Friday, June 14, 2013

“The just shall live by faith”— A Study of the Relationship of Faith to Salvation in its Justifying, Sanctifying, and Glorifying Fulness, part 15


The specific quotations of Genesis 15:6[i] and Habakkuk 2:4 in the New Testament, both by Paul and by James, lie in clear continuity with both the grammatical-historical meaning of the Old Testament texts in their specific contexts and the wider Old and New Testament doctrines about the status and character of the just, the nature of the life that they possess, and the role of faith.  The New Testament quotations will be examined in their chronological order—James, then Galatians, then Romans, and finally Hebrews.

James, in his quotation from Genesis 15:6 in James 2:23, emphasizes the aspect of the Old Testament doctrine of faith that indicates that continuing faith, faithfulness, and obedience are the certain products of genuine conversion and justifying faith.  His usage is clear from an examination of James 2:14-26.  A man who says that he has faith, but does not have works, does not have the sort of faith that Abraham possessed, but a “faith” of a different and inferior character, a kind of mental assent that does not result in inward renewal and one that will not save he who possesses only it (James 2:14).[ii] James 2:14a-d does not actually affirm that the speaker is a possessor of genuine faith;  rather, he is one who only vocally testifies that he is a possessor of faith (cf. 1:25).  Nor does James call him a “brother”;  he is simply “a man,” a certain one who says[iii] he has faith—indeed, he is but a “vain man” (2:20).  While he does not affirm that this “vain man” has real faith, James does state that this man does not have works—while such a person says that he has faith, what is actually clear is that he does not have works.[iv]  His faith does not express itself in deeds, only in words—the only way that he can show that he has faith is by a confession of orthodox doctrine, for his deeds show nothing (2:18-19).[v]  The absence of works is a clear distinguishing characteristic of his life.[vi]  James therefore asks, “can faith—the kind of faith[vii] that does not produce works—save?” (James 2:14e).  James’ answer to this question is “no.”[viii]  Such a profession of faith is as empty and worthless as are pleasant sounding words unaccompanied by genuine material assistance to a desperately needy, hungry, and naked Christian brother who is in danger of death by starvation or exposure (2:15-17; cf. Matthew 25:36, 43).  A profession of compassion without deeds has no value in meeting physical needs, and an empty profession of faith that does not produce works similarly has no power to save spiritually.  This kind of faith,[ix] the kind that is characteristically or continually unaccompanied by works,[x] is dead, being alone or by itself[xi] (2:17, 20, 26).  There is as much of a difference between this professed but empty and dead “faith” and saving faith as there is between a dead body and a living man (2:26),[xii] and such a dead faith will only save men as much as it will save devils (2:19).[xiii]

James sets forth Abraham (2:21-24) as the paradigmatic example of the fact that saving faith is always accompanied with works.  Abraham was justified by works[xiv]—shown to be righteous[xv] in this world—when he offered Isaac his son, as recorded in Genesis 22.[xvi]  Works did not transfer Abraham from the realm of those under Divine wrath and headed for damnation into the realm of the redeemed who possess the Divine favor and are headed for eternal glory.  Such a transformation, as James indicates by his quotation of Genesis 15:6, took place when Abraham believed and was accounted righteous through the imputation of Messianic righteousness.  Works do not transform a dead faith into a living faith, but they manifest the presence of living faith.  James recognizes the teaching of Genesis that faith, not obedience, is the instrumentality through which men receive that perfect and sufficient righteousness that provides a sure everlasting hope in the sight of God, while he emphasizes the fact, also clearly taught in Genesis and the rest of the Old Testament, that the believing are the faithful, so that those who are declared righteous before God on the basis of imputed righteousness are also shown righteous in this life by their works.  James refers to the “works” of Abraham, rather than to the single “work” of offering up Isaac, because Abraham’s faithfulness on Mount Moriah, in putting Jehovah’s command before his own beloved Isaac (Genesis 22), was the culminating work recorded in Genesis of the patriarch’s life of faithfulness, all of which sprung out of the transformation that took place in his life decades earlier through his being brought into union with God through faith in the land of Ur[xvii] as attested in Genesis 15:6.  Abraham’s faith was “made perfect”[xviii] by his works (James 2:22) because Abraham’s receipt of a Divine imputed righteousness was not left alone, but led to progressive sanctification and ultimately to glorification.  Justification, sanctification, and glorification are a continuum along which all the saints, but none but they, are brought.  Abraham’s faith in response to the Divine call and revelation in Genesis 12 and 15 was brought to full measure, to completeness, by works, in that inward holiness and its outward fruit of good works are products of the union with Christ established through faith.  The statement of Genesis 15:6 that Abraham believed God was “fulfilled” (James 2:23) by Abraham’s faithful obedience, culminating in the events of Genesis 22, because true faith, the faith that brings he who exercises it into union with Jehovah and results in imputed righteousness, also always results in faithfulness and obedience.  Such obedience is so certain an issue of saving faith that James can regard the statement of Abraham’s exercise of saving faith in Genesis 15:6 as a prediction[xix] of following obedience which was fulfilled in the patriarch’s works, culminating in Genesis 22.  Abraham’s offering up his son was a fulfillment of his believing in God.  One who believes will come to act like Abraham did in Genesis 22 and will be the friend of God[xx] instead of being the friend of the world and the adulterous enemy of God (James 4:4). Had Abraham stayed in Ur of the Chaldees instead of rejecting idolatry and entrusting himself to and following Jehovah based on the Abrahamic covenant, he would not have been justified, as Rahab would likewise not have been justified had she sided with the idolatrous enemies of Jehovah in Jericho and had she refused to protect the spies (James 2:25; Joshua 2, 6), but they both would have been unjustified not because they had a true faith that just never produced anything, but because such a lack of works would have been indicative of an absence of true faith.[xxi]  Since true faith always results in faithfulness,[xxii] the kind of faith that does not produce works is dead (James 2:20, 24, 26).  James affirms, as does Paul (Romans 2:13) and the rest of the Old and New Testament, that one who possesses a dead “faith only”[xxiii] that is without works, one who is a “hearer only” (James 1:22)[xxiv] who does not obey the Word, is yet unregenerate.[xxv]  Such a person must not allow himself to be deceived by his empty profession.  Abraham’s life is clear—true faith results in faithfulness, and only the believing, who are the faithful, possess spiritual life now and eternal life in the eschaton.  The just shall live by faith.


This post is part of the complete study here.



-TDR



[i] Richard Longenecker notes:
The theme of the faith of Abraham in the NT . . . has a number of facets to it, and each possesses its own validity as well as serves to enhance the whole: Faith is a wholehearted response to God in Christ, apart from a person’s own attempts to gain merit, as Paul has stressed in countering the Judaizers; it is that which results in acts of positive helpfulness and kindness with respect to the physical needs of others, as James has emphasized in combating a perversion of Christian doctrine: and it is that which eagerly looks forward to the full realization of God’s promises in the future, arranging its priorities and setting its lifestyle accordingly here and now, as . . . Hebrews has highlighted in confronting the situation [it] was addressing. Like the beauty of a diamond which is only fully appreciated when the gem is rotated slowly in the light, so the faith of Abraham is only known in its fulness as we study it in its varying circumstantial dimensions and as we allow those dimensions to transform our own thinking, outlook, lifestyle and action. (pg. 211, “The ‘Faith of Abraham’ Theme in Paul, James, and Hebrews:  A Study in the Circumstantial Nature of New Testament Teaching,” Richard N. Longenecker.  Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20:3 (September 1977) 203-212)

[ii] Ti÷ to\ o¡feloß, aÓdelfoi÷ mou, e˙a»n pi÷stin le÷ghØ tiß e¶cein, e¶rga de« mh\ e¶chØ; mh\ du/natai hJ pi÷stiß sw◊sai aujto/n;  James 2:14 states the topic of the entire section of 2:14-26.

