Christian Issues

•

A good Wiki page, giving both sides

The first two issues show the main Cessationist concerns about charismata and reveal the underlying rationale for Cessationism. The sections below describe what kind of disagreements emerge between Cessationism and Continuationism in their respective understandings of the gifts, and further issues then arising from these disagreements. Different understandings of charismata give rise to various tensions in the dispute.

White Horse Inn weighed in a couple of years ago:

Particularly in the wake of the Pentecostal and charismatic movements, this question has divided Christians into two camps: cessationists (believing that the gifts of healing, prophecy, and tongues have ceased) and non-cessationists. Non-cessationists find no exegetical reason to distinguish some of these gifts and offices from others in terms of their perpetuity. However, cessationists hold that the New Testament itself makes a distinction between the foundation-laying era of the apostles and the era of building the church on their completed foundation (1 Cor 3:10-11). Although the New Testament establishes the offices of pastors/teachers, elders, and deacons, it does not establish perpetual prophetic or apostolic offices with their attendant sign-gifts. With this in mind, we must examine each gift in question.

Reformedpresbytery.org has a position paper quoting Calvin:

... concerning Prophets, I have before showed out of Justin Martyr (Dial. cum Tryph. Jud.) that, in his days, their were still some in the church who had an extraordinary gift of prophecy, and such there have been also in other places, and at other times; of which there might be diverse instances given.

• 1 Comment

•

I have a relationship with Christ.
And my boss.
And my landlord.
And my president.
And Satan.

All are "relationships" so they're all equal. (We'll most likely agree that's incorrect.)

My point is that the word "relationship" is meaningless unless you know what the relationship is defined by.

My relationship with my boss is defined by my contract.
My landlord...my rental agreement
My president...the Constitution.

My relationship with Christ is defined by the Christian religion.

Religion (Merriam-Webster, in part)

the service and worship of God or the supernatural

I serve and worship God. This is a good thing.

a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

Attitudes and beliefs:

Belief in God (there is no such thing as an atheistic Christian)
Belief in Christ’s deity and humanity (1 John 4:2-3; Rom. 10:9)
Belief that you are a sinner in need of God’s mercy (1 John 1:10)
Belief that Christ died on the cross and rose bodily from the grave for our sins (1 Cor 15:3-4)
Belief that faith in Christ is necessary (John 3:16)

And practices

Communion
Baptism
Corporate worship

This, in part, defines my "relationship" with Christ.

He's not my landlord, He is my GOD.

I cannot reject "religion" without rejecting all He has done.

Lactantius, in his "Divine Institutes" (IV, xxviii.) wrote, "We are tied to God and bound to Him [religati] by the bond of piety..."

Augustine, in his treatise "On the True Religion", says: "Religion binds us [religat] to the one Almighty God"

And we turn to Scripture:

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world

This is what you deny, when you deny "religion."

If you still want to reject "religion," then reject our shared beliefs, our shared practices, reject worship and service of God, reject being bound to Him.

(By the way, this "religion" also defines my relationship with Satan. I was his...now I am not. He s my enemy and he is defeated by Christ.)

•

Gordon E. Olsen,  Professor of Theology at Baylor University, recently declared capital punishment a "heresy" and judged those who support it to be worthy of church discipline.

If Olson wishes to argue that our current justice system is not reliable enough to justify using the death penalty, he could make that argument.  But that is not what he is doing here.

In "The Heresy of Capital Punishment" Olson (without a single Scripture reference) makes an absolute statement about what Jesus would do, setting the Son against His Father in the Noahic Covenant.

In the comments thread, one of the objections against using God's Covenant to support capital punishment goes, "if we use Moses to support capital punishment, we must also advocate killing adulterers, rebellious children and witches."

Not so.

In the Mosaic Covenant, God made a covenant with the Hebrew nation.  In the Noahic Covenant, God made a covenant with all of mankind.  In this covenant, God makes it clear that because of the preciousness of "imageo Dei" (the image of God) the taking of a human life warrants a punishment in kind.

Genesis 9:5-6

And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.

“Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image

Genesis 9:11-12

I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations

God prescribed the death penalty, in the Noahic Covenant, for those who shed the blood of humans, whether man or beast, with the rainbow as the sign and seal, for "ALL FUTURE GENERATIONS" We find no mention of adultery, witches, rebellious children in this covenant with mankind, for all future generations.

