is adam. The word man represents the Hebrew word adam in Gen 2:22, 23, 25; 3:8, 9, 12, and 20. I would encourage you to check these verses out for yourself. Dr. Grudem explains the significance of adam, “In the early chapters of Genesis, the connection with the man in distinction from the woman is a very clear pattern. God gave the human race a name which, like the English word man, can either mean a male human being or can refer to the human race in general.” Ray Ortlund Jr notes, “God’s naming of the race ‘man’ whispers male headship.”
Genesis 1-2 helps us see the following observations:
A. God made Adam the central character.
B. God created Adam first (the creative order).
C. God formed the woman out of the man.
D. God created the woman for the man.
E. God gave the man the right to name the woman.
F. Adam was given the unique role of representing the human race.
G. God named the human race “Man” not “Women”.
Next time we will look at Genesis 3 and examine some of the consequences of the fall. Don’t forget in all this the first key we observed from the first chapter of Genesis. Men and women are equal in value, dignity, and personhood. Different gender defined roles do not undermine that central truth.
Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (pt 3)
#2 Men and Women have different roles as part of the creative order.
The 2nd part of that statement is absolutely essential. God ordained specific male and female roles before the fall. Some of these role differences are solely expressed in the context of marriage. For example, women are not called to submit to all men universally. Ephesians 5 does command women to submit to their husband’s headship though. In other words, men and women have different roles in marriage as part of the creative order. God created us equal yet different. Equal in essence but with different gender-defined roles.
Biblical womanhood in the words of one female author is, “God’s perfect design for women as revealed in the Bible.” Biblical manhood then is, “God’s perfect design for men as revealed in the Scriptures.” This subject is applicable to everyone. I appreciate the personal testimony of Carolyn Mahaney who wrote, “Although I have not received costly earthly treasures from my mom, she has given me a gift of priceless value, for she was faithful to pass on to me a legacy of biblical womanhood. Through her teaching and her example she taught me to aspire to these qualities that commend the gospel.” Men and women this should be our heart’s desire as well. That we lived our Christian lives in accordance to God’s perfect design as men or as women.
This section of my blog is dedicated to answering the following question: In what ways do we see Adam’s “headship” on display before the fall of man in Genesis 3? Put another way, did God design Adam to be the leader of his household before the fall or did Adam usurp that role as a result of the fall? I believe the evidence in Genesis 1-2 proves that God designed Adam to lovingly lead his wife before the fall (Wayne Grudem’s book was very helpful in summarizing these reasons. I used his book a lot during this section).
A. God made Adam the central human character.
In Genesis 2 the actions and events revolve around Adam. I would encourage you to read the chapter for yourself and see if this is true. Adam first receives revelation from God in v. 16. The animals are brought before Adam to name in vv. 19-20. The woman is made from the man (not vice versa) in v. 22. The woman is made for the man in v. 18 and in v. 22. With that said, “From the man, for the man is not a sexist statement. Man is allowed to name the female (v. 23) and not vice versa. We’ll examine some of these points more closely in a little bit. In Genesis 1-3, Adam is clearly the central human character.
B. God created Adam first- (the order).
In your own Bibles follow the sequence in Gen. 2:7 and Gen. 2:18-23. In the words of one scholar, “The creation priority is not an incidental fact.” Scripture helps us to interpret Scripture. Sometimes information in other passages of Scripture is clearer. Paul, wrote some inspired words in 1 Timothy 2:12-15, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing - if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.” We’ll come back to this passage of Scripture at another time but suffice to say Paul understood there was significance in the creative order of God. The New Testament uses that fact to support the unique role of man as leader and primary teacher in the church (more to come on that passage).
C. God formed the woman out of the man.
How did God create Adam? Genesis 2:7 says, then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. How was the woman fashioned? Genesis 2:21, So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. The doctrine of headship and submission is actually rooted in the 2nd chapter of Genesis. Again let’s quickly note a New Testament passage that provides a little commentary on this matter. 1 Corinthians 11:7-9, “For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.”
D. God created the woman for the man.
Verse 9 of 1 Corinthians 11 makes this point rather clearly. God created man innocent and He created Him in the image of God. Notice Genesis 2:18; “Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.’” Genesis 2:22 says, “And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.” Before you get big headed over these verses men remember something very important. God is totally self-sufficient! Adam was the man’s man of all men and he NEEDED something (better said someone) to complete him. We are not self-sufficient. That reality should humble us (we are not big shots) and it should encourage us (God provided man with an amazing and wonderful gift).
The noun “helper” in Gen 2:18 is the Hebrew word ezer. This word means support or aid. This is not a belittling role! After all, God is described as a help to his people (Psalm 54:4, 121), and the Holy Spirit is called our Helper in Jn. 14:16, 26. Woman was to be man’s helper. The Hebrew term for suitable to him (kenegdo) literally means “like him” or “corresponding to him.” Eve was Adam’s counterpart not his inferior! Sort of like R2D2 was C3PO’s counterpart in the movie Star Wars. Anyways, Eve perfectly complemented Adam. Her differences helped to complete Adam. Don’t forget now, our God-ordained roles do not in and of themselves determine our value and worth. Much more will be said concerning this as well.
(TO BE CONTINUED)
The 2nd part of that statement is absolutely essential. God ordained specific male and female roles before the fall. Some of these role differences are solely expressed in the context of marriage. For example, women are not called to submit to all men universally. Ephesians 5 does command women to submit to their husband’s headship though. In other words, men and women have different roles in marriage as part of the creative order. God created us equal yet different. Equal in essence but with different gender-defined roles.
Biblical womanhood in the words of one female author is, “God’s perfect design for women as revealed in the Bible.” Biblical manhood then is, “God’s perfect design for men as revealed in the Scriptures.” This subject is applicable to everyone. I appreciate the personal testimony of Carolyn Mahaney who wrote, “Although I have not received costly earthly treasures from my mom, she has given me a gift of priceless value, for she was faithful to pass on to me a legacy of biblical womanhood. Through her teaching and her example she taught me to aspire to these qualities that commend the gospel.” Men and women this should be our heart’s desire as well. That we lived our Christian lives in accordance to God’s perfect design as men or as women.
This section of my blog is dedicated to answering the following question: In what ways do we see Adam’s “headship” on display before the fall of man in Genesis 3? Put another way, did God design Adam to be the leader of his household before the fall or did Adam usurp that role as a result of the fall? I believe the evidence in Genesis 1-2 proves that God designed Adam to lovingly lead his wife before the fall (Wayne Grudem’s book was very helpful in summarizing these reasons. I used his book a lot during this section).
A. God made Adam the central human character.
In Genesis 2 the actions and events revolve around Adam. I would encourage you to read the chapter for yourself and see if this is true. Adam first receives revelation from God in v. 16. The animals are brought before Adam to name in vv. 19-20. The woman is made from the man (not vice versa) in v. 22. The woman is made for the man in v. 18 and in v. 22. With that said, “From the man, for the man is not a sexist statement. Man is allowed to name the female (v. 23) and not vice versa. We’ll examine some of these points more closely in a little bit. In Genesis 1-3, Adam is clearly the central human character.
B. God created Adam first- (the order).
In your own Bibles follow the sequence in Gen. 2:7 and Gen. 2:18-23. In the words of one scholar, “The creation priority is not an incidental fact.” Scripture helps us to interpret Scripture. Sometimes information in other passages of Scripture is clearer. Paul, wrote some inspired words in 1 Timothy 2:12-15, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing - if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.” We’ll come back to this passage of Scripture at another time but suffice to say Paul understood there was significance in the creative order of God. The New Testament uses that fact to support the unique role of man as leader and primary teacher in the church (more to come on that passage).
