Category Archives: Doctrine

The Gospel: What is it?

Posted on by
Reply

The Gospel! Only two words. These are words known by most men, whether from within or without the Church. These are words used by most Christians on a regular basis. Those attending worship will hear them often. Yet, “What is the Gospel?”

This topic needs to be urgently addressed for whilst the term “The Gospel” is an ever present term, it is also a regularly undefined term. Some say that The Gospel is “good news”. What is it, then, that makes The Gospel good news? When asked about the nature of The Gospel we will be told that it is salvation. Asked where we will find The Gospel, most will reply, “In the New Testament?” Asked as to the ownership of The Gospel, we will be told that it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Macquarie Dictionary, as an example, defines gospel as: “(often capital) the body of doctrine taught by Christ and the apostles; Christian revelation.”

How right are these answers? What do you think? Does any more need to be said or are these definitions adequate?

Our concern at this point has to do with the limited nature of these definitions and the fact that these popular definitions fall in line with the modern truncated view of Scripture and therefore of God’s work. For example, I recently had a conversation with a young man. In the context of being offered advice, he told me that the opinions of all were held up to the light of “The Gospel.” Admittedly, I should be ecstatic, should I not? Is this not an excellent answer? Well, the answer to that question depends on the answer to this question, “What did he mean by Gospel?”

I fear, for good reason, that his answer was akin to those above. What was meant by The Gospel was a particularly narrow, non historical, New Testamenty, Johnny-come-lately concept that highlights grace and peace and which makes no demands on sinner or saint. It is a concept the divides Scripture, brings a sharp focus to Jesus, His words and life, which thereby discounts or diminishes other writers, and generally excuses sin because grace has arrived.

Okay. Grab a nice coffee. Sit yourself back down. Wait for the tremors to cease. Dry your eyes. When you are composed, we will continue.

The summary definition of The Gospel given may not be completely accurate in all cases. Nonetheless, elements of it, to a greater or lesser extent, will be found in the ordinary definition of most Christians – especially those under the age of thirty. Importantly, it must be apprehended that the summary definition or those answers given earlier are not The Gospel. If you believe these statements to be The Gospel, then you are in error. Remember, not everything called “Gospel” is The Gospel: “even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed.”[1]

In contradistinction to these modern concepts, The Gospel, Biblically defined, must be seen as the totality of God’s revelation and promise as it comes to fulfilment in the Messiah, Jesus Christ. In this sense, The Gospel is Old and New Testament – the whole of Scripture; it is salvation and wrath; it is grace and law; it is vindication and condemnation; it is of Jesus Christ in fulfilment, of God in inception, of  prophet in promise, of the Apostles in proclamation, of the Holy Spirit in power; it is given in time and it is eternal; it speaks of a King and of a Servant; it is Majesty and it is humility; it is Command and it is Promise; it is a free gift yet it requires payment; it is of the earth and it is heavenly; it is ultimate freedom and it is obligation; it is good news to those who believe and truth tragically realised to those who disbelieve; it is extreme joy and it is the gnashing of teeth; it is life and it is death.

Alright! Do we need another coffee break?

These truths may be hard to bear, but bear them we must. When this definition is given, it will be at once obvious that it stands in contradistinction to those outlined above. Of all the definitions above, the Macquarie dictionary comes the closest to the truth because it at least acknowledges a “body of doctrine” and speaks of “Christian revelation”.

If you have believed the truncated view of The Gospel, for whatever reason, it is time to put that in the past. Now is the time to move forward into greater light and understanding that we may become better and more faithful servants of Jesus Christ.

As always, you are not to believe the opinion of man, so let us look to the Scriptures to show that the definition given is that which the Bible teaches.

  1. Whose Gospel:

Given the modern, truncated view of The Gospel, we often hear that The Gospel is ‘the gospel of Jesus Christ’. This is true enough; however, we must ask why it is defined as the Gospel of Christ. The answer is that Jesus Christ forms the centrepiece and fulfilment of God’s promise. Thus, when The Gospel is defined as belonging to Jesus Christ, the defining aspect of The Gospel, in this instance, is to be found in Jesus Christ as the focus and fulfilment of God’s promise.

However, we must grasp that this is but one aspect of The Gospel’s nature. It is vitally important for our understanding that we perceive the nature of The Gospel as variously ascribed to different persons and states. Thus, it is imperative that when we see The Gospel ascribed to Jesus that we do not forget that this is but one aspect, one vantage point, if you will, and begin to think that Jesus came to give us something new, different, or contrary to God’s revelation and promise. No, The Gospel is multifaceted and it depends on what is in view as to the correct appellation used.

The truth of this point is born out for us by the fact that The Gospel is attributed to various persons, institutions, and states. It is the Gospel of the Kingdom.[2] It is the Gospel of salvation.[3] It is the Gospel of peace.[4] It is the Gospel of God.[5] It is the Gospel of His Son.[6] It is the Gospel of the Grace of God.[7] So much so is this the case that Paul can legitimately refer to The Gospel as “my Gospel”.[8] Paul proclaimed what he had been given—so indentifying with the promises, the fulfilment, and his commissioning, that he could, without compromise, speak of The Gospel as his Gospel.

The Gospel belongs to any who own it, Christ Jesus, God, Paul, and yes, you!

  1. The Beginning of the Gospel:

This is one of the most important aspects of this discussion. We have inferred that many of the moderns see The Gospel as something new that arrived with Jesus. Thus, we previously referred to the “New Testementy” aspects adored by the moderns. In this view, Jesus comes with The Gospel, not as its goal and fulfilment, but, in essence, to introduce new doctrines and the like. Yet, this is false. The truth is that The Gospel predates Jesus by millennia. The truth is that The Gospel, as with Jesus Himself, was promised to us by God.

Paul says that his Gospel is the Gospel of God, which “He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures.”[9] If, then, The Gospel was promised in the Scriptures by the prophets, it makes perfect sense that The Gospel, even if in embryonic form, predated Jesus and His incarnation. Thus, it is not new.

Equally, if The Gospel is promised by the prophets, its shape and content must have already been known to some extent. In fact, is this not exactly why and how we know that Jesus is the Messiah? Is it not true that Jesus could identify Himself as the Messiah because He could show exactly how the promises were realised in His person and work? Thus, the content, aim, and purpose of The Gospel are not new.

Then we have to consider the words of Paul when he states that, “… the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations shall be blessed in you.”[10] Hmmm! Very difficult to see The Gospel as “new” and bringing “new content” when The Gospel was both preached to Abraham and defined by promise for Abraham.[11]

Thus, we must correctly conceive of the complete Scriptures giving to us a complete Gospel in type and antitype or in promise and fulfilment. Nothing more. Nothing less.

  1. Is the Gospel “good news” only:

This is one of those questions that nobody likes to answer because the answer requires stating truths that Man does not like to hear. Even Christians who say that they believe the Bible are reluctant to take Scripture on face value when it comes to answering this question. However, Scripture is our only foundation and there we must stand.

The Gospel, etymologically speaking, can be and is translated as “good news”. Hence, to speak of The Gospel as good news is not wrong, but it is one-sided. It is one-sided because there are two types of people on this earth and there are two destinies. For those who are saved The Gospel is most definitely good news. Indeed, it is most excellent news. It is the news that God saves hopeless sinners. It is the good news that God pays the debt we owed. It is the good news that Jesus the Just died for the unjust. It is, for God’s people, wonderful news. For the rest, however, the news can only be considered ‘good’ from the perspective that God’s justice will be holy, perfect, and delivered as per His promise.

For many, the fact that God judges sin and sinners is not viewed as part of The Gospel. Indeed, for many moderns, God’s wrath and judgement are considered to be contrary to The Gospel. Hence, these aspects are dropped from preaching and worship services the world over. After all, do we not hear, constantly, the false refrain that ‘God loves the sinner but hates the sin’? Yet, the truth of the matter is that God never divorces sin from sinner. The sinning one will perish; the sinning one will be judged; the sinning one must pay the penalty for their sin. Hell will be full of unrepentant sinners paying for their sins.

Unpalatable as this may be to some, the simple and basic reality is that this judgement of sinners is as much a part of The Gospel as is the wonder of salvation. Indeed, it is a Biblical fact that salvation is always accompanied by judgement.[12]

Consider these Scriptures:

“From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.”[13]

“And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.”[14]

“…on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.”[15]

Each text informs us that The Gospel holds a message of condemnation as much as it does a message of salvation. Men are blinded to the truth. Some were cut off so that others may be engrafted. The Gospel contains the fact that God will judge men through Jesus Christ.

The truly sad reality is that Scripture is deliberately skewed at this point because men do not like this aspect of The Gospel. Tragically, we have become those who preach a different Gospel because we refuse to preach and teach The Whole Gospel. This fact is demonstrated most clearly by our refusal to abide by and proclaim the totality of God’s revelation as it is found in Scripture. The best example would be that of John 3:16-17, which says, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him.” All good so far! However, the searching question is, “Why do we not readily quote verses eighteen through twenty?” These verse state: “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil.  For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.”

  1. Conclusion.

The Gospel! Only two words. Nonetheless, the most important words the world has ever received. These words convey the truth and gamut of salvation history. These words contain the fullest expression of God’s revelation. These words span the millennia of Scripture. These words contain a movement from embryo to adulthood; simplicity to complexity; promise to fulfilment. These words are code for the complete revelation of God in Jesus Christ His Son. This is The Gospel. This is The only Gospel.

Brethren, why do we have a penchant for having a different gospel? Why does the Church Growth Movement insist on dropping doctrines from The Gospel? Why do many of us feel more comfortable with this alternative gospel? Why do we rob The Gospel of power and God of His glory by adopting this different gospel? Why do we insist on the cut-down, race version, which turns The Gospel into a gospel; a version devoid of power and the Holy Spirit? Why do we insist on the diet-lite version, rather than be satisfied with the full and complete meal of the Word that is satiating?

Brethren, if we would see God work in might and in power in these dark days then we must return to the true proclamation of the whole counsel of God, which alone is The Gospel. If we would see sinners saved, wickedness dispelled, Jesus Christ exalted, the Church united, the nations obey Jesus, righteousness as a standard, and so forth, then we must believe and proclaim The Gospel!

Footnotes:

[1] Galatians 1:8. Emphasis added.

[2] Matthew 4:23.

[3] Ephesians 1:13.

[4] Ephesians 6:15.

[5] Romans 1:1.

[6] Romans 1:9.

[7] Acts 20:24.

[8] 2 Timothy 2:8.

[9] Romans 1:2.

[10] Galatians 3:8.

[11] We might also point out that Genesis 3:15 is also referred to as the protoevangelium or the ‘first gospel’. Whilst the term “gospel” does not occur in the text, theologians throughout history have traced back through the promises of God and arrived at this point – God’s initial promise to save through judgement.

[12] We see this fact in many places in Scripture. In footnote eleven, we spoke of the protoevangelium found in Genesis 3:15. There we find this juxtaposition. God declares war on Satan and his seed and declares that the seed of the woman will be attacked and bruised, but that this Seed will be the one Who deals the death blow. In essence, salvation (Jesus being bruised on the cross) is accompanied by Jesus ultimate destruction of Satan and his minions. See also 1Peter 4:17-18; Romans 9:27-30. Paul’s words in Romans may seem difficult, but the essential point is that God judged Israel for sin leaving a remnant that was both life and hope. In the midst of just Judgement, Yahweh left a remnant by which Messiah would arrive and purchase for God with His blood “men from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation.”

[13] Romans 11:28. Paul’s argument is that Israel was partially hardened and judged in order that wild shoots may be grafted in to where the natural branches had been broken off. Judgement for Israel meant salvation for the gentiles.

[14] 2 Corinthians 4:3.

