pastortim

There should be no doubt in the believer's mind that evangelism is a critical aspect of the faith. Unfortunately the reality can be that whether or not we do oft times depends upon the person we are speaking with. Responses we get can be very frustrating and sometimes even stump us. People we share the gospel can be very unreasonable, especially in their attempts to use reason to refute what we are saying.
There are three basic areas, root assumptions, if you will, that should not be yielded in our conversations. Not yielding in these will ensure that we not be forced to engage in pointless unreasonable debates. These assumptions are the core to any reasonable conversation.
First, is that we do not deny the Law of Contradiction. Simply stated it says "A cannot be non-A and A at the same time and in the same relationship". This law is a universal guide for coherency and a formal test of logic.
Philosopher Renee Descarte asked if something could be both formally true and materially false. That is, could something that we think to be real be not real. A unicorn is an example proving so. We can imagine, or create one, in our mind yet that does not mean it is so. John Locke asked the opposite; Can something be materially true and formally false. Can there be something that we can not have an idea about? That would be non-reality. Kant said that if this was true then we could know nothing, and all knowledge would cease. (BTW this is the root of postmodern existentialism but we'll discuss this another time).The Enlightenment thinkers validated the Law.
Christians are accused of breaking this law frequently, however untrue it is. For instance, we say God is three and one. Seemingly this is a contradiction, yet it is not, philosophers call this a paradox, that which appears to be a contradiction. When we say this we are not saying He is one God and three Gods, we are saying He is One in essence and Three in persons. One A and three B's. Not a contradiction but a paradox. How can this be, we do not know, it is but a mystery for a mystery is something we can not comprehend, yet does not break the law of contradiction.
We encounter much lack of knowledge of these significant differences leading to untrue statements from those we chat with that we might shun away from them. Our own knowledge of the difference is imperative to our discussion.
To have any reasonable conversation the Law of Contradiction must be maintained. We must be able to defend it, and we must recognize when it is being broken by others. For instance, to say the universe existed and did not exist at the same time breaks this law, and is deemed incoherent and unreasonable. But to support the "Big Bang" one must state exactly that.
In our next chat we will look at the Law of Causality, the second law we must maintain to engage in an unreasonable discussion.

What does it mean to have the Joy of the Lord. Happiness that I am saved? elation that I am his child? Well, frankly, this seems rather selfish and all about me-ism. To unfold this I looked first at the word Lord. Tracing roots to the beginning I shall begin there and work forward.
The tetragrammaton, YHWH (transliterated from the Hebrew) is the name of God as given to Moses by God. "It means I am that I am". This name is so holy that the Jewish people were not permitted to speak it. Proper pronunciation is not even known. When reciting scripture they were to substitute the word "adonai", which means "sovereign one". I am that I am, and the conceptual meaning here is verily the same as sovereign one, as if to say I am all there is.
In English translations the word LORD, in capital letters, is substituted for the name of God. LORD is a middle English word derived from "loaverd", which means keeper of the ward, bread-giver. In fact it is where we get the word "loaf" to describe bread. Bede, in the 6th century was the first to use this word, and became widely used after the translation of the Greek Bible into English nearly a millennium later. The Greek word "kyrios" was the NT and Septuagint word used for "Sovereign One".
From this we can see, that in the very name of God as "Sovereign One" we find that he means for us to recognize him as such. To rejoice in the Lord means to find our peace in the knowledge that he is in control. We lose our joy, and our peace, when we rely on that which is not sovereign, such as money, work, ourselves, others, etc. This is why the joy of the Lord is our strength. Nothing can steal our joy when we really believe that God is sovereign over all things, resting in the knowledge that He works all things for good.
Calling on Jesus as "Lord" is to claim him to be sovereign. This makes his name above all others. Yeshua, the Hebrew name of Jesus, means "The sovereign one saves". It is hard for many to understand Jesus to be the Sovereign One.
When we attribute things such as salvation to works, or decisions we make, and not to the sovereignty of the sovereign one we claim an area to not be under his sovereignty. This, then, opens the door for other areas where we can doubt his sovereignty. Once this begins we start to lose our joy and now have to question what is His to decide, and where is he in control. This is how some can ask "where was God" in a situation. To know God is to know his name, and understand that He is sovereign and that in the name of Jesus we know He saves us, by grace, not in anything we do so that no man can boast. No matter the event, layoffs, crashing economy, illness, etc Trust in Him, knowing that he is in control and that all things are for good, for God is Good. If He is sovereign over all, then we must surrender all to him. When we come to him as little children, we find rest in knowing that He will take care of all things for us, just as little children have no anxiety for their needs. Then and only then do we have true joy in the Lord, and what a source of strength.

