The restoration plea has always called us back to the Scriptures as they were first written. From the day our brother Paul penned I Corinthians 1:10fl until this very moment constitutes what we refer to as the Restoration Movement. God continually, through His Word, hearkens us back to what He said in the first place; clear, singular and plain truth. God “says what He means and means what He says!” When we presume to add to or take away from the Word we are found to be liars (Proverbs 30:6). Unfortunately, many continue to distort the very words of God.
A certain passage, perhaps more than any other, continues to be assaulted by those who would have God’s Word conform to their preconceived notions. That passage is John 3:16. Most recently it has been misapplied by a famous denominational author in a book entitled; 3:16. Since the time of Martin Luther and John Calvin, most Protestants have claimed that baptism is a “work of man” and therefore not necessary for salvation. (The Bible clearly identifies baptism as a work…a work of God as noted in Colossians 2:12). Based upon this false premise (that baptism is a work of man), the author of 3:16 replaces the “…should be saved” conditional language of the original Greek with the subjectively arrived at “shall be saved” contractual language of circular interpretation. Under this kind of devilish eisigesis, the universal opportunity of salvation upon responsive obedience morphs into the “assumed” universal “guarantee” of salvation for the non-responsive and non-obedient “believer” regarding the absolute necessity of baptism. (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:1fl; et. al.) Few changes to God’s Word have rendered more damage over the years to the truth of the gospel.
A contextual look at John 3 will reveal that Jesus exegesis of Numbers 21:4-9 in John 3:14 is not only critical to the understanding of the entire John 3 passage, it is core, central and foundational to that understanding. Jesus teaches in John 3 that God’s Salvation requires a RESPONSE to an OPPORTUNITY through OBEDIENCE.
Though Satan twists the passage to teach a “faith only” pseudo-salvation, Jesus clearly teaches that “faith alone” will do as much to save one spiritually as “staying in the tent” saved the Israelites physically!
Non-response and non-obedience to God’s opportunity of salvation will leave one dead in their sins now, just as it did in the wilderness. Here is an exegetical outline highlighting Jesus’ teachings on this critical subject in John 3 in order as they are made:
1. John 3:3 – Jesus tells Nicodemus that “unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
2. John 3:5 – Jesus tells Nicodemus that “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
A. When Christ had died on the cross a soldier pierced His side and “out flowed both blood and water.” – John 19:34
B. Christ came “by both blood and water.” – I John 5:6
C. Jesus shed his blood in his death.
D. We are baptized “into his death” (Romans 6:3)
E. There is “no remission (of sins) without the shedding of blood. “ – Hebrews 9:22
F. The Blood of Christ renders many gifts:
1) Propitiation – Romans 3:25
2) Justification – Romans 5:9
3) Salvation – Romans 5:9
4) Redemption – Ephesians 1:7 & Colossians 1:4
5) Forgiveness – Ephesians 1:7 & Colossians 1:4
6) Peace – Colossians 1:20
7) Reconciliation – Colossians 1:20
8) Remission – Hebrews 9:22
9) Sanctification – Hebrews 13:12
10) Cleansing – I John 1:7
G. The blood of Christ renders “remission (of sins).” – Hebrews 9:2
H. Baptism is for “the remission of sins.” – Acts 2:38
I. The Gift of the Holy Spirit is given ONLY in baptism – Acts 2:38
J. “Three” bear witness in the earth.” – I John 5:8
1) The Spirit
2) The Water
3) The Blood
a. These 3 are found together ONLY in Baptism and no where else!
K. NOTE on John 3:5 – The well know evangelical preacher John MacArthur et al assert that this passage could not possibly refer to water baptism for the church had not yet been established and Nicodemus could have had no knowledge of things to come. “IF” such were the case, then the entire gospel section of the New Testament applies ONLY to the Old Testament dispensation! In truth, the gospels contain the WILL of Chirst, His New Testament if you please. This WILL was read on the day of Pentecost and required both repentance and baptism for ALL persons of understanding there present. John 3:5 DOES refer to baptism for the remission of sins, regardless whether Nicodemus understood it or not and is the time, place and portal of salvation under the current Will of Christ.
3. John 3:9-13 – When Nicodemus asks the question (“How can these things be?”) Jesus replies with ALL the authority of the Godhead.
A. As “The” teacher of Israel, Jesus asserts that Nicodemus should have already been aware of Messianic prophesies in the Old Testament in the form of a rhetorical question.
B. “WE speak of what WE know, and bear witness to what WE have seen…” – If Nicodemus ever listened to anyone or anything…this is that time!
1) Jesus speaks with the authority of the triune Godhead.
C. Jesus speaks on His own singular authority as well as the “son of man.”
1) No one ever (except Jesus Christ) EVER did, or ever will, ascend and descend to and from heaven as He did.
D. These verses contain perhaps the most powerful introduction to any
statement in the entire Scripture! What follows next is the key verse
in the entire passage and essential to understanding the passage in
it’s proper context. In fact, ANY exposition of John 3 not hinging upon
John 3:14-15 will miss the message of salvation!
4. John 3:14 – “And as Moses…” are the three most important words in the entire passage. Jesus sets up a metaphoric parallel between the uplifted serpent and the soon to be uplifted Christ. In other words the physical salvation of physical Israel in the wilderness is a type, a shadow, of spiritual salvation of spiritual Israel. Salvation in the wilderness required a physical response to God’s free offer of salvation just as God’s free offer of spiritual salvation requires a physical response today. Jesus tells Nicodemus in the very strongest of terms (a direct message from the Triune God by way of the Son of Man) that Nicodemus (and us by extension) cannot understand what Christ says next in 3:16-17 until Nicodemus (and us by extension) grasps what Christ says in 3:14-15.
A. The word “as” is from the original kathos which, according to Strong’s means: “…according to which thing, that is, precisely as, in proportion as: - according to that, (inasmuch) as.”
1) By using kathos, Jesus makes clear the fact that we understand, comprehend and partake in our spiritual salvation “as” the Israelites in the wilderness understood, comprehended and partook in their physical salvation.
5. John 3:15 – Jesus here uses very specific language when discussing the opportunity for and response to the free gift of salvation just alluded to by the serpent / cross parallel.
A. “Whomsoever / Whoever” – The opportunity of salvation is universal and is offered to every person.
B. “Should / May” – The response, however, is conditional. Some will respond and be saved, others will not and be lost…JUST AS with the Israelites and the brazen serpent. All were offered salvation in the wilderness, not all took advantage of the free gift of life. The same parallel reigns true today, ALL are offered salvation…some respond to it, some reject it. The language is clearly conditional when these words are chosen. Mere belief without response is not sufficient as it was not sufficient in the wilderness…those who stayed in their tents perished. “Just as….”
6. John 3:16 – The world’s most beloved verse…for all the wrong reasons.
A. God DOES love the world enough to send His only begotten Son that…
1) “Whosoever / Whoever” – The opportunity for salvation is universal and open for all.
2) “Should / May” – The response Jesus referred to in vs. 14 and 15 requires responsive action “just as” the Israelites in the desert had to physically respond to God’s free gift of life…
a. They had to move out of their tents far enough to actually look upon the brazen serpent to complete their obedience and be saved from physical death.
b. In like manner, (“And as Moses..”) we must contact the saving blood of Christ in the waters of baptism (water and spirit of vs. 5) where “the Spirit and water and the blood bear witness in the earth” for “life is in the blood.” (Leviticus 17:11) Jesus Christ shed his blood in his death, into which we are baptized, for “without the shedding of blood there is no remission.” (Hebrews 9:22)
c. Jesus’ language here to Nicodemus is not contractual in a quid quo pro kind of way with God, it is conditional upon a proper physical response…just as in the desert.
7. John 3:17 – “…in order that the world through Him might be saved.”
A. Again, the language of salvation used by Jesus to Nicodemus is conditional.
8. John 3:18 – “Whoever believes in Him is not condemned…”
A. As the Israelites “belief” in the desert required a response, so does the belief Jesus is relaying (the new birth) to Nicodemus, and by extension, you and I.
1) Belief and obedience are synonymous
a. “He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” – John 3:36 (ASV)
A) Believeth – pisteuo – “…to entrust, commit…”
B) Obeyeth – apeitheo – “…to disbelieve, disobedient, obey not, unbelieving…”
1. Belief and obedience are synonymous as are faith and works (James 2:14-26)
a) Repentance cannot be achieved and validated without baptism (Acts 2:38)
b) Forgiveness of sins cannot be achieved without both repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38)
c) The Gift of the Holy Spirit cannot be received without both repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38)
9. John 3:19 – Judgment is that Light has come into the world and the people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil.
A. Evil deeds = darkness
10. John 3:20 – Evil deeds mean two things:
A. Evil deeds = a hater of the light
B. Evil deeds = will not take one to the light
C. Why?
1) So evil deeds will not be exposed by the light
11. John 3:21 – True deeds mean one thing
A. True deeds take one to the light
B. Why?
1) So that it will be clearly seen that “his works have been carried out in God.”
12. Conclusion of John 3:19-21:
A. Belief…true belief that is both intellectual and responsive…is required of Nicodemus, and by extension, you and I.
B. Evil deeds condemn
C. True deeds save.
The conclusion of the entire passage is that God’s free gift of salvation, just as it was with Moses and the children of Israel in the wilderness, requires a RESPONSE to the message. The message of salvation is an OPPORTUNITY that can be accepted or rejected. The proper RESPONSE to the OPPORTUNITY is OBEDIENCE. OBEDIENCE requires that a person must be “born again of both the water and the spirit.” Jesus came by both “blood and water.” We access the saving blood of Christ in the waters of baptism. OBEDIENCE to both repentance and baptism is a “true deed” that takes us to the light. One cannot be saved without OBEDIENCE to the commands of Christ which includes baptism. Repentance and baptism is a “true deed” that RESPONDS to the OPPORTUNITY of salvation in complete OBEDIENCE. Thank God for the inquiry of Nicodemus!