[15] Romans 2:16. This text is very understandable. Paul’s Gospel, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, contains the undeniable truth that God will judge men through Jesus Christ. Thus, judgement and wrath are a part of The Gospel. See also Acts 10:42.

Controversial “Theo-” Words (Pt. 2)

Posted on by
Reply

In part one of this article, we looked at three reasons as to why the terms Theocracy and Theonomy had created a stir. We did not, by any means, plumb the depths of the controversy, but hope that we presented enough information to help people think clearly.

In this second part, it is our desire to show a little more clearly that the modern rancour exhibited toward the concepts of Theocracy and Theonomy, and those who hold such beliefs, is both new and a departure from historic Christianity, especially historic Reformed Christianity.[1]

Christianity is not only a religion, it is a worldview. Our theology, based in God’s revelation, forms the basis of what we think and why we think it. A cogent paradigm may be that of a pilot flying high in the clouds. He has no sight to guide him. His senses are unreliable and, once he is subject to “spatial disorientation”, his senses can actually betray him. In such a situation his only hope is to rely upon his instruments. In the same way, Man, this side of the fall, cannot trust his sight or his instincts and, if he relies upon these, he will find himself betrayed.[2] His only hope is to be guided by the instrumentation of God – God’s word, the Bible.

The point is that God is a moral Being. Post-fall, Man is an immoral being. Conflict! Will Man rely on his wonky sight and unreliable senses or will he turn to the instrument panel supplied?

When Man fell, through rebellion and attempts to claim God’s throne, he was estranged from God and cast from His presence. However, Man never ceased from his desire to be God and to rule by his own law. Thus, throughout history we have witnessed a constant warfare between God’s order and that of fallen Man; a warfare by which Man seeks to supplant God. Consider recent history: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Obama, and Turnbull, just to name a few, are all examples of men who sought or are seeking to reengineer society after their own design. They do not look to God —though some may pretend—and the standard for society is that of their own making with the end goal being their own popularity and a name in the history books.

By contrast, Scripture categorically declares that God alone is the sovereign ruler and the rightful King. God the Father has, through Christ Jesus the Son, re-captured and extended His rule over all of His creation. Jesus has been appointed as God’s King in order to rule and subdue God’s enemies.[3]

So the question at the heart of these controversial “Theo-” words is: Who has the right to rule and by what standard or law does that rule take place? The second question, which is also very important, is; “If we say that God must rule by His law, are we going to live this declaration to the full?”

These are not random questions. They cut to the very heart of the matter. When Elijah stood before apostate Israel and said, “How long will you halt between two opinions, if Yahweh is God serve Him; if Baal, serve him?”[4] Elijah was not just shooting the breeze or listening to his own voice. No, he was making a declaration that you cannot serve two masters; you cannot live by two contrary philosophies; you cannot hold to two different religions; you may not have two Gods. Elijah threw out a concrete challenge to the people asking them pointed questions in regard to their faithfulness to Yahweh, the One God, Who alone had a rightful claim to their obedience. In essence, to use our terminology, Elijah demanded singularity and not plurality. Although Elijah gave the apostate people the option of serving Baal alone, the significant point was that it is impossible to serve two Gods as absolute, especially when their laws and standards were radically different.[5]

Indeed, the subsequent showdown between the prophet of Yahweh and the prophets of Baal was about the question, “Who has the sole right to rule?” In this encounter, we would do well to think of some ancient battles in which, to save lives, opposing armies would put up a single soldier to fight on their behalf with a winner takes all stake. A clear Biblical example is found in David opposing Goliath. Elijah stood alone for Yahweh and he triumphed.

Important to this narrative is the people’s response. When Yahweh’s prophet emerged victorious, the people gave up their silence, their initial response to Elijah’s question (v 21), and cried out, “The Lord, He is God; the Lord, He is God!”[6] With these words the people ceased to be silent and stationary. Finding both their voices and their feet, they acted in accord with the prophet’s call to seize the enemy. The opposing army was vanquished.

This showdown on Mount Carmel is just one of many in the Bible that drive home the fact that this world must be ruled Theocratically and Theonomically. This showdown reflects God’s jealousy for His own right to rule and His vehement opposition to usurpers. This showdown is a true reflection of the words found in Isaiah 42:8 – “I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.”

Of course, sadly, some will once again raise the issue of these encounters being those of the Old Testament. Once more there will be a tacit denial of the unity of Scripture and of its authority. This being the case, let us simply give three New Testament texts that show the unity of this theme throughout Scripture:

  1. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”[7]
  2. … from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.[8]
  3. And the seventh angel sounded; and there arose loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.[9]

We will say nothing more in commentary than each of these texts is Theocratic and Theonomic. Each text shows one or both of these aspects. Together all show that God in Christ is the ruling King and that the nations must obey His commands and laws.

Therefore, when it comes to answering our question posed above, many Christians will answer the first part by saying that we should obey God and His law. Equally, many Christians, those who stopped reading at the first mention of Theocracy, find the Theo-words more than troublesome. However, the real controversy is arrived at when we ask the second question in regard to the extent and application of God’s rule by God’s law.

          Theocracy: The First Part of the Question.

Let continue our argument with a concrete example. Paul Miller has written a book, Into the Arena, subtitled, Why Christians should be involved in Politics. On the back cover there is one little sentence that gives the game away. That sentence reads: Just how should God’s law relate to a secular society? Puzzled? Seems like a good sentence. Christians are being urged to go into politics in order to make a positive contribution. So what is the problem? Well, it is plurality. Notice that the fundamental presupposition is that a Secular State has both a right to exist and a right to make law. Note that the Christian is the one left to figure out how God’s law should fit into the Secular State, rather than the State being called upon to submit to and obey God. It may be overstating the case, but there is at least a hint of the fact that Christians are the transgressors seeking to force themselves into an arena in which they have no business when, in fact, the truth is the exact opposite. Thus, it will come as no surprise that in this book Paul Miller denounces both Theocracy and Theonomy. He rejects singularity for plurality.

The plurality, at this point, is seen in multiple streams of government and law. God is King. He has a law, and people should live by that law. Yet, the Secular State has a legitimate claim to a Secular rule and a right to institute its own law. So how do we resolve this tension? Many Christians have resolved this tension erroneously by positing that Christ rules the Church and that the Secular State is welcome to the political sphere, but this is not a resolution, it is capitulation and compromise. Nor is the answer to be found in Miller’s answer, which sees the Church as an Oliver asking, “Please Sir, can we play too?”

The true resolution, Biblically speaking, is found in Romans chapter thirteen. There we read a very simple statement, but one which is loaded with import: “For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.”[10] Put simply, God alone rules and every other institution that has rightly been given governance must rule as an extension of God and, therefore, by His standard—His law! Consequently, you must now take out your red pen and strike down the line in the above paragraph that states that the Secular State has a right to its own rule and law, for that statement is a lie. If a Secular State exists, it must be absolutely inconsistent with its own philosophies. It must rule according to the Word and Law of the One true God or be considered a usurper and suffer the consequences: “Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.”[11]

Therefore, it is of absolute importance that we Christians cease to have a divided view of God’s Theocratic rule. We cannot say that ‘God is the absolute King!’ and then follow that statement with a litany of quid pro quos and caveats a mile lone. We cannot say that God was absolute King in the Old Testament. Does He no longer rule? We cannot say that God is absolute King, but only over the Church. What then of the Great Commission or the other texts listed above? We cannot say that God’s rule is absolute, but only in heaven. Do we not pray, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven?” Resultantly, we cannot give any credence at all to modern political schemes that state that God is not welcome because we are a Secular State or a Secular Society. Such statements are mere rebellion dressed in the language of deception.

If, then, we accept this incontrovertible teaching from Scripture in regard to Theocracy, we are left with the main controversy concerning the nature of God’s law and the extent to which it should be applied.

          Theonomy: The Second Part of the Question.

The simplest answer, surely, is to be found in the words of Jesus when He answers the question, “Which is the great commandment?” with: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ “This is the great and foremost commandment. “The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ “On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”[12]

When people read this answer, their focus is usually upon love. However, very few ever stop to ask concerning the true nature of love. If we take Jesus’ words and parable in explanation of “love for neighbour” as a paradigm, we see that such a love was sacrificial, selfless, and always had the other party’s best interest at heart. Armed with this basic definition, the question to be asked is “How do we express our love to God?” Seriously, we want you to think hard and give an answer. You see, as a Christian we have heard a lot throughout the years of God’s love for us, but ne’er much on our love for God. Do we love God by giving Him all our heart, soul, and mind? Do we show due love to God by surrendering to Him the seat of our being, giving to Him our eternity for His glory, and by thinking His thoughts after Him so that we will, in every instance, prove and obey the perfect will of God?

Brethren, this is serious stuff and it cuts to the heart of the matter under consideration. How do we say that we love God in all His Being and ways, and then give allegiance and obedience to another? How do we claim Solus Christus and Sola Scriptura, then bow to laws made by Man that run contrary to God’s revealed will and which seek to unseat God’s anointed King?[13] How do we, either logically or in love, say that Jesus is God’s King and then ignore Jesus and His word, choosing instead to accept and obey the statutes of Men – whether as the individual, the family, the Church, or the State?

How is it that we, as God’s blood bought people, could or would equate love with anything other than obedience to God’s law? Did not Jesus say, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments?” Is it not then very much requisite that we see that love for God and obedience to His commandments are but two sides to one coin? Is it not right that these two expressions be understood as stating the same thing? It would seem so; especially when Jesus “love” answers are said to by that on which the Law and the Prophets hang![14]

Conversely, is not a betrayal of our professed love akin to idolatry and adultery – two things proscribed in God’s law? Did not God accuse Israel of these very crimes because they honoured God with their lips and not their hearts?

What then makes the  Christian any different? How can we mimic Israel by failing to love and obey God explicitly and exclusively and then claim that we are not guilty of idolatry and adultery just as they were? Why would God, having revealed to us the fullness and completeness of His Son, Jesus Christ, expect less of us than of those who dwelt in type and shadow?

Elijah still speaks; he still calls to the Church today – “How long will you halt between two opinions?” – and his call is to love God explicitly, exclusively, and absolutely! If we love God with all our heart, mind, body, soul, and strength, then in our attitudes and actions we must and can only be Theocratic and Theonomic. It is that simple. Any other standard is to introduce an Auto- word and it is to betray our Love and become adulteresses and idolaters.

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 1)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 3)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 4)

Footnotes:

[1] It is very important that the reader understand this point. Theocracy and Theonomy are based upon a Reformed world and life view that is derived from Scripture using a consistently Reformed hermeneutic. Therefore, other brothers, not sharing theses presuppositions are not likely to agree. This point is made especially for the sake of those who may have read negative critiques or heard outlandish claims – like Theonomists do not believe in personal salvation or that they want to rebuild the temple and start animal sacrifices again – for it is important that you understand from what perspective those critiques or claims were made. The other important factor to understand is that in the mid-seventeenth century, there was great unity amongst Christians in general on these points.

[2] Proverbs 16:25.

[3] 1 Corinthians 15:25.

[4] 1 Kings 18:21.

[5] As a simple example, how do you have sexual intercourse with a temple prostitute in service on one god, whilst at the same time honouring and serving the true God who has proscribed such behaviour with death?

[6] 1 Kings 18:39.

[7] Matthew 28:18-20.

[8] Revelation 1:5.

[9] Revelation 11:5.

[10] Romans 13:1b. Of course, this statement is a simple condensation of the much fuller expression given in Psalm 2!

[11] Romans 13:2.

[12] Matthew 22:37-40.

[13] Psalm 2 clearly shows that Jesus, Messiah and Son of God, is the anointed King. If you are in any doubt, look up the cross-references and you will see this Psalm applied to Jesus.

[14] Which again is a learning curve for most, is it not? Sadly the Church, for too long, has been taught that the Law is negative, restrictive, merciless, and without love; yet Jesus, the Son of God, says that the Law and the Prophets – the whole Old Testament revelation, hang on these two great commands of love.