C. God formed the woman out of the man.
How did God create Adam? Genesis 2:7 says, then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. How was the woman fashioned? Genesis 2:21, So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. The doctrine of headship and submission is actually rooted in the 2nd chapter of Genesis. Again let’s quickly note a New Testament passage that provides a little commentary on this matter. 1 Corinthians 11:7-9, “For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.”
D. God created the woman for the man.
Verse 9 of 1 Corinthians 11 makes this point rather clearly. God created man innocent and He created Him in the image of God. Notice Genesis 2:18; “Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.’” Genesis 2:22 says, “And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.” Before you get big headed over these verses men remember something very important. God is totally self-sufficient! Adam was the man’s man of all men and he NEEDED something (better said someone) to complete him. We are not self-sufficient. That reality should humble us (we are not big shots) and it should encourage us (God provided man with an amazing and wonderful gift).
The noun “helper” in Gen 2:18 is the Hebrew word ezer. This word means support or aid. This is not a belittling role! After all, God is described as a help to his people (Psalm 54:4, 121), and the Holy Spirit is called our Helper in Jn. 14:16, 26. Woman was to be man’s helper. The Hebrew term for suitable to him (kenegdo) literally means “like him” or “corresponding to him.” Eve was Adam’s counterpart not his inferior! Sort of like R2D2 was C3PO’s counterpart in the movie Star Wars. Anyways, Eve perfectly complemented Adam. Her differences helped to complete Adam. Don’t forget now, our God-ordained roles do not in and of themselves determine our value and worth. Much more will be said concerning this as well.
(TO BE CONTINUED)
Monday, July 23, 2007
Phil Johnson on truth
"First, God's Word is truth. It is pure truth, revealed by God, and it is the sole and sufficient final arbiter between what's true and what's false.
Second, while we may not understand any doctrine exhaustively, we can nonetheless be confident that what we do know accurately is true. That's the beauty of propositions. They recognize that truth by definition includes facts, and even though no finite set of facts or propositions ever exhausts all truth about God, we can know lots of true facts about God, and we can even know God Himself (albeit through a glass, darkly) because those facts, and God Himself, have been revealed to us by God Himself in Scripture."
Check out his full length article on PYROMANIACS
Second, while we may not understand any doctrine exhaustively, we can nonetheless be confident that what we do know accurately is true. That's the beauty of propositions. They recognize that truth by definition includes facts, and even though no finite set of facts or propositions ever exhausts all truth about God, we can know lots of true facts about God, and we can even know God Himself (albeit through a glass, darkly) because those facts, and God Himself, have been revealed to us by God Himself in Scripture."
Check out his full length article on PYROMANIACS
Spurgeon on Preaching
"Professional preaching, ex-officio creed-repeating,—this is the devil's most effectual method of propagating falsehood and defeating truth.Full assurance of the certainty of what we preach in the name of the Most High God is absolutely necessary to making full proof of our ministry; in fact, it is questionable whether it is ministry for God at all if it is not the ministry of faith. If whatsoever is not of faith is sin, and men are forbidden to do that about which they have any scruple; much more, in sacred things, must a preaching that is not of faith be sin; and how can sin promote the righteousness of God? If Jesus the Son of God be not really and truly God to any man; if that man shall dare to assert the doctrine of the Redeemer's Deity, he will but do the truth dishonor. We may not forbid his preaching, but if the Master were here he would as surely silence him as he did the devils when they loudly attested that he was the Son of God.If the Bible be not believed to be a supernatural book, infallibly teaching the things which make for our eternal salvation, he who, with deliberate falsehood of unbelief, yet uses it as his text-book, and refers to it as his authority, is a trifler with truth, and a mocker of sacred things. If a man believes that there is no such thing as regeneration, or that men do not need it, his attempt to preach concerning the new birth will only scatter among the multitudes doubts as to its reality.Whatever is held forth in the palsied hand of unbelief is itself made to quiver. Skepticism is a smoking lamp, which, while it gives no light, loads the atmosphere with a thick darkness, if not with a stench. If we are ever to see men brought down under the power of the law to a condition of true repentance, if we are ever to see them converted by the Holy Ghost through the gospel of Christ Jesus, if we are ever to see the converted ones sanctified, and marching forth to the Master's battles as an army with banners, we must preach the truth boldly, as we ought to preach it, and we must say of every jot and tittle of it, "Not a doubt of it! Not a doubt of it:"It seems to be assumed by many men that there is no sin in doubting God's Word; indeed, they count it one of the highest attainments of their intellect that they dare coolly give the lie to the glorious Jehovah. To us it seems that there is no impiety greater than to quibble and question with our Creator. To fancy the Holy Spirit to be ignorant, or mistaken, or a false witness, must very nearly verge upon the sin which is unto death.Everywhere throughout the Scriptures faith is magnified as the chief root of virtue, and unbelief is stamped with infamy as a soul-destroying evil. Error in doctrine is as truly a crime as adultery or theft. Who is he that has set man's intellect free from the dominion of the Most High? Men of old said, "Our tongues are our own"; and now they say, "Our minds are our own": the spirit of rebellion dictates both defiant speeches. The first and great commandment bids us love the Lord our God, not only with all our heart. but also with all our mind. The intellect is a part of the creature, and is therefore bound to be subservient to the Creator. In a redeemed man his intellect is not his own, for it is bought with a price; he counts it an essential of his discipleship that he should receive Christ's word as a little child.Pride reviews the acts of God, and censures his utterances, criticizes infinite wisdom, picks and chooses, and commends or censures the teachings of the Lord. This daring presumption makes human reason the last Arbiter, and sets man upon the throne as though he were the god of God. To all this the apostle Paul deigns no reply but this —"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?"Quitting this chaos of doubt, flying from this Stygian bog of skepticism, we pray the Lord to maintain our sure confidence in eternal verities, and to enable the minds of his people to get so firm a grip of what he has revealed that they may all cry, "Let God be true, and every man a liar." Then shall we feel in our own hearts the power of truth, then shall we see in the consciences and minds of others the same power working supernaturally to their conversion and sanctification: but not till then.Incredulity is absurdity where God is concerned; nay, worse, it is constructive blasphemy. Doubt of revealed truth is death to communion with him who has revealed it. How can a man commune with another man till he has given him his fullest confidence? We can have no fellowship with those whom we distrust; the unbeliever can have no fellowship with God. "Without faith it is impossible to please God;" therefore the spirit of doubt which is now abroad must be greatly displeasing to him; and if God be displeased how is the church to prosper?"
Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Pt 2)
How can we know what our God ordained roles and responsibilities ought to be? Before we answer that we need to look at few key issues.
The 1st Key Issue that we need to get is: Men and Women are equal in Value, Dignity & Personhood.
That is an absolutely foundational statement. I believe it is an important statement primarily because it accurately reflects the Word of God. The first book of Moses and the first book of the Bible is Genesis. Genesis 1:27-28 records, God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth. Who was created in the image of God? Was it just man? No, it was man and woman. What does it mean then to bear God’s image? At the very least it means we humans are relational, we have a spirit (eternal soul), we experience emotions, we have a moral conscience, we know and can worship God. Mankind was created with a will, with a soul, and with an intellect. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that we are different from all the other created things. Men and women are unique and special in God’s sight. Redemptive history proves this is so. Did you know that in some ways humans represent God? The fall, has of course, tainted many of the aspects mentioned above. Because men and women are created in the image of God we believe we’re equal in value, dignity, and personhood. The world would be a lot better place if people believed this.