[iii] le÷ghØ tiß.  Note also 2:18, where his claim that he has faith is repeated, although James affirms that his claim is merely empty.

[iv] e¶rga de« mh\ e¶chØ.

[v] James’ reference to the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) is illustrative, not comprehensive, of the orthodox doctrinal affirmations of his rhetorical adversary (the “vain man” of v. 20) in 2:14-26.  The point is not that one has dead faith who is merely a monotheist, but that one who has a matchless profession of doctrinal orthodoxy, as illustrated in a happy confession of the Shema, but has no deeds, has dead faith.  The devils are not merely monotheists, but have a peerless theological orthodoxy;  they believe in the Trinity, in justification before God by faith alone, in the creation account of Genesis, the resurrection of Christ, heaven and hell, and all other Biblical doctrine, but they are obviously devoid of saving faith.

[vi] James consequently employs the present subjunctive e¶chØ rather than the aorist subjunctive scw◊ (Acts 25:26; Romans 1:13; Philippians 2:27) to describe what the man of James 2:14 does not have.  Many texts with the present subjunctive of e¶cw clearly refer to durative or continuing action, and not one clearly refers to a point action (Matthew 17:20; 19:16; 21:21; Mark 4:25; Luke 8:18; John 3:15–16; 5:40; 6:40; 8:6; 10:10; 13:35; 16:33; 17:13; 20:31; Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 4:15; 6:4; 13:1–3; 2 Corinthians 1:15; 2:3; 5:12; 8:12; Ephesians 4:28; Colossians 3:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:12; 1 Timothy 5:20; Hebrews 6:18; 12:28; James 2:14, 17; 1 John 1:3; 2:28; 3:17; 4:17).

[vii] The article in James 2:14e on hJ pi÷stiß is anaphoric, referring to the pi÷stin le÷ghØ tiß e¶cein of James 2:14c;  that is, it “points back to a certain kind of faith as defined by the author” (pg. 219, Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics), namely, the kind of faith that does not produce works.  This kind of faith, a faith that does not manifest itself in works, is the topic in view throughout the passage.  Note the series of anaphoric articles on faith in the following verses:  hJ pi÷stiß, v. 17;  th\n pi÷stin sou . . .  th\n pi÷stin mou, v. 18;  hJ pi÷stiß, v. 20;  hJ pi÷stiß, v. 22 (2x);  hJ pi÷stiß, v. 26.
[viii] The question with mh/ in v. 14 anticipates a negative answer.

[ix] Note again the anaphoric article in ou¢tw kai« hJ pi÷stiß.

[x] mh\ e¶rga e¶chØ expresses durative action.

[xi] Compare the kaq∆ e˚auth/n of James 2:17 with Acts 28:16; Hebrews 6:13.

[xii] In James 2:26, the “faith” which is compared to a body is, in keeping with the pericope, intellectual assent to a body of doctrinal propositions.  Such intellectual assent, James affirms, is not living without works, which are compared to the animating spirit.  A living man, in contrast to a corpse, has both a body and a spirit.

[xiii] While the pisteu/w o¢ti in James 2:19 is not unable to express the totality of what is involved in saving faith, it here emphasizes the intellectual assent of the “faith” mentioned.

[xiv] The question of James 2:20 with ouj, which introduces the example of Abraham, expects a positive answer, as do the questions with ouj in 2:4-7, 25; 4:1, 4.

[xv] The verb to justify (dikaio/w) in James 2:21, 24, 25 does not refer to a legal declaration of righteousness at the judgment bar of God, based solely on the imputed righteousness of Christ, as it does in a variety of other texts in the New Testament (Luke 18:14; Acts 13:39; Revelation 22:11) and especially frequently in Paul, when he refers to the present justification believers receive through the sole instrumentality of faith (cf. Romans 3:20, 24, 26, 28, 30; 4:2, 5; 5:1, 9; 8:30, 33; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Galatians 2:16-17; 3:8, 11, 24; 5:4; Titus 3:7).  A variety of other senses of justification appear in the New Testament (cf. 1 Timothy 3:16; 1 Corinthians 4:4).  The reference in James is rather to Abraham being declared, manifested, or shown as righteous in this world, during his lifetime, because of his righteous actions.  James’ declarative point is clearly stated in the context:  “I will shew thee my faith by my works” (James 2:18).  Abraham was shown to be righteous because he offered up Isaac, and Rahab was shown to be righteous because she protected the Hebrew spies.  Neither the predominant Pauline sense of to justify as a reference to the Divine declaration of the believer as righteous based solely on the imputed righteousness of Christ, nor the sense of to justify in James 2, refers to justification as an infusion of righteousness that confounds justification with progressive sanctification;  in both Paul and James justification is a declaration based on what is already present, not an infusion of holiness that inwardly constitutes one righteous.  It should be noted that the New Testament certainly does not always refer to justification as a legal declaration by God directed towards men, although justification remains always a declaration of righteousness rather than an infusion of holiness:  the children of wisdom justify wisdom (Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:35);  God is justified in his sayings and overcomes when He is judged (Romans 3:4);  people justify God by submitting to the baptism of John the Baptist (Luke 7:29);  the self-righteous wish to justify themselves (Luke 10:29), and, indeed, the Pharisees were justifying themselves before men while they were still abominable to God (Luke 16:15).  People can declare God to be righteous, but they hardly can make Him so.  In light of the range in New Testament usage, there is nothing out of the ordinary in James’ use of justification as a this-worldy recognition of the righteousness of the righteous upon the earth, nor does his usage of the verb in this sense contradict in the least the usage of Paul about justification before the legal tribunal of God in heaven.

James’ usage of to justify also matches the dominant Pauline usage of the verb to refer to present realities possesssed by the people of God upon the earth, rather than an eschatological vindication.  In James 2 neither Abraham nor Rahab was justified with reference to an eschatological judgment;  Abraham offered up Isaac, and Rahab protected the spies, on the earth during their respective lifetimes.  Since all those who possess true faith will also be faithful, so that those who have had Christ perfectly fulfill the law for them will also be characterized by obedience to the law, there is no reason to deny that the people of God will experience an eschatological vindication of themselves as righteous associated with their speech and deeds (Matthew 12:37, cf. Romans 10:9-10).  Nonetheless those that are shown righteous, whether in this life (James 2) or in eschatological judgment, still have as the ultimate ground or basis of their standing before God only a righteousness from Christ credited to them through faith alone.  Those who characteristically obey the law will be justified (Romans 2:13), but not on the ground or basis of their obedience to the law, but because the doers of the law are those who have believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and consequently, by means of regeneration, have become faithful, although their standing before God, whether during their earthly pilgrimage or at the time of their standing before God in judgment, remains solely based on the imputed righteousness of Christ.