Of Shepherding Shepherds (Pt 3)

Posted on by
Reply

(Rebuilding Esteem and Belief in Eldership: God’s Institution)

Right now, you no doubt have many questions running through your mind as a consequence of reading the previous articles in this series. You may agree with certain points. You may disagree with certain applications. This is to be expected when the proverbial boat is firmly rocked. However, I hope, like the Bereans, that we will turn to Scripture and search out our agreement in the light of God’s word. After all, every belief and every action must have genuine Biblical warrant. Therefore, to be obedient to our Lord, we must look past the external tags, the “We have always done it this way!”, and the paralysing exasperation, “What else will we do!”

Our obligation is to search out and live in light of the Biblical data. Thus far, that data has shown us that we cannot hold to two masters, two worldviews, or two fundamental presuppositions. Likewise, we cannot believe that the elders are God’s appointed authority for the good and holy governance of His blood bought Church, whilst asserting that such an institution is dated or in need of supplementation. Such a philosophical contradiction is simply untenable.

As posited previously, if we are to rebuild genuine esteem and belief in the institution of Eldership, we must begin by cutting off everything that would seek to undermine and supplant that institution, no matter how subtle its influence in this direction.

So let us look at a few reasons as to why elders should be preferred to counsellors in the Church.

4. God’s Institution:

The first and most obvious reason is that the eldership was instituted by God. Eldership existed during Israel’s captivity in Egypt and was given specific form and structure in the wilderness under Moses[1] and continued in existence to the day of Jesus. As such, it was naturally taken across into the New Testament Church and continues to this day (and forever?).

This point needs to be underscored. In our Reformed history, it is tragic that most look for the foundation of the Eldership in the New Testament only. Our creeds, confessions, and theologies are almost Dispensational in their desire to see Eldership as a new or mostly new office instituted by Apostolic warrant.

Rushdoony rights states:

The origins of the church theologians place in the Old Testament. … Strangely, the government of the church is not likewise sought in the Old Testament, although the New Testament is clear that the familiar pattern, and even the name of the office, elders, was derived from the Old Testament….[2]

Strange indeed; yet true.[3] Consider the following statement:

We know nothing about the origin of this office. There appears to be elders in Jerusalem (Acts 11:30). There probably is a connection between the Jewish council of elders that conducted the business of the synagogue, but did not play a role in worship, and the elders of the Church.[4]

Please note the categorical followed by the maybe – we know nothing, but there probably is! This inconsistency is unexpected given that we Reformed people do not like surprises or the unknown. It is even more surprising given our Doctrine of Scripture and the Biblical evidence that this doctrine unearths for us.

For example, in our theology we have no problem admitting that Moses is a type of Christ[5] and that the Church existed in the Old Testament.[6] Why, then, do we suppose that God’s Church, of old, was ungoverned? Why would we suppose that a new form of Church government needed to be invented?

These questions are posed precisely because the Biblical evidence gives us no right to assume that the “congregation of Israel” was ungoverned or that the New Testament Church[7] had to hurriedly find a model of governance. When we examine Scripture, we see something very different.

After the re-formation of the eldership in the wilderness, we see that elders take a more prominent place in Israel. Such is the evidence that we would need many pages to enumerate all the Old Testament passages regarding eldership. Consequently, we will cite just a few before moving to the time of Christ and on into the embryonic Church, the newer.

The first thing we need to see is that the elders went with Moses and Aaron. We often think of these two great men acting alone. However, this was not the case as far as God’s intent was concerned:

The elders of Israel will listen to you. Then you and the elders are to go to the king of Egypt and say to him, ‘The LORD, the God of the Hebrews, has met with us. Let us take a three-day journey into the desert to offer sacrifices to the LORD our God.” (Exodus 3:18)

We must also grasp the significant fact that the elders of Israel are always portrayed as being in the company of God’s appointed leaders; as taking over leadership in their absence; and in performing significant rites.

Passover – Then Moses summoned all the elders of Israel and said to them, “Go at once and select the animals for your families and slaughter the Passover lamb.” (Exodus 12:21)

Worship at Sinai – Then he said to Moses, “Come up to the LORD, you and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel. You are to worship at a distance.” (Exodus 24:1)

After the defeat at Ai – Then Joshua tore his clothes and fell facedown to the ground before the ark of the LORD, remaining there till evening. The elders of Israel did the same, and sprinkled dust on their heads. (Joshua 7:6)

Israel’s Faithfulness through Elders – Israel served the LORD throughout the lifetime of Joshua and of the elders who outlived him and who had experienced everything the LORD had done for Israel. (Joshua 24:31)

Kingship – When all the elders of Israel had come to King David at Hebron, the king made a compact with them at Hebron before the LORD, and they anointed David king over Israel. (2 Samuel 5:3)

Leaving the Old Testament, let us move forward to the time of Christ.

Please note these three texts:

Matthew 15:1-2: “Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

Matthew 16:21: “From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.”

Acts 4:5-8: “The next day the rulers, elders and teachers of the law met in Jerusalem … They had Peter and John brought before them and began to question them: “By what power or what name did you do this?” Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: “Rulers and elders of the people!”

In these texts, we witness both the prominence and continuity of data regarding the eldership, both of which are almost universally ignored. We know of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the teachers of the Law, but how often have you noted this group called the elders? These elders have traditions. Jesus states that He will suffer at the hands of these elders. When the embryonic New(er) Testament Church is persecuted in the persons of Peter and John, the elders are there and Peter, by the Holy Spirit, addresses them directly.

So it is that we must see that eldership was not some dinky concept that Moses invented in the wilderness so that he could get a bit more “me time”. No. This was a serious institution in Israel for the governance of God’s covenant people. Even though Israel had good familial governance through heads of families and tribes, it was pleasing to God to add to this the office of Elder. Therefore, we should neither view this institution lightly nor be surprised that it is brought into the New(er) Testament Church without fuss.

Here, again, we must challenge ourselves. When we speak of elders in the New Testament Church, we immediately think of the Pastoral Epistles, Timothy and Titus, and of Paul’s instruction to them regarding the standards for the office. What we miss with this singular focus or blinkeredness is the prominence of their position already highlighted throughout Scripture.

The Book of Acts is the record of Christ’s embryonic fulfillment Church moving forward at Her Captain’s command. It is replete with information that is of great use to us in our day. Have you ever noted the place of elders in the Book of Acts?

The term elders – always plural – occurs eighteen times in Acts. Eight of these references are to the Jewish elders. The rest, the remaining ten, refer to the Christian elders. Now, please note that nowhere do we witness an initiation, a ceremony, a command, or any other process of inception. These elders arrive on the scene and are fully accepted, without a whimper, as the authoritative officers for the governance of Christ’s Church (as they always had been).

We first see the Christian elder[8] in the context of those to whom Barnabas and Paul (Saul) would entrust the alms collected by the Antiochian[9] church.[10] The elders took receipt of these alms and were presumably responsible for their distribution. Next, we see Paul and Barnabas appointing elders in the Church. In this instance the context refers to the four local churches of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and (Pisidian) Antioch.[11] Please note, once more, that there is no fuss or bother involved at this point. These commissioned men appoint elders and the church accepts them.

In following the chronology of Acts, we now come to one of the most significant texts. We are all familiar with the Council at Jerusalem as outlined in Acts 15. Whilst there are different views on this Council, certain things are beyond dispute. This Council had authority. It did so because of its makeup. However, this makeup was not in and of itself Apostolic. Please be aware that five times the term Apostle is used in conjunction with the elders. That is to say that every time the Apostles are mentioned in chapter 15, the elders are mentioned right alongside.[12] Hmmm, interesting. Yes?

So who was it that took over the governance of the Church when the Apostles were not around or once they had been promoted to glory? Yes, it was the elders. Then we must ask, “Have we seen this pattern before?”

With this said, let us leave Acts and move into the Book of Revelation. When reading Revelation and with your gaze fixed upon the sublime worship of God in which praise is offered to God by the Seraphim, the angelic host, and the saints, have you ever noticed the role or presence of that other group? Yes, I speak of the elders.

When we view Revelation chapter four, we are immediately introduced to a vision of God Almighty upon His throne. What comes next? Angels? Seraphim? Spirits? Saints? No, none of these. After being introduced to God and His throne, we are introduced to twenty-four elders who sit upon their own thrones in the presence of God.[13] Then, and only then, are we introduced to the four living creatures.

In Revelation, these elders are referred to twelve times. In 5:14, 11:16, and 19:4, these elders are involved in worship. They are said to fall down or to fall on their faces before God and to worship Him. In 5:8 they are said to fall down before the Lamb. They are also shown to sing unto God (5:9, 11). Most striking, though, of all these is the text of Revelation 5:8 – And when he [the Lamb] had taken it [the Book], the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

The import of this text is monumental for our understanding. As we noted earlier, many do not look for the establishment of eldership in the Old Testament. Yet, here, in this resplendent heavenly vision, we see correlations that cannot be dismissed.

In our view, the Eldership is re-established and re-organised in Exodus 18. In Exodus 19, God speaks to Moses and says, “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant … you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”[14] This theme of being kingly-priests is picked up several times in the New Testament. Peter calls us a “holy priesthood” before referring to us as a “royal priesthood”.[15]

Returning to Revelation, we see that John, in his opening comments, addresses the saints in exactly the same manner – “To him who loves us … and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father.”[16] The next reference occurs in Revelation 5:10, two verse after the text under consideration, and says, “You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God….”

With this information in mind, think back, please, to Revelation 5:8. Here we see the elders, the governors and representatives of the people, falling down in worship before the Lamb. Question, “What is the Church’s priority?” It is the worship of God. Again, think back to Exodus, why did Israel demand to leave Egypt? It was so that they could go forth and worship God.[17] What happened in Exodus 19 after the mention of the kingly-priests? Did not the kingly-priests worship at the foot of the mountain? Did not the kingly-priests meet with their God?

Then we ask, “From what did these elders in Revelation 5:8 arise?” Was it not their thrones? What image comes immediately to mind when you think of a throne? Is it not kingship?

Now we are forced to look at what these elders were holding. First, we note that they possess a harp. What would the harp be used for? Is it not the worship of God? The Psalmist certainly thought so – “I will praise you with the harp for your faithfulness, O my God; I will sing praise to you with the lyre, O Holy One of Israel.”[18] Equally, if we look at Revelation 15:2, we see the victorious possessing harps. With these instruments, verse three, they sang the song of Moses and of the Lamb. How interesting! Moses is not despised. His song is not ridiculed or cast out as irrelevant because it belonged to type and shadow. No, no! Much rather, it is incorporated into the fullness of the worship of God—Servant and Son together praising the Father, God Almighty.

Second, we see that the elders hold censors full of the prayers of the saints. Why would these elders hold these prayers? Could it be that they are going to offer them before God, the Almighty? Could it be that their song of praise is infused with the prayers of God’s people on earth? Such would seem to be very probable. What role, then, would we ascribe to the elder at this point? Would we not rightly designate him a priest?

If so, we see kings who are priests worshipping God and the Lamb. Moreover, we see these elders rightly representing the people who are also designated as kingly-priests.  Thus, the evidence for the unified Biblical doctrine of eldership seems very solid. Also, the potency of these visions underscores the roles that the elder must undertake as part of his commissioning.

Conclusion:

Although this has been a very quick look at some of the Biblical data surrounding the Eldership, it is hoped that your horizons have been widened as to the chronology and importance of this institution. It was given substance through Moses. It was not revoked by Jesus. It was affirmed by Apostolic practice and warrant as normative, and, if that were not enough, we are shown that the elder operates in the heavenly worship of the One Living and True God.