So who did God bless in Genesis 1:28? He blessed both Adam and Eve and commissioned them to serve Him as co-regents of the garden. Man was to have dominion over the other created things. Technically speaking though it’s not a man’s world or a woman’s world, it is God’s world.
Male dominance and male superiority is a direct result of sin (not part of God’s divine plan). Some countries abort females as lesser creations (like in China). According to one recent Fox News report, infanticide (and abortion) is responsible for 60 million girls missing in Asia alone. Wanda Franz said, “Abortion is claimed to help women; obviously in these cases, females are the direct victims, because women in these cultures are not valued.” Unbiblical thinking normally leads to unbiblical behavior. Male dominance has lead to many unbiblical decisions such as men justifying rape or polygamy; husbands acting as little dictators; women being told they can’t go to school or vote because their an inferior gender.
The secular feminist movement is a result of sin as well. Unbiblical reactions to unbiblical behavior is still sin in the eyes of our Creator. The radical feminist movement has actually tried to abolish the family (as we know it) and has promoted among many things, lesbianism. These women believe the institution of marriage holds women in bondage. The evangelical feminist movement has tried to abolish any role differences between men and women in the home and in the church. We’ll talk more about this issue later on in our study. As complementarians we must be careful that we do not counter-react to all this folly with additional folly (and thus overreact and possibly sin).
One of the implications of Gen. 1:27 is that men and women are equally important & valuable to God. Our God-designed differences never imply that men are superior to women (or vice versa). We’re equals! Galatians 3:28-29 says, 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. This verse is often misapplied but it does confirm our first Key: men and women are equal in value and dignity. God choose to create both males and females. He choose to redeem both men and women; He gives spiritual gifts to both men and women; He gives unique talents to both men and women; He loves both men and women. The starting point is not to discuss all of our differences as men and women but to express our equality in the image of God (the same is true with race issues by the way).
One Para church organization provided a short explanation as to how this understanding should flesh itself out in our marriages: “In a marriage lived according to these truths, the love between husband and wife will show itself in listening to each other’s viewpoints, valuing each other’s gifts, wisdom and desires, honoring one another in public and in private, and always seeking to bring benefit, not harm, to one another.” Let us never forget that men and women are equal in value, dignity, and personhood.
This leads us into the 2nd Chapter of Genesis quite well. One author has rightly commented, “We cannot understand the gender debate among Bible-believing Christians without grasping this chapter’s significance.” Gen 2:18-25 is the counterpart of Gen 1:27-28. When one accurately interprets Genesis 2 a second key observation can be made: #2 Men and Women have different roles as part of God's creative order. (to be continued)
The 1st Key Issue that we need to get is: Men and Women are equal in Value, Dignity & Personhood.
That is an absolutely foundational statement. I believe it is an important statement primarily because it accurately reflects the Word of God. The first book of Moses and the first book of the Bible is Genesis. Genesis 1:27-28 records, God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth. Who was created in the image of God? Was it just man? No, it was man and woman. What does it mean then to bear God’s image? At the very least it means we humans are relational, we have a spirit (eternal soul), we experience emotions, we have a moral conscience, we know and can worship God. Mankind was created with a will, with a soul, and with an intellect. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that we are different from all the other created things. Men and women are unique and special in God’s sight. Redemptive history proves this is so. Did you know that in some ways humans represent God? The fall, has of course, tainted many of the aspects mentioned above. Because men and women are created in the image of God we believe we’re equal in value, dignity, and personhood. The world would be a lot better place if people believed this.
So who did God bless in Genesis 1:28? He blessed both Adam and Eve and commissioned them to serve Him as co-regents of the garden. Man was to have dominion over the other created things. Technically speaking though it’s not a man’s world or a woman’s world, it is God’s world.
Male dominance and male superiority is a direct result of sin (not part of God’s divine plan). Some countries abort females as lesser creations (like in China). According to one recent Fox News report, infanticide (and abortion) is responsible for 60 million girls missing in Asia alone. Wanda Franz said, “Abortion is claimed to help women; obviously in these cases, females are the direct victims, because women in these cultures are not valued.” Unbiblical thinking normally leads to unbiblical behavior. Male dominance has lead to many unbiblical decisions such as men justifying rape or polygamy; husbands acting as little dictators; women being told they can’t go to school or vote because their an inferior gender.
The secular feminist movement is a result of sin as well. Unbiblical reactions to unbiblical behavior is still sin in the eyes of our Creator. The radical feminist movement has actually tried to abolish the family (as we know it) and has promoted among many things, lesbianism. These women believe the institution of marriage holds women in bondage. The evangelical feminist movement has tried to abolish any role differences between men and women in the home and in the church. We’ll talk more about this issue later on in our study. As complementarians we must be careful that we do not counter-react to all this folly with additional folly (and thus overreact and possibly sin).
One of the implications of Gen. 1:27 is that men and women are equally important & valuable to God. Our God-designed differences never imply that men are superior to women (or vice versa). We’re equals! Galatians 3:28-29 says, 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. This verse is often misapplied but it does confirm our first Key: men and women are equal in value and dignity. God choose to create both males and females. He choose to redeem both men and women; He gives spiritual gifts to both men and women; He gives unique talents to both men and women; He loves both men and women. The starting point is not to discuss all of our differences as men and women but to express our equality in the image of God (the same is true with race issues by the way).
One Para church organization provided a short explanation as to how this understanding should flesh itself out in our marriages: “In a marriage lived according to these truths, the love between husband and wife will show itself in listening to each other’s viewpoints, valuing each other’s gifts, wisdom and desires, honoring one another in public and in private, and always seeking to bring benefit, not harm, to one another.” Let us never forget that men and women are equal in value, dignity, and personhood.
This leads us into the 2nd Chapter of Genesis quite well. One author has rightly commented, “We cannot understand the gender debate among Bible-believing Christians without grasping this chapter’s significance.” Gen 2:18-25 is the counterpart of Gen 1:27-28. When one accurately interprets Genesis 2 a second key observation can be made: #2 Men and Women have different roles as part of God's creative order. (to be continued)
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (pt 1)
I have been taking our young marrieds/singles class through a series on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Because things have been quiet around here i will post these notes here on my blog.
Besides the Word of God (the best source), I am going to be using many different resources. Namely, Wayne Grudem’s “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.” Grudem’s “Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth.” Srauch’s “Equal-Yet-Different.” Duncan’s “Women’s Ministry in the Local Church.” MacArthur’s “Different by Design” to name a few. Before we jump into this Bible study we need to ask an important WHY question. WHY should we invest time on this particular subject? Why spend so much time going over biblical manhood and womanhood? Here are a few answers right upfront (in no particular order):
#1. Because this subject is the source of much debate among the Christian community today.
An ongoing debate between Biblical complementarians & Evangelical feminists (egalitarians) continues to wage. Let me briefly define those seminary level descriptions for you. Complementarians teach that God created men and women as equals yet with different gender-defined roles. In short they say, men and women are fully equal in personhood, dignity, and worth but that God designed men and women to function in different roles (which in no way negates the later statement). Egalitarians teach that God created men and women as equals with no distinct role differences. In short, they believe that true equality requires equal ministry opportunities for both sexes. Egalitarians can also be referred to as evangelical feminists. I will refer to them using both titles.