In response to questions which I have received as to whether I will sign this declaration I offer these thoughts. A few days ago many leaders of American churches (Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical) completed and became signatories to a document entitled "The Manhattan Declaration". This declaration speaks to the sanctity of life, the dignity of marriage between man and woman, religious liberty, rights of conscience and the need for social change on these matters. The points made on these matters are such that any Christian can, and must agree with, and they are also ones that I find myself passionate about , however they must be declared secondary to the gospel itself. This document does not do this.
Firstly, the signatories to this document (many of whom I respect greatly) do not even agree as to what the gospel is. By finding some neutral ground by which they can agree relegates it to a matter of opinion and not the very thing that defines our faith. This thereby renders us a cause without any power because the gospel is the power to change lives, and as such can change societies. To imply that the secular world has the power to advance on the kingdom of God is to speak of the sovereignty of God in an untrue light. We are to be reminded of when Elisha believed he was the only one left who followed God and how he was sternly shown him that God, himself, had reserved those who were His (1Kings 19). Jesus is on His throne and reigning over His kingdom, which is found within and without the kingdoms of this world. The powers of this world only have the power over those in God's kingdom, thus the kingdom itself, that is given them from above. (cf. John 19:11)
Secondly, to attempt to further merge church and state by mixing faith and politics is a proven disaster. In 313 AD, with the Edict of Milan, Emperor Constantine of Rome began to merge the church and the state, an act which proved detrimental to both. With the passage of time came synchretism, the blending of beliefs. To maintain peace the church needed to evolve into an institution that was more palatable to more people. As it gained more power with the people it become virtually indiscernable from the state and even exercised more authority over both. The history of Europe is packed with the bloody struggles between the church and the state. It was the Reformation and a return to biblical standards that dismantled this relationship. Learning from the history they were escaping, the puritans came to America to establish an experiment whereby the church and the state would be entirely different institutions, to truly establish a New World. You cannot legislate ethics, for those very ethics will be determined by the legislators. The church's failure to remain true to its task, and stay out of the state's business, is what has allowed the ethics to deteriorate. By mixing roles it has done neither well. We, as prophetic voices to the people, by the power of the gospel, can determine those ethics whether the state is in agreement or not. Our kingdom is not of this world. To attempt to synchretize the gospel itself by joning those who disagree together on some "common" ground only does the work of the state by taking away the power of the gospel. Any attempt to merge the church and the state will only destroy and corrupt the church. They are too closely tied already whereby creating churches that look more American than Christian. The full seperation of church and state is the ideal that forged this nation and is critical to the success of both.
Thirdly, the document opens early on with a declaration that it is by "trinitarian" Christians. Rightly so, the writers had a deep sense of the importance of defining Christianity, but in an effort to include those they needed to effect influence they did so simply along the lines of belief in the trinity. Interestingly enough, this was the issue of the Council of Nicea's role in defining Christianity, also a work of Emperor Constantine in 325 AD. They also cited Martin Luther King, Jr and his work, one who claimed that "to say that the Christ...is divine in an ontological sense is actually harmful and detrimental". He does not meet their own criteria, yet again, his name works in merely looking for those who can effect influence. I must reiterate that it is the true gospel alone that can effect influence.
Charles Spurgeon once said that "To pursue union at the expense of truth is treason to the Lord Jesus". Following this I must answer the initial question with an emphatic NO. How can I be a signatory of an an agreement with those whom I do not agree with on many core foundational Christian teachings, mainly that of what is the gospel itself. I urge those who are passionate on these matters to rely upon the heavenly power of the gospel by proclaiming it, rather than on the power of the state. If we do our part in this, we can, and will, change the world. We've done it before.