Thus, unlike social workers, psychiatrists, and counselors, when you deal with an elder and the eldership you are dealing with those who are ordained by God. They operate as God’s instruments for His glory and they operate on God’s authority alone. This should, indeed must, signify something of great importance to every Christian. To willingly sidestep the elder, is tantamount to trying to sidestep the living God.[19] God gave us this institution for a reason, to despise it in favour of Worldly substitutes is a fatal error.

 

[1] Exodus 18:24-26. The first mention of elders in Scripture is in Genesis 50:7. This reference is to the elders of Egypt. In Exodus 3, we see, as part of Moses’ commissioning, that he is sent to gather the elders of Israel (3:16). When Moses returns to Egypt, he first gathers the elders together so that Aaron can explain all that Yahweh had commanded (4:29-30). After the elders are given instruction, there are demonstrations of power before the people. When they hear that Yahweh is concerned for them, they bow down and worship. Apart from some obvious patterns and clues that shall become more apparent as we progress, it is necessary to see that right at the beginning of redemptive history, nationally speaking, the elders were at the forefront.

[2] Rousas Rushdoony, Systematic Theology, (Vallecito: Ross House Books, 1984, Vol. 2), 679.

[3] See also: Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: an urgent call to restore Biblical Church leadership, (Littleton: Lewis & Roth Publishers, 1995). The first five chapters of this book are useful. The major weakness, however, is the fact that he passes over the Old Testament foundation for eldership. He vacillates, speaking of an apostolic institution, but then tacitly admits some prior form or information that guided their model.

[4] Van Genderen and Velema, Concise Reformed Dogmatics, (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing Company, 2008), 736. Emphasis added.

[5] Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, ([1948 Eerdmans] Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1975; reprint 1985), 104

[6] Van Genderen and Velema, 677. These do not make the link as strongly as Charles Hodge, who, in one sentence, states: “The conclusion is that God has ever had but one Church in the world.” Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint 1989, Vol. 3), 551. See also The Belgic Confession, Article 27.

[7] As noted, it is our view that the Church is one. It would be better if we could hold this conversation without the Old Testament / New Testament bifurcation. However, this pattern has become so entrenched that many find it difficult to grasp arguments when the pattern is not present. Please understand that when this bifurcation is used, we intend no radical discontinuity of a Dispensational variety. Rather, we are referring to the two chapters of the Bible, which make a complete book, as the source of our authority.

[8] Acts 11:30.

[9] This is Syrian Antioch.

[10] A “cat among the pigeons” question may be: Given the evidence from Acts 11:30, would we better term the seven from Acts 6:1-7 as elders rather than deacons? I think I felt a shudder! Think this through please. Remember, Acts 6 does not give these men a title. We have applied a title and an office to them. Calvin argues that the deacons operated under the elders and so the two pieces of information are not incongruous. That however is an argument from silence. If we put the concept of Acts 6 with the information of Acts 11, we have evidence to suggest that the missing institution is not, in fact missing. Just some food for thought.

[11] Acts 14:23. Derbe may be exempted from the list

[12] Note, please, that the letter circulated by this Council also bore the name of the elders (15:23).

[13] These twenty-four thrones are mentioned in Revelation 4:4 and 11:16.

[14] Exodus 19:5-6.

[15] 1 Peter 2:5 & 9.

[16] Revelation 1:5-6.

[17] Exodus 3:18ff. In these passages the term “sacrifice” is prominent. However, in the Old Testament context, sacrifice is worship. See Exodus 3:12 for the term “Worship” and the setting of the context.

[18] Psalm 71:22.

[19] Romans chapter 13 states that there is “no authority that is not from God”. It also states that those who resist that authority will be punished.

Man’s Priority (Pt 4)

Posted on by
Reply

Sola Scriptura. This is the Christian’s, indeed, Man’s only rule for life and faith. Within the pages of Scripture, Man finds meaning and purpose. Man finds his priority for life.

The truth of this is evident simply by looking to our society. We have become used to people asking the question: “Why am I here?” Surveying society, we find people not only searching for an answer to that question, but also living a life in answer to that question.

When the Nihilist exists in what is little more than amalgamated moments of despair, he is living out his answer to the question. When the Materialist exists by gathering to himself an ever increasing number of objects, he is living out his answer to the question. When the Secularist exists in his Closed System, he is living out his answer to the question. When the Evolutionist exists in his Chaos, he is living out his answer to the question. When the alcoholic exists in his stuporous state, he is living out either his answer or lack of an answer to the question.

The tragedy encountered here is that each one thinks he either has an answer or has successfully avoided the question, when he has but grasped the air. Even more sorrowful is the fact that rebellious Man, turning his back to Scripture, has rejected the source of Truth and the one place in which he can find meaning and purpose, and priority. Sad, very sad!

Yet, there is a greater calamity still. Such calamity is witnessed when we view the redeemed man also turning his back to Scripture. The rebellious sinner does so precisely because he is a rebellious sinner. This is understandable. This can make perfect sense. The child of God turning his back to His Father’s voice! This is calamity. It is altogether preposterous. Yet, it happens – indeed is happening! Everyday across our nation, Christians go about their business without seeking the counsel of God. Having been bewitched by the philosophy of this age, they indulge their perceived freedom to govern their lives as they see fit. Consequently, they fail to live out the purpose for which they were created and redeemed.

Why am I here? Why are any of us here? What is our individual and collective priority? To worship the One True and Living God in purity through obedience![1]

As noted in the Part 3, Christians today have fallen into the age old temptation that plagued Israel – they have mistaken fervent, industrious, religious activity for true worship. Christians (and those claiming to be Christians ) turn up to church on Sunday; they run programmes; they busy themselves in worthwhile activities; they put money in the plate; they sing with gusto; yet this avails naught because God is displeased with these people for they do not worship Him aright. Whilst they come to His house, offer praises in His name, and comply with certain Biblical commands, the reality is that these are outward motions only. The heart is in a different place and comes to each of these activities with false motives and a different agenda.[2]

Now, I am sure that some will baulk at this assessment. Yet, this is the very evaluation that God made of Israel on several occasions. Israel conformed to the outward standards, but they did not follow in true heartfelt obedience to God’s Law. Yahweh, consequently, told them to stop brining their sacrifices and observing their New Moons because they were a burden to Him. [3] Fervency was not intimacy; practice was external not personal; adherence was rational not relational; and praise was contrived not congenial.

The pertinent question seems to be, “Why do we think that we are immune to that same folly?” When we have puppet shows instead of preaching; when the service is so burdensome that we need an in house coffee hut and an intermission; when we sing a majority of songs that start with “I”; when our personal enjoyment becomes the ‘yardstick’ of a good service; when we become willing to abandon important doctrines so as to attain a better turn out; when some of our churches have sound systems that would cause recording studios to blush; when we fracture Christ’s body; when we fracture families; when we condone sin and effectively trample the blood of Christ underfoot – How is it that we believe, contrary to all available evidence, that we are immune to that same folly?[4]

The Church is currently beguiled by unbelief precisely because She has imbibed deeply of the spirit of this age. Without question, successive generations, raised on a diet of Secular Humanism and rank Individualism, have brought these philosophies to the life of the Church. Man has been elevated. He is no longer a worm. Man is magnificent. Man is the measure. Man’s rational mind can solve all problems. Man therefore assumes the mantle of the “one” to be worshipped.

As a result, subtly to be sure, God’s glory is eroded. God is no longer the single focus. Man crept in slowly. Starting as a mere apparition in the corner of the eye, he slowly moved to become the focal point. As this process was taking place, the equal and opposite reaction began. God was shifted sideways until He became but a speck in the corner of the eye – present to the view, but no longer to be the mono-focus.

Given Man’s elevation, all that spoke poorly of Man had to be eradicated or toned down. Certain doctrines were dropped, modified, or spoken of only in hushed tones. The words spoken from the pulpit underwent change. The hymns known throughout the Church were slowly abandoned. New songs were written that reflected the new beliefs. Doctrinal standards were pushed into the background and remained only as a token of respect to the past. The result of this development is that we have a generation that imitates the external motions of a previous generation, but which function on a very different set of motives.

Subtly, Christianity has become completely subjective, focussing on “me” and “I”. Christianity has become a cosmic power to meet the needs of the individual. I tithe in order to get. I go to the church that I like for my enjoyment. I attend the place where I am comfortable. When seeking a new place to attend, they scope out any prospective congregations with the I. These prospects must be aesthetically pleasing to the I or they will not suffice. If any subsequent changes are made causing that congregation to cease being pleasing to the I, then a motion is put to leave and find somewhere else. The result? They I’s have it. The motion passes.

Worse than this atrocity – the individual Christian becoming the focal point in worship rather than God – was the second phase. Having elevated Man and having dropped those doctrines and terms that offended Man, it was not long before the distinction between Man the saint and Man the sinner disappeared. Thus, the most glaring change that has occurred in this regard is that sinful man has been elevated to be the centre of attention. The Christian does not focus upon an absolutely holy God nor does he focus upon his own redeemed brethren. Rather, sinful, unregenerate Man holds pride of place.

Sermons are no longer aimed at the true, obedient worship of God or edifying and equipping the Christian; rather they are aimed at saving and or pacifying the sinner. Quizzically, as the sinner does not like certain doctrines, they are dropped or minimised so that the sinner can be comfortable. The sinner, in the extreme case, is even offered certain jobs so that they will feel at home within the Church.

This happens across our nation every Sunday, yet people seem absolutely reluctant to admit to the obvious consequences of this process. God demands holiness and separateness, so we must ask, “On what basis do we form an amalgam?”[5] God’s word reveals that certain things must be preached as the means of salvation, so it must be asked, “How do we save a sinner if these requirements are dropped?”[6]

This is not rocket science. It is a case of dealing with hearts that have become hardened unto God; hearts that are listening to Man and not God.[7]

In opposition to this anthropocentric view and coddling of the unregenerate, the Bible instructs us specifically that Man’s priority is to worship the One True and living God and this in absolute purity. There is to be no “guess work”, “stabs in the dark”, “rough enough is good enough” or “God looks on the heart” type theology–which translates into Man doing what he thinks is right and acceptable.

On the contrary, Scripture, in words, signs, and figures, vociferously insists that God alone is to be worshipped and worshipped in the manner prescribed by Him. During the Reformation this principle came to be known as the Regulative Principle of Worship. Sadly, over time men have tampered with this concept to the point that it is either forgotten or obscured.

Nonetheless, the words penned by the Westminster Divines, enunciating the Biblical principle, hold true and should not be ignored:

…But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture. (Deut. 12:32, Matt. 15:9, Acts 17:25, Matt. 4:9–10, Deut. 15:1–20, Exod. 20:4–6, Col. 2:23).[8]

What is amazing about this teaching is not the dogma itself, but the fact that it is so patent, so prevalent, so perspicuous, and so emphasised in Scripture, yet men seem unwilling or unable to grasp it.

Adam walked with God in the cool of the evening – fellowship / worship. This relationship was intimate. There was no barrier or hindrance. Then Adam transgressed. What happened next? Man was ashamed to dwell in intimacy with God. Fallen man could not reside before a holy God nor meet the demands for fellowship and worship. Man’s response? He hid. He is still hiding. Man distances himself from God because he cannot bear the light of truth that shines forth from God’s righteous Being and shows Man to be a sinner. It is important to note that nothing has changed in this regard. Sinful Man still hides from God in the 21st Century.[9]

This principle is clearly seen. Why do we not admit it and believe it? Adam hid. Adam did not make his way to God. At the first hint of God’s presence, Adam scarpered! This is the sinners MO when dealing with God. Likewise we see that it was God who called Adam’s name. It was God who made the blood covering for Adam and Eve.