Russ McCullough
8 April 2009 – Charlotte, NC
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
EXegesis and EISigesis - An Analysis
There is a world war being fought with renewed intensity these days. It is a war, not of guns and bullets, but one of truth and error. This war began in the second century and continues to this very moment. It is a war of biblical interpretation.
The Scripture is very clear about what it is and how it is to be interpreted. Two passages come quickly to mind:
These verses are saliently clear, ALL Scripture is inspired of God and Scripture is not to be interpreted according to one’s own emotions, feelings or opinions. This was the un-contested understanding of the early church. However, near the end of the 2nd century, this began to change. Origen of Alexandria began to teach that the Scripture had “multiple meanings” and that each person could “interpret” each Scripture “allegorically,” i.e. according to their own individual experiences. This philosophy, grounded in the pagan Homeric Greek philosophy of Plato, took hold in the apostate church and holds sway to this very day. It is a philosophy embraced by the Roman Catholic Church and “emergent” theologians such as Brian McLaren. It is a man centered philosophy that essentially places God in a secondary position in the search for and the establishment of truth. Mechanically, this “allegorical method” is one that looks inside the Sacred Writ and allows the seeker to “pour in” his or her own “meaning” into the passage. The “truth” that is therefore “discovered” is of the making of the seeker and in the “image” of man. This is what Paul warned of in Romans 1:25 when the “interpreters” of his day…”changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.” (Webster' 1833 Bible) This madness is known to us today as eisigesis (ice-a-gee-sis). A relative new term coined ca. 1878, eisigesis is defined as;
To coin a phrase, for one to embrace eisigesis in the pursuit of truth would lead one’s search for salvation onto the “thin ice.” Eisigesis has brought us everything from 2nd century Gnosticism to 19th century liberalism to the so-called “Emergent church” of today. The process takes one in circles, always searching and yet never finding. Eisigesis allowed King Saul to rationalize keeping alive the king of Amalek as well as the best of the herds and flocks instead of utterly destroying them as God had clearly commanded in I Samuel 15. Today, eisigesis allows men and women to rationalize all kinds of things un-biblical though the Scripture clearly teaches that additions and subtractions to God’s Word are strictly forbidden as we see in Proverbs 30:6.
On the other hand, those who wish to honor God and move “neither to the right or to the left,” view Scripture from an exegesis [ex-a-gee-sis (“ex” – out of)] basis. Exegesis is what Jesus Christ referred to as “having ears to hear.” It is the mindset that instead of injecting our own opinions into the Scripture, we humbly extract God’s will for us from the Scripture without question or argument. The exegete is totally subservient to his or her Lord and Master’s Word, the final say in the on-going war of biblical interpretation. In I Samuel 15, Samuel was the exegete while Saul was the eisigete. Samuel is now honored among the faithful while Saul was removed from the throne of Israel. Just how we interpret God’s Word has the most serious of consequences.
Eisigesis views the Word of God as a collection of “stories, historical fiction and fables” to be “interpreted” via one’s own life’s experiences rendering God a god of “confusion” and “contradiction.” It produces a foundation of sand causing both spiritual collapse and spiritual death. The end of eisigesis is unbelief and the end of unbelief is death eternal.
Exegesis views the Word of God as 100% “God breathed,” “Holy Spirit inspired” and is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” (Websters 1833 Bible, op. cit., II Timothy 3:16) It has nothing to do with our own life’s experiences, opinions or conjectures. It is not influenced by circumstance or any kind of pragmatically conceived benefit. It produces a foundation of rock solid faith rendering both spiritual stability and spiritual life. The end of exegesis is belief and the end of belief is life eternal.
So dear reader, which are you, an “ice” or an “ex?” Heaven and hell anxiously await your response.
The Scripture is very clear about what it is and how it is to be interpreted. Two passages come quickly to mind:
II Peter 1:19-21 – We have also a more sure word of prophecy; to which ye do well that ye take heed, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (American Standard Version(ASV)
II Timothy 3:16-17 – All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to all good works. (ASV)
These verses are saliently clear, ALL Scripture is inspired of God and Scripture is not to be interpreted according to one’s own emotions, feelings or opinions. This was the un-contested understanding of the early church. However, near the end of the 2nd century, this began to change. Origen of Alexandria began to teach that the Scripture had “multiple meanings” and that each person could “interpret” each Scripture “allegorically,” i.e. according to their own individual experiences. This philosophy, grounded in the pagan Homeric Greek philosophy of Plato, took hold in the apostate church and holds sway to this very day. It is a philosophy embraced by the Roman Catholic Church and “emergent” theologians such as Brian McLaren. It is a man centered philosophy that essentially places God in a secondary position in the search for and the establishment of truth. Mechanically, this “allegorical method” is one that looks inside the Sacred Writ and allows the seeker to “pour in” his or her own “meaning” into the passage. The “truth” that is therefore “discovered” is of the making of the seeker and in the “image” of man. This is what Paul warned of in Romans 1:25 when the “interpreters” of his day…”changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.” (Webster' 1833 Bible) This madness is known to us today as eisigesis (ice-a-gee-sis). A relative new term coined ca. 1878, eisigesis is defined as;
“The interpretation of a text…by reading into it one’s own ideas.” (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, (Merriam-Webster, Inc. Publishers, Springfield, MA, 1991), pg. 399)
To coin a phrase, for one to embrace eisigesis in the pursuit of truth would lead one’s search for salvation onto the “thin ice.” Eisigesis has brought us everything from 2nd century Gnosticism to 19th century liberalism to the so-called “Emergent church” of today. The process takes one in circles, always searching and yet never finding. Eisigesis allowed King Saul to rationalize keeping alive the king of Amalek as well as the best of the herds and flocks instead of utterly destroying them as God had clearly commanded in I Samuel 15. Today, eisigesis allows men and women to rationalize all kinds of things un-biblical though the Scripture clearly teaches that additions and subtractions to God’s Word are strictly forbidden as we see in Proverbs 30:6.
There we are enjoined to “…not add to His words or He will rebuke you and prove you to be a liar.” (Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.)
On the other hand, those who wish to honor God and move “neither to the right or to the left,” view Scripture from an exegesis [ex-a-gee-sis (“ex” – out of)] basis. Exegesis is what Jesus Christ referred to as “having ears to hear.” It is the mindset that instead of injecting our own opinions into the Scripture, we humbly extract God’s will for us from the Scripture without question or argument. The exegete is totally subservient to his or her Lord and Master’s Word, the final say in the on-going war of biblical interpretation. In I Samuel 15, Samuel was the exegete while Saul was the eisigete. Samuel is now honored among the faithful while Saul was removed from the throne of Israel. Just how we interpret God’s Word has the most serious of consequences.
Eisigesis views the Word of God as a collection of “stories, historical fiction and fables” to be “interpreted” via one’s own life’s experiences rendering God a god of “confusion” and “contradiction.” It produces a foundation of sand causing both spiritual collapse and spiritual death. The end of eisigesis is unbelief and the end of unbelief is death eternal.
Exegesis views the Word of God as 100% “God breathed,” “Holy Spirit inspired” and is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” (Websters 1833 Bible, op. cit., II Timothy 3:16) It has nothing to do with our own life’s experiences, opinions or conjectures. It is not influenced by circumstance or any kind of pragmatically conceived benefit. It produces a foundation of rock solid faith rendering both spiritual stability and spiritual life. The end of exegesis is belief and the end of belief is life eternal.
So dear reader, which are you, an “ice” or an “ex?” Heaven and hell anxiously await your response.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Does An Evangelist Rule Over An Eldership?
We often note that in our society that “the tail wags the dog.” Preconceived notions often change otherwise sound conclusions in matters of policy, values and faith. Without thinking we sometimes accept falsehoods without examination. One such area very seldom examined has to do with congregational government. In one form or another, most denominations and many churches of Christ are “ruled” by one man. He may be called a priest, a pastor or an evangelist. This perceived pattern is so prevalent and is so old, most people actually think it is biblical. But…is it? Now, don’t take my word for any of this, check the book! (Acts 17:11)
First of all, there no longer is a singular priesthood, we are all priests. (I Peter 2:9) Secondly, a “pastor” is part of a plurality of elders, presbyters or bishops, all four terms are interchangeable and are never identified in a singular manner, always in the plural. (Acts 14:23)
When we come to the term “evangelist” we find that the word occurs but three times in Scripture, Acts 21:8, Ephesians 4:11 and II Timothy 4:5, according to Vine’s. In all three instances the word is descriptive of a function, “…a preacher of the gospel,” with no indications of either office or office holder. “Evangelist” is, therefore, a description and not a title.
Finally, when we come to the word “office,” it is used some six times in the New Testament according to Strong’s Concordance:
Romans 11:3 – Paul’s “office” as the apostle to the gentiles
Romans 12:4 – “Office” as synonym for parts of the physical body
I Timothy 3:1 – “Office” of a bishop
I Timothy 3:10 – “Office” of a deacon
I Timothy 3:13 – “Office” of a deacon
Hebrews 7:5 – “Office” of the priesthood
We can safely conclude that the term “evangelist” and the term “office” are never used together as in the above examples. The 1st century evangelist was a preacher of the gospel and not an office holder in the church.