Our church believes the Bible supports a complementarian view in regards to gender roles in the church and home. Much, much more will be said to support this position in the weeks to come. All that to say, this is often a hot button topic of discussion in Christian schools, churches, seminaries, and even in some Christian homes. I believe if you survey the Christian landscape you’ll agree this topic is both relevant and important.
So why should we invest time on this particular subject? #1. Because this subject is the source of much debate among the Christian community today and is an important issue for us to understand.
#2. Because the Bible addresses this subject in a number of different passages.
True Christians, in all places and in all times, have treasured the Bible because it truly is God’s Word. As Christians we acknowledge the authority of God over our lives. One of the ways we submit ourselves to Christ’s Lordship is by humbling ourselves before the Word of God. God’s revealed will for our lives is preserved for us in One Book and in one Book alone (2 Peter 1:3). The Bible is a lamp onto our feet and a light unto our path (Psalm 119). God expects that we diligently search out the Scriptures and that we seek to understand and apply it to our own lives (Acts 17:11). The Bible addresses this topic in both the Old and New Testaments so it’s important we study it and that we seek to apply it’s truths to our lives as well. Some of the key passages include Genesis 1-3, Ephesians 5, Titus 2, 1 Corinthians 7, Galatians 3:28, and 1 Corinthians 14.
Which leads us to #3: Because this teaching personally affects all of us in many different ways.
To make sense of this point, check out the Wayne Grudem’s attachment at the end of this handout. Much more will be said concerning this subject so please come this summer as often as you can. If you review the chart you’ll see how this mindset affects one’s behavior in many different ways. We probably won’t find ourselves on the extreme edges but we may uncover some aspects where we’ve drifted away from the Biblical center.
#4. Because teaching on this subject is normally full of heat but often very short on light.
I will try my best to clearly distinguish for you what the Bible teaches and what my personal opinions are. I will try and let you know what other people’s opinions are as well. Let’s be straightforward on this: Human opinions are normally take or leave it type things (E.G. How to best care for your lawn; Whether its wisest to buy a new car or to buy used cars; whether or not Pete Rose should be admitted into the Hall of Fame; Whether or not you should try and breast feed or use a baby formula; Whether or not one should vote for a Mormon politician, etc, etc). Some opinions are helpful and wise while others are just opinions. If we stay close to what the Scriptures teach concerning this topic we’ll be right on track.
I think it’s important for all of us to:
(A) Know what the key passages of Scripture are regarding this topic.
(B) Understand what the passages say.
(C) Meditate on how that understanding should affect our lives.
(D) By God’s grace, seek to implement change in our lives.
After we finish this series you should be able to answer the following questions: What are the biblical roles and responsibilities for both Christian men and Christian women? Is it permissible to ordain a female pastor? Can a woman teach or preach to other men? Other children? ladies? Why or why not? Were the author’s of Scripture ever sexist? Did Jesus contradict the prophets or the apostles in regards to this topic? How can we avoid the unbiblical extremes that often dominate this discussion? What does Biblical manhood really entail? What does Biblical womanhood mean? Why does this subject matter so much to God?
Besides the Word of God (the best source), I am going to be using many different resources. Namely, Wayne Grudem’s “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.” Grudem’s “Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth.” Srauch’s “Equal-Yet-Different.” Duncan’s “Women’s Ministry in the Local Church.” MacArthur’s “Different by Design” to name a few. Before we jump into this Bible study we need to ask an important WHY question. WHY should we invest time on this particular subject? Why spend so much time going over biblical manhood and womanhood? Here are a few answers right upfront (in no particular order):
#1. Because this subject is the source of much debate among the Christian community today.
An ongoing debate between Biblical complementarians & Evangelical feminists (egalitarians) continues to wage. Let me briefly define those seminary level descriptions for you. Complementarians teach that God created men and women as equals yet with different gender-defined roles. In short they say, men and women are fully equal in personhood, dignity, and worth but that God designed men and women to function in different roles (which in no way negates the later statement). Egalitarians teach that God created men and women as equals with no distinct role differences. In short, they believe that true equality requires equal ministry opportunities for both sexes. Egalitarians can also be referred to as evangelical feminists. I will refer to them using both titles.
Our church believes the Bible supports a complementarian view in regards to gender roles in the church and home. Much, much more will be said to support this position in the weeks to come. All that to say, this is often a hot button topic of discussion in Christian schools, churches, seminaries, and even in some Christian homes. I believe if you survey the Christian landscape you’ll agree this topic is both relevant and important.
So why should we invest time on this particular subject? #1. Because this subject is the source of much debate among the Christian community today and is an important issue for us to understand.
#2. Because the Bible addresses this subject in a number of different passages.
True Christians, in all places and in all times, have treasured the Bible because it truly is God’s Word. As Christians we acknowledge the authority of God over our lives. One of the ways we submit ourselves to Christ’s Lordship is by humbling ourselves before the Word of God. God’s revealed will for our lives is preserved for us in One Book and in one Book alone (2 Peter 1:3). The Bible is a lamp onto our feet and a light unto our path (Psalm 119). God expects that we diligently search out the Scriptures and that we seek to understand and apply it to our own lives (Acts 17:11). The Bible addresses this topic in both the Old and New Testaments so it’s important we study it and that we seek to apply it’s truths to our lives as well. Some of the key passages include Genesis 1-3, Ephesians 5, Titus 2, 1 Corinthians 7, Galatians 3:28, and 1 Corinthians 14.
Which leads us to #3: Because this teaching personally affects all of us in many different ways.
To make sense of this point, check out the Wayne Grudem’s attachment at the end of this handout. Much more will be said concerning this subject so please come this summer as often as you can. If you review the chart you’ll see how this mindset affects one’s behavior in many different ways. We probably won’t find ourselves on the extreme edges but we may uncover some aspects where we’ve drifted away from the Biblical center.
#4. Because teaching on this subject is normally full of heat but often very short on light.
I will try my best to clearly distinguish for you what the Bible teaches and what my personal opinions are. I will try and let you know what other people’s opinions are as well. Let’s be straightforward on this: Human opinions are normally take or leave it type things (E.G. How to best care for your lawn; Whether its wisest to buy a new car or to buy used cars; whether or not Pete Rose should be admitted into the Hall of Fame; Whether or not you should try and breast feed or use a baby formula; Whether or not one should vote for a Mormon politician, etc, etc). Some opinions are helpful and wise while others are just opinions. If we stay close to what the Scriptures teach concerning this topic we’ll be right on track.
I think it’s important for all of us to:
(A) Know what the key passages of Scripture are regarding this topic.
(B) Understand what the passages say.
(C) Meditate on how that understanding should affect our lives.
(D) By God’s grace, seek to implement change in our lives.
After we finish this series you should be able to answer the following questions: What are the biblical roles and responsibilities for both Christian men and Christian women? Is it permissible to ordain a female pastor? Can a woman teach or preach to other men? Other children? ladies? Why or why not? Were the author’s of Scripture ever sexist? Did Jesus contradict the prophets or the apostles in regards to this topic? How can we avoid the unbiblical extremes that often dominate this discussion? What does Biblical manhood really entail? What does Biblical womanhood mean? Why does this subject matter so much to God?
Monday, July 16, 2007
Al Mohler on the R.C. Church
This taken from http://www.albertmohler.com/blog.php
"Aren't you offended? That is the question many Evangelicals are being asked in the wake of a recent document released by the Vatican. The document declares that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church -- or, in words the Vatican would prefer to use, the only institutional form in which the Church of Christ subsists.