In terms of our thesis, this is a noteworthy point. If sinful Man runs from God and His worship, “How do we humans believe that we can make God’s worship appealing to a rebellious sinner?” We compromise. We empty our churches and our worship services of the things that would offend the conscience of sinful Man. Hence, in orthodox circles we adopt many of the practices outlined earlier; in heterodox circles we abandon standards altogether and happily teach the principles of homosexuality, feminism, Secularism, Evolution and the like. In short, there is an attempt to legitimise paganism.

Man cannot come to God as he pleases.[10] Man cannot offer as acceptable worship that which is devised in his own mind.

Think, here, of the first murder. What was the setting? Worship! Abel, acceptable to God, presented an acceptable offering according to God’s design.[11] Cain did not. Cain became enraged, but he only had himself to blame. His offering was not accepted because he had adopted the “stab in the dark” approach. He had decided “rough enough was good enough”. Cain believed that God should simply accept his offering because he had made an effort to present something.

In other words, typical of fallen Man, Cain believed, not in obeying God’s revelation, but in the fact that Man can oblige God to look upon him with favour purely on the basis of Man offering a token gesture in God’s direction. Let’s be clear. In every form, this formula is favour or salvation by works! It is Man’s vain attempt to obligate God into rendering favour / salvation to Man on the basis of something that Man has done.

Note the pattern, please. First, Cain pays no heed to God’s standard for acceptable worship – showing his disbelief in God’s word as the only authority. Second, Cain despises the warning given by God to the effect that sin is crouching at the door. Third, having shown a gross disregard for the voice of God on these two occasions, Cain casts off all restraint, strikes out at his brother, killing him, rather than admit that he is a sinner. Cain was culpable. Cain stopped up his ears to the voice of God. Yet, like most sinners, he chose to blame the ‘righteous man’ for being righteous. Cain chose to blame Abel because Abel’s righteousness clearly showed Cain’s sin.[12]

Clearly demonstrated for us in this episode are several facts. Of importance, please note again, the sinner does not run to God, rather he runs from God. Also, the sinner cannot bring any worthy sacrifice that will be acceptable to God. In fact, as the sinner is the impediment to worship, refusing to hearken unto God’s instruction, he cannot offer anything that is acceptable and will therefore only and always react negatively when corrected. Thus, in terms of our worship today, why is it that we seek to cajole and placate the sinner? Why do we insist on a pragmatic means that runs contrary to Scripture? Why do we place the sinner before obedience to God?[13] More importantly, if we are so concerned for the sinner, why do we deceive him?

Lastly, please take serious note of the progression. Cain refused to listen to God and men died. When Cain refused to listen to God’s instruction and correction, he set himself on a course of destruction that ended in death. The instruction of God for worship was not heeded. The voice of God for correction and warning was openly dismissed. Such brazenness toward God could only manifest itself as a total disrespect for man – in this case, the life of his brother.

When we stop our ears to God today, on what path do we step? What consequences will come as a direct result?

Moving forward in history, let us consider the Exodus. When God called His people out of Bondage in Egypt, on what basis did He do so? Worship! God commanded Pharaoh to let His people go so that they may “go a three days’ journey into the wilderness, to sacrifice to the Lord our God.”[14] The intent of this statement is even more clear when Pharaoh finally caves, saying, “Rise up, get out from among my people, both you and the sons of Israel; and go, worship the Lord, as you have said.”[15]

At this momentous point in history, God reveals this singular point – salvation is to worship. One cannot be saved and not worship. One cannot worship unless saved. Salvation is worship, but it is a very specific worship. It had to be as God commanded. It happened not in bondage but in freedom. It happened in God’s land, not in a foreign land. It happened in accordance with God’s standards, not Man’s.

When Israel reached Mount Sinai they were given the Law. Why? So that they would live and worship rightly. What was God’s chief complaint and the reason Israel was expelled from the land? They did not obey God and worship Him appropriately, exclusively, obediently or willingly.

Again, how do we overlook this potent and recurring subject? How do we insist that the priority of the Church, the State, the Family, and the Individual, is something other than total obedience to and worship of the One True and Living God, revealed to us in Jesus Christ? How do we dethrone this God and put the rebellious sinner in His place? How do we do this in light of all that Scripture reveals on the matter of God’s worship in purity, by His people, in accordance with His standard? How do we? We do it precisely because of unbelief. We will not yield to the voice of the Lord.

Jeremiah’s words should make us tremble:

An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land: The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule on their own authority; and My people love it so![16]

(Part 5)

[1]           The word worship comes from worth-ship. It’s related to worthy as in “worthy is the Lamb.” To worship God means to give Him what He is worthy to receive.

            Worship is what will eventually unite the whole creation. The hearts of all men and the direction of all that lives will form a perfect harmony not around a conference table but around a throne. The end of [goal] life is worship. The goal of living is praise.

            When we offer proper worship, we are completely free.

            For a picture of freedom by worship, we should attend a football game at a stadium. Try to forget how unimportant the issue is, and disregard, for the present, the silliness of the spectacle. Just watch the crowd—all those people different from each other in color, opinion and character. On an ordinary day, in an ordinary room, you could not get six of them to say the same thing on any topic. But now they are unreservedly united while they cheer their team on. For a moment, at least, they are entirely free from every private worry. Nobody even thinks of the mortgage payments. The hope and happiness of every one of them is wrapped up in their team’s victory. The fans in the stadium are a perfect parable of freedom by worship.

            The goal of the cosmos is the praise of God. The universe will be free when all our streams of thought and all our aspirations converge on the throne of God.

            Today we may already experience something of the freedom and unity of worship. In those rare moments when our prayers turn to praise, we are free. Health, house, money, misery, even sin and guilt are forgotten when we climb the stairway of praise.

            In those moments when we have nothing to ask and everything to give, we make the great discovery that we were made for God—and that He and the Lamb are worthy of the worship of all that exists. And we find unity! Effortlessly we find each other in the praises of our God.

Andrew Kuyvenhoven, Daylight: Daily readings with the Bible (Paideia Press, St Cathrines, Ontario, Canada) November 9; Text: Revelation 5:11-14. Italics original. Bold added. Also available at: http://www.reformationalpublishingproject.com/pdf_books/Scanned_Books_PDF/Daylight.pdf

[2] Isaiah 29:13 ff; C.f Mathew 15:7-9.

[3] Isaiah 1:11-15; Jeremiah 6:20; Amos 5:21-24; Amos 4:4-5; Malachi 1:10; Isaiah 66:3; Micah 6:6-8; Jeremiah 7:8-11.

[4] We will attempt to answer this in the following paragraphs. The short answer is, “unbelief”! We have turned away from Scripture and adopted the standards of the world. Therefore, when we measure our efforts and or activities they seem acceptable only because we are using a false measuring device. We think we are above Israel precisely because we are affected by the same stupor – a stupor that blinds our eyes and dulls our minds to God’s reality.

[5] 2 Corinthians 6:14 -18: Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people.  “Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,” says the Lord. “And do not touch what is unclean; And I will welcome you.  18 “And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,” Says the Lord Almighty. See Isaiah 52:11 as the source quote, making this a Biblical standard. C.f 1 Corinthians 10:21-22 and Revelation 18:4.

[6] The most obvious example would be Paul’s statement that the “Law is a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ” (Galatians 3:24); yet we rarely use the term law let alone preach on it and from it. Here, the chain is complete. Having abandoned faith in the OT, we are in need of a new means to convert sinners. Thus, we invent rather than repent. We turn to our own ideas instead of turning back to God and His Word. A note must also be given on the sentence used. Man cannot save sinners. That alone is God’s work. However, if you listen to the moderns you would think that salvation was but a formula – do this, add that and voilà! This highlights the problem. Men were commissioned by God to preach the Gospel – foolishness to Man but the power of God unto salvation. Why? Salvation is not in believing, as such, but in receiving the righteousness of God through Jesus Christ. This is the “gift” Paul speaks of in Romans. The point being that we have subtly capitulated to the false doctrines that espouse that Man can act for his own salvation. Consequently, we use programmes and entertainments to try and convince Man to be saved.

[7] Ezekiel 3:4-11: Then He said to me, “Son of man, go to the house of Israel and speak with My words to them. “For you are not being sent to a people of unintelligible speech or difficult language, but to the house of Israel, nor to many peoples of unintelligible speech or difficult language, whose words you cannot understand. But I have sent you to them who should listen to you; yet the house of Israel will not be willing to listen to you, since they are not willing to listen to Me. Surely the whole house of Israel is stubborn and obstinate. “Behold, I have made your face as hard as their faces, and your forehead as hard as their foreheads. “Like emery harder than flint I have made your forehead. Do not be afraid of them or be dismayed before them, though they are a rebellious house.” Moreover, He said to me, “Son of man, take into your heart all My words which I shall speak to you, and listen closely. “And go to the exiles, to the sons of your people, and speak to them and tell them, whether they listen or not, ‘Thus says the Lord God. Ezekiel 5:11 – So as I live,‘ declares the Lord God, ‘surely, because you have defiled My sanctuary with all your detestable idols and with all your abominations, therefore I will also withdraw, and My eye shall have no pity and I will not spare.

[8] WCF 21:1. Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.

[9] If you have any doubt about the veracity of this statement, I beg you, please read Romans chapter one and pay full attention to what Paul has to say, especially at verse 32.

[10] John 6:44; John 14:6; Numbers 4:17-20; Leviticus 21:16-24.

[11] At this point, we must do justice to the text by acknowledging that the offering is tied to the offerer. The text says that God had “regard for Abel and his offering”. The word order suggests that the offering was acceptable because the offerer was acceptable. The same thing is said of Cain. God did not just disregard Cain’s offering. God had disregard for Cain himself. This is important for our thesis as it categorically shows that the offering cannot transcend the offerer. In short, even the perfect offering will be impeded by the imperfect offerer. Once more, then, we are confronted with the Biblical fact that sinful Man cannot find acceptance with God on his own terms.

[12] This is the modern principle in action. Holiness shows the sinner’s deficiency in the eyes of a Holy God. Therefore, everything that would have this effect must be eradicated. Cain destroyed Abel in order to remove the holy object that convicted him of his sin. We are doing this very thing today when we drop or change doctrines. When we change our language. When we reduce our standards. The tragedy is that in doing so we are taking away God’s appointed means of salvation and we are failing to allow this absolute holiness to be a spur to genuine awe and wonder in worship. The result of this is that we rob sinner and saint.

[13] Again, people will baulk at this. Yet it is true. I have witnessed many sermons of late that are almost universally applied to the sinner. It is rare to hear the sermon that encourages the Christian to be a better father, husband, son, employer, employee, friend, companion, lover etc. The current decline in Christianity’s impact on our world is explicitly tied to this subject. As we have turned from God, we have forgotten what we are to be, thus sermons seek to convert sinners (but rarely achieve as the Gospel has been made null) but Christians are not taught to be mature and Christ like. Hence, the downward spiral begins by denying God’s absolute right to be worshiped; it continues in the paucity of true worship; consequently the Christian’s maturity and sanctification are passed over. In the end, there is no salt and light, so the world becomes smelly and dark.

[14] Exodus 3:18.

[15] Exodus 12:31.

[16] Jeremiah 5:30-31.

Sola Scriptura (Pt 3)

Posted on by
Reply

If we are to effectively reform the Church in our day, we must begin by turning back to and embracing the Scriptures as our only rule for life and faith. We must return to the solas of the Reformation and to the cry – Sola Scriptura!

This wholehearted return to Scripture as our only and final authority is necessary in order to counteract each and every attempt by man, yes, even redeemed man, to govern autonomously. Even as the redeemed of the Lord, we still show the tendency of Adam to question God’s perspicuous statements and commands and to believe that we can construct or invent a better way – even if we are not so bold as to state it in these terms!

Let me outline two prominent errors found in the modern Church:

1. The New Testament Christian: This position, implicitly or explicitly, denies the authority of large portions of the Bible, namely, substantial parts of the Old Testament. Those holding to this position would avow that they believe the Bible, however, when pushed, you would find a tacit acknowledgement that the Old Testament is passé to the Christian.

