Citizenship

(Disclaimer - all analogies break down, so deal with it!)

A child being born is a wonderful thing. When that child is born to citizens of the United States, that child is a citizen as well. The child is now, in a sense, under the care of all the citizens of the U.S. Our taxes help pay for that child's education, healthcare (to some extent), welfare (if needed), etc. That child will get a Social Security Number from the government which "marks" him or her as such a citizen. That child hasn't done anything to get that citizenship, it was simply given to them because of their birth into a family of citizens.

What would we think if parents who are upstanding citizens and who take advantage of the benefits of citizenship but deny that right to their children and who themselves do not even consider their children to be citizens? Kind of strange and not the way things are intended to be.

However, that child is not really a "full-citizen" yet. They cannot vote, and have not demonstrated that they will in fact be a good citizen, or even remain a citizen at all. But up until that point, if their parents continue to nuture and train the child in the "way of citizenship", we have no reason to believe they will not in fact be true citizens.

How come this makes sense for citizenship in the United States, but when it comes to the family of God many people deny their children "citizenship" into the covenant family through baptism?

Soli Deo Gloria

Heresy and Humility (Part 1?)

Originally Posted Sunday, June 25, 2006

I am not an expert in anything. At best I know enough to get me in trouble in a lot of areas. In most areas of the “hard sciences” your lack of real knowledge can be exposed fairly quickly.It is very hard to bluff your way through a chemistry experiment! You may be able to do so for a while, but the final results will reveal your ignorance.

In the past year and a half I have been involved in a lot of theological debates in on-line bulletin boards. One thing that has struck me, and which I want to explore here, is a wondering about the connection between heresy and humility. How many heresies stem out of a lack of being humble?

In my conversations many times I had to respond to a question or a charge put against me without a lot of time to fully explore the topic. I found that my initial, quick, response was my stance throughout the argument.More often than not I would try and frame my argument with, “I could be wrong, but…” However, I am not sure if I would be humble enough to admit defeat and submit to the more Biblical arguments of others.

I kept thinking throughout these “conversations” and wondering if this is how some heresies get their start – a misreading of Scripture with a public defense of that position. As sinful beings always looking out for our own skin, we are not exactly fond of willfully making ourselves look bad, ignorant, weak, etc. Could we not force ourselves to believe our false teaching?

Although the study of the Bible is objective and the study of God is a real science, there are those that make the study subjective and rely on things not able to be objectively studied (i.e. personal subjective experience). It is these people of whom combating heresy is the most difficult, and the ones of whom we have a lot to be scared of. But even those who believe in the objective nature of the Bible can still fall prey to heresy by misreading and misapplying Biblical principles.

In conclusion I would like to pose the question of whether or not heresies can start by one not being humble and willing to submit to the better interpretation of others. I think that I am going to explore this heresy “topic” over the next few days, so stay tuned if interested and I would love to hear your comments as I explore my own thinking. Lord willing, I will be humble enough to be corrected!

Soli Deo Gloria

Imputation Analogy

Originally Posted Wednesday, June 21, 2006

First of all I must say that all analogies break down at some point, but I had fun with this one for a little while.

A few weeks ago I was hiking with some friends up San Jacinto Peak here in SoCal. Another friend (Tyler) has a GPS unit that we had played with the week before while camping, but Tyler was unable to come on this hike. However, I asked him if I could borrow his GPS.

As we were hiking I noticed that all the information concerning our hike was being added to Tyler's total odometer reading. Therefore my hiking, all my work, was being credited to Tyler! When somebody looks at his GPS they will see the 15.6 miles I hiked as well as the 3,000 feet elevation gain. Tyler had nothing to do with those miles, but yet they were being credited to his account - Tyler did nothing to earn them but they are really his!

I know analogies break down, but on the surface isn't that an apt example of the Doctrine of Imputation? Christ's work here on earth - his active and passive obedience - is credited to us. Christ did all the work, but yet when God looks at us through Christ he sees all of Christ's work clothing us. What we need to satisfy a holy and just God has been given to us without any work of our own. Because we are sinful beings, all our work amounts to nothing - we are essentially staying at the bottom going nowhere - walking around and around the car in the parking lot (thinking that we are actually climbing the peak and getting closer!). But Christ has racked up all the mileage perfectly and that has been given to us!

So does that analogy commend itself to you (minus its shortcomings)? I was having fun and it gave us something to talk about for awhile!