No, I am not offended. In the first place, I am not offended because this is not an issue in which emotion should play a key role. This is a theological question, and our response should be theological, not emotional. Secondly, I am not offended because I am not surprised. No one familiar with the statements of the Roman Catholic Magisterium should be surprised by this development. This is not news in any genuine sense. It is news only in the current context of Vatican statements and ecumenical relations. Thirdly, I am not offended because this new document actually brings attention to the crucial issues of ecclesiology, and thus it presents us with an opportunity.
The Vatican document is very brief -- just a few paragraphs in fact. Its official title is "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," and it was released by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on June 29 of this year. Though many media sources have identified the document as a papal statement from Pope Benedict XVI, it is actually a statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that was later approved for release by the Pope (who, as Cardinal Ratzinger, headed this Congregation prior to assuming the papacy).
The document claims a unique legitimacy for the Roman Catholic Church as the church established by Christ. The document stakes this identity on a claim to apostolic succession, centered in the papacy itself. As the document states, "This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him."
Lest anyone miss the point, the document then goes on to acknowledge that the churches of Eastern Orthodoxy also stake a claim to apostolic succession, and thus they are referred to as "Churches" by the Vatican. As for the churches born in whatever form out of the Reformation -- they are not true churches at all, only "ecclesial communities."
Look at this:
According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called "Churches" in the proper sense.
Pope Benedict was already in hot water with the media because of his recent decision related to the (limited) reinstitution of the Latin mass, complete with a call for the conversion of the Jews. He was not likely to be named "Ecumenist of the Year" anyway. This latest controversy just adds to the media impression of big changes at the Vatican under the current papacy.
There have been changes for sure. Benedict is truly a doctrinal theologian, whereas his popular predecessor, Pope John Paul II, was more a philosopher by academic training. Those familiar with the current pope know of his frustration with the tendency of liberal Catholic theologians and laypersons to insist that the Second Vatican Council (known popularly as "Vatican II") represented a massive shift (to the left) in Catholic doctrine. Not so, insisted Cardinal Ratzinger as head of the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith. Now, as Pope, Benedict is in a position to shape his argument into a universal policy for his church. Vatican II, he insists, represented only a deepening and reapplication of unchanging Catholic doctrine.
Evangelicals should appreciate the candor reflected in this document. There is no effort here to confuse the issues. To the contrary, the document is an obvious attempt to set the record straight. The Roman Catholic Church does not deny that Christ is working redemptively through Protestant and evangelical churches, but it does deny that these churches which deny the authority of the papacy are true churches in the most important sense. The true church, in other words, is that church identified through the recognition of the papacy. Those churches that deny or fail to recognize the papacy are "ecclesial Communities," not churches "in the proper sense."
I appreciate the document's clarity on this issue. It all comes down to this -- the claim of the Roman Catholic Church to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Pope as the universal monarch of the church is the defining issue. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals should together recognize the importance of that claim. We should together realize and admit that this is an issue worthy of division. The Roman Catholic Church is willing to go so far as to assert that any church that denies the papacy is no true church. Evangelicals should be equally candid in asserting that any church defined by the claims of the papacy is no true church. This is not a theological game for children, it is the honest recognition of the importance of the question.
The Reformers and their heirs put their lives on the line in order to stake this claim. In this era of confusion and theological laxity we often forget that this was one of the defining issues of the Reformation itself. Both the Reformers and the Roman Catholic Church staked their claim to be the true church -- and both revealed their most essential convictions in making their argument. As Martin Luther and John Calvin both made clear, the first mark of the true Church is the ministry of the Word -- the preaching of the Gospel. The Reformers indicted the Roman Catholic Church for failing to exhibit this mark, and thus failing to be a true Church. The Catholic church returned the favor, defining the church in terms of the papacy and magisterial authority. Those claims have not changed.
I also appreciate the spiritual concern reflected in this document. The artificial and deadly dangerous game of ecumenical confusion has obscured issues of grave concern for our souls. I truly believe that Pope Benedict and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are concerned for our evangelical souls and our evangelical congregations. Pope Benedict is not playing a game. He is not asserting a claim to primacy on the playground. He, along with the Magisterium of his church, believes that Protestant churches are gravely defective and that our souls are in danger. His sacramental theology plays a large role in this concern, for he believes and teaches that a church without submission to the papacy has no guaranteed efficacy for its sacraments. (This point, by the way, explains why the Protestant churches that claim a sacramental theology are more concerned about this Vatican statement -- it denies the basic validity of their sacraments.)
I actually appreciate the Pope's concern. If he is right, we are endangering our souls and the souls of our church members. Of course, I am convinced that he is not right -- not right on the papacy, not right on the sacraments, not right on the priesthood, not right on the Gospel, not right on the church.
The Roman Catholic Church believes we are in spiritual danger for obstinately and disobediently excluding ourselves from submission to its universal claims and its papacy. Evangelicals should be concerned that Catholics are in spiritual danger for their submission to these very claims. We both understand what is at stake.
The Rev. Mark Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, responded to the press by saying that the Vatican's "exclusive claims" are "troubling." He also said, "what may have been meant to clarify has caused pain."
I will let Bishop Hanson explain his pain. I do not see this new Vatican statement as an innovation or an insult. I see it as a clarification and a helpful demarcation of the issues at stake.
I appreciate the Roman Catholic Church's candor on this issue, and I believe that Evangelical Christians, with equal respect and clarity, should respond in kind. This is a time to be respectfully candid -- not a time to be offended."
"Aren't you offended? That is the question many Evangelicals are being asked in the wake of a recent document released by the Vatican. The document declares that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church -- or, in words the Vatican would prefer to use, the only institutional form in which the Church of Christ subsists.
No, I am not offended. In the first place, I am not offended because this is not an issue in which emotion should play a key role. This is a theological question, and our response should be theological, not emotional. Secondly, I am not offended because I am not surprised. No one familiar with the statements of the Roman Catholic Magisterium should be surprised by this development. This is not news in any genuine sense. It is news only in the current context of Vatican statements and ecumenical relations. Thirdly, I am not offended because this new document actually brings attention to the crucial issues of ecclesiology, and thus it presents us with an opportunity.
The Vatican document is very brief -- just a few paragraphs in fact. Its official title is "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," and it was released by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on June 29 of this year. Though many media sources have identified the document as a papal statement from Pope Benedict XVI, it is actually a statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that was later approved for release by the Pope (who, as Cardinal Ratzinger, headed this Congregation prior to assuming the papacy).
The document claims a unique legitimacy for the Roman Catholic Church as the church established by Christ. The document stakes this identity on a claim to apostolic succession, centered in the papacy itself. As the document states, "This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him."
Lest anyone miss the point, the document then goes on to acknowledge that the churches of Eastern Orthodoxy also stake a claim to apostolic succession, and thus they are referred to as "Churches" by the Vatican. As for the churches born in whatever form out of the Reformation -- they are not true churches at all, only "ecclesial communities."
Look at this:
According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called "Churches" in the proper sense.
Pope Benedict was already in hot water with the media because of his recent decision related to the (limited) reinstitution of the Latin mass, complete with a call for the conversion of the Jews. He was not likely to be named "Ecumenist of the Year" anyway. This latest controversy just adds to the media impression of big changes at the Vatican under the current papacy.
There have been changes for sure. Benedict is truly a doctrinal theologian, whereas his popular predecessor, Pope John Paul II, was more a philosopher by academic training. Those familiar with the current pope know of his frustration with the tendency of liberal Catholic theologians and laypersons to insist that the Second Vatican Council (known popularly as "Vatican II") represented a massive shift (to the left) in Catholic doctrine. Not so, insisted Cardinal Ratzinger as head of the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith. Now, as Pope, Benedict is in a position to shape his argument into a universal policy for his church. Vatican II, he insists, represented only a deepening and reapplication of unchanging Catholic doctrine.