We must now ask the question, “If a plurality of elders governed the congregations of the first century, how did the “one man ruler ship” of congregations come to be to the point of becoming entrenched for 20 centuries or more?” Alexander Strauch puts it very well:
This Roman Catholic leadership pattern was followed by the Reformers as well, though it was somewhat amended. Instead of a celibate singular congregational priesthood, the Protestants liked to refer to their “priests” as “pastors” and allowed them to marry. However, both Catholics and Protestants continued to require their adherents to go through a mortal man to have access to God…clearly a blatant false teaching in light of Scripture.
The New Testament teaching of a plurality of elders in leadership was largely adhered to during what we now call the “Restoration Movement” during the nineteenth century. However, during the 1920’s, 30’s, 40’s and 50’s, many denominational churches were converted in mass…denominations one week and New Testament churches of Christ the next! Many of these new congregations did not have proper teaching regarding congregational leadership and the denominational “pastor” evolved into the “evangelist.” He continued a “one man rule” as he had before. Unfortunately, a “supporting theology” has sprung up to support the false notion that the “evangelist” is the singular “leader” of the congregation.
The “supporting theology” surrounding the preeminence of the “evangelist” centers primarily on one argument:
• Paul appointed Timothy and Titus as evangelists
• Timothy and Titus appointed “elders in every church”
• Therefore, evangelists are superior and rule over elderships, negating the need for said elderships.
Since Paul simply states the qualifications for elders to Timothy (I Timothy 1:3-7), his authority to appoint such is implied. However, Paul clearly instructs Titus: “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you.” (Titus 1:6 (NASB) We can clearly see that Titus appoints elders, not on any authority of any “office” or because he is an “evangelist,” but on the authority of Paul the apostle.
To complicate matters further, it has become regretably popular among the so-called "mega-churches" among churches of Christ to adopt this error in stealth. These "Emergent" congregations have opted to have "senior ministers" who lead a "council of elders" that act as "deacons" because...these congregations often have no deacons. One man rule that the average person would not even notice. How convenient. These "dual track" congregations, "appearing" bibllical, fool no one, especially the Almighty.
In conclusion, we can safely say that instead of the “evangelist tail” wagging the “eldership dog,” elderships appoint and oversee evangelists…the gospel preachers of our day and time…just as it was in the first century. “One man rule” of a congregation is Romanesque, is extra-biblical and is a false teaching.
First of all, there no longer is a singular priesthood, we are all priests. (I Peter 2:9) Secondly, a “pastor” is part of a plurality of elders, presbyters or bishops, all four terms are interchangeable and are never identified in a singular manner, always in the plural. (Acts 14:23)
When we come to the term “evangelist” we find that the word occurs but three times in Scripture, Acts 21:8, Ephesians 4:11 and II Timothy 4:5, according to Vine’s. In all three instances the word is descriptive of a function, “…a preacher of the gospel,” with no indications of either office or office holder. “Evangelist” is, therefore, a description and not a title.
Finally, when we come to the word “office,” it is used some six times in the New Testament according to Strong’s Concordance:
Romans 11:3 – Paul’s “office” as the apostle to the gentiles
Romans 12:4 – “Office” as synonym for parts of the physical body
I Timothy 3:1 – “Office” of a bishop
I Timothy 3:10 – “Office” of a deacon
I Timothy 3:13 – “Office” of a deacon
Hebrews 7:5 – “Office” of the priesthood
We can safely conclude that the term “evangelist” and the term “office” are never used together as in the above examples. The 1st century evangelist was a preacher of the gospel and not an office holder in the church.
We must now ask the question, “If a plurality of elders governed the congregations of the first century, how did the “one man ruler ship” of congregations come to be to the point of becoming entrenched for 20 centuries or more?” Alexander Strauch puts it very well:
At the beginning of the second century, many churches developed three separate offices or leadership ministries. That was the start of episcopally structured churches:
The overseer (bishop)
A council of elders
A body of deacons
At the start of the second century, the overseer (bishop) presided over one local church, not a group of churches. Thus he is called the monarchical bishop. Through the centuries, inordinate authority became concentrated in the bishop. Unchecked by the New Testament Scriptures, his role continued to expand. The bishop became ruler over a group of churches. Some bishops emerged as supreme over other bishops. Eventually they formed councils of bishops. Finally, in the West, one bishop emerged over every Christian and every church.
But in the churches of the New Testament period, there was no clearly defined, three office system. Instead, there were only two offices as found in Philippians 1:1.
The council of overseer elders
The body of deacons
This Roman Catholic leadership pattern was followed by the Reformers as well, though it was somewhat amended. Instead of a celibate singular congregational priesthood, the Protestants liked to refer to their “priests” as “pastors” and allowed them to marry. However, both Catholics and Protestants continued to require their adherents to go through a mortal man to have access to God…clearly a blatant false teaching in light of Scripture.
The New Testament teaching of a plurality of elders in leadership was largely adhered to during what we now call the “Restoration Movement” during the nineteenth century. However, during the 1920’s, 30’s, 40’s and 50’s, many denominational churches were converted in mass…denominations one week and New Testament churches of Christ the next! Many of these new congregations did not have proper teaching regarding congregational leadership and the denominational “pastor” evolved into the “evangelist.” He continued a “one man rule” as he had before. Unfortunately, a “supporting theology” has sprung up to support the false notion that the “evangelist” is the singular “leader” of the congregation.
The “supporting theology” surrounding the preeminence of the “evangelist” centers primarily on one argument:
• Paul appointed Timothy and Titus as evangelists
• Timothy and Titus appointed “elders in every church”
• Therefore, evangelists are superior and rule over elderships, negating the need for said elderships.
Since Paul simply states the qualifications for elders to Timothy (I Timothy 1:3-7), his authority to appoint such is implied. However, Paul clearly instructs Titus: “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you.” (Titus 1:6 (NASB) We can clearly see that Titus appoints elders, not on any authority of any “office” or because he is an “evangelist,” but on the authority of Paul the apostle.
To complicate matters further, it has become regretably popular among the so-called "mega-churches" among churches of Christ to adopt this error in stealth. These "Emergent" congregations have opted to have "senior ministers" who lead a "council of elders" that act as "deacons" because...these congregations often have no deacons. One man rule that the average person would not even notice. How convenient. These "dual track" congregations, "appearing" bibllical, fool no one, especially the Almighty.
In conclusion, we can safely say that instead of the “evangelist tail” wagging the “eldership dog,” elderships appoint and oversee evangelists…the gospel preachers of our day and time…just as it was in the first century. “One man rule” of a congregation is Romanesque, is extra-biblical and is a false teaching.
Monday, December 15, 2008
The Work of the Evangelist is the Fulfillment of Ministry - II Timothy 4:5 - A Biblical Approach to Gospel Preaching
For some length of time now I have observed “preacher wanted” and “preacher available” ads running on brotherhood web sites. These various sites paint almost endless “job description” pictures. Let me recall a few variable highlights. Regular office hours; yes, no or in-between? Time and energy focus on lesson preparation; priority or not? Proactive or reactive duties? Do the congregations in question have eldership or “business meeting” leadership models? Do these congregational leaderships have macro, micro or delegatory management styles? Are there internal or external ministry focuses? Is schooling or experience seen to be more beneficial? Should the preacher and his wife have children? If so, what age should the children be? Should the preacher be young, old or middle aged? Are there doctrinal expectations or not? Does the congregation focus on local or foreign mission opportunities? We could go on here…but you get the idea. There are endless differences in all of these ads. However, there appears to be one commonality.
Diverse as these ads are, there does seem to be one universal concern stated in most every ad. Nearly every “preacher wanted” and “preacher available” ad asks, or answers, this question: “What is the preachers philosophy towards his ministry and how should he spend his time during a typical day?”
As an elder, soon to be gospel preacher (Lord willing), I would like to answer this question - from the Bible.
As alluded to in the title of this article, the apostle Paul instructs Timothy, his much beloved “son in the gospel,” having much to say regarding his much needed ministry. He summarizes these urgent matters in II Timothy 4:15 (NKJV): “But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.” Just what is the fulfilling work of an evangelist? The fulfilling work of an evangelist is the full time pursuit of the Great Commission of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. The Great Commission is, at the same time, the most profound and yet simply put job description in the history of the world!
In this passage we can answer the question asked above, “What is the preacher’s philosophy towards his ministry and how should he spend his time during a typical day?” By identifying the key words in the passage we know the answer:
Go – Disciple – Baptize – Teaching to Observe All Things Taught (Repeat)
As has been often noted, it’s not the difficult to understand passages with which we wrestle, it’s the easy ones! Matthew 28:18-20 is easy to understand, yet hard to follow. It is the contention of this writer that the Great Commission cannot be misunderstood - except - on purpose. Some see an “explanation” to excuse themselves. These would contend that since the Lord was addressing the apostles directly, that this passage applies only to the apostles. However, even the briefest of looks at the passage in context confirms that the phrase; “…teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you…” includes going, discipling, baptizing, teaching and observing for ALL subsequent believers. Jesus Christ Himself reaches out through the Great Commission to each and every convert until the last trumpet sounds. The only difference between the vast majority of Christians and the gospel preacher is that the gospel preacher is blessed with the opportunity of “full time pursuit” of the Great Commission. In a nutshell, this “full time pursuit of the Great Commission” is the “fulfilling work of an evangelist!” Let’s now examine the individual components of the Great Commission in order to flesh out the “…man of God…complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work,” as Paul describes him in II Timothy 3:17.