Take care,

Soli Deo Gloria

Just Some Quotes

Originally Posted Friday, June 16, 2006

Last Christmas break I read Machen's Christianity and Liberalism. What an unbelievable book. If you listen to the White Horse Inn, you hear him quoted a lot, and for great reason. Although Machen was fighting Protestant Liberalism in the 1920's his words ring so very true today as we go up against today's evangelicals who are straying from Biblical truth in order to be "relevant".

The book is not very long and I highly recommend it.

Below are some select quotes. I am sorry there are so many! I wanted to post more!

Few desires on the part of religious teachers have been more harmfully exaggerated than the desire to “avoid giving offence.” Only too often that desire has come perilously near dishonesty… but [the religious teacher] is unwilling to relinquish his place in the hallowed atmosphere of the Church by speaking his whole mind. (17-18)

But, it will be said, Christianity is a life, not a doctrine. The assertion is often made, and it has an appearance of godliness. But it is radically false, and to detect its falsity one does not even need to be a Christian. (19)

But is any one fact is clear, on the basis of this evidence, it is that the Christian movement at its inception was not just a way of life in the modern sense, but a way of life founded upon a message. It was based, not upon mere feeling, not upon a mere program of work, but upon an account of facts. In other words it was based upon doctrine. (20)

From the beginning, the Christian gospel, as indeed the name “gospel” or “good news” implies, consisted in an account of something that had happened. And from the beginning, the meaning of the happening was set forth; and when the meaning of the happening was set forth then there was Christian doctrine. “Christ died” – that is history; “Christ died for our sins” – that is doctrine. Without these two elements, joined in an absolutely indissoluble union, there is no Christianity. (27)

Jesus had raised in them [the disciples] high hopes; those hopes were destroyed by the Cross.; and reflections on the general principles of religion and ethics were quite powerless to revive the hopes again. (28)
** I love this quote! I don't recall the Scriptures telling us that when Jesus was arrested the disciples stood around asking, "What Would Jesus Do?" All the good examples Jesus gave them did not comfort them at the cross.

We shall never have vital contact with Jesus if we attend to his person and neglect the message; for it is the message which makes him ours.(42)

Here is found the most fundamental difference between liberalism and Christianity – liberalism is altogether in the imperative mood, whole Christianity begins with a triumphant indicative; liberalism appeals to man’s will, while Christianity announces, first, a gracious act of God. (47)
** Replace "liberalism" with "Today's Evangelicalism" and isn't scary how much the two are alike? A simple reading or hearing of popular preaching today makes this ring so true.

Without the consciousness of sin, the whole of the gospel will seem to be an idle tale. (66)

All the ideas of Christianity might be discovered in some other religion, yet there would be in that other religion no Christianity. (70)
** As somebody who has read a lot of popular preacher's sermons I find myself asking almost every time, "What makes this sermon Christian?" More often than not, nothing. As I begin to write my own sermons, Lord willing I will have the cross of Christ and the Gospel forever in front of me.

The sage of Nazareth may satisfy those who have never faced the problem of evil in their own lives; but to talk about an ideal to those who are under the thralldom of sin is a cruel mockery. (103)
** I love it: "a cruel mockery."

According to Christian belief, Jesus is our Savior, not by virtue of what he said, not even by virtue of what he was, but by what he did. He is our Savior, not because he has inspired us to live the same kind of life that he lived, but because he took upon himself the dreadful guilt of our sins and bore it instead of us on the cross. (117)

Salvation, in other words, was not merely through Christ, but it was only through Christ. In that little word “only” lay all the offense. Without that word there would have been not persecutions; the cultured men of the day would probably have been willing to give Jesus a place, and an honorable pace, among the saviors of mankind. (123)
** Isn't that word "only" still an amazing offense for many today?

If God will necessarily forgive, no matter what we do, why trouble ourselves about him at all? Such a God may deliver us from the fear of hell. But his heaven, if he has any, is full of sin. (133)

The Christian has not merely the promise of a new life, but he has already a new life. And he has not merely the promise of being pronounced righteous in God’s sight (though the blessed pronouncement will be confirmed on the judgment day), but he is already pronounced righteous here and now. At the beginning of every Christian life there stands, not a process, but a definite act of God. (140)

Christianity will indeed accomplish many useful things in this world, but if it is accepted in order to accomplish those useful things it is not Christianity. (152)
** Wow! Something to think about as some try to use Christianity to "bring America back to God". As Ken Meyers once said, "With the preaching of the gospel there will be change, because there will be a market for it." If we faithfully preach the gospel in our churches, and properly evangelize we will actually change people by the Holy Spirit working on their hearts, not by forcing morality upon them.