[xvi] Note God’s statement of Abraham’s righteousness in Genesis 22:12, where Abraham’s willingness to offer Isaac reveals the patriarch’s already extant faith, resulting in the blessings stated in 22:16-18.

[xvii] Compare Hebrews 11:8-19.  Note the view of James 2 in 1 Clement 10-12 also.

[xviii] In the expression e˙k tw◊n e¶rgwn hJ pi÷stiß e˙teleiw¿qh, teleio/w + e˙k indicates that faith is “made perfect” by works in the sense that faith reaches its intended goal in works, rather than that faith is inherently imperfect or flawed until a certain level of works become manifest.  A conceptual parallel is found in 1 John 4:12 (e˙a»n aÓgapw◊men aÓllh/louß, oJ Qeo\ß e˙n hJmi√n me÷nei, kai« hJ aÓga¿ph aujtouv teteleiwme÷nh e˙sti«n e˙n hJmi√n), where the love of God is “perfected” in believers as they love one another in that Divine love is brought to its intended goal—certainly God’s love is not imperfect until believers come to love one another enough.  The specific teleio/w + e˙k construction in James 2:22 is a New Testament hapax legomenon, but Koiné parallels support the idea of perfecting as being brought to an intended goal;  e. g., Philo refers to one who has been “made perfect by education,” that is, brought to the intended goal by means of education (e˙k didaskali÷aß teleiwqe÷nti, On Rewards and Punishments 1:49; cf. On Husbandry 1:42; On the Confusion of Tongues 1:181).

[xix] The “and the scripture was fulfilled” (kai« e˙plhrw¿qh hJ grafh/) formula of James 2:23 is Biblically employed for the fulfillment of prophecy (Matthew 26:54, 56; Mark 14:49; 15:28; Luke 4:21; Acts 1:16) and should not have its prophecy/fulfillment sense weakened in the exposition of James 2.

[xx] James 2:23, fi÷loß Qeouv.  See Isaiah 41:8 (Symmachus, touv fi÷lou mou for the Hebrew y`IbShOa); 2 Chronicles 20:7; cf. John 15:14-15.  In Genesis 18, Abraham also showed friendship/hospitality (filoxeni÷a) to the Lord and two angels (Hebrews 13:2).  Abraham was the friend of God from the time of his justification by faith, but he was called (e˙klh/qh, James 2:23) and recognized as the friend of God subsequently because of the works that manifested his faith.

[xxi] Hebrews 11:31.  All the inhabitants of the city of Jericho had the “faith” of the “vain man” of James 2:20 (Joshua 2:9-11), but only Rahab truly believed and entrusted herself to Jehovah (Hebrews 11:31; Joshua 2:11; cf. Deuteronomy 4:39) and consequently acted on her already present living faith, so that she was saved instead of perishing with the idolators of Jericho.  While those in Jericho with the vain man’s “faith” perished as “accursed” (M®rEj) under the temporal curse of death and the eternal curse of the second death, “Rahab . . . shall live” and be “saved . . . alive” (Joshua 6:17, 25, hÎyDj) with all that pertained to her, delivered from spiritual, physical, and eternal death with the pagans in Jericho, to possess spiritual life, a blessed portion with the people of God, and eternal life.

[xxii] From his use of both Abraham and Rahab as illustrations, James demonstrates that in all cases works proceed from true faith.  If those from the status of the patriarch of Israel down to the status of a Canaanite prostitute woman manifest their faith in works, surely all those of any status with real faith will manifest their belief in works (cf. James 2:1ff.).

[xxiii] pi÷stiß mo/noß.

[xxiv] mo/noß aÓkroath/ß, the only other use of mo/noß in James.

[xxv] Warfield notes:

It was to James that it fell to rebuke the Jewish tendency to conceive of the faith which was pleasing to Jehovah as a mere intellectual acquiescence in His being and claims, when imported into the Church and made to do duty as ‘the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Glory’ (James 2:1). He has sometimes been misread as if he were depreciating faith, or at least the place of faith in salvation. But it is perfectly clear that with James, as truly as with any other New Testament writer, a sound faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as the manifested God (James 2:1) lies at the very basis of the Christian life (James 1:3), and is the condition of all acceptable approach to God (James 1:6, 5:15). It is not faith as he conceives it which he depreciates, but that professed faith (le÷ghØ, James 2:14) which cannot be shown to be real by appropriate works (James 2:18), and so differs by a whole diameter alike from the faith of Abraham that was reckoned unto him for righteousness (James 2:23), and from the faith of Christians as James understood it (James 2:1, 1:3, cf. 1:22). The impression which is easily taken from the last half of the second chapter of James, that his teaching and that of Paul stand in some polemic relation, is, nevertheless, a delusion, and arises from an insufficient realization of the place occupied by faith in the discussions of the Jewish schools, reflections of which have naturally found their way into the language of both Paul and James. And so far are we from needing to suppose some reference, direct or indirect, to Pauline teaching to account for James’ entrance upon the question which he discusses, that this was a matter upon which an earnest teacher could not fail to touch in the presence of a tendency common among the Jews at the advent of Christianity (cf. Matthew 3:9; 7:21; 23:3; Romans 2:17), and certain to pass over into Jewish-Christian circles: and James’ treatment of it finds, indeed, its entire presupposition in the state of things underlying the exhortation of James 1:22. When read from his own historical standpoint, James’ teachings are free from any disaccord with those of Paul, who as strongly as James denies all value to a faith which does not work by love (Galatians 5:6; 1 Corinthians 13:2; 1 Thessalonians 1:3). In short, James is not depreciating faith: with him, too, it is faith that is reckoned unto righteousness (ii.23), though only such a faith as shows itself in works can be so reckoned, because a faith which does not come to fruitage in works is dead, non-existent. He is rather deepening the idea of faith, and insisting that it includes in its very conception something more than an otiose intellectual assent. (“The Biblical Doctrine of Faith,” Biblical Doctrines, vol. 2 of Works)

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Why Does this President of the United States Remain Popular?

If the Republicans had even a slightly better candidate than Mitt Romney for President in 2012, I believe they would have won the election.  I say this because of the after-election reports that conservatives did not show up.  Less people voted than 2008, so a big Republican turn-out could have swung the election the other direction.  It still would have been close, but Republicans could have won.  Two big reasons conservatives stayed home in substantial numbers were, first, Romney's lack of conservatism -- conservatives didn't want another McCain-like candidate -- and, second, Mormonism -- many evangelicals wouldn't pull the lever for a Mormon.

On the other hand, the election shouldn't have been close because of how bad the economy was.  Early in his first term, President Obama himself said that if the unemployment numbers weren't lower, the voters should vote him out.  He didn't deserve to be reelected.  The economy started poorly under Obama, got worse, and didn't improve.   Here we are another half year in and the unemployment numbers just went up again last month.  I think most people know that the percentage of total employment is the lowest in decades, because people had even stopped looking for jobs.