Let us be clear. These people believe the Old Testament. The problem is that they believe it only as history. They believe it as a set of events that have transpired. What they do not believe is that the Old Testament has actual authority to guide and direct their lives. As noted elsewhere, the Old Testament is largely viewed as ‘examples to follow and sins to avoid’. The Bible is not viewed as a single, authoritative whole.[1] Thus, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever ‘Thus says the Lord-ish’ about these Old Testament portions.

2. The Age of the Spirit: This group takes very seriously the fact that the New Testament teaches that the Holy Spirit has come in power as a sign of the New Age. So seriously do they take this teaching that they, in effect, lay down their Bibles. These, too, see the Bible as passé, albeit in a slightly different manner to group one.

Where the first group would claim that “the Bible” is authoritative, they restrict that authority to the New Testament and often to words directly attributed to Jesus. Thus, they have, at the very least, an interesting concept of “the Bible”.[2]

This second group tend to accept much of the Old Testament. However, their belief in the Spirit sees Scripture subordinated to the Spirit’s leading. Their teachings in this area prompt people to give up on the study of Scripture for a higher and more enlightened path. Thus, regardless of what they say about the Bible’s authority, it is in effect overridden and superseded by a belief in the Spirit’s superiority.

Both of these errors present themselves differently (symptoms), yet they derive from the same source – a failure to believe the totality of God’s word. Room does not permit an in-depth hermeneutical discussion on interpreting the Old Testament. Suffice it to say that what should be clear to all, based on Biblical example, is that the Old Testament is nowhere debunked in Scripture as passé.

On the contrary, we see the exact opposite.

When Luke introduced John the Baptist and sought to describe his mission, Luke quotes directly from Isaiah 40:3-5. When Jesus is taken into the desert to be tempted, Luke shows that His defence against Satan is the very Word of God – “It stands written!”[3] When Jesus revealed Himself and His mission to the world, He did so by quoting Isaiah 60:1-2.[4] When the Rich Young Ruler asks Jesus for direction, Jesus points him to the Ten Commandments.[5] When Herod asks where the Christ is to be born, he is answered with a quotation from Micah.[6] When Paul wants to prove that all men are dead in sin, he quotes from the Psalms.[7] When Paul wants to prove the cardinal doctrine of salvation – justification by faith – he quotes Hosea, Genesis, and a Psalm.[8] When Matthew wants to prove the virgin birth of Jesus, he does so by quoting Isaiah 7:1.[9] When Jesus confronted the disciples on the road to Emmaus, to what did He appeal in order to instruct them? He appealed to the Old Testament: “And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.”[10]

The Biblical evidence, in regard to the written Word and the work of the Holy Spirit, shows no sign of conflict. This evidence points to a priority, not a conflict. What may surprise some is that priority is given to the Word. The picture we are shown is that the Holy Spirit authored the Word and then uses that Word to guide men.

Peter declares:

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God (2 Peter 1:20-21).

When John records Jesus’ words in relation to the coming of the Holy Spirit, we are told that the Spirit will convict[11], bring to remembrance Jesus’ words, [12] and speak from Christ.[13] In other words, The Holy Spirit does not come with His own message and His own ideas. He comes as an extension of Jesus. He brings back to the mind the words Jesus spoke so that the Apostles can convey them correctly – whether by word or in writing.

Jesus is the Living Word. The Holy Spirit enabled men to write down the things which Jesus spoke and which testify to Him – the written Word.[14] As such, the Bible does not contradict the Living Word. As such, the Holy Spirit does not lead to, contradict, or establish different truths, principles, or standards than those established by God and revealed by Jesus. As such, the directions of the Holy Spirit will never contradict the instructions given in Scripture – whether by God, Christ, angel, prophet, or apostle.

Let us also note a simple occurrence in the Bible. When Paul commended the Bereans he noted that they were nobler because they “searched the Scriptures” (Acts 17:11). He did not commend them for greater revelations in the Spirit. He did not commend them for having access to mystical powers. No, they were commended for going back to God’s authoritative revelation of Himself.

This is important, for at this point, Paul simply mimics His Lord. Think back to Jesus’ encounter on the road to Emmaus. Why did Jesus rebuke these two disciples? Unbelief – “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!” (v 25) Later, after these disciples had returned to the eleven in Jerusalem, what gift did Jesus give to the disciples? Did Jesus endow them with mystical abilities? Did Jesus give them over to substantial operations of the Holy Spirit? No. Jesus simply ‘opened their mind to believe the Scriptures.’[15]

Jesus, the Living Word, the very Son of God – a man fully endowed with the Holy Spirit and able to impart it to others[16] – directed men back to God’s authoritative word, the Holy Scriptures. This was Jesus modus operandi.

When speaking to the Pharisees and in order to prove his point, Jesus asks this question, “Did you never read in the Scriptures?” and then immediately quotes from Scripture.[17] A little latter, Jesus points out the reason for the Pharisees error: “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God.”[18] Once more, Jesus makes the statement and then appeals to Scripture to give the correct teaching.

Also, Jesus and the Apostles are fully aware that the happenings, current in their day, were events that had been predicted in Scripture. Therefore, Jesus can say:

  • But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets may be fulfilled.[19]
  • I do not speak of all of you. I know the ones I have chosen; but it is that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats My bread has lifted up his heel against Me.[20]

Likewise, Paul states: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.”[21]

Last, let us consider Pentecost. Some may assert that some of the texts used to substantiate our claims predate the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and therefore do not have validity. However, any and all objections fall completely flat when we examine the text of Acts. There we see that the Holy Spirit is poured forth (Acts 2:1-4). The next scene we have is that of Peter preaching. Peter’s sermon (2:14-36) uses around 570 English words. Of these, some 250 are direct quotations or references to the Old Testament Scriptures.[22]

If the Holy Spirit’s outpouring superseded Scripture, why does Peter immediately appeal to Scripture rather than use some other esoteric means? Is it not also interesting that Peter appeals to Scripture to prove that the catalytic event that caused the initial commotion (v 6) was in fact the promised coming of the Holy Spirit? Having established from Scripture that the coming of the Holy Spirit was a valid Messianic event, Peter continues with his sermon in order to prove that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah – a fact also established by Scripture.

When we view this text, we must immediately be struck by the fact that the Holy Spirit did not move Peter away from Scripture and to some arcane means; rather He moved Peter to Scripture. In this text, we see that the Holy Spirit incites Peter to validate His own appearing by appealing to Scripture. Again, this is significant. The Apostles had been told by Jesus that the Comforter would come. These men knew that Jesus had predicted and commanded this very event. Yet, Peter does not appeal to Jesus. Rather, following his Master’s example, Peter appeals to Scripture as his final authority. Like Jesus, Peter was content with, “It stands written!”

When we pull these threads together, we are faced with the immovable fact that both the aforementioned positions, and any variations based thereon, are erroneous because they have no Biblical support. Constantly and consistently we see the writers of the New Testament place themselves under the authority of God’s word. Even Jesus, the Son of God, did not presume to be heard on His own. Jesus took His stand on God’s revelation and in doing so gave credence to the fact that He speaks that which He heard from the Father.[23] In exactly the same manner, the Holy Spirit sought vindication, not in new revelations and teachings, but in the prophetic utterances inscripturated in God’s word.

In closing out these proofs, it may be informative to consider the fact that God Himself holds to and stands by His written word! Consider Isaiah 65:6-7:

Behold, it is written before Me, I will not keep silent, but I will repay; I will even repay into their bosom, Both their own iniquities and the iniquities of their fathers together,” says the Lord. “Because they have burned incense on the mountains, And scorned Me on the hills, Therefore I will measure their former work into their bosom.

The lesson? If we say that we love Jesus; If we say that we walk by the Holy Spirit; If we say that Jesus is our example in life; If we understand that salvation means obedience; If we dare to call God, Father; then we must listen to and live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of our Father God. No other standard is acceptable. No other standard carries power. No other standard comes with a Holy Spirit backed guarantee.

We cannot pay lip service to this doctrine. We cannot say that we believe the Bible and then come up with a belief or excuse that sets the Bible and its authority aside. We cannot state that we believe the Bible and then set out to pit its authors against each other as though they are confused and divided. We cannot claim a mission based on Biblical warrant and then devise a mission plan in and of ourselves without further reference to God’s revelation. We cannot claim to worship God and then ignore everything the Bible teaches on worship. We cannot claim that marriage is Biblical and then ignore God’s pattern for that marriage. Finally, we cannot make claims that are unsupported by Scripture on the basis that we have taken to the Bible with a pair of scissors!

The redeemed in Christ must submit to God the Father and all that has been revealed by Him for this is the humble estate of God’s true child. It is the estate in which we acknowledge that our Father is all wise and powerful. It is the humble estate in which we acknowledge that He is and we are not! It is the humble estate in which we accept that our Father knows the end from the beginning and that all things will fall out according to His purposes, plans, and power. Therefore, the obedient child trusts the Father, especially when he does not understand and things do not make sense, and rests entirely upon His Father’s word as true, faithful, and correct.

 Part 4

[1] This view comes to the fore clearly when men operate on the principle that unless an OT concept is restated in the NT it has no validity.

[2] It was a similar view that led to Theological Liberalism. They said the Bible “contained” the Word of God. However, where the orthodox would understand this in the sense that the Word was contained in the Bible in the same manner as a bucket contains water, the Liberal understood it to means that the bucket held other than pure water. This subtle change led to a range of manmade methods by which the ‘true’ words of God were to be discovered. The obvious fact of this action was the equal declaration that some of what was in the Bible was not God’s word. When we deny God’s authority we are bound to invent belief and action based on our authority, desire, or limited understanding. Therefore, in the Church today we often invent programmes to fill perceived holes in the Bible when, in reality, the hole is in our understanding because we have been unwilling to listen to God’s instructive voice.

[3] Luke 4:4, 8, 12.

[4] See Luke 4:18-19.

[5] Luke 18:18-20.

[6] Matthew 2:6.

[7] Romans 3:10-18. Quoting portions of Psalm 14; 5; 140; 10; 59 & 36.

[8] See Romans 1:17; 4:3 & 4:7-8.

[9] Matthew 1:23.

[10] Luke 24:27.

[11] John 16:8.

[12] John 14:26.

[13] John 16:14.

[14] It must be remembered that this process was not new and only relevant to the New Testament. We are apt to forget that when the New Testament writers referred to Scripture, they were speaking of that which we now call the Old Testament. Thus, Peter’s statement says more about the Holy Spirit’s operation throughout the Old Testament than it does, in essence, concerning the New Testament. Some may find that a little hard to swallow. What is meant by the statement is this; when Peter wrote those words, he had in mind primarily the Old Testament – the Law, the Writings, and the Prophets – and not the works of the New Testament. What Peter says is true of the New Testament. Yet, from his standpoint, he was affirming the role of the Holy Spirit as the author of Scripture – the older canon. He asserts that the Old Testament is authoritative and reliable precisely because it is the Spirit authored Word of God.

[15] Luke 24:45.

[16] John 20:22.

[17] Matthew 21:42.

[18] Matthew 22:29. Consider also the account already cited in which Jesus engages with the disciples on the Road to Emmaus and then with the Eleven.

[19] Matthew 26:56.

[20] John 13:18 & 17:12. See also John 19:24, 28, 36, 37.

[21] 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.

[22] Peter quotes Joel 2:28-32; Psalm 16:8-11; Psalm 132:11; Psalm 110:1.

[23] John 8:26.

Belief in God’s Revelation (Pt 2)

Posted on by
Reply

If the Church’s primary ailment is unbelief,[1] then throwing another programme at a perceived symptom will do very little. As we noted in the introduction to this series, treating the symptom is but a slowing down of the death process. It is not a cure.