GO – As did our Lord, we are enjoined to first of all to go to the people, to the souls that are lost. That was the mission of Christ (I Timothy 1:15) and it is the mission of all of us as well as we emulate Him. To accomplish this mission, God “scatters” us into the world through various and sundry ways (Acts 8:4). The gospel preacher is “scattered” today by immersing himself in the life of his community. He supports his community. He participates with his community in its civic, social and school functions. He takes part in community activities. He meets and greets everyone he can. He patronizes local businesses. He makes himself available to speak at public and private events of various kinds. He makes himself available to the media to be interviewed whenever a matter of religion or morality is in the news. Most importantly, he always invites all those whom he meets to some kind of church function – always. The gospel preacher knows that he can never proclaim the “good news” to someone he has yet to meet, as Paul passionately told the Roman church (Romans 10:14). Going and meeting people is only the beginning of the preachers fulfillment of his task. Going makes discipleship possible.
DISCIPLE – As did our Lord, once He met and called people to Himself, He began the process of building eternal relationships with them. He did this, not by merely introducing Himself, He did it by sharing His very life with them – as should the gospel preacher. Over time the disciples of Christ became His friends (John 15:12-17). Jesus accomplished this by not only calling the disciples by name, he called them to a greater purpose in life (Matthew 4:19). The gospel preacher shares his life with his many friends in the community, calling them as well to a greater purpose in their lives. He shares his home. He shares his milestones. He shares his events. He shares his activities. He shares his table. He shares his time. He shares his interests. He shares his resources – and - as with all people, the gospel preacher will be judged according to his attention to the needs of others, especially the “least among us” (see Matthew 25:31-46). All of this sharing, however, is not done alone! This sharing is meshed with that of other Christians, a servant-hood concurrently rendered to the congregation’s community friends. As a result, many Christians begin to share their various lives with the community. Most importantly, many Christians begin to invite all these community friends to study the Scriptures. Invitations to study God’s Word are given often and by multiple Christians – always – as the congregation, along with the gospel preacher, share their lives with their ever closer community friends. Going, meeting and discipling takes the gospel preacher only part way in the fulfillment of his task. Discipleship make baptisms possible.
BAPTIZE – Through the “foolishness of preaching,” (I Corinthians 1:21) disciples become Christians as God adds “such as are being saved” to the church of Christ upon their baptism (Acts 2:47). Baptism is the “hinge” of life. It marks the most radical transformation one can experience this side of eternity. Before baptism we are “dead in our sins.” After baptism we become the “temple of the Holy Spirit.” Though by no means is baptism an end in itself – in fact, going, discipling, teaching and observing are all for naught without it. Noting all of these facts, the gospel preacher must make the baptism of new disciples a key priority, along with the rest of the congregation. Once people have been met, befriended and discipled the gospel of Christ must be presented in completeness and clarity in a number of diverse study settings. These study settings must be consistent with the direction of the eldership, appropriate to the needs of the students and complimentary of the gospel preachers training and abilities. Jesus said that He “came to seek and save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10). We too, by extension, must focus on “seeking and saving” the lost – salvation that is impossible without baptism into Christ! In order for this focus to manifest itself, the gospel preacher must be ready, willing and able to preach and teach salvation to the various and sundry groups of people he comes into contact with. Baptism closes the sale, as it were. Baptism is the hinge on which the open door of heaven swings. Baptism is the place, time and setting where the “work of God” is accomplished (Colossians 2:12). His work is accomplished nowhere else! Baptism ushers in salvation and provides teaching opportunities for the saved who then - in turn - begin to go, disciple, baptize and “teach all things commanded” themselves!
TEACHING TO OBSERVE ALL THINGS TAUGHT (REPEAT) – By inspiration, Paul puts heavy, solemn and substantial emphasis on the continual and on-going preaching of God’s Word to the congregation. He presses the point to the young evangelist, Timothy:
In addition to keeping the congregation doctrinally pure (See vs. 3 and 4), Timothy is subsequently enjoined by Paul to be “sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist and fulfill his ministry” (See vs.5). And why is this? In addition to preaching the gospel to the lost and fighting off error, the gospel preacher is to prepare the entire congregation to teach others. Earlier, Paul told Timothy; “And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” – (II Timothy 2:2 (NKJV). This somber task was previously emphasized to Timothy by Paul in I Timothy 4:13; “Till I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.” (NKJV)
As did our Lord with His disciples, the greatest amount of time and effort is centered on the preparation and presentation of the Word of God to the congregation. Because individual time and opportunity are fleeting, the gospel preacher must “commit” the knowledge and training of the continual presentation [the Great Commission] of the Gospel of Christ (I Corinthians 15:1-8) to the “faithful” in order for them to “teach others also.”
CONCLUSION:
The philosophy and structure of gospel preaching is revealed, evident and spelled out in the Great Commission. The gospel preacher is to spend whatever daily time given him by God to go, disciple, baptize and teach all things commanded by our Lord in order that the legacy of the gospel will be sustained beyond our time here on earth. “We are saved to save others.”
Diverse as these ads are, there does seem to be one universal concern stated in most every ad. Nearly every “preacher wanted” and “preacher available” ad asks, or answers, this question: “What is the preachers philosophy towards his ministry and how should he spend his time during a typical day?”
As an elder, soon to be gospel preacher (Lord willing), I would like to answer this question - from the Bible.
As alluded to in the title of this article, the apostle Paul instructs Timothy, his much beloved “son in the gospel,” having much to say regarding his much needed ministry. He summarizes these urgent matters in II Timothy 4:15 (NKJV): “But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.” Just what is the fulfilling work of an evangelist? The fulfilling work of an evangelist is the full time pursuit of the Great Commission of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. The Great Commission is, at the same time, the most profound and yet simply put job description in the history of the world!
Then Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” - Matthew 28:18-20 (NKJV) [Emphasis added – RM]
In this passage we can answer the question asked above, “What is the preacher’s philosophy towards his ministry and how should he spend his time during a typical day?” By identifying the key words in the passage we know the answer:
Go – Disciple – Baptize – Teaching to Observe All Things Taught (Repeat)
As has been often noted, it’s not the difficult to understand passages with which we wrestle, it’s the easy ones! Matthew 28:18-20 is easy to understand, yet hard to follow. It is the contention of this writer that the Great Commission cannot be misunderstood - except - on purpose. Some see an “explanation” to excuse themselves. These would contend that since the Lord was addressing the apostles directly, that this passage applies only to the apostles. However, even the briefest of looks at the passage in context confirms that the phrase; “…teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you…” includes going, discipling, baptizing, teaching and observing for ALL subsequent believers. Jesus Christ Himself reaches out through the Great Commission to each and every convert until the last trumpet sounds. The only difference between the vast majority of Christians and the gospel preacher is that the gospel preacher is blessed with the opportunity of “full time pursuit” of the Great Commission. In a nutshell, this “full time pursuit of the Great Commission” is the “fulfilling work of an evangelist!” Let’s now examine the individual components of the Great Commission in order to flesh out the “…man of God…complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work,” as Paul describes him in II Timothy 3:17.
GO – As did our Lord, we are enjoined to first of all to go to the people, to the souls that are lost. That was the mission of Christ (I Timothy 1:15) and it is the mission of all of us as well as we emulate Him. To accomplish this mission, God “scatters” us into the world through various and sundry ways (Acts 8:4). The gospel preacher is “scattered” today by immersing himself in the life of his community. He supports his community. He participates with his community in its civic, social and school functions. He takes part in community activities. He meets and greets everyone he can. He patronizes local businesses. He makes himself available to speak at public and private events of various kinds. He makes himself available to the media to be interviewed whenever a matter of religion or morality is in the news. Most importantly, he always invites all those whom he meets to some kind of church function – always. The gospel preacher knows that he can never proclaim the “good news” to someone he has yet to meet, as Paul passionately told the Roman church (Romans 10:14). Going and meeting people is only the beginning of the preachers fulfillment of his task. Going makes discipleship possible.
DISCIPLE – As did our Lord, once He met and called people to Himself, He began the process of building eternal relationships with them. He did this, not by merely introducing Himself, He did it by sharing His very life with them – as should the gospel preacher. Over time the disciples of Christ became His friends (John 15:12-17). Jesus accomplished this by not only calling the disciples by name, he called them to a greater purpose in life (Matthew 4:19). The gospel preacher shares his life with his many friends in the community, calling them as well to a greater purpose in their lives. He shares his home. He shares his milestones. He shares his events. He shares his activities. He shares his table. He shares his time. He shares his interests. He shares his resources – and - as with all people, the gospel preacher will be judged according to his attention to the needs of others, especially the “least among us” (see Matthew 25:31-46). All of this sharing, however, is not done alone! This sharing is meshed with that of other Christians, a servant-hood concurrently rendered to the congregation’s community friends. As a result, many Christians begin to share their various lives with the community. Most importantly, many Christians begin to invite all these community friends to study the Scriptures. Invitations to study God’s Word are given often and by multiple Christians – always – as the congregation, along with the gospel preacher, share their lives with their ever closer community friends. Going, meeting and discipling takes the gospel preacher only part way in the fulfillment of his task. Discipleship make baptisms possible.