Now we have multiple scandals unlike anything like I've seen in my lifetime.  We've had scandals before, but not so many going at one time.  You can correct me if you think I'm wrong, but it seems we now have four (or five) of them at one time:  Benghazi, IRS, AP Reporters/James Rosin, and now the NSA snooping.  These scandals are really bad and they should be enough to sink this Presidency -- maybe they will -- but the President still maintains around a 45-47% approval rating.  There doesn't seem to be any good reason for him to retain such an approval.  What are people approving of?

This is all just my opinion, but in my opinion there are two positive reasons President Obama stays popular:  his even temperament (or what some would call his "cool") and then his family.  The President looks like he has a solid family.   It looks very normal in comparison especially to other White House families.  He's married to the same woman and has two daughters that seem normal.  He looks unflappable and his family looks normal.  Those two help keep him popular.  We see family scandals among politicians and Obama doesn't have those.  I don't think those two should be enough, but they do contribute to keeping the approval rating as high as it is.

The 45-47% approval rating should hearken back to the campaign with the Romney slip about the 47%.  As much as people mocked Romney about that faux pas, he has looked very prophetic with it.  I think people know that what he said was actually correct.  I'm not saying that Obama couldn't move below that 45-47%.   He could have an exodus, especially if people start giving up on his economic philosophy because of their own personal pain.  They could "see the light" so-to-speak, if there is a massive standard of living drop in the country.

However, again, it's still at 45-47 in pretty bad conditions.  What keeps it there?  The media is still a major factor.   You know that if George W. Bush had these scandals, he would get far worse treatment, to put it lightly.  The media has been more negative, but they're still defensive of the President with the exception of Fox News.  But the 45-47 don't watch Fox News.  They don't listen to conservative talk shows on the radio.  The media is still an advocate of the Obama administration in a blatantly hypocritical way.  We still haven't heard Benghazi truth.  We still don't know how high up the IRS situation had gone.  There is still no resolution to the James Rosin issue.  A good example of the media capitulation is the relative silence on Gosnell, the abortion doctor in Philadelphia, killing babies after they were born.  The media left that one alone.  Gosnell was simply taking the same position that Obama defended while he was a state senator in Illinois.  The media essentially supports killing babies after botched abortions.  It's morally consistent for them as a whole.  And even if they don't like it, they are so pro-abortion that they can't make abortion look bad.  The media doesn't show the curiosity and doesn't do the digging on Obama.  There is a lot fishy about his birth, his parents, his associations, and his college records, but they were unwilling to get to the bottom of it.

Comedians, a part of the media, have a big impact in this culture.  They shouldn't, but they do.  When people think someone is a national joke, that person becomes sort of radioactive as a politician.  You can see this having happened to Dan Quayle, Sarah Palin, and George W. Bush.  It's also one reason why Joe Biden won't be president.  Those people were mocked so regularly that it became uncool to like them any more.  The comedians don't joke about Obama.  I don't have cable or an antennae, but I read the comedy in transcripts, and now only and finally do we get some jokes from Jay Leno.  Still the other comedians leave Obama alone.  They either don't want to hurt him, because they support him, or they are too afraid to joke about him, because of the charge of racism.

So, the media still supports Obama.  I'm going to wrap all the other reasons into one other reason, the second, which is the coalition of special interests.  Here they are, not necessarily in any order:  women, homosexuals, blacks, unions, the NEA, other teacher's unions, students at the liberal colleges, government dependents, environmentalists, animal rights activists, hispanic illegal immigration supporters, the Jewish vote, and atheists and agnostics.   There are probably more.   A lot of these groups live in urban areas, which explains the blueness of metropolitan locations.  Some don't fit into any of these groups, but they are in affinity with those who are in them, and the media supports these groups, which influences others who are not in them.  The Democrats have cobbled together a core Democrat voting bloc based on self-interest that guarantees Obama a base amount of approval, as long as he does not transgress the basic party line, which he essentially does not.  There are some contradictions between some of these groups.  A lot of blacks oppose homosexuality, for instance, so they'll vote for Obama but not for homosexual marriage.  Windmills, a pet of the environmentalists, kill birds in great numbers, which offends the animal rights activists, but they're both still in the pocket of Obama.

More than any other of the above list, the most influential, I believe, is women.  Women keep Obama afloat more than any one group.  Women are more liberal than ever, they have the majority of votes in this country, and they're not that happy with men.  A recent study says that 40% of the breadwinners in families are now women.  You probably know that the Republicans win the male vote and the Democrats win the female vote.  It is the women who win the Democrats their elections. Women are essentially in charge in this country.

What I've described above also gauges the spiritual condition of the country.  In many cases, churches are not countering the downward trend, but contextualizing their message and approach to fit into it.  Things won't change because many churches aren't addressing the problem.  They are capitulating to it.

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Origin of the Universe and Life: Random or Designed

Genesis 1:1 starts:  "In the beginning God."  The most basic understanding of world view comes down to whether you support those four English words or not.  If you accept them, that changes everything for you.  You are no longer free to assign meaning and value to the world.  God does that for you.  Since there is a beginning, there's also an ending.  Everything begins and ends with God.

The alternative to design is random.  And the alternative to random is design.  That's why if the evidence and probability is against random, then the scientific conclusion is design.  You don't have a third choice.  If everything is random, then no objective meaning can be assigned to the universe or life.  Everything came about by accident.  If everything is an accident, there can't be right or wrong.  The consistent position of a random universe and life is amorality.   Nothing can be said to be right or wrong.  There is no truth, no goodness, and no beauty.

No accident, which is what everything would be in a random universe, could be responsible for anything.  I understand that the world doesn't look like an accident, but that is beside the point.  Many people today say that it is the result of blind chance and yet we can also make moral judgments.  In other words, they choose to borrow a theistic (Christian) world view to argue for some type of morality.  They choose what they want for their world, in that world there is no controlling authority, and yet there is sufficient morality for their own convenience.

No random universe and life advocate should argue right or wrong.  He has no basis to do so.  When he does, he capitulates to a designed or created universe or life.   Or  in other words, he has conceded to a theistic world view.   So everyone lives according to a design origin.  They can't live otherwise, because there is no other alternative.  There is no choice between random and design.  It's a false choice, because design is all that exists.

The random side says that with enough chance and time, the universe and life could have originated and evolved.  To start, this ignores the second law of thermodynamics.  The energy necessary to sustain the repeated accidents until one sustainable useful, correct event occurred has depleted to the extent that the possibilities are increasingly remote.  It also ignores the law of biogenesis,  Life comes from life, not non-life.   When life is "created" in a laboratory, it always interacts with life of some sort.  Never has life randomly risen from non-life.

It's not just that one jackpot must be hit in the lottery of the universe and life, but those correct accidents must occur repeatedly in a very short, compact period of time.  Winning the lottery is possible, but this isn't about winning the lottery, but about choosing the right numbers day after day for months and years.  No one should believe that.   He should instead believe what he observes, which is a universe and life of design, truth, goodness, and beauty.

Sunday, June 09, 2013

Has God Made Numerical Church Growth Difficult to Figure Out or Hard to Understand?