There may have been a day when there could be propagation of Christianity without defense. But such a day at any rate is past. At the present time, when the opponents of the gospel are almost in control of our churches, the slightest avoidance of the defense of the gospel is just sheer unfaithfulness to the Lord. (174)

In such time of crisis, God has always saved the church. But he has always saved it not by theological pacifists, but by sturdy contenders for the truth. (174)
** May we all be "sturdy contenders for the truth."

Is there no refuge from strife? Is there no place of refreshing where a man can prepare for the battle of life? Is there no place where two or three can gather in Jesus’ name, to forget for the moment all those things that divide nation from nation and race from race, to forget human pride, to forget the passions of war, to forget the puzzling problems of industrial strife, and to unite in overflowing gratitude at the foot of the cross? If there be such a place, then that is the house of God and that the gate of heaven. And from under the threshold of that house will go forth a river that will revive the weary world. (180)
** Amen!!

Scripture or Feelings?

Originally posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Not what I exactly had in mind for a first post...

I was working on giving some background information and history concerning myself so that anyone who stumbles onto my blog will know a little more about me and where I am coming from. Be that as it may, I abandoned that post in order to jump right into something that got me all bothered (you can judge for yourself if I am overreacting!). I am only going with the information given to me, and was not able to listen to the whole debate, but this is how the CRC decided to report the following matter.

Scripture or Feelings? The CRC goes with feelings.

From the CRC Synod News Release June 12, 2006:

June 12, 2006, Grand Rapids, Mich.—Synod 2006 spent almost two hours on Monday night wrestling with the issue of women’s candidacy to be ministers of the Word in the Christian Reformed Church before voting to put the matter to rest.

After a passionate and often moving debate, synod decided that from now on, when candidates for ministry are brought before a synod, it should vote on their candidacy as a group. This decision is to be inserted into the Church Order Supplement.

During the past several years, synods have alternated between voting on candidates for ministry individually or in a group.

The issue arises from the decision by Synod 1995 to permit ordination of women in the CRC as a local option by classes and churches, while recognizing that the church was not of one mind on the issue.

Voting on candidates individually permits delegates who oppose the ordination of women to abstain from voting for female candidates. However, synod heard from others who said this process has been hurtful to female candidates and their families.
Emphasis added

Now this post is NOT going to be about the issue of women's ordination. The issue at stake here is what exactly is the standard for making decisions in matters of the church.

Calvin Seminary graduates women with an M.Div. degree and therefore they are acceptable candidates for the ministry. Unless these women are completely misinformed, they have to know that not everybody in their denomination is supportive of their call to the ministry. In Synods past delegates were able to approve individual candidates to the ministry (although this has jumped back and forth), so that they could not approve those candidates that their Scriptural convictions forced them not to approve. Of course those that approved the women also had their own Scriptural convicions, and were able to vote accordingly as well.

But it seems that the women in the group did not like being voted down - "it was hurtful to them and their families." COME ON!! They knew walking into the Synod that "the church was not of one mind on the issue" and that there were delegates who WOULD NOT approve them. They knew that, but yet in Synods past when the approval was done on an individual basis, they were still approved as candidates for the ministry were they not?

Again, this post is not about the validity of women's ordination. But I see another force at work here. The Scriptures are not being held as the standard for the church. Those that do not believe in the ordination of women, now HAVE to vote to not approve the whole lot of candidates in order to abide by those Scriptural convictions. Those Scriptural convictions were trumped by the feelings of the women candidates. If I am wrong, please tell me how, but I am pretty certain of this fact.

I am scared as to where this can (will?) lead to. How can you have proper church discipline if the feelings of the person being disciplined are taken over and above Scripture? How can you preach the Law of God if you are too concerned about how that might make the congregation ( *gasp* not to mention unbelievers) feel? What if there is a homosexual up for candidacy (Lord willing, they wouldn't get that far), but what if? Then what do you do? You don't want to hurt their feelings by voting against them.

I am sorry for the length of this post, but I really think this is a serious matter. One of the things I am going to do in this blog is to highlight some of the problems with American Evangelicalism because they are moving farther and farther away from Scripture and are leading their flocks down the wrong path. I did not think that my first post would be about the CRC going down similar, dangerous, paths.

Remember: Sola Scriptura!!

Sola Deo Gloria