BAPTIZE – Through the “foolishness of preaching,” (I Corinthians 1:21) disciples become Christians as God adds “such as are being saved” to the church of Christ upon their baptism (Acts 2:47). Baptism is the “hinge” of life. It marks the most radical transformation one can experience this side of eternity. Before baptism we are “dead in our sins.” After baptism we become the “temple of the Holy Spirit.” Though by no means is baptism an end in itself – in fact, going, discipling, teaching and observing are all for naught without it. Noting all of these facts, the gospel preacher must make the baptism of new disciples a key priority, along with the rest of the congregation. Once people have been met, befriended and discipled the gospel of Christ must be presented in completeness and clarity in a number of diverse study settings. These study settings must be consistent with the direction of the eldership, appropriate to the needs of the students and complimentary of the gospel preachers training and abilities. Jesus said that He “came to seek and save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10). We too, by extension, must focus on “seeking and saving” the lost – salvation that is impossible without baptism into Christ! In order for this focus to manifest itself, the gospel preacher must be ready, willing and able to preach and teach salvation to the various and sundry groups of people he comes into contact with. Baptism closes the sale, as it were. Baptism is the hinge on which the open door of heaven swings. Baptism is the place, time and setting where the “work of God” is accomplished (Colossians 2:12). His work is accomplished nowhere else! Baptism ushers in salvation and provides teaching opportunities for the saved who then - in turn - begin to go, disciple, baptize and “teach all things commanded” themselves!
TEACHING TO OBSERVE ALL THINGS TAUGHT (REPEAT) – By inspiration, Paul puts heavy, solemn and substantial emphasis on the continual and on-going preaching of God’s Word to the congregation. He presses the point to the young evangelist, Timothy:
I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. – II Timothy 4:2 (NASB)
In addition to keeping the congregation doctrinally pure (See vs. 3 and 4), Timothy is subsequently enjoined by Paul to be “sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist and fulfill his ministry” (See vs.5). And why is this? In addition to preaching the gospel to the lost and fighting off error, the gospel preacher is to prepare the entire congregation to teach others. Earlier, Paul told Timothy; “And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” – (II Timothy 2:2 (NKJV). This somber task was previously emphasized to Timothy by Paul in I Timothy 4:13; “Till I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.” (NKJV)
As did our Lord with His disciples, the greatest amount of time and effort is centered on the preparation and presentation of the Word of God to the congregation. Because individual time and opportunity are fleeting, the gospel preacher must “commit” the knowledge and training of the continual presentation [the Great Commission] of the Gospel of Christ (I Corinthians 15:1-8) to the “faithful” in order for them to “teach others also.”
CONCLUSION:
The philosophy and structure of gospel preaching is revealed, evident and spelled out in the Great Commission. The gospel preacher is to spend whatever daily time given him by God to go, disciple, baptize and teach all things commanded by our Lord in order that the legacy of the gospel will be sustained beyond our time here on earth. “We are saved to save others.”
Friday, October 31, 2008
Blood, Redemption, Forgiveness, Redemption & Baptism
On Tuesday evenings the Archdale church of Christ conducts Bible studies at the Mecklenburg County jail. We have, typically, a crowd of 16-22. We have an hour to share the Gospel as God allows us. Our opportunity is enhanced by the fact that our group is different each and every time. Very few of these men have the opportunity to hear the Gospel more than once and so we are burdened with the urgency.
Everything goes very well unti we arrive at the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins. We deal with the "sinners prayer," the thief on the cross and Romans 10:9-10 nearly every week. This last Tuesday, however, we had a man who objected to baptism on the grounds of Ephesians 1:7:
In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the richness of His grace... (NKJV)
The mans contention was that this verse spoke of redemption, forgiveness through grace without any mention of baptism. How then is baptism essential? Let's examine this question briefly.
The Word of God interacts back and forth with itself, Scripture interprets Scripture. For example, we lack the complete account of Pauls conversion if we look only at Acts 9 without also looking at Acts 22. Luke gives a 3rd party account of Pauls conversion in Acts 9, whereas Paul himself is quoted directly in Acts 22 regarding these same events. Therefore, when we look at the subject of redemption, forgiveness and grace, we need to look at more than just one entry regarding the subject.
In Ephesians 1:17 Paul essentially restates the same principle using different terminology. Examine:
In Him we have:
REDEMPTION THROUGH HIS BLOOD
FORGIVENESS OF SINS
according to the richness of His grace.
By examining the structure of the language we quickly realize that words "redemption" and "forgiveness" are synonomous, they are one and the same. We therefore must conclude that neither can be acheived except "through His blood." Going back to Acts 2:38 we see that baptism is exclusively the time and the place where "remission [forgiveness/redemption] of sins" takes place! By examining these two scriptures together we must conclude the following:
REDEMPTION IS THROUGH HIS BLOOD
FORGIVENESS OF SINS IS THROUGH HIS BLOOD
REMISSION OF SINS TAKES PLACE ONLY AT THE TIME AND PLACE OF WATER BAPTISM
REDEMPTION, FORGIVENESS AND REMISSION OF SINS ARE SYNONOMOUS TERMS
THEREFORE:
WE MEET THE SAVING BLOOD OF JESUS CHIRST ONLY IN BAPTISM AND NO WHERE ELSE!
Ephesians 1:7 DOES speak of baptism for Christ shed His blood ONLY in His death and the ONLY way to participate with Him in His death is through water baptism. (See Romans 6:1f) We are baptized into His death where we meet and are cleansed by the saving blood of Christ that remitts us of our sins, forgives us of our sins and redeems us from our sins!
There is no "plan "B," the ONLY place where we find the blood of Christ is in the time and place of water baptism. Man may not like it, understand it, appreciate it or embrace it...BUT..."it is the way it is." The saving blood of Jesus Christ is NOT found in any mystical experience, at the end of any "sinners prayer," after "praying through," after being "voted in" or ANY other place or time outside of water baptism of the soul that has repented of every sin (Acts 2:38) and has confessed the Name of Jesus Christ before witnesses (Matthew 10:32).
Should you hesitate at the point of water baptism, dear friend, please consider once again the words of the servants of General Naaman, "...My father if the prophet had told you to do something great, would you not have done it? How much more then, when he says to you, "Wash and be clean?" - II Kings 5:13 (NKJV) "For whatever things written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might find hope." - Romans 15:4 (NKJV) General Naaman "got in the water." Now its your turn! Thank God for His unspeakable free gift of salvation through the saving shed blood of Jesus Christ found in the "watery grave" of baptism!
NOTE: This same article is also posted on my evangelistic weblog, http://gospelcall.blogspot.com!
Everything goes very well unti we arrive at the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins. We deal with the "sinners prayer," the thief on the cross and Romans 10:9-10 nearly every week. This last Tuesday, however, we had a man who objected to baptism on the grounds of Ephesians 1:7:
In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the richness of His grace... (NKJV)
The mans contention was that this verse spoke of redemption, forgiveness through grace without any mention of baptism. How then is baptism essential? Let's examine this question briefly.
The Word of God interacts back and forth with itself, Scripture interprets Scripture. For example, we lack the complete account of Pauls conversion if we look only at Acts 9 without also looking at Acts 22. Luke gives a 3rd party account of Pauls conversion in Acts 9, whereas Paul himself is quoted directly in Acts 22 regarding these same events. Therefore, when we look at the subject of redemption, forgiveness and grace, we need to look at more than just one entry regarding the subject.
In Ephesians 1:17 Paul essentially restates the same principle using different terminology. Examine:
In Him we have:
REDEMPTION THROUGH HIS BLOOD
FORGIVENESS OF SINS
according to the richness of His grace.
By examining the structure of the language we quickly realize that words "redemption" and "forgiveness" are synonomous, they are one and the same. We therefore must conclude that neither can be acheived except "through His blood." Going back to Acts 2:38 we see that baptism is exclusively the time and the place where "remission [forgiveness/redemption] of sins" takes place! By examining these two scriptures together we must conclude the following:
REDEMPTION IS THROUGH HIS BLOOD
FORGIVENESS OF SINS IS THROUGH HIS BLOOD
REMISSION OF SINS TAKES PLACE ONLY AT THE TIME AND PLACE OF WATER BAPTISM
REDEMPTION, FORGIVENESS AND REMISSION OF SINS ARE SYNONOMOUS TERMS
THEREFORE:
WE MEET THE SAVING BLOOD OF JESUS CHIRST ONLY IN BAPTISM AND NO WHERE ELSE!
Ephesians 1:7 DOES speak of baptism for Christ shed His blood ONLY in His death and the ONLY way to participate with Him in His death is through water baptism. (See Romans 6:1f) We are baptized into His death where we meet and are cleansed by the saving blood of Christ that remitts us of our sins, forgives us of our sins and redeems us from our sins!
There is no "plan "B," the ONLY place where we find the blood of Christ is in the time and place of water baptism. Man may not like it, understand it, appreciate it or embrace it...BUT..."it is the way it is." The saving blood of Jesus Christ is NOT found in any mystical experience, at the end of any "sinners prayer," after "praying through," after being "voted in" or ANY other place or time outside of water baptism of the soul that has repented of every sin (Acts 2:38) and has confessed the Name of Jesus Christ before witnesses (Matthew 10:32).
Should you hesitate at the point of water baptism, dear friend, please consider once again the words of the servants of General Naaman, "...My father if the prophet had told you to do something great, would you not have done it? How much more then, when he says to you, "Wash and be clean?" - II Kings 5:13 (NKJV) "For whatever things written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might find hope." - Romans 15:4 (NKJV) General Naaman "got in the water." Now its your turn! Thank God for His unspeakable free gift of salvation through the saving shed blood of Jesus Christ found in the "watery grave" of baptism!