Evangelicals should appreciate the candor reflected in this document. There is no effort here to confuse the issues. To the contrary, the document is an obvious attempt to set the record straight. The Roman Catholic Church does not deny that Christ is working redemptively through Protestant and evangelical churches, but it does deny that these churches which deny the authority of the papacy are true churches in the most important sense. The true church, in other words, is that church identified through the recognition of the papacy. Those churches that deny or fail to recognize the papacy are "ecclesial Communities," not churches "in the proper sense."
I appreciate the document's clarity on this issue. It all comes down to this -- the claim of the Roman Catholic Church to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Pope as the universal monarch of the church is the defining issue. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals should together recognize the importance of that claim. We should together realize and admit that this is an issue worthy of division. The Roman Catholic Church is willing to go so far as to assert that any church that denies the papacy is no true church. Evangelicals should be equally candid in asserting that any church defined by the claims of the papacy is no true church. This is not a theological game for children, it is the honest recognition of the importance of the question.
The Reformers and their heirs put their lives on the line in order to stake this claim. In this era of confusion and theological laxity we often forget that this was one of the defining issues of the Reformation itself. Both the Reformers and the Roman Catholic Church staked their claim to be the true church -- and both revealed their most essential convictions in making their argument. As Martin Luther and John Calvin both made clear, the first mark of the true Church is the ministry of the Word -- the preaching of the Gospel. The Reformers indicted the Roman Catholic Church for failing to exhibit this mark, and thus failing to be a true Church. The Catholic church returned the favor, defining the church in terms of the papacy and magisterial authority. Those claims have not changed.
I also appreciate the spiritual concern reflected in this document. The artificial and deadly dangerous game of ecumenical confusion has obscured issues of grave concern for our souls. I truly believe that Pope Benedict and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are concerned for our evangelical souls and our evangelical congregations. Pope Benedict is not playing a game. He is not asserting a claim to primacy on the playground. He, along with the Magisterium of his church, believes that Protestant churches are gravely defective and that our souls are in danger. His sacramental theology plays a large role in this concern, for he believes and teaches that a church without submission to the papacy has no guaranteed efficacy for its sacraments. (This point, by the way, explains why the Protestant churches that claim a sacramental theology are more concerned about this Vatican statement -- it denies the basic validity of their sacraments.)
I actually appreciate the Pope's concern. If he is right, we are endangering our souls and the souls of our church members. Of course, I am convinced that he is not right -- not right on the papacy, not right on the sacraments, not right on the priesthood, not right on the Gospel, not right on the church.
The Roman Catholic Church believes we are in spiritual danger for obstinately and disobediently excluding ourselves from submission to its universal claims and its papacy. Evangelicals should be concerned that Catholics are in spiritual danger for their submission to these very claims. We both understand what is at stake.
The Rev. Mark Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, responded to the press by saying that the Vatican's "exclusive claims" are "troubling." He also said, "what may have been meant to clarify has caused pain."
I will let Bishop Hanson explain his pain. I do not see this new Vatican statement as an innovation or an insult. I see it as a clarification and a helpful demarcation of the issues at stake.
I appreciate the Roman Catholic Church's candor on this issue, and I believe that Evangelical Christians, with equal respect and clarity, should respond in kind. This is a time to be respectfully candid -- not a time to be offended."
Saturday, July 14, 2007
New Strategy
I finally figured out how to get more people to actually visit my blog. Post pictures of our daughter.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Bridge to Nowhere
The gospel is always being attacked. That is the way it has always been. Therefore, we should not be surprised when the Word of God is assaulted since we’re all familiar with the New Testament. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation so obviously Satan hates the good news message more than anything in this world. Sometimes i am surprised though at where the gospel is attacked (stay tuned and I’ll explain).
I recently rented a DVD to watch with my wife and sister. I am not a cultural fundamentalist so I apologize if that admission offends any of you right off the bat. The movie i rented was “Bridge to Terabithia.” I figured it was a kid’s movie so it was a safe enough pick. The audience for this movie did not even include any children so i settled into my couch hoping to watch a fun fantasy movie with my beloved family.
The movie itself was rather boring with very little Narnia and LOTR action/special effects…In addition to this, the movie was heretical!!! That REALLY bothered me because the target audience for this film was probably 9 year old kids. In other words, the movie should have been rated R, not PG…stay with me and I’ll explain why.
At one point in the film the two main characters, Leslie and Jess, (who are middle-schoolers) attend church with Jess’ family. I was amazed that in church they sang “the Old Rugged Cross” and was even more shocked when they did not bash the preacher. It is popular to portray Christians in movies as being the most self-righteous hypocrites on the face of the planet. Anyway, at this point in the movie, i said aloud “I can’t believe they didn’t portray Christians poorly here!” I should have kept my mouth shut because in the very next scene (on the truck ride home) the gospel and the author of the gospel was blasphemed. In summary fashion, the girl says to her guy friend, You’re forced to believe that Jesus stuff and you “hate it.” I am not pressured to believe and i think it’s “beautiful.” Later the girl has a discussion with Jess and Jess’ younger sister (probably a 6 years old) about hell. The 7 year old wisely informs Leslie that “if you don’t believe in the Bible, God will damn you to hell.” Leslie later responds, I really don’t think God will damn you to hell…He’s too busy creating all this.” In other words, God is too loving to punish anyone for there sin. Especially, those who simply don’t believe in the Word of God. God is too busy to concern himself with stuff like that.
This point is only repeated when the main character (Leslie) dies. Jess, like any young teen, is trying to make sense of his best friend’s unexpected death. So Jess asks his father if Leslie is in hell, since after all she was not a Believer. Jess’ dad tells his son, that while he “doesn’t know everything the Bible says, HE’S SURE God would never send a good person to hell.”
This is not a anti-Hollywood/hate post! This is a concerned Pastor saying friends we must challenge Christian parents in our churches to be very cautious and to use discernment. Satan is using very clever means in his attempt to lead people (including our children) astray. I talked with one 7 year old who said that her (Christian) family viewed this film and that they thought it was a good movie. I’m not the wisest parent in the world but i know this much: When my daughter grows up this movie will not be allowed in our home. Children’s movies that openly promote heresy and that seek to confuse our kids about the gospel itself are not family friendly films. Some of you may be able to use this film as a teaching moment with your Christian teens.
Pastors, our preaching needs to be clear. Our preaching needs to be discriminating. Our preaching needs to be God-centered. The gospel must be preached and preserved for this generation, and if God so wills it, the one to come.
I recently rented a DVD to watch with my wife and sister. I am not a cultural fundamentalist so I apologize if that admission offends any of you right off the bat. The movie i rented was “Bridge to Terabithia.” I figured it was a kid’s movie so it was a safe enough pick. The audience for this movie did not even include any children so i settled into my couch hoping to watch a fun fantasy movie with my beloved family.
The movie itself was rather boring with very little Narnia and LOTR action/special effects…In addition to this, the movie was heretical!!! That REALLY bothered me because the target audience for this film was probably 9 year old kids. In other words, the movie should have been rated R, not PG…stay with me and I’ll explain why.