Therefore, if we are to counter the ailment effectively, we must counteract the underlying cause. In this case, we do not need to institute yet another new programme. We simply need to encourage people to a true and profound belief in all that God has to say. We need to believe the whole counsel of God.[2]

I cannot pinpoint the exact date on which we decided by consensus to give up on believing God’s truth. It is fair to say that there has always been elements within the Church that have questioned what God has to say and have affirmed doctrines that are not in keeping with God’s revelation.

In the modern era, I believe that World War Two had a lot to do with the loss of faith and belief. Prior to WW2, Theological Liberalism was on the rise. It robbed the Scriptures of everything supernatural and internalised both faith and epistemology. In this trend, Theological Liberalism was but following the Secular trend of the exalted self.

When war broke out and millions of lives were thrown into chaos with people being forced to witness and endure brutalities scarcely heard of, people rightly sought answers. Sadly, Theological Liberalism had no answer. Liberalism could not impart understanding. It could give no reason. Most certainly, its comforts were but hollow words; heartless and without warmth.

Not surprisingly, Man began to question the point of a religion that could not provide answers to the basic questions of life.[3] Thus, Man turned further from the Church and found the warm embrace of Rationalism. This was but a natural step as the exalted self had been long courted by Rationalism. The Liberals had caused Christianity to be transformed into a mere shadow of its former self. This new emaciated Church was gaunt precisely because it had been taught to feed upon Man and not upon “every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.”[4]

At this point, we had a culture that was enamoured with the exalted self and the basic tenets of Individualism. From that point, we have simply witnessed an outworking of this process. We have seen our society completely dominated by rank Individualism. We witness it every day in the death of society and the fragmentation of our culture.

What of the Church? How has she faired? Well, to use terminology from WW2, She is absolutely “shell-shocked”! 1977 saw this trend of disbelief culminate in what came to be known as Union. At that time, the majority of the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Congregational churches were rolled into one body, which we know today as the Uniting church.

One only has to look at the resultant state of that new body to see how disastrous the doctrines of the exalted self were and are. This body is almost devoid of any semblance of Christianity. It is noticeably void of anything closely resembling a belief in ‘the authoritative word of God’. Its doctrines are based not in Scripture, but in Secularism and Humanism.

What then of other denominations and those that refrained from joining the Union? Regrettably, the process of disbelief has largely continued unabated. It has to a lesser or greater degree infiltrated most denominations. The result of which has been disastrous.

Here is the problem. Having given up on God’s word as the source of truth, many denominations have drifted into a modern form of Liberalism. As we noted in the introduction, this is the sinister aspect of this ailment. Without a foundational belief in God’s word as their only authority, they will continue to drift. The one thing they must do is the one thing the exalted self does not want to do – completely trust God!

Tragically, this false belief has also had a major impact on those reform movements that have sprung up. When some good folk looked around the Church and saw that She was not having an impact upon the world; when they saw dwindling numbers; when they witnessed injustices; when they realised that people were not being converted, they set out with all good intent to improve things.

Enter the sinister ailment once again. When these people set out to find a cure they failed to realise that they had been so indoctrinated by the exalted self that they simply produced more symptoms. Rather than return wholeheartedly to the God of the Bible and His wondrous revelation, they looked to Man for wisdom. If the Bible was consulted, such consultations were completed in a selective manner; choosing only those texts that seemed to legitimise the new approach.

Consequently, when Church numbers dwindled, demography was proposed as the solution. When church services were poorly attended, entertainment was embraced as an answer. When fallen men found certain teachings unpalatable, the response was to reject those doctrines or to hide them from public view. When desires for different forms of worship were voiced, the corrective was found in the deliberate fragmentation of Christ’s body. When Sexism was raised as a criticism, all barriers were cast down – gender neutral Bibles were invented. When the Government enacted laws on vilification and equality, the reaction was to disown more doctrine and to simply remain silent.

All of these correctives, responses, reactions, and answers have availed naught precisely because they come from the same poisonous root. They are delivering more poisoned fruit, more symptoms, because they are the inventions of Man and not the declarations of God.

As well intentioned as these brethren may have been in their desire and efforts for reform, they failed to realise and react to the true problem, unbelief! As a consequence of this failure, their efforts realised and propagated a new set of errors (symptoms). Therefore, these labours have not led to the Church’s healing. On the contrary, She has been confined to Her sickbed for a prolonged stay.

If we truly want to realise a healthy Church; be a vibrant community of faith; attain to a faithful and pure Bride; offer up spiritual sacrifices; and be a holy priesthood, then we must truly, with all our heart, mind, and soul, believe God’s word and trust to His ways.

If there is one text that we must understand, it is Isaiah 55:8-11:

For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.  “For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, And do not return there without watering the earth, And making it bear and sprout, And furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater; So shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.[5]

Anyone who is the least bit familiar with the Bible should know that God’s ways are not Man’s ways. Man’s wisdom is foolishness to God[6] and God’s true wisdom is not accepted by Man.[7]

Therefore, if we truly desire to see a healthy, vibrant, obedient, worshipping Church, we must put to death the exalted self and be pleased to wholeheartedly and tenaciously cling to the prescriptions of Almighty God – whether it makes sense to us or not!

Believe! As Jesus said, “Did I not say to you, if you believe, you will see the glory of God?”[8]

Part 3

[1] Hebrews 3:17-19 gives us a harsh reminder of the consequences of unbelief and the need we have to always guard against it – And with whom was He angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom did He swear that they should not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient? 19 And so we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief. Deuteronomy 8:20 sums up the Old Testament equivalent – Like the nations that the Lord makes to perish before you, so you shall perish; because you would not listen to the voice of the Lord your God.

[2] Acts 20:27. The KJV uses “counsel”; the NIV “will”; the NASB “purpose”. ‘Counsel’ and ‘purpose’ are probably the better translations in that they imply the necessity of interaction and compliance on the part of the hearers.

[3] This is, of course, an irony as the alternate religion embraced by Man gave no answers to life’s questions either. It would seem that there was enough capital from the Christian worldview left in the bank to inspire some optimism. World War 2 completely shattered any remaining optimism and the subsequent years have shown that the bank account is continually in the red.

[4] Deuteronomy 8:3.

[5] The New American Standard Bible, (La Habra, California: The Lockman Foundation) 1977. Emphasis added.

[6] 1 Corinthians 3:19 – For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God.

[7] 1 Corinthians 1:20-25 – Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

[8] John 11:40. Yes, taken from a different context, but the principle holds. How do we expect to see the magnificent works of God in this world if we will not believe God’s word and what He says He will accomplish through that word?

Programme or Belief

Posted on by
2

There are, no doubt, many problems with the Church today. We may well say that the Church is sick. Like any illness and the necessary diagnosis, the physician must be able to distinguish the disease from the symptoms.

Much of what we see in the Church today are but symptoms of the disease. We can attempt to treat these symptoms, and they certainly need to be addressed, however, if we do not treat the underlying cause, we will be consumed by treatments that never lead to a cure.

Imagine a man with a festering sore on his leg. He goes to a doctor who does nothing but clean the wound, excise any dead flesh, and then redress the wound. In the end, this man will lose his leg and possibly his life. Yes, he is being treated, but only at a superficial level. The treatment will go on. The treatments will change as the wound grows and the necrosis consumes more of the man’s flesh. Yet, in the end, all you are doing is treating the symptom.

Whilst these treatments are necessary, the doctor must also address the cause. He must prescribe an antibiotic or antivenene to deal with the underlying source, otherwise the visible manifestation of the problem will only become more obvious, more serious, and, eventually, life threatening.

The Church is sick. Many have ideas about what is wrong. However, most are only looking at the symptoms. Suggestions about new programmes for this or that are promulgated and the appropriate propaganda developed. The trouble with this approach is to be found in the methodology itself. Where in the Bible do we read of “programmes”? How do we know that these are the panacea?

The Gospel is not a matter of having the appropriate programme; it is a matter of belief. As God’s creature, regenerate or not, we are obligated to believe what God says is true; not reinvent truth to suit our opinions, outlook, or self-established purpose.

Therefore, it must be said that much of the sickness in the Church derives from varying states of unbelief.[1] We are simply unable or, worse, unwilling to believe the Word of God. This unbelief manifests itself in various ways, but these manifestations are but symptoms of the greater and more sinister ailment.

The sinister nature of this ailment is to be seen in the fact that unless we begin to trust God and take Him at His word, we will never find the cure; for belief is the cure. All we will do is engage ourselves in another programme, which is nothing more than symptom chasing. We will swap bandages and bathe wounds, but we will not realise a cure.

You see, the whole “programme” philosophy is one that is suggested by the world. It is not something you will find in God’s word. Thus, the very fact that we tend to solve problems by “throwing another programme at it” clearly demonstrates that we have lost faith in God and His absolute Word. Consequently, we are seen to be following an ungodly philosophy in trying to bring health to the Church.

When we examine the Bible, we do not see programmes; stepped projects, or 5 point plans. The Biblical approach is very simple. It consists of a basic dialogue – God speaks; Man listens. Viewed differently, God speaks and Man either obeys or disobeys. Consequently, Man is either blessed or cursed.

The beauty of this system is its simplicity. If the Church is not prosperous we need only ask two questions: “Are we persecuted for righteousness sake?” or “Are we under judgement for disobedience?”

When the questions are this simple, we do not need “committees” or “programmes”. We simply need to exchange the “worldly programme” or “lie”, as Paul would term it, for a Biblical approach: 1. Listen to and believe God; 2. Act obediently upon His command.

Part 2

[1] In general, we may believe the key doctrines regarding Jesus. However, as soon as we move from these into essential everyday applications – also important doctrines – we see a great divergence.

Reformers Reforming: Post Tenebras Lux

Posted on by
Reply

Most are familiar with the Reformation and the cry, post tenebras lux – after darkness, light! This cry, issued by the Reformers, illustrated the very heart of and need for reform within the Church. Darkness had enveloped the world and it was necessary for the Light to shine. What was this darkness? It had to do with the fact that the True Light, coming into the world (John 1:9), had been placed under a basket. Little flashes of light were seen from time to time, sneaking through the weave, but for the most part, the light was contained.

This state arose because the Church, appointed by Jesus Christ to proclaim His Law-Word to the ends of the earth, and therefore to shine the light to its greatest degree, abandoned the idea of service to Christ for an attitude of self-service. In short, the Church began to serve its own purposes, desires, and inclinations. The message of the Gospel was forgotten. The proclamation of Jesus as the only means of reconciliation to God, with all its attendant good for the world, was replaced by a proclamation of Rome and Her own importance.

Instead of the proclamation of Jesus Christ and the fullness of His being as the very revelation of God – a revelation that brought truth, purpose, meaning, freedom, reconciliation, and light to those who dwelt in darkness – Rome brought error, hopelessness, confusion, slavery, discord – especially between man and God – and the light was shut up. So darkness fell! As darkness fell, ignorance grew. Men were as far from God as ever. Sadly, the institution appointed to bear light, chose darkness instead.

Into this situation, by God’s merciful hand of providence, came a long line of Reformers. They had a motto: Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei (“The church reformed, always being reformed (or always Reforming) according to the Word of God”) The Reformers understood that true light could only be attained by a faithful proclamation of the True Light – Jesus Christ the Righteous Son of God. However, they did not simply stop at proclamation. They went to the source document, the Bible, to see exactly what God had revealed and commanded of men. They were no longer guessing in the dark. They opened God’s eternal word written and therein found God’s eternal Word living. They found the Light of the world and they began to let that Light shine; and this by faithful and obedient proclamation of the whole counsel of God.