NOTE: This same article is also posted on my evangelistic weblog, http://gospelcall.blogspot.com!
Friday, October 24, 2008
Why Does An Agnostic Need A Bible Commentary? - A Review of a Review
“Ag-nos-tic –One that holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable.” – Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, (Merriam-Webster Inc., Publishers, Springfield, MA, 1991) pg. 65
It is such a surreal time in which we live. I grew up in Hampton, VA on a little twenty four home street called Briar Drive. Between the years of 1957 – 1969, there was only one family living on that street that did not attend some church of some kind. There were Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, Adventists, Pentecostals and our family…members of the Lord’s church. There was only one family that never attended a church of some kind. That family lived across the street from us and they took their boat out every Sunday instead of attending worship somewhere. However, they were not atheists or agnostics.
I remember studying about atheists in school. Atheists lived in Russia, China, North Korea, North Vietnam and Cuba...they were all communists. The only other atheists I ever heard of were the defeated fascists of Germany and Japan. I can’t remember when I first gave a conscious thought about agnosticism. I was grown before I actually met anyone claiming to be an agnostic. [Of course since agnostics, by definition are not sure about anything, they may be theists one day and atheists the next!] In the intervening years between then and now, rightly or wrongly, I began to think in terms that agnosticism seemed most prevalent among drug addicts, rock and roll groupies and growing numbers of college professors. Soon I noticed that it was creeping into the mainstream Protestant denominations, Unitarians and a few other groups. Agnosticism was not main-stream and it certainly had no place in the churches of Christ!
Fast forward to 2008…all that has changed. For reasons I cannot easily understand, our Christian colleges and many of our “mega-churches” are awash with agnostics! [For the purpose of this discussion, agnostics are doubters of the veracity of Scripture and by logical extension…doubters of the Divinity of Jesus Christ] Of course, we must scratch our heads and wonder WHY would an agnostic bother attending worship, put their hand-wringing doubts into endless reams of media and choose a career in “ministry?” Really…what can one palm sweating doubter do for another?
Without answering the “why” question of agnosticism I want to address the fact that these “Christian-agnostics” now have their own entire Bible commentary! It’s like running into your lung doctor and notice he’s smoking a cigar! What’s up with that?! Why would agnostics need comments on that which is unknowable and un-provable?
Simply this…post-modernist “Christians” embrace contradiction, chaos, confusion and uncertainty instead of peace, harmony, revelation and truth. This new one-volume commentary, therefore, is allegorical, circular and emergent. It embraces contradiction, chaos, confusion and uncertainty as a “spiritual narcotic” to numb the soul of the reality of sin, death, judgment and hell.
In the false tradition of Origen, “post-modern Christian agnostics,” instead of simply hearing the Word of God for what it plainly says, search for endless multiple “hidden meanings” lurking behind every jot and tittle. Every person, therefore, ends up with their own “personal truth” which contradicts every other persons “personal truth.” To the “post-modern Christian agnostic,” the only certainty contained in the Scripture is uncertainty! The Holy Bible winds up being just a big allegorical story book. THIS is the foundational sand upon which is built the new Christian / agnostic Bible commentary,
Found in the current issue of the
1. Beginning with the very title of the book, this volume takes us into the murky madness of post-modern and emerging theology. This past week end a prominent former secretary of state endorsed one of the two major political candidates, describing this candidate as “transformational.” “Transformational” is a post-modern buzz word that means “constant change,” a take-off of the “continuous improvement” business theory of the last decade or two. In other words, this candidate has no core values or convictions, only ever changing and ever evolving opinions…there is no permanency about this person…and this is seen as “good” by post-modern people who reject the notion of the existence of ultimate truth. These people used to be referred to as “pragmatists” but too many of us have caught on to that word, hence the replacement word “transformational” to keep us all off guard. One, at first glance, might look at the title, The Transforming Word, and assume that it means the Word of God that transforms ME. Unfortunately, what the title, The Transforming Word, really means is that the Word of God, instead of being eternal, unchanging and true is being sold as a “living, breathing document” that changes generationaly. Not only that, to the “post-modern agnostic Christian,” the Word of God becomes nothing more than a personal “Gumby” ® for all of us to manipulate allegorically as we please. Origen would be delighted!
2. The book, by premise according to the review, rejects the fact that Jesus built but one church, the church of Christ. Instead, the authors embrace the self-identified denominational title for our fellowship which they call the “Stone-Campbell Movement.” Pray tell, dear brothers, did God add the Pentecostians to the “Stone-Campbell Movement?” Stone and Campbell were added to the same church the Pentecostians were added to at the time of their baptism into Christ! If these brethren were sincere about this so-called “movement,” they would post it on their church buildings! And…I wish they would! By so doing, non-Christians would not get the truth confused with error! Every emergent “church of Christ” should change their name to “So and So Stone-Campbell Fellowship.” To claim to be the “church of Christ” AND the “Stone-Campbell Movement” is disingenuous at best and hypocritical at worst. This kind of “dual track identity” is an existential embrace of chaos, confusion and contradiction making the adherents to such “double minded and unstable in all their ways,” alluding to James 1:7’s discussion of doubt. We don’t follow Stone and Campbell, we follow Christ! We should look to Stone and Campbell for history, not theology. We are not sanctified by Stone and Campbell, we are “sanctified by truth, the Word of God!” – John 17:17 Neither Stone nor Campbell were crucified for us and, therefore, none of us were baptized into the name of either Stone or Campbell…alluding to Paul’s inspired illustration to the Corinthian church in I Corinthians 1.
3. At least some of the contributors deny the Mosaical authorship of the Pentateuch. Brother May quotes a passage: “The Pentateuch appears to preserve several streams of tradition that did not necessarily originate at the same time and place.” Wow… “IF” we follow this “logic,” we MUST conclude that Jesus Christ was either ignorant of the facts, or worse, steeped in deception when he clearly declared, “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” [John 5:46-47 (NKJV)] Jesus CLEARLY claims a singular Moses as author of the Pentateuch! If for ANY reason, Jesus is mistaken on this salient point, Jesus Christ is NOT divine. Another point to ponder… “IF” there were multiple “Moses’,” which Moses appeared on the mount of transfiguration with Elijah and Christ? Or perhaps, were there some 47 Moses’ standing on the mount with Elijah and Christ? Perhaps the name “Moses” was a singular name for a large group of individual people?
This is the kind of manic-depressive existential nonsense we wind up with “IF” we adopt Origen’s allegorical, multiple and hidden meaning approach to biblical interpretation!
4. This volume, by insinuation, denies the divinity of Christ for it drops the “Before Christ (B.C.)” designation in lieu of the agnostic / atheist / evolutionist word-smith of “Before the Common Era (B.C.E.)” The so-called “Common Era” designation favors the so-called “HISTORICAL” Jesus, over the DIVINE Christ revealed in Scripture. The authors have NO reason to make this switch unless they doubt the divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ by whom the universe was created and by whom the universe is sustained even as we speak!
5. At least some of the contributors reject the fact that there was but a single individual by the name of Isaiah. Here is a quote from the Christian Chronicle review of brother May:
“IF” we accept the “logic” of this volume, we will have to acknowledge that Jesus Christ did not
know that there were “actually three Isaiah’s!” This kind of arrogant senus plenoir “reasoning” would mean that the authors of this work have “new revelation” that somehow eluded even Jesus Christ! As with the point made on the Mosaical authorship of the Pentateuch, this would render Our Lord and Savior mere mortal and no more divine than you and I. My brothers, this allegorical, “fuller sense,” subjective, multiple and hidden meaning and circular interpretation method renders man “superior” to God and thus no longer responsible for his sin. Like the theory of evolution, Origen’s methods are designed to render the judgment of God of none effect.
6. This volume, being largely interpreted allegorically, strips the Old Testament of its powerful and prolific prophesy of the coming of Jesus Christ and His church! Such “interpretation” renders the inspired Word of God as effective as a de-clawed and toothless lion in the wilds of the jungle. Not only that, the volume accuses the New Testament writers of brazen manipulation and fraud! Here is the quote from brother May:
Wow… The agnosticism of such a statement is horrific! Paul was a deceiver. The Hebrew writer was a deceiver. And…Jesus Christ Himself was a deceiver “IF” the above statement is true! As previously cited, Jesus Christ committed out and out fraud by claiming that “He (Moses) wrote of Me” “IF,” in fact he (or “them” as the commentary would assert!) did not. This quote is so agnostic to the extreme I wonder if perhaps Brian McLaren penned it himself!
7. A least some of the contributors deny the inspirational veracity of the book of Jonah. Here is a quote from brother Briley:
Here is yet another assault upon the divinity of Jesus Christ for our Lord cited the 100% historicity of Jonah’s account! In fact, “IF” Jonah is not historically accurate, then the resurrection of Jesus Christ never took place! Let’s hear our Lord speak: “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” – Matthew 12:41 [NKJV]. Not only did Jesus assert the historicity of Jonah’s time in the “belly of the great fish,” he says “so will be the Son of Man in the heart of the earth!” Let’s examine the logical and reasonable conclusions:
Jonah + Great Fist + 3 Days / 3 Nights = Truth
Then:
Jesus + Heart of Earth + 3 Days / 3 Nights = Truth
Or
Jonah + Great Fish + 3 Days / 3 Nights = Fictional Narrative
Then:
Jesus + Heart of Earth + 3 Days / 3 Nights = Fictional Narrative
My brothers, these are not mere semantics! “IF” Jonah did, in fact, spend three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, then Jesus Christ is resurrected! “IF” Jonah did not, in fact, spend three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, then Jesus Christ is NOT resurrected! Theology has consequences! The denial of the historicity of Jonah renders Jesus Christ, not only a liar and a deceiver, it nullifies the certainty of the resurrection, Christ is not raised and we are still in our sins! Thank God! Jesus Christ told the truth about Jonah and told the truth about Himself!