The church in Jerusalem grew.   As it grew, it built bigger buildings, its leaders became famous, were approached for book contracts, and scheduled for large conferences, and many came from all over to visit to find its secret.  No.  Nothing like that.  Its members fled for their lives and nearly all its leaders were killed.

God has a different agenda with growth.  He separates unto Himself a people who will glorify Him forever.   He is building a kingdom and using the church to do it.  A church could attract numerous attendees in different manners and do more damage to the kingdom than if it never existed, at the same time getting great credit from evangelicalism or fundamentalism for doing a great work.

During last presidential election, President Obama said the now famous "you didn't build that" statement.  When it comes to a church, he would actually be right.  And if it's true that you didn't build it, then you're actually doing a good job.

I was reading tonight about how hard it is to build a business in the United States today.  It's harder doing business in America than ever.  It's not unusual for people to want to make a quick buck, explaining the popularity of the lottery.  This also explains the Great Depression, the dot.com bubble, and the mortgage crisis.  People bought overvalued Facebook stock with hopes of a future Apple or Microsoft.  Men are also looking for an angle for church growth, which explains the popularity of the conferences and books intended to explain it.

Actual church growth doesn't take a seminar.  There is no secret.  Whoever complicates church growth with lengthy explanations, as is often the case today, isn't telling the truth about it.  It is not difficult to figure out.  The secret now really is that there is no secret.  It was never intended to be secret or complicated.  It is so simple that anyone can figure it out.  It's very simple --  it's just not popular.  The means of growth wasn't intended to make sense, because God is the one who takes care of it.  What's contradictory about modern church growth is that it does make sense and it is more complicated.  You need seminars for it, or even a D. Min. to figure it out.  Church growth today is much harder to understand than the Bible.

As I said, the biblical way doesn't make sense.  But how could modern church growth be more complicated and yet make more sense?  It makes sense to men for something to be more complicated.  But simplicity is what it is, whether that makes sense or not.  When it is complicated, more complicated than the Bible, and you're the one who understands it, well, you know who gets the credit for that.

Recently I've been listening to, watching, and reading Tim Keller.  He went to New York City as a middle aged man in the late 1980s and started from scratch, and by reports, Redeemer Presbyterian has 4,000 gathering on Sundays there now.   As I read him, four thoughts stick out to me, in no particular order.

One, he needed to go to New York City to change in his thinking about church growth.  He would not have rethought church growth without being in such an impossible place for typical church growth to start.  By the way, why would someone, who had read through the New Testament, and knows it, be rethinking church growth?  How could there be something new about church growth after 2,000 years of the church?   That doesn't make sense at all to me, in every way that I judge in the most obvious fashion.  And yet it does make sense to many people.  It reminds me of the James Carville, Bill Clinton, presidential compaign for the 1992 election:  change and not more of the same.  More of the same doesn't make sense.  Change does.  That's why it makes sense to people that there's something different to be learned about church growth after 2,000 years that had been missed.  Change is a key.  Not really, but really.

And number one does connect to number two.  Number two is a new look at Luke 15.  Keller calls it "the third way" and he explains that in his book, The Prodigal God, and then his church growth book, Center Church (I'll be writing some more about this idea in future posts hopefully).  That transformed his thinking about how churches grow.  People were approaching this thing all wrong, who didn't have this particular understanding of Luke 15.  The third way is Clintonian too.  Clintonian triangulation, the Sister Souljah moment in the campaign.  The third way was a new way to do politics and Keller is also offering a type of triangulation.  The Center Church is in the center for a reason, centrist.  Keller has tapped into a third way, which is a new way, which has been his key to church growth there, which he wouldn't have known without going to New York City.   Is there a secret way, a way we hadn't really known before, that is found in Luke 15?  

The third part of it is that people don't want to work without results.  Little known is that your labor is in fact in vain without the numbers.  I know what the Bible says, but trust me.  They want the secret for doing God's work and seeing the results they want to see.  One of the merits of Keller's way, which isn't the first recent innovation in church growth, is that you don't have to totally sell out on doctrine to get it done.  When people attend Redeemer, they feel like they just got something the equivalent of a very good about 35 minute classroom lecture.  I can take a very good 55 minute classroom lecture, but you don't want to press this too far (from what I've read, 35 minutes is about 15 minutes longer than the typical PCA sermon today).   This approach does not insult anyone's intelligence.  Not everyone is seeking after signs.  There is a way to attract those people, especially who look like they walked off a Friends episode, but it is quite a bit messier, and you can find yourself feeling like the circus-master.  Grimy.  Lowest common denominator.  Either way, the attraction is the results.  He's got them, and as Jack Hyles once said, "I've got more people in my bathrooms at any one service than you do in your auditorium."  So there.

The fourth part is everything that comes along with numbers.   Can you see yourself putting up with missing all that?

No, church growth comes from means clearly spelled out in the Bible.  The biggest problem as you read those means in scripture is that people won't like them.  Modern church growth is about turning this process into something attractive, and then justifying that by piecing it together with a bewildering extrapolation of verses.  Facepalm.  Why couldn't I have seen that?  But who am I to question the results?  Those are easy to see.  And I wouldn't want to criticize these professions just because of my own sour grapes.  And the body is a diverse group of parts.  And they might differ on the non-essentials, but we're all the same on what really matters, so let's just welcome what's happening.  Hope the best.

The above means are not how Jesus or Paul did it.  The simplicity is preach the gospel to everybody.  A few will want it and most will not.  Those who do not want it will in general hate you.  You'll have a lot of people hating you.  Your church will be way different than the world.  You won't be able to explain the growth because of those big differences.  Something supernatural has obviously taken place.  You keep teaching the Bible to the converts, they grow, they preach to others.  More preaching occurs until everyone in your area hears.  All of those saved keep assembling and worshiping the Lord to His glory.

There is no guaranteed way that your church will get big in number with a scriptural means.  The Bible reads mainly the opposite.  Keller and others sort of offer a guarantee.  There's a way that will work if you implement it correctly.  That's what you need seminars for.   Numerical church growth is actually simple to understand and not hard to figure out.  It's a matter of whether the churches and their leaders will obey it.

Friday, June 07, 2013

“The just shall live by faith”— A Study of the Relationship of Faith to Salvation in its Justifying, Sanctifying, and Glorifying Fulness, part 14


The peitho word group[i] supplies further light on the nature of Christian faith.[ii]  The verb means “to come to believe the certainty of something on the basis of being convinced—‘to be certain, to be sure, to be convinced,’” or “to believe in something or someone to the extent of placing reliance or trust in or on—‘to rely on, to trust in, to depend on, to have (complete) confidence in, confidence, trust.’”[iii]  Coming to saving faith, to believing, is to be persuaded[iv] of the truth about Christ and the gospel, and consequently, turning from all false confidences,[v] to trust or place one’s confidence[vi] in Him alone.  Related words signify persuasive, convincing,[vii] persuasion,[viii] and confidence or trust.[ix]  Paul, as a pattern true for every Christian, testified:  “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.”[x]  The saving faith of the Old Testament saints, set forth as a paradigm for those in the dispensation of grace, possessed, in addition to knowledge, persuasion of the truth concerning Christ and the promises about Him as a constituent element, which resulted in an embrace of the promises and He who was offered in them.[xi]  Persuasion, confidence, trust, and assurance that Christ will indeed save those who come to Him are elements of saving faith.[xii]  Since “[t]o be convinced and to believe is finally to obey,”[xiii] peitho consequently passes over from confidence and trust to obedience.[xiv]  The idea obey is clearly present in the word group.[xv]  The people of God are those who believingly trust and consequently obey[xvi]—thus, the verb disbelieve or disobey[xvii] is never used of them, nor are its related noun[xviii] or adjective.[xix]  Saving faith is an entrusting of oneself to Christ which results in obedience.