At one point in the film the two main characters, Leslie and Jess, (who are middle-schoolers) attend church with Jess’ family. I was amazed that in church they sang “the Old Rugged Cross” and was even more shocked when they did not bash the preacher. It is popular to portray Christians in movies as being the most self-righteous hypocrites on the face of the planet. Anyway, at this point in the movie, i said aloud “I can’t believe they didn’t portray Christians poorly here!” I should have kept my mouth shut because in the very next scene (on the truck ride home) the gospel and the author of the gospel was blasphemed. In summary fashion, the girl says to her guy friend, You’re forced to believe that Jesus stuff and you “hate it.” I am not pressured to believe and i think it’s “beautiful.” Later the girl has a discussion with Jess and Jess’ younger sister (probably a 6 years old) about hell. The 7 year old wisely informs Leslie that “if you don’t believe in the Bible, God will damn you to hell.” Leslie later responds, I really don’t think God will damn you to hell…He’s too busy creating all this.” In other words, God is too loving to punish anyone for there sin. Especially, those who simply don’t believe in the Word of God. God is too busy to concern himself with stuff like that.
This point is only repeated when the main character (Leslie) dies. Jess, like any young teen, is trying to make sense of his best friend’s unexpected death. So Jess asks his father if Leslie is in hell, since after all she was not a Believer. Jess’ dad tells his son, that while he “doesn’t know everything the Bible says, HE’S SURE God would never send a good person to hell.”
This is not a anti-Hollywood/hate post! This is a concerned Pastor saying friends we must challenge Christian parents in our churches to be very cautious and to use discernment. Satan is using very clever means in his attempt to lead people (including our children) astray. I talked with one 7 year old who said that her (Christian) family viewed this film and that they thought it was a good movie. I’m not the wisest parent in the world but i know this much: When my daughter grows up this movie will not be allowed in our home. Children’s movies that openly promote heresy and that seek to confuse our kids about the gospel itself are not family friendly films. Some of you may be able to use this film as a teaching moment with your Christian teens.
Pastors, our preaching needs to be clear. Our preaching needs to be discriminating. Our preaching needs to be God-centered. The gospel must be preached and preserved for this generation, and if God so wills it, the one to come.
Monday, July 09, 2007
The Blood of Jesus Christ
A meditation thought from 1 Peter 1:18-21:
If worth determines value (or vice versa) than nothing is more precious than the blood of Jesus Christ. Christians, that blood was spilled for your redemption!
Worship the Lamb who is worthy of praise this afternoon...
Caleb
If worth determines value (or vice versa) than nothing is more precious than the blood of Jesus Christ. Christians, that blood was spilled for your redemption!
Worship the Lamb who is worthy of praise this afternoon...
Caleb
Asherah Poles?
I just recently encountered the following post which has stimulated some more thinking in my own mind. If you follow the link you will find Christians discussing and debating this issue with one another. I am not interested in starting a discussion forum over this topic here! Honestly, i have alot of other issues that i need to devote more time to, ones that i think are more important at this point in my life. Our Sr. Pastor is a retired military chaplain whose father was a 1 star general (WW 2 vet). He has tried to combine the two elements listed below into the July 4th Sunday service. By that i mean he believes it is appropriate to sing Patriotic songs but not at the exclusion of having a normal Sunday morning (God-centered sermon) mixed in with some God-centered songs.
In my opinion, the error of the post below is that it really only presents two types of worship services. 1. That is almost exclusively patriotic. 2. One that ignores the holiday and focuses in on our citizenship in heaven, etc. I believe they overlook the possibility of a third. 3. An integrated service that seeks to remain God-centered while still acknowledging the day. Now i understand pastors and Christians will disagree on all three of these options. Some will agree on option 3; but have totally different worship services (as to what they feel is acceptable during that service or not).
If you want to join the conversation click on the link i included below and please comment there. Have a great week and in everything Think Biblically!
Will You Be Setting Up Asherah Poles on The 4th?
Take from http://www.oldtruth.com/blog.cfm/id.2.pid.710
"'If you are in a church where the flag falls out of the ceiling on the Fourth of July, and an honor guard comes down the isle with flags for each branch of the service. And if you are singing God bless America on ANY Sunday on real estate owned by God. If this is the stuff you tolerate on the Lord's Day, it's not far off from Asherah poles" (idols in the Old Testament).'
That was Michael Horton of the White Horse Inn who said that, on a recent program entitled Christless Christianity which dealt with the many ways modern churches get away from centering on Christ as their primary message. The crew went on to discuss how those America-oriented things are appropriate at a parade but not in church. Far from being anti-patriotic, it's simply a call to keep a proper focus within the church.
I ran a Fourth of July post last year telling of one of the horror stories of the Seeker Driven church that I used to attend. It was the annual patriotic service at this time of the year. The service included a flag-draped Harley wheeling up the center aisle of the building, while soldiers sang patriotic songs up on the stage. I'll never forget that motorcycle with the big flag wheeling around the place, and little (if any) mention of God throughout the service other than the "thank God for our great nation" kind of thing. One of the comments on last year's post said:
"A baptist church down the street has 3 crosses on the front wall of their church. Guess what was covering those crosses last week? You guessed it a giant American flag draped from the roof! I think in a way it shows in general that some people (not specifically this church) elevate our country to be equal or greater than God."
Another comment quoted an excerpt from an article entitled "One Cheer for Civil Religion" found in the Sept./Oct. 2005 issue of Modern Reformation magazine, which said:
"According to historian (and Christian) Wilfred McClay, civil religion is "that strain of American piety that bestows many of the elements of religious sentiment and faith upon the political and social institutions of the United States." More problematically, civil religion is the misidentification of the nation of the United States with the covenant people of God. It is the casual assumption that America enjoys a special role in redemptive history. It is the confusion of the office of the political leader with the office of the spiritual leader. It is the frequent presumption of divine blessings without submission to divine judgment. It is the sublimation of Christian distinctives to a generic amalgam that conflates many faiths into a common national identity. It is as old as America itself. And it is not biblical Christianity."
So what do you think of the comparison between Asherah Poles and what's going to be happening in churches this Sunday? The church that I attend will simply continue on our normal preaching schedule, and nobody will be able to tell that it's a holiday of some sort, by either our selection of songs or by the sermon preached. What goes on at your church this time of the year?
Before you comment however, remember that we are not knocking "patriotism", but are calling into question the role it should play in our worship services.
In my opinion, the error of the post below is that it really only presents two types of worship services. 1. That is almost exclusively patriotic. 2. One that ignores the holiday and focuses in on our citizenship in heaven, etc. I believe they overlook the possibility of a third. 3. An integrated service that seeks to remain God-centered while still acknowledging the day. Now i understand pastors and Christians will disagree on all three of these options. Some will agree on option 3; but have totally different worship services (as to what they feel is acceptable during that service or not).
If you want to join the conversation click on the link i included below and please comment there. Have a great week and in everything Think Biblically!
Will You Be Setting Up Asherah Poles on The 4th?
Take from http://www.oldtruth.com/blog.cfm/id.2.pid.710
"'If you are in a church where the flag falls out of the ceiling on the Fourth of July, and an honor guard comes down the isle with flags for each branch of the service. And if you are singing God bless America on ANY Sunday on real estate owned by God. If this is the stuff you tolerate on the Lord's Day, it's not far off from Asherah poles" (idols in the Old Testament).'
That was Michael Horton of the White Horse Inn who said that, on a recent program entitled Christless Christianity which dealt with the many ways modern churches get away from centering on Christ as their primary message. The crew went on to discuss how those America-oriented things are appropriate at a parade but not in church. Far from being anti-patriotic, it's simply a call to keep a proper focus within the church.