8. At least some of the contributors to this volume take a jaded and cynical view towards Dr. Luke. Dr. Luke wrote the finest histories of the latter days, Luke and Acts. However, brother Briley quotes a passage that would see Luke in the light of one of those “talking heads” on cable T. V. news! In the twisted world of allegorical interpretation, Luke is not objective, in fact Luke “spins” the “narrative” pragmatically to suit the preconceived ideas of his audience! Listen up:
Translation: Luke “spins” the history for his core supporters differently than he would non-core supporters just like the politician that is pro-life in Tennessee and pro-abortion in California! I don’t know about your God, but my God is not a manipulator!
I would be remiss if I did not declare my deepest disappointment with the conclusions of both of the reviewers. Brother May says:
Even more disappointing are the conclusions of brother Briley:
In conclusion: The Christian Chronicle review fails to adequately warn of the grave errors contained in this volume, though it often “politely” mentions them in a near “the emperor has no clothes” fashion. The Transforming Word appears [I have not yet been able to actually see a copy] from these quotations and others, to be written by and for agnostics and skeptics, in the total allegorical interpretive manner and must be rejected outright, regardless of how much “truth” is found in its pages. The “inclusion” of “truth” with “error” in one volume…we must be reminded…amounts to nothing more than an unequal yoke. Hear once again my brothers the inspired words of Paul:
Russ McCullough
Charlotte, NC
October 24, 2008
Russ McCullough serves as an elder for the Archdale church of Christ in Charlotte, North Carolina. He maintains a biblical interpretation blog at: http://www.samuelslinesaulscircle.blogspot.com and is the author of the upcoming book,
It is such a surreal time in which we live. I grew up in Hampton, VA on a little twenty four home street called Briar Drive. Between the years of 1957 – 1969, there was only one family living on that street that did not attend some church of some kind. There were Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, Adventists, Pentecostals and our family…members of the Lord’s church. There was only one family that never attended a church of some kind. That family lived across the street from us and they took their boat out every Sunday instead of attending worship somewhere. However, they were not atheists or agnostics.
I remember studying about atheists in school. Atheists lived in Russia, China, North Korea, North Vietnam and Cuba...they were all communists. The only other atheists I ever heard of were the defeated fascists of Germany and Japan. I can’t remember when I first gave a conscious thought about agnosticism. I was grown before I actually met anyone claiming to be an agnostic. [Of course since agnostics, by definition are not sure about anything, they may be theists one day and atheists the next!] In the intervening years between then and now, rightly or wrongly, I began to think in terms that agnosticism seemed most prevalent among drug addicts, rock and roll groupies and growing numbers of college professors. Soon I noticed that it was creeping into the mainstream Protestant denominations, Unitarians and a few other groups. Agnosticism was not main-stream and it certainly had no place in the churches of Christ!
Fast forward to 2008…all that has changed. For reasons I cannot easily understand, our Christian colleges and many of our “mega-churches” are awash with agnostics! [For the purpose of this discussion, agnostics are doubters of the veracity of Scripture and by logical extension…doubters of the Divinity of Jesus Christ] Of course, we must scratch our heads and wonder WHY would an agnostic bother attending worship, put their hand-wringing doubts into endless reams of media and choose a career in “ministry?” Really…what can one palm sweating doubter do for another?
Without answering the “why” question of agnosticism I want to address the fact that these “Christian-agnostics” now have their own entire Bible commentary! It’s like running into your lung doctor and notice he’s smoking a cigar! What’s up with that?! Why would agnostics need comments on that which is unknowable and un-provable?
Simply this…post-modernist “Christians” embrace contradiction, chaos, confusion and uncertainty instead of peace, harmony, revelation and truth. This new one-volume commentary, therefore, is allegorical, circular and emergent. It embraces contradiction, chaos, confusion and uncertainty as a “spiritual narcotic” to numb the soul of the reality of sin, death, judgment and hell.
In the false tradition of Origen, “post-modern Christian agnostics,” instead of simply hearing the Word of God for what it plainly says, search for endless multiple “hidden meanings” lurking behind every jot and tittle. Every person, therefore, ends up with their own “personal truth” which contradicts every other persons “personal truth.” To the “post-modern Christian agnostic,” the only certainty contained in the Scripture is uncertainty! The Holy Bible winds up being just a big allegorical story book. THIS is the foundational sand upon which is built the new Christian / agnostic Bible commentary,
The Transforming Word, (ACU Press, Abilene, TX, 2008).
Found in the current issue of the
Christian Chronicleis a review of this volume. [Harold Shank,
The Christian Chronicle, “Scholars Find Merit, Drawbacks in The Transforming Word,” September 26, 2008 – NOTE: Both brothers May and Briley quote from the commentary though the quotes are never identified by either contributor or location within the volume.] The volume is a compilation of some 30 contributors. The names remain unknown to me at the time of this writing. According to brother Shank the 30 contributors “are representatives of eight colleges and universities associated with churches of Christ.” The review is actually two reviews, one written by brother Cecil May, Jr. of Faulkner University from a generally LINEAR view and one written by brother Terry Briley of Lipscomb University from a generally ALLEGORICAL view. Unfortunately, neither brother exposes the commentary for what it is, an enabler for doubting Christians that should be avoided, especially by NEW Christians. Sadly, neither men mention the fact that there are a multitude of commentaries available that are far better suited for study by men and women of faith. Neither men warn elders of the dangers of the dubious contents of this book. The purpose of this blog posting is to hoist those warnings aloft. We would encourage all brethren to refrain from the purchase of this volume and here are the reasons why:
1. Beginning with the very title of the book, this volume takes us into the murky madness of post-modern and emerging theology. This past week end a prominent former secretary of state endorsed one of the two major political candidates, describing this candidate as “transformational.” “Transformational” is a post-modern buzz word that means “constant change,” a take-off of the “continuous improvement” business theory of the last decade or two. In other words, this candidate has no core values or convictions, only ever changing and ever evolving opinions…there is no permanency about this person…and this is seen as “good” by post-modern people who reject the notion of the existence of ultimate truth. These people used to be referred to as “pragmatists” but too many of us have caught on to that word, hence the replacement word “transformational” to keep us all off guard. One, at first glance, might look at the title, The Transforming Word, and assume that it means the Word of God that transforms ME. Unfortunately, what the title, The Transforming Word, really means is that the Word of God, instead of being eternal, unchanging and true is being sold as a “living, breathing document” that changes generationaly. Not only that, to the “post-modern agnostic Christian,” the Word of God becomes nothing more than a personal “Gumby” ® for all of us to manipulate allegorically as we please. Origen would be delighted!
2. The book, by premise according to the review, rejects the fact that Jesus built but one church, the church of Christ. Instead, the authors embrace the self-identified denominational title for our fellowship which they call the “Stone-Campbell Movement.” Pray tell, dear brothers, did God add the Pentecostians to the “Stone-Campbell Movement?” Stone and Campbell were added to the same church the Pentecostians were added to at the time of their baptism into Christ! If these brethren were sincere about this so-called “movement,” they would post it on their church buildings! And…I wish they would! By so doing, non-Christians would not get the truth confused with error! Every emergent “church of Christ” should change their name to “So and So Stone-Campbell Fellowship.” To claim to be the “church of Christ” AND the “Stone-Campbell Movement” is disingenuous at best and hypocritical at worst. This kind of “dual track identity” is an existential embrace of chaos, confusion and contradiction making the adherents to such “double minded and unstable in all their ways,” alluding to James 1:7’s discussion of doubt. We don’t follow Stone and Campbell, we follow Christ! We should look to Stone and Campbell for history, not theology. We are not sanctified by Stone and Campbell, we are “sanctified by truth, the Word of God!” – John 17:17 Neither Stone nor Campbell were crucified for us and, therefore, none of us were baptized into the name of either Stone or Campbell…alluding to Paul’s inspired illustration to the Corinthian church in I Corinthians 1.
3. At least some of the contributors deny the Mosaical authorship of the Pentateuch. Brother May quotes a passage: “The Pentateuch appears to preserve several streams of tradition that did not necessarily originate at the same time and place.” Wow… “IF” we follow this “logic,” we MUST conclude that Jesus Christ was either ignorant of the facts, or worse, steeped in deception when he clearly declared, “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” [John 5:46-47 (NKJV)] Jesus CLEARLY claims a singular Moses as author of the Pentateuch! If for ANY reason, Jesus is mistaken on this salient point, Jesus Christ is NOT divine. Another point to ponder… “IF” there were multiple “Moses’,” which Moses appeared on the mount of transfiguration with Elijah and Christ? Or perhaps, were there some 47 Moses’ standing on the mount with Elijah and Christ? Perhaps the name “Moses” was a singular name for a large group of individual people?
This is the kind of manic-depressive existential nonsense we wind up with “IF” we adopt Origen’s allegorical, multiple and hidden meaning approach to biblical interpretation!