This post is part of the complete study here.

-TDR





[i] pei÷qw, Matthew 27:20, 43; 28:14; Mark 10:24; Luke 11:22; 16:31; 18:9; 20:6; Acts 5:36–37, 40; 12:20; 13:43; 14:19; 17:4; 18:4; 19:8, 26; 21:14; 23:21; 26:26, 28; 27:11; 28:23–24; Romans 2:8, 19; 8:38; 14:14; 15:14; 2 Corinthians 1:9; 2:3; 5:11; 10:7; Galatians 1:10; 3:1; 5:7, 10; Philippians 1:6, 14, 25; 2:24; 3:3–4; 2 Thessalonians 3:4; 2 Timothy 1:5, 12; Philemon 1:21; Hebrews 2:13; 6:9; 11:13; 13:17–18; James 3:3; 1 John 3:19 (the only use in the Johannine corpus;  John 3:36 is the only other use in the entire word group); pepoi÷qhsiß, 2 Corinthians 1:15; 3:4; 8:22; 10:2; Ephesians 3:12; Philippians 3:4; peiqo/ß, 1 Corinthians 2:4; peismonh/, Galatians 5:8; peiqarce÷w, Acts 5:29, 32; 27:21; Titus 3:1; aÓpeiqh/ß, Luke 1:17; Acts 26:19; Romans 1:30; 2 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:16; 3:3; aÓpeiqe÷w, John 3:36; Acts 14:2; 17:5; 19:9; Romans 2:8; 10:21; 11:30–31; 15:31; Hebrews 3:18; 11:31; 1 Peter 2:7–8; 3:1, 20; 4:17; aÓpei÷qeia, Romans 11:30, 32; Ephesians 2:2; 5:6; Colossians 3:6; Hebrews 4:6, 11.

[ii] pei÷qw . . . [is] allied with pistis, fides, foedus, etc.” (Thayer, Greek Lexicon, on pei÷qw).  “Constructs in pist- derive from the dep. pei÷qomai” (pg. 175, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 6, Kittel).  Note the parallelism between pei÷qw and pisteu/w in John 3:36 (oJ pisteu/wn . . . oJ de« aÓpeiqw◊n).

[iii] Louw-Nida 31.46, 31.82.  The breakdown in BDAG is very helpful.

[iv] Acts 17:4 (aorist passive); 28:24 (imperfect passive); cf. Luke 16:31; Acts 18:4; 19:8, 26; 26:28; 28:23; 2 Corinthians 5:11; Galatians 1:10.  Paul persuaded men to turn from their sins and entrust themselves to Christ, and then continue in the grace of God (Acts 13:43).

[v] E. g., riches, Mark 10:24, themselves, 2 Corinthians 1:9, their own righteousness, Luke 18:9, or the flesh and religious ceremonies Philippians 3:3-4.

[vi] 2 Corinthians 1:9; Philippians 2:24; 3:3-4; Hebrews 2:13 (Christ as the Son of Man, identified and in union with his human brethren, perfectly trusted in God, as do they, Psalm 18:2, albeit imperfectly;  also Matthew 27:43 & Psalm 22:8); 13:8.  See also Luke 11:22.

[vii] peiqo/ß, “pertaining to being able to persuade or convince—‘persuasive, convincing.’” (Louw-Nida).

[viii] peismonh/, “the means by which someone is caused to believe—‘that which persuades, the means of convincing’ . . . [or] the actual process of persuasion” (Louw-Nida), that is, “peismonh/ . . . like the English ‘persuasion,’ may be either active or passive; ‘the act of persuading’ . . . or ‘the state of one persuaded’” (St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, J. B. Lightfoot on Galatians 5:8).

[ix] pepoi÷qhsiß, “1. a state of certainty about something to the extent of placing reliance on, trust, confidence.” (BDAG).

[x] 2 Timothy 1:12, oi•da ga»r wˆ— pepi÷steuka, kai« pe÷peismai o¢ti dunato/ß e˙sti th\n paraqh/khn mou fula¿xai ei˙ß e˙kei÷nhn th\n hJme÷ran.  Paul had entrusted himself to the Lord Jesus, at which moment he came to be persuaded that Christ was able to keep him from spiritual destruction, and his entrusting and persuasion continued to the time of his statement.

[xi] Hebrews 11:13, “These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.Kata» pi÷stin aÓpe÷qanon ou∞toi pa¿nteß, mh\ labo/nteß ta»ß e˙paggeli÷aß, aÓlla» po/rrwqen aujta»ß i˙do/nteß, kai« peisqe÷nteß, kai« aÓspasa¿menoi, kai« oJmologh/santeß o¢ti xe÷noi kai« parepi÷dhmoi÷ ei˙sin e˙pi« thvß ghvß.  Their faith included knowledge of the promises (“having seem them afar off,”), persuasion, and a trusting embrace of the promises, which resulted in confession.

[xii] The ideas of persuasion and confident assurance are found in the New Testament in many texts where the specific act of justifying faith is not under consideration.  For persuasion, consider Matthew 27:20; 28:14; Luke 20:6; Acts 5:40 (aorist passive is rendered “agreed”); 12:20 (the chamberlain persuaded, convinced, won over, cf. 2 Maccabees 4:45, h¡dh de« leleimme÷noß oJ Mene÷laoß e˙phggei÷lato crh/mata i˚kana» tw◊ˆ Ptolemai÷wˆ Dorume÷nouß pro\ß to\ pei√sai to\n basile÷a, “But Menelaus, being now convicted, promised Ptolemee the son of Dorymenes to give him much money, if he would pacify the king toward him.”); 14:19; 21:14; 23:21 (being persuaded results in yielding); 26:26; 27:11 (“believed”); Romans 8:38; 14:14; 15:14; 2 Timothy 1:5; Hebrews 6:9; 1 John 3:19.  For confident assurance and trust, consider Romans 2:19; 8:38; 15:14; 2 Corinthians 2:3; 10:7; Galatians 5:10; Philippians 1:6, 14, 25, 2 Thessalonians 3:4; 2 Timothy 1:5; Philemon 21; 1 John 3:19.

It is one thing—and a truth—to say that saving faith is inherently assured of the sufficiency of Christ and the truth of the Divine promises in the Gospel.  It is another—and a falsehood—to say that saving faith involves within it the assurance that one is personally converted.  Assurance in this latter sense belongs to the well-being, not the essence, of Christian faith.

[xiii] πείθω, πείθομαι, πειθός, πεισμονή, πεποίθησις, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, vol. 3, Spicq & Earnest, pg. 67.