I ran a Fourth of July post last year telling of one of the horror stories of the Seeker Driven church that I used to attend. It was the annual patriotic service at this time of the year. The service included a flag-draped Harley wheeling up the center aisle of the building, while soldiers sang patriotic songs up on the stage. I'll never forget that motorcycle with the big flag wheeling around the place, and little (if any) mention of God throughout the service other than the "thank God for our great nation" kind of thing. One of the comments on last year's post said:
"A baptist church down the street has 3 crosses on the front wall of their church. Guess what was covering those crosses last week? You guessed it a giant American flag draped from the roof! I think in a way it shows in general that some people (not specifically this church) elevate our country to be equal or greater than God."
Another comment quoted an excerpt from an article entitled "One Cheer for Civil Religion" found in the Sept./Oct. 2005 issue of Modern Reformation magazine, which said:
"According to historian (and Christian) Wilfred McClay, civil religion is "that strain of American piety that bestows many of the elements of religious sentiment and faith upon the political and social institutions of the United States." More problematically, civil religion is the misidentification of the nation of the United States with the covenant people of God. It is the casual assumption that America enjoys a special role in redemptive history. It is the confusion of the office of the political leader with the office of the spiritual leader. It is the frequent presumption of divine blessings without submission to divine judgment. It is the sublimation of Christian distinctives to a generic amalgam that conflates many faiths into a common national identity. It is as old as America itself. And it is not biblical Christianity."
So what do you think of the comparison between Asherah Poles and what's going to be happening in churches this Sunday? The church that I attend will simply continue on our normal preaching schedule, and nobody will be able to tell that it's a holiday of some sort, by either our selection of songs or by the sermon preached. What goes on at your church this time of the year?
Before you comment however, remember that we are not knocking "patriotism", but are calling into question the role it should play in our worship services.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
How a Monk and a Mallet Changed the World
I just finished a great book on the Reformation by Stephen J. Nichols. It was the first time i read a book by this church historian and i can tell you now it won't be my last (Lord willing of course). The book was very historical yet written in a wonderful, easy to read, style. I use to recommend "5 Leading Reformers" (Catherwood) as a good text book that talked about the leading figures surrounding the Reformation. Both books are very readable and not 500 pages long. That is important for those of us seeking to read wide but with limited time.
Check out Nichols' book "The Reformation: How a Monk and a Mallet Changed the World." I read this book in one weekend and i think you'll enjoy it that much as well.
Blessings this Lord's Day,
Caleb
Check out Nichols' book "The Reformation: How a Monk and a Mallet Changed the World." I read this book in one weekend and i think you'll enjoy it that much as well.
Blessings this Lord's Day,
Caleb
Mohler VS. the Mormons
Don't miss out on this debate between Dr. Mohler and a Mormon teacher.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/2007/07/the-church-of-the-devil.html
http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/2007/07/the-church-of-the-devil.html
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Spurgeon V. Hyper-Calvinism
If you're a Reformed Christian i would highly recommend you read this work by Iain. H Murray. It is very easy to fall into unbiblical extremes and Charles Spurgeon was well aware of this during his preaching ministry.
I love this quote by Murray, "The final conclusion has to be that when Calvinism ceases to be evangelistic, when it becomes more concerned with theory than with the salvation of men and women, when acceptance of doctrine seems to become more important than acceptance of Christ, then it is a system going to seed and it will invariably lose its attractive power."
Sell a shirt and read this short book. Spurgeon V. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching.
I love this quote by Murray, "The final conclusion has to be that when Calvinism ceases to be evangelistic, when it becomes more concerned with theory than with the salvation of men and women, when acceptance of doctrine seems to become more important than acceptance of Christ, then it is a system going to seed and it will invariably lose its attractive power."
Sell a shirt and read this short book. Spurgeon V. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Perseverance of the Saints by Greg Stancil
Perseverance of the Saints - Affirmations and Denials
A colleague and myself were tasked to come up with a set up affirmations and denials regarding the doctrine of perseverance today. This is a draft of what we came up with and I would be interested to get your input.
Perseverance of the Saints
A. We affirm that true believers will persevere in the faith to the end of their earthly lives. (Matt 10:22, Heb 3:14, Matt 24:12-13, Gal 6:9, Col 1:21-23)
We deny that those who are true Christians can fall away permanently and end up in hell.
B. We affirm that professing believers who do not persevere to the end of their earthly lives were not true believers. (1 John 2:19, Matt 7:22-24, Luke 18:9-14)We deny that those who fall away and stay away were ever genuine believers. (1 John 2:19)
C. We affirm that God is the One Who preserves Christians. (John 6:35-40, John 10:27-40, Phil 1:6, Jude 24-25, 1 Peter 1:3-5)We deny that Christians preserve themselves in their own power. (Eph 2:8-9, Phil 2:13)
D. We affirm that there are biblical passages that appear to contradict this teaching by warning against apostasy. (Heb 2:4, Heb 6:4-9, Heb 10:26-29, Heb 12:4, Matt 10: 32-33, 1 Cor. 15:1-2, 2 Peter 2:1)We deny that these passages actually contradict this teaching. Rather, there are exegetical explanations for these passages that do not contradict the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints.
E. We affirm that these warning passages are legitimate warnings against apostasy that should be taken seriously by all believers. These warnings are prospective and are designed to elicit faith that perseveres to the end. (Phil 2:12, 2 Cor 13:5, 2 Peter 1:10)We deny that these warning passages are not applicable to believers and can, therefore, be ignored. (Acts 20:27)
F. We affirm that the elect are saved through perseverance, not apart from it. (John 15, 2 Peter 1:10)We deny that the cliché, “once saved, always saved,” is sufficient to adequately describe this doctrine.
Used with permission http://upwardaffections.blogspot.com/
A colleague and myself were tasked to come up with a set up affirmations and denials regarding the doctrine of perseverance today. This is a draft of what we came up with and I would be interested to get your input.
Perseverance of the Saints
A. We affirm that true believers will persevere in the faith to the end of their earthly lives. (Matt 10:22, Heb 3:14, Matt 24:12-13, Gal 6:9, Col 1:21-23)
We deny that those who are true Christians can fall away permanently and end up in hell.
B. We affirm that professing believers who do not persevere to the end of their earthly lives were not true believers. (1 John 2:19, Matt 7:22-24, Luke 18:9-14)We deny that those who fall away and stay away were ever genuine believers. (1 John 2:19)
C. We affirm that God is the One Who preserves Christians. (John 6:35-40, John 10:27-40, Phil 1:6, Jude 24-25, 1 Peter 1:3-5)We deny that Christians preserve themselves in their own power. (Eph 2:8-9, Phil 2:13)
D. We affirm that there are biblical passages that appear to contradict this teaching by warning against apostasy. (Heb 2:4, Heb 6:4-9, Heb 10:26-29, Heb 12:4, Matt 10: 32-33, 1 Cor. 15:1-2, 2 Peter 2:1)We deny that these passages actually contradict this teaching. Rather, there are exegetical explanations for these passages that do not contradict the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints.
E. We affirm that these warning passages are legitimate warnings against apostasy that should be taken seriously by all believers. These warnings are prospective and are designed to elicit faith that perseveres to the end. (Phil 2:12, 2 Cor 13:5, 2 Peter 1:10)We deny that these warning passages are not applicable to believers and can, therefore, be ignored. (Acts 20:27)
F. We affirm that the elect are saved through perseverance, not apart from it. (John 15, 2 Peter 1:10)We deny that the cliché, “once saved, always saved,” is sufficient to adequately describe this doctrine.
Used with permission http://upwardaffections.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)