4. This volume, by insinuation, denies the divinity of Christ for it drops the “Before Christ (B.C.)” designation in lieu of the agnostic / atheist / evolutionist word-smith of “Before the Common Era (B.C.E.)” The so-called “Common Era” designation favors the so-called “HISTORICAL” Jesus, over the DIVINE Christ revealed in Scripture. The authors have NO reason to make this switch unless they doubt the divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ by whom the universe was created and by whom the universe is sustained even as we speak!
5. At least some of the contributors reject the fact that there was but a single individual by the name of Isaiah. Here is a quote from the Christian Chronicle review of brother May:
Although Isaiah was an eighth century prophet, “the book’s composer” is said to have put the book together “at the end of the fifth century BCE.” Chapters 1-39 are Isaiah’s messages “preserved, deleted, modified, rearranged and expanded…for application in new situations.” Chapters 40 to 55 are primarily the work of a “sixth century BCE exilic prophet.” Later we read, “Passages in chapters 56 to 66 date originally from the period of rebuilding the Jerusalem temple (536-516 B.C.E.) to rebuilding its walls (about 445 – 432 B.C.E.).
“IF” we accept the “logic” of this volume, we will have to acknowledge that Jesus Christ did not
know that there were “actually three Isaiah’s!” This kind of arrogant senus plenoir “reasoning” would mean that the authors of this work have “new revelation” that somehow eluded even Jesus Christ! As with the point made on the Mosaical authorship of the Pentateuch, this would render Our Lord and Savior mere mortal and no more divine than you and I. My brothers, this allegorical, “fuller sense,” subjective, multiple and hidden meaning and circular interpretation method renders man “superior” to God and thus no longer responsible for his sin. Like the theory of evolution, Origen’s methods are designed to render the judgment of God of none effect.
6. This volume, being largely interpreted allegorically, strips the Old Testament of its powerful and prolific prophesy of the coming of Jesus Christ and His church! Such “interpretation” renders the inspired Word of God as effective as a de-clawed and toothless lion in the wilds of the jungle. Not only that, the volume accuses the New Testament writers of brazen manipulation and fraud! Here is the quote from brother May:
There is no unequivocal specific prediction of the coming of Jesus Christ and / or the church in the Old Testament. New Testament speakers reinterpreted and reapplied Old Testament texts to Christ and / or the church.
Wow… The agnosticism of such a statement is horrific! Paul was a deceiver. The Hebrew writer was a deceiver. And…Jesus Christ Himself was a deceiver “IF” the above statement is true! As previously cited, Jesus Christ committed out and out fraud by claiming that “He (Moses) wrote of Me” “IF,” in fact he (or “them” as the commentary would assert!) did not. This quote is so agnostic to the extreme I wonder if perhaps Brian McLaren penned it himself!
7. A least some of the contributors deny the inspirational veracity of the book of Jonah. Here is a quote from brother Briley:
With regard to the historicity of Jonah, the commentary on this prophetic book lists various views of its nature: “a historical account, legend, fable, novella, allegory, parable, satire, narrative, midrash, or didactic story.” It [the author – RM] concludes that Jonah “is probably a religious drama” composed sometime after the Babylonian exile. This interpretation remains somewhat ambiguous regarding the historical reality of the events described in Jonah.
Here is yet another assault upon the divinity of Jesus Christ for our Lord cited the 100% historicity of Jonah’s account! In fact, “IF” Jonah is not historically accurate, then the resurrection of Jesus Christ never took place! Let’s hear our Lord speak: “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” – Matthew 12:41 [NKJV]. Not only did Jesus assert the historicity of Jonah’s time in the “belly of the great fish,” he says “so will be the Son of Man in the heart of the earth!” Let’s examine the logical and reasonable conclusions:
Jonah + Great Fist + 3 Days / 3 Nights = Truth
Then:
Jesus + Heart of Earth + 3 Days / 3 Nights = Truth
Or
Jonah + Great Fish + 3 Days / 3 Nights = Fictional Narrative
Then:
Jesus + Heart of Earth + 3 Days / 3 Nights = Fictional Narrative
My brothers, these are not mere semantics! “IF” Jonah did, in fact, spend three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, then Jesus Christ is resurrected! “IF” Jonah did not, in fact, spend three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, then Jesus Christ is NOT resurrected! Theology has consequences! The denial of the historicity of Jonah renders Jesus Christ, not only a liar and a deceiver, it nullifies the certainty of the resurrection, Christ is not raised and we are still in our sins! Thank God! Jesus Christ told the truth about Jonah and told the truth about Himself!
8. At least some of the contributors to this volume take a jaded and cynical view towards Dr. Luke. Dr. Luke wrote the finest histories of the latter days, Luke and Acts. However, brother Briley quotes a passage that would see Luke in the light of one of those “talking heads” on cable T. V. news! In the twisted world of allegorical interpretation, Luke is not objective, in fact Luke “spins” the “narrative” pragmatically to suit the preconceived ideas of his audience! Listen up:
…it notes that because Luke “writes to believers, not skeptics, he is more concerned to interpret events that to prove their veracity.
Translation: Luke “spins” the history for his core supporters differently than he would non-core supporters just like the politician that is pro-life in Tennessee and pro-abortion in California! I don’t know about your God, but my God is not a manipulator!
I would be remiss if I did not declare my deepest disappointment with the conclusions of both of the reviewers. Brother May says:
The commentary is a valuable addition to a Bible teacher’s tools, but contains occasional
serious negative distractions to many believers in biblical infallibility.
Even more disappointing are the conclusions of brother Briley:
The results of this brief survey reveal that some writers inThe Transforming Wordwho engage the views of contemporary biblical scholarship draw conclusions that will raise questions, especially for readers not conversant with this scholarship. Space limitations do not allow writers to explain fully these difficult and delicate issues.
It should be pointed out, however, that such discussions comprise a very small portion of The Transforming Word. It would be a shame for this review’s treatment of a few challenging passages to overshadow the substantive contributions of the book as a whole.[NOTE: How many drops of arsenic in a gallon of water is sufficient to kill? Very little I’m afraid. AND…from not too recent history, “Mussolini made the trains run on time and Hitler reduced unemployment.”]
The editors and authors should be commended for their work on this milestone publishing event. Their goal was not to draw readers into areas of academic debate but to help them “hear afresh transforming words [Generationaly changing words NOT life changing words! – RM] that will quicken the life of the church as it shares in God’s redeeming work in the world.
In conclusion: The Christian Chronicle review fails to adequately warn of the grave errors contained in this volume, though it often “politely” mentions them in a near “the emperor has no clothes” fashion. The Transforming Word appears [I have not yet been able to actually see a copy] from these quotations and others, to be written by and for agnostics and skeptics, in the total allegorical interpretive manner and must be rejected outright, regardless of how much “truth” is found in its pages. The “inclusion” of “truth” with “error” in one volume…we must be reminded…amounts to nothing more than an unequal yoke. Hear once again my brothers the inspired words of Paul:
Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: ‘I will dwell with them and walk with them. I will be their God and they shall be My people.– II Corinthians 6:14-16 [NKJV]
Russ McCullough
Charlotte, NC
October 24, 2008
Russ McCullough serves as an elder for the Archdale church of Christ in Charlotte, North Carolina. He maintains a biblical interpretation blog at: http://www.samuelslinesaulscircle.blogspot.com and is the author of the upcoming book,
Emerging Towards Apostasy, © The book examines the emerging theology among departing churches of Christ driven by post-modern philosophy, Evangelical influence and a resurgence of neo-Gnostic Patristic interpretive models. He can be reached at: rmcculls6@bellsouth.net.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Where is Brian McLaren Headed Next?
Last month Brian McLaren spoke at “The Summit” at Abilene Christian University. This month he is speaking at the “Preachers Conference” at Lipscomb University. For those of you who care about the truth of the gospel, here is where Brian McLaren will be speaking between the Lipscomb conference and the end of March:
• Emergent Catholic Event in Washington D.C.
• Episcopal Seminary of the Southwest
• Cathedral College of Preachers
• National Pastors Convention
• North Carolina Methodists
• Diosean Convention of the Episcopal Diosese of Washington, D.C.
• Cedar Ridge Community Church (Willow Creek Association)
• First and Central Presbyterian Church, Wilmington, DE
• Spirit and Place Festival, Indianapolis, IN “…(believing) that the arts, humanities, and religion awaken the spirit and exalt the sacred, sustain our intellectual and cultural inheritance, inspire imagination and creativity, and shape our communities.”
• Christian Community Development Association, Miami, FL (CCDA) The CCDA is a redistributionist organization that mixes religion, politics and economics on a “Christian” / Marxist platform
Without commenting further, I will leave you with the inspired thoughts of the Apostle John:
“Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know it is the last hour.” – I John 2:18 (NKJV)
• Emergent Catholic Event in Washington D.C.
• Episcopal Seminary of the Southwest
• Cathedral College of Preachers
• National Pastors Convention
• North Carolina Methodists
• Diosean Convention of the Episcopal Diosese of Washington, D.C.
• Cedar Ridge Community Church (Willow Creek Association)
• First and Central Presbyterian Church, Wilmington, DE
• Spirit and Place Festival, Indianapolis, IN “…(believing) that the arts, humanities, and religion awaken the spirit and exalt the sacred, sustain our intellectual and cultural inheritance, inspire imagination and creativity, and shape our communities.”
• Christian Community Development Association, Miami, FL (CCDA) The CCDA is a redistributionist organization that mixes religion, politics and economics on a “Christian” / Marxist platform
Without commenting further, I will leave you with the inspired thoughts of the Apostle John:
“Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know it is the last hour.” – I John 2:18 (NKJV)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