[xiv] Acts 5:36-37; Romans 2:8 (note the pei÷qw/aÓpeiqe÷w contrast in the me÷n/de÷ clause); Galatians 3:1; 5:7; Hebrews 13:16; James 3:3.

[xv] As evidenced, e. g., in the uses of peiqarce÷w, Acts 5:29, 32; 27:21; Titus 3:1.  The “verb is ordinarily translated ‘obey,’ . . . [with] the peculiar nuance of . . . voluntary consent” (Theological Lexicon, Spicq).

[xvi] In none of its 55 uses in the New Testament are the people of God ever said to be people devoid of pei÷qw. Galatians 3:1 & 5:7 would be the only texts that might appear to indicate otherwise.  However, in these verses false teachers were seeking to lead the Galatians to apostatize from the gospel, but in both verses “that ye should not obey the truth” (thØv aÓlhqei÷aˆ mh\ pei÷qesqai) is a purpose clause, specifying, respectively, the purpose the false teachers had in their bewitching (3:1) and the purpose of the false teachers in their hindering the Galatians’ running well (5:7).  While many of the regenerate members of the church at Galatia had been influenced by these false teachers, so that, no doubt, their understanding and obedience were being shaken, neither in Galatians 3:1 nor 5:7 does Paul make the affirmation that they had actually become people who were rejectors of the truth or people who had now apostatized and become people of unbelief and disobedience.  He simply states the purpose of the false teachers with the infinitive pei÷qesqai.

[xvii]  aÓpeiqe÷w is used for those who disbelieve in or disobey the Son instead of believing (pisteu/w) in Him and not being condemned (John 3:36), for unbelieving and disobedient Jews (Acts 14:2; 17:5), for hardened people who do not believe or obey the gospel (Acts 19:9), for the unregenerate who disobey and disbelieve the truth (Romans 2:8), as unconverted Israel disbelieves and disobeys (Romans 10:21; 15:31) and the Gentiles disbelieved and disobeyed before their conversion, but did not do so after their salvation (Romans 11:30-31), and for those who disbelieve and disobey so that they do not enter into spiritual rest but eternally perish (Hebrews 3:18; 11:31).  Christ is precious to those who believe (pisteu/w), but to the disbelieving and disobedient He is a stone of stumbling (1 Peter 2:7-8; cf. John 3:36).  A non-Christian husband is disobedient and disbelieving in the Word (1 Peter 3:1), as the ungodly in Noah’s day who died in the flood were disbelieving and disobedient (1 Peter 3:20).  A terrible end will come upon the disbelieving and disobedient (1 Peter 4:17)—the lake of fire.

[xviii] aÓpei÷qeia;  The lost are in unbelief or disobedience (Romans 11:30, 32), for they are the sons of disobedience and unbelief (Ephesians 2:2; 5:6; Colossians 3:6), and they will fall because of their unbelief and disobedience (Hebrews 4:6, 11).

[xix] aÓpeiqh/ß;  The unsaved are the disobedient (Luke 1:17), disobeying both God (Titus 1:16; 3:3) and their parents (Romans 1:30; 2 Timothy 3:2).  Paul, in contrast, was not disobedient (Acts 26:19).

Wednesday, June 05, 2013

What Can We Conclude from How Big Churches Get or How Small They Are?

This week I was reading the tale of a pastor in which he compared his time of pastoring a small congregation with little to no numerical growth to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.  The idea was that God was putting him to death, crucifying him, through this experience of staying small despite his sincerity, intentions, and work.  Implicit was that God held back growth for the purpose of accomplishing the crucifixion of his life.  If his church had grown through the various strategies and innovations that he's tried through the five years, he would have missed out on the suffering that is pastoring a small church.  This death included the financial difficulties that would threaten him with secular work, while pastoring, what some call being bi-vocational.  He is crucified by the crushing disappointment of a small gathering of people.  He took all the books by church growth gurus and tried to implement them, and when they didn't work like they were supposed to, this was personally hurtful to him.

Many men quit their pastorates over small congregation size and slow to non-existent growth.  If they don't quit, they function with frustration that often leads to anger and depression.  Much to most of these bitter consequences could be avoided with a change in thinking, to believe different about evangelism, discipleship, church growth, and success.  Most negative emotions arise from unmet expectations, which produce different kinds of discontentment.  Discontentment is another word for covetousness.  Men covet something God doesn't promise and it slowly destroys them.  It comes from a disordered love -- instead of loving God, loving popularity, position, power, prominence, that is, self.

The Bible reveals what to expect from ministry and explains church growth and its relation to us.  On the other hand, wrong viewpoints with this regard have infiltrated, then grown, and finally haunted churches for awhile, even as manifested by the story of the above pastor.

Over the years, I've heard people say that a church might not grow because the pastor isn't ready to lead a large congregation.   Fathom the thought of God punishing a pastor by not saving people where he lives.  The people not getting saved, who will go to hell, are getting the worst end of the stick in that deal.  It's an interesting idea that is nowhere in the Bible.  It's mere speculation.  Is it true that the big churches are those God can entrust to the man who leads them, and the small ones are some kind of punishment or chastisement or path to maturity to men who aren't ready? That's not what scripture says.

Someone asked the exact question that we're talking about with this post in Luke 13:23.  In the next verse, we read Jesus' answer:  "Strive to enter in at the strait gate."   People are not striving to get in.  Men are not seeking the Lord while He may be found.  That answer fits with the parable of the soils. Hard hearts, superficial hearts, and worldly hearts will not receive the saving message in a saving fashion.  And that answer fits with what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 3:7:  "Neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase."  The ones planting and watering are nothing.  You are irrelevant to the results -- you just sow and water.   So if you sow and water, and you don't have someone striving to get in, if you don't have someone wanting to find it (Mt 7:14), then it's not going to happen.  If you faithfully sow good seed (the seed is not one of the differentiating factors in the parable of soils), you might not see any growth.  Jesus Himself was not welcome by entire villages or towns.

Zero actual church growth or real conversions occur because of natural charisma, good looks, business savvy, and dynamic or magnetic personalities.  None.   The one sowing and the one watering are nothing.  Paul said it had nothing to do with those natural circumstances in 1 Corinthians 1-2.   My church is not smaller than someone else's because of some innate ability that another guy has that I don't have.  I could be a more interesting speaker and a better leader, but those are not the factors for a church being small.  We've got to get over that.

I recognize that the bigger churches and those who pastor them get the most attention.  People want to know "how they did it."  They want to find out the key or keys.  They want to study them.  Rick Warren says that is what he did.  He got the formula for what he did from studying other mega-churches.  Many churches that exploded with numbers were led by men who studied under Jack Hyles and the Hyles church manual.  People buy the church growth books written by men with big churches.  They do not seek the books on church growth written by men whose churches haven't gotten big.  Despite all of that, the Bible tells us everything we need to know to get as big as we're ever going to get.

Are there are any factors that we can control that could change the size of our church?  I don't expect any Calvinist or reformed guy to say "yes" to that.  He shouldn't.  God has predetermined that.  I believe there are factors that "could."  I said "could."  Even if you have every one of your most favorable factors working on all cylinders, it still doesn't guarantee anything.  If you go to a town where zero people are seeking, and they are all hard, thorny, or stony soil, you can try everything and there won't be any growth.  That's why Jesus said you do in fact dust your feet on entire towns.