   The reformation slogan "sola gratia", or grace alone, in today's world is under constant attack. What is it about being saved by God's grace alone that is so hard to swallow. The scriptures are clear that our deliverance from hell is due to the goodness of God, despite the lack of good in our fallen nature. Americans, especially, because of our belief in our own good and innate nature to do good, struggle to think of ourselves as totally depraved in our own nature and unable to do good on our own. We carry this democratic ideal into our theology that each individual has the ability to make things better.  To an American grace alone is senseless because the condition of man is not so bad. Without a recognition of the human condition we will find Arminius' opposition to 'grace alone' is much more palatable. It gives a much better view of self.
   As a result of man in Adam we are all born sinful and impure, and thus subjected to the wrath of God (cf Job 14:1-4) from the time we are conceived (cf Ps 51:5). As Isaiah asked, can a leopard change its spots? Obviously not, but the creator can if he so desires. Those of us who may claim to not have sinned deceive ourselves, for Jesus tells us that if our mind even conceives a sinful thought then we have sinned the sin and are therefore guilty. Our human condition is one of guilt. Those deceived else wise, as Paul states in Eph 4:18, are shown to be sinful for it is their lack of understanding of their sin that is darkness itself.
   In John's recording of Jesus' discourse with Nicodemus he is not explaining the new birth as something that one is to do (for we cannot) but therein explaining the changed condition required; like the leopards spots. The new birth does not come from preaching the new birth, but from that of Christ crucified. Flesh gives birth to flesh, spirit to spirit. It blows where it will, and not where we direct it.
   There is not any manner by which even the most optimistic American can avoid Paul's statement that without being born of God we are dead in our transgressions (Eph 1:1-10) Thus is our need for a savior because we are incapable of any action which changes our spots, in fact all of our good works are as filthy rags. Only the creator can make that change. Even our best intentioned act of goodwill will carry an element of selfishness. Does it not feel good to do a good deed for someone? We even talk of our love of God in terms of his blessngs, his joyful chastisements, even his sending his son to die for us. We can find many reasons to love God, but most are related to us. God deserves our love, so to speak; we owe it to him. We, on the other hand, do not deserve his love but rather we deserve his wrath. Grace itself is our receiving his mercy while doing nothing to merit it. Making a decision to let Christ into our hearts cannot, and does not, save us. Receiving it from God as a gift in being chosen by him because of his goodness, not ours; this is His salavtion.
   We Americans, largely, cannot accept someone else being in control, leaving us out of the decision; especially with the possibility of being told no. There is always this underlying feeling that there is something I can do. Even our political system leaves room for the belief that we are in control and are in on the decision. Our culture is driven by personal and individual choices whereby leaving us susceptible to a theology of choice, one where Arminianism can thrive as it does in the US. God having complete and utter sovereignty over our salvation, or not, is indeed problematic in American theology today
   Charles Finney, the father of decisionism in theology and of the altar call that is still prevalent today says this, "Regeneration consists in the sinner changing his ultimate choice...changing from sinfulness to love." So then a leopard can change his spots? Hog-wash !! The church-growth, seeker-friendly movements, along with the easy believism of American theology are but recent installments of this pernicious attack upon the grace of God. By removing such things that can be offensive (such as God's complete sovereignty) the grace of God in its biblical sense can be tossed aside. They will still use the term, but not in its true context.
   Satan, as our accuser, despises the grace of God becuase no matter how well he builds a case against us before God as to our sinful condition, God bestows his grace undeservedly on those who are in Christ Jesus, and is free to withhold it from those who are not. Exactly what that means we will explore at another time. As God said to Moses, " I will be gracious to whom I will show mercy (Ex 33:19) therefore he has mercy on whom he will, and on whom he will he hardens. (Rom 9:18)
   This indeed is the root of the problem of grace in American theology. Satan wages war against it and infiltrates the very church of Christ by puffing up humans as he did in the garden. Let us find hope and joy in that those of us who recognize HIm hear the master's voice. Now let us open the ears of others.

Amidst all of the so-called culture wars in our society the church is seemingly in the mix of all of it. One can conclude that it has failed in its endeavors and we must learn why. Well, that is simple, Christianity is not a culture. It is a system of truth-claims professed by a real-life person who was God in the flesh, died and rose again from the dead, as he said he would. This message spans and succeeds in all cultures, religious groups, socio-economics and political spectrums through the centuries.
   Whenever a political or social issue arises we want to know where someone stands, biblically, on the issue. Wrong! What we want to know is his view of Christ and who does he say that he is. HIs worldview will then reflect t hat. Forget  their church piety or political ideology, our unity is to be based on sound doctrine. Too often we equate the gospel with a particular cultural agenda, albeit, as citizens we should interject our truth-claims into society. It must be understood that any other loyalty, such as political, national, ethnic or even business, equated with our loyalty to God is sin. It is eternally critical that we get this straight.
   We must restore the biblical  theology raised high in the reformation of the two kingdoms and of the two kings. As Augustine so well put it, in the city of man there are rulers, laws and customs regulated by man, but in the city of God there is one ruler, our Lord Jesus Christ. His kingdom is advanced not by good marketing, through congressional edict, or military prowess, but only by the preaching of his Word. Sadly, we have confused these two kingdoms, and man-made doctrines of a coming knigdom in Israel upon His return is a classic example of it.
   Our kingdom is not of this world. As Christians we are amabassadors of God's kindgom to show those of this world's kingdom the way into it. We are to be in it, not of it. Anything else to be relied on is simply "shifting sand".

Today as I pondered  free will I spent time with Plato and his thoughts on the subject. In his dialogue in The Republic he declares that the paradox of freedom  is that the more freedom the individual or society has the more enslaved it becomes to its own desires. I cannot help but see the way this lines up squarely with the concept of man's total depravity and his inability to draw toward God by himself. Along with Jonathan Edwards' claim that the will is only free inasmuch as it is free to choose that which is most desirable at that time I, too, see how our desires will always determine our choice. My desire to keep my job is stronger than my desire to sleep in, therefore in my free will I choose to go to work. As the Holy Spirit of God overtakes a man he desires those things of God and thereby chooses those things within his freedom to be bound by them. Those not drawn by God are free to choose within the bondage of their own desires.
    Therefore In response to Tertullian's question, "What has Jerusalem to do with Athens?", Everything. The truth of scripture is the bringing together of all the sciences. remember, it is vain philosophy that we are warned against.

Greetings friends!

Just a quick note to show how excited I am about the new Truth and Way website that will be launching very soon. This blog will be a part of that. Here I will share my thoughts, for whatever that means. I hope to hear what you have to say as well. Come back often
 
Pastor Tim

Return