Why are these points raised? Why the little history lesson? These questions are best answered by the old saying, “Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it.” The argument, here, is that once again the Church is failing in her duty to faithfully proclaim the truth of the Light, Jesus Christ. Once more, we see departures from and a weakening of the Light – the proclamation of the whole counsel of God as revealed in Jesus the Christ. We once more see institutions begin to be self-serving, rather than self-sacrificing. We see some sectors of the Church unsure as to where to look for answers. Such a state will only bring in ever increasing amounts of compromise. This compromise will in turn lead to darkness, confusion, and slavery.

When faced with such a situation, we necessarily must ask, ‘What is the best way forward?’ The answer, the sole answer, in this situation is to return to the cry of the Reformation – “The church reformed, always being reformed (or always Reforming) according to the Word of God!” This creed, if you will, gives us the sure foundation because it encapsulates all the necessary aspects of successful Church life. In contrast to this full creed, the moderns are tempted in one of two ways, both of which bring disaster to the Church and to its function as a faithful proclaimer of the Light.

The first error is seen when the creed is altered to, “the church reformed, reformed according to the Word of God.” The change here is subtle, but it essentially makes the Reformation, a fact of history, the be-all and end-all of Church reform. The problem with this view is that it fails to grasp the idea that the Church is a living organism. In this view, the only reform the Church needed, and which it will receive, has happened and we must cling tenaciously to every word uttered some 500 years ago, as though that is the last word. This view, however, misses the clear fact that, by its very nature, the Church must grow and mature. It must turn from a seed to a giant tree, which, in this case, fills the whole world. None of us would be satisfied if we reached puberty and stopped developing. The horticulturists amongst us would not be satisfied with a yard full of immature plants. Imagine a summer without the ripe fruits because all the trees had budded, but no bud had matured. Similarly, the Church is alive and it is growing. Consequently, it must change. It must pass through different stages of growth.

The second error is seen when the creed is altered to, “The church, always reforming!” Here, we clearly encounter the desire for change, but note that the standard of change has been omitted.  God’s word no longer holds the place as the sole director of the Church’s life. Rather, we are influenced by men, vain philosophies, and dare it be said, carnal desires. It seems that this is the particular situation that plagues the Church of today.

In such circumstances, we encounter a flurry of activity. People, left, right, and centre, are running a programme for this and a programme for that. There is always one new, sure–fire, guaranteed way to fill the Church or to have a greater impact upon society—that is, until it is discarded for the next sure-fire, guaranteed way and so on! The problem at this point is singular. We have omitted from our creed the one objective standard that would give sure guidance and which would allow the Light to shine. That objective standard is God’s word, the Bible. It is not a coincidence that, in the post-modern world, the Church’s rejection of Scripture as its sole authority has led to a post-modern infiltration into the Church in which ‘men do what is right in their own eyes’.

Examples of this modern approach abound, here are two, taken from two different mission organisations: “To that end, people are given the freedom to experiment with new ideas and implement creative methods and even if they fail, they can try again. … We encourage men and women to use whatever means will be effective in communicating the gospel. Creative ideas, innovative strategies and unique concepts are being employed….” “We do not encourage the espousing of doctrinal emphases that could and would divide us and distract us away from our objectives.”

Please note the absolute lack of reliance upon God’s word. Rather, we see that men are to “experiment” and realise “creative methods.” Why? Is it the case that if they happen upon the exact method of success they will patent it, bottle it, and ship it to every Church? It would seem not. Sadly, all this creativity is couched in words that expect failure! Interesting. Does God in His word expect failure? Is God at present sitting in the heavens bewildered and distraught that He cannot make things work according to His purposes and plans? Methinks not (Isaiah 46:8-11)! The modern Church is filled with those whose activities are not governed “according to the word of God.” Consequently, they are trying to reinvent the “theological wheel”. They experiment and become creative in a vain hope, rather than taking instruction from the only wise God (Romans 16:27).

Then we view the second quotation. Heaven forbid that doctrine should get in the way of men’s ideas. Well, no! May God forbid that men’s ideas should get in the way of true doctrine! The believers in the early Church had “all things in common. (Acts 2:43)” This included doctrine. They all believed the same thing in regard to Jesus Christ, His person, work, and purpose. Why is it today that we want to avoid doctrine and that we are certain that Biblical doctrine will divide rather than unite? Could it be that we prefer the subjective autonomy provided to us by a post-modern world where truth is unknowable and where we can rule our lives according to our own standards, rather than by God’s standard?

Here is a plea for a vibrant, healthy, maturing, Church, in which the redeemed constantly and consistently “proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called us out of darkness into His marvelous light!” (1 Peter 2:9) It is a plea to be consistent with the Reformational creed. Let us realise and glory in the fact that the Church is a living entity and that it is encumbered upon Her to meet each new challenge in every subsequent age. It must be said – lightening rods on standby – that Luther, Calvin, and co, did not have everything nailed down. However, let us also understand that the Church’s obligation in these challenges is not to rely on man’s inventiveness or creativity. It is, rather, to declare, “Thus says the Lord God!”

The path to a living, maturing, vibrant church, that truly impacts the world and glorifies God, is to be found in humble, covenantal obedience to the Biblical standards revealed in Jesus Christ and attested by the Holy Spirit. It is found in believing and applying God’s revealed objective standard, the Bible, and not in man’s subjective invention.

Marriage is Life!

Posted on by
Reply

There is little doubt that, in Australia today, we are experiencing a clash of worldviews. Over the last decades, the Secular Humanist attack upon Biblical Christianity has gathered pace. However, in 2012, Secular Humanism is presenting a challenge to this nation such as never before. The attack is of such intrinsic importance that both Christian and Secularist alike must be made fully aware of its implications.

Christianity, both as a belief and a worldview, has been systematically attacked in this country for at least fifty years. In that time, attacks have been mainly focused against the application of Biblical law. Examples of this may be seen in the erosion of (traditional) marriage. The concept of both “de facto” relationships and divorce were popularised and de-stigmatised. By stealth, therefore, marriage was undermined. Its significance and importance was devalued. Marriage was relegated to the status of a cultural relic from the bygone age of “religion” and non-enlightenment. With the devaluation of marriage, came the subsequent depreciation of the family. Families were no longer the building block of society. They were no longer afforded protection, assistance, and honour.

All of this is attributable to Humanism’s attack on the application of Biblical law. Of course, all of this stems directly from the fact that the Secular Humanist has denied the existence and importance of the Bible’s God (Psalm 14:1). With God removed, the Secularist believes himself free to set about making this world after his own laws. Consequently, the Secular Humanist has sought to erode any law that was explicitly based in Scripture. Well, not quite. He has eroded any law that means he must restrain himself as far as carnal appetite and pleasure are concerned. He is rather keen to keep the laws regarding murder and theft as he wants to live long enough to enjoy his greed and hedonism.

The question for us all is, ‘What is next?’ What is Humanism about to redefine after its own making? The answer is already before our eyes. 2012 has seen several bills introduced to parliament with the express purpose of changing the definition of the Marriage Act so as to allow for homosexual marriage. The thing that must be impressed upon all, at this point, is that this is an escalation in the war. No longer are the Humanists simply attacking the peripheries in the application of Biblical law, they are insisting on nothing less than a redefinition of man. This battle is not about the institution of marriage as a standalone item. No. This battle is about marriage as an essential part of Man, his definition, and his purpose. At heart, it is an argument regarding Man and Marriage as life.

When Christians argue against homosexuality, they typically turn to texts such as Leviticus 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” or Romans 1:26-27. These are good texts. They teach us much. Yet we must press to the crux of the matter, if we are to argue the best case in our day.

The question that must be asked is, “Why is homosexuality and homosexual marriage Biblically wrong?” To answer this, we must return to the book of Genesis and to the Cultural Mandate (Genesis 1:26-28). There we find the incontrovertible evidence. The Cultural Mandate reads: Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  And God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

In this text there are some fundamentals that simply cannot be ignored. First, let us start with the simple but important fact that Man is made in the image of God. Of priority, we must grasp and understand that God made Man. God Almighty, in Trinity, determined to create and Man was part of that creation. Man is not, therefore, a creature from the black swamp that one day “got smart” and decided to crawl out of the primordial slime and make something of himself. Man is not the Mk 4 in monkey design – as though each new version of monkey could self-assess and rationalise what further improvements would be beneficial and then will those changes into being as the next model. Man is not chaos, chance, randomness, coincidence, or accident. He is not a cosmic virus virulent upon the earth as some type of intergalactic plague – with the earth hoping for vaccine! Man is not the meaningless, unknowing, unintelligible, transient dream of the existentialist! Man is the product of nothing less than the perceptive, absolute, unmistaken, determinative will of Almighty God. No mistake. No design flaws. No errors. Made in fullness! Made in perfection! Man, made as God intended him. Man, endued and imbued with every power, grace, gift, talent, ability, faculty, facility, and function that God intended him to possess. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Second, we note that there is “Deflation” and “Inflation”! A) – Deflation: Man is not God! He is like unto God, but he is not God. Hence, man is not a demiurge or demigod; We are not god’s trapped in mortal wrappings; We are not, as Jesus, partakers of the Divine nature. No. We are human. Our nature is human. Yet, our human nature is God like. B) – Inflation: We are more than animals. Man is not just the best of animalia. Man stands above the animals. He stands above the creation. He is God’s vice-regent over creation.  Thus, we understand that Man is elevated above creation, but we must also see that the elevator does not travel all the way to God’s throne. We are shown the magnificence of Man, but also his limitations.

Third, and this point must hit home, God’s Man was created in plurality! Man is made in God’s Image and he is made male and female. Like a coin, Man was made with two sides. Both image bearers. Both endued with God’s gifts, talents, and purposes. When the two are brought together in the marriage covenant, the whole becomes far greater than the sum of its parts. Thus says the Lord God (Genesis 2:24)!

This point must be understood, for it is the essence of any and every rebuttal to all schemes which attack Man and particularly the relationship of man to woman. In Genesis 1:28, God pronounces a blessing upon Man. Part of that blessing is that Man should be fruitful and multiply. God’s Man, made in plurality, covenanted in unity through marriage, can receive this blessing and bring it to fruition.  Humanism’s Man cannot. It does not matter how much semen you pour into a man’s rectal cavity or how many attempts are made to fashion the perfect phallic symbol, Man’s futility can never replicate or replace God’s fertility! The only reason these contemporary perverts claim any right to success is because of modern scientific advances and perverted moral behaviour. God did not need a test tube! God did not need a surrogate womb! God did not need to hatch a foul plan to inebriate some poor unsuspecting; just so the lesbian could steal his seed and claim to be fruitful! No, God made Man male and female. God gave them perfect fertility and bodies designed and equipped to fulfil Man’s assignment within God’s purpose and plan.

Therefore, the homosexual desire for marriage is not simply a desire to change a rule or definition in regard to marriage. Rather, it is a diabolical attempt to redefine Man according to the idols of Humanism. It is an attempt to rebuild Man without any reference to God, which basically means that Man must be smelt and recast. Consequently, it is nothing less than an attempt to destroy Man. In short, it is death.

Marriage, as we have seen, is not a human institution, statist or otherwise. It is not a convention or human cultural tradition. Marriage is the inherent consequence of Man being created male and female in the image of God. Marriage, therefore, is not only bound to Man as male and female, but it is bound up in the essential nature of Man as male and female. You cannot remove marriage from Man anymore than you can remove the male and femaleness of Man. Any attempt in that direction ends in the destruction and death of Man. Therefore, homosexual marriage must be repudiated as a travesty.

God made Man in His image. God made Man in plurality as male and female. God blessed Man in his plurality. All this meant that Man could come together in the union of male and female and bring forth life. God’s design had included every aspect necessary mentally, physically, and spiritually. God also gave to Man marriage; the covenant bond in which plurality became unity. Here, two halves met as rain meets a parched land. The result was an explosion of life, effervescent and vibrant. Life as God intended.

Therefore, marriage is life! That is, one man and one woman in covenant union before God. Marriage is life!