There are two factors that could change the size of your church.  One, your church boldly evangelizes more people.  The gospel is the power of God unto salvation, so the more people that hear it, the greater possibility of people being saved.  In the techniques of modern church growth advocates, bold preaching is a turn-off, and many of their churches got bigger by not evangelizing boldly, but exercising a timid, mitigated strategy.   I know our church gets to more people with the gospel than any other in our area, and yet our church is smaller than several.   Some would interpret that as meaning bold evangelism doesn't work as well as other means of church growth.

The second factor is obedience to God.  When a church obeys all of the Bible in a consistent way, that could affect the size of the church.  As many people as would receive Christ would be discipled. The congregation would hear a lot of scriptural teaching.  The church would be pastored.  Purity would be maintained.  All of these strengthen the Christians to do greater ministry for the Lord.  Disobedience hurts true church growth.  Obedience helps it.  As much as I believe that, the bigger churches will be more disobedient to God than many smaller churches.  You can't relate size of a church to obedience.  We just know by faith that obedience is more helpful than hurtful to all good results for a church.

I understand a pastor wanting his church to grow.  If you evangelize your entire community and keep trying to talk to every person, you are giving your church the best opportunity to grow.  That doesn't mean that it will, because the one variable is the condition of the hearts of those you preach to.  You can't control that.  You can't change it.  God has to change that.  If you go to a town and preach to everyone and end with a small church, then that is your church.  We should rejoice in the task of pastoring that church, if we have it.  If we don't, that's not our fault either.

All things being equal means all things being biblical and God's Word being practiced to the same extent.  So, all things being equal, a church will be bigger because of the condition of the hearts of the hearers.  Period.   It's sad today that people think the key is man's ability.  That only gives glory to man.  And that is in fact what the discouraged pastor himself said, that is, that church growth comes because of natural ability.  It's not true.

For instance, some will say, "If you start a bus ministry, that's the key to church growth."  Or, "what kind of music you use will most greatly affect the size of a church."  Or, "being conservative doctrinally and liberal culturally will cause your church to get bigger."  None of those are true with relations to biblical or actual church growth.   You might argue that they do.  I don't believe it.  Why?  It's not what God says about it in His Word, and I just believe Him.  If you will walk by faith, and please God, you've got to trust what He said.

Even if a church has more people, it doesn't mean that church is even bigger.  They might have a high percentage of unbelievers in their congregation.   They might have less saved people in their church than you do.  Just because a church uses a particular method, and then gets bigger, does it mean that church is bigger because of that method?  No.  It might be bigger through compromise or some humanistic technique or strategy that doesn't and will not glorify God.  We just can't judge some things.  We can't always answer why.  We've got to be satisfied with what God said and how He taught us to do it.  That is living by faith, which pleases God.

I'm not saying that men even with the right philosophy of pastoring won't get discouraged or disappointed with how big their churches are.  However, if they do, it's not based upon anything other than the kind of selfish desire that Baruch had in Jeremiah 45:5, to which God said:  "Seekest thou great things for thyself? seek them not."  Our disappointments come because we are seeking great things for ourselves.  God commanded, "Seek them not."


Sunday, June 02, 2013

Graduation Address from our M.Div Recipient

We had an M.Div. graduate in our theology program, and here is David Warner's commencement address.

*********************************

First, I want to say that I count it an honor and privilege to serve the Lord with these two men, who have partaken in bringing me to this point.  I enjoy their fellowship in the ministry of Jesus Christ.  They have taught and exemplified to me to know the content of the Scriptures and to be strong in it.  I appreciate their endorsement of God’s Word and the practice thereof.

The Master of Divinity trains a person to be more efficient in the ministry of the Lord, providing a framework of knowledge and resourcefulness to find the answers to the most neglected questions, but yet the most needed ones.  The divinity from our church is not about mere religion and catechisms, but examination and carefulness of Scriptural and historical doctrine with the intent of distribution to others for their benefit and God’s greater glory.  It concerns the application of theology to live illustrations.  It concerns deeper consideration of one’s beliefs from Scripture, requiring him to live out the life of God’s ministry.  Its benefit to me is beyond compare.  But why did I choose this master?  What makes it so great?  What would drive me to learn and master this level of true doctrine?

Even though I know that this divinity will take me no where higher and no where nobler in this world that values the interests of mortal man more than the interests of the eternal God, will bring me no earthly eloquence, elegance, and extravagance, and will allot me no handsome career according to man’s commendation, this I know, it will leave me able to perform a career that cannot be measured by the values of earth—the career of the Lord Jesus Christ, who taught the truth of the Scriptures, brought the gospel of the Kingdom everywhere He went, fought the errors of man-made religion, and sought to rescue wearied ones from the oppression of sin and devilish religion.  The career of Christ is a much higher and nobler work, issued by heaven’s throne, and not by man’s own will, esteemed by the One who sits upon that throne, and most hated by the greatest enemy the world will ever know.  

If any man were to think less of this master, I want him to remember that a medical doctor can save only a human body, but the career of Christ can save a human soul forever; a lawyer can change a criminal to only a prisoner, but the truth can change a criminal to a Christian; a firefighter can save a man from only a house of fire, but the truth can save a man from the fires of hell; an astronomer knows only the stars of the universe, but I know what’s beyond the universe; an archaeologist knows only the artifacts of the past, but I know the Architect of the past; and a soldier knows how to fight only a war, but I know how to fight the war that will end all wars.  This is the career I am trained to do, to give man the answers he doesn’t want to hear, but the only answers that will allow him to see reality and the better meaning of his existence to God.

It is time to quit chasing dreams that die and start chasing reality that remains reality.  It is time to cancel slumber parties, and to work the service of the Lord until the day dawns upon us.  It is time to leave behind the fading glories of day and night and to learn the eternal glorious light of a new heaven and a new earth.  Instead of being a resident in this Sleepy Hollow of death, why not be an ambassador passing through and onward to the New Jerusalem?  Instead of taking my fill on a midnight snack, why not work up my appetite for the marriage feast of the Lamb of God?  The ministry of Christ’s work deserves a flood of life, not drizzles of time; a hurricane, not a small breeze of wind; an earthquake of mass destruction, not little tremors on the Richter scale; a tsunami, not small ripples of a quiet lake; a burning forest, not a little camp fire at night; a wild tempest, not just another day of overcast.

If I had any goal, any ambition in life, it would be the career of Christ.  I don’t expect to be some great name on earth, but I do expect to be a basic carrier of the truth.  I don’t expect amazing miracles and experiences to occur, besides the conversion of souls to Christ, but I do expect a biblical Christianity.  I don’t expect breath-taking effects or paramount results, but I do expect a bold certainty and blazing continuance in the ministry.  I may not be the Shakespeare of writing, or the General MacArthur of war, or the Bill Gates of Microsoft; but I will always be me, a trained worker in the career of Christ, another graduate from the “school of the prophets,” another fisher of the souls of men among fishermen.  I know, according to Scripture, that being me is all God needs to accomplish His work; and if I at any moment in life appear to be great, observe it as the glorious career of Christ, that shines into the dark, confounds the wise, and wins the victory.