The ESV Study Notes says here:

Human life is to be valued so highly that it is protected by this system of punishment because God made man in his own image, and so to murder another human being is to murder what is most like God, and is thus implicitly an attack on God himself. Many would see this statement as establishing the moral principle permitting the death penalty in cases of murder—with the understanding that the person charged would have been justly tried and his guilt established beyond any reasonable doubt (cf. the OT requirement of two or three witnesses, Deut. 19:15; repeated in the NT, e. g., Matt. 18:16; Heb. 10:28). A further requirement is that such a death- penalty verdict must always be carried out under the jurisdiction of the established authorities (cf. Deut. 19:15–21; Rom. 13:1–5). The difficulty of establishing guilt beyond any reasonable doubt and the difficulty of ensuring justice in a modern, complex urban society (as compared to an ancient village- based society) underscore the great care and caution that must be taken in applying this principle today.

This study note is important because Olson repeatedly ascribes  "blood lust" to those who support capital punishment.  This shows a lack of understanding between personal retribution and an adjudicated verdict carried out under the jurisdiction of the established authorities.

In the face of God's covenant with "all future generations," the accusation of "heresy"seems misplaced.  But he does make the accusation, teaching that he believes supporting capital punishment should be addressed through "church discipline."

"Sin" is addressed through church discipline...church discipline ends with excommunication and being treated as an unbeliever (Matt. 18:15-17.). The brunt of Olson's teaching says that those of us who believe that God's covenant with all of mankind, and all future generations says that: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image" are in sin.

Olson writes:

I believe Christian churches of all kinds ought to do more to oppose capital punishment. They ought, at the very least, to declare it incompatible with Christian faith and put members who openly believe in it under some kind of discipline (not necessarily excommunication but at least forbidding them to teach it in the ecclesial context). And those who practice it, actively seeking it and participating in it, should be excommunicated from Christian churches. It ought to be a matter of status confessionis—as apartheid was declared by the World Alliance of Reformed Churches which helped lead to its downfall in South Africa.

There are three segments to the above paragraph.  We can call it the "doctrine of shut up"

1 - declare "it" incompatible with Christianity (shut up

2 - or come under church discipline (or we'll make you shut up)

3 - status confessionis - (if we can't make you shut up, we'll kick you out.)

Kevin DeYoung said, about "status confessionis:" It means that a particular doctrine is essential to who we are as a church. If something is status confessionis it means this is a make or break issue. It means that the church will not tolerate others views on this matter.

So, in short, God the Father, in the Noahic Covenant with mankind, for all future generations says, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image."

Roger Olson says, "we should not tolerate that."

 

•

This article at the Gospel Coalition was written nearly two years ago.

TGC Asks: Should Pastors Separate the Christian Wedding Ceremony from the Civil Rite?

In the last few months, we've been discussing this a lot. At what point does the state give up the right to define marriage for Christians? If the state forfeits that right, by defining "marriage" in such a way that it no longer resemble's God's definition, is a Christian obligated to have the state's permission to call themselves "married"?

Let's start with the "permission" part.

In Michigan,

  • there is still a law on the books against cohabitation - a heterosexual couple may not live together without being married
  • a heterosexual couple is required to have a marriage license before being married.
  • it is illegal for a pastor to officiate in a marriage ceremony unless the couple has a state-issued marriage license.

    • In order to live together in marriage, a couple in Michigan must have a marriage license; they must have the State's permission to marry.

    Why do I use the word "permission"? It's the word "license"

    What does a driver's license to? It gives you permission to drive and it's illegal to drive without one.
    Hunting license? It gives you permission to drive and it's illegal to hunt without one.
    Concealed Carry License? It gives you permission to carry a concealed weapon and it's illegal to carry without one.

    Through a license, the States grant you permission to do something that is otherwise illegal.

    With that logic, it is ILLEGAL to call oneself "married" unless the State has given you permission to do so.

    At what point did the State get the authority to define marriage in such a way that we must have the State's permission to marry?

    The "State" has married the Christian wedding ceremony and the civil rite to the point that you MAY NOT have a Christian wedding Ceremony WITHOUT the civil rite.

    TGC Asks: Should Pastors Separate the Christian Wedding Ceremony from the Civil Rite?

    • 2 Comments

    •

    My friend, Phil and I were talking about the article on Christianity Today - John Piper, Is My Femininity Showing. I kept asking, why can't they get that Piper made it clear that he wasn't talking about the female body - he was saying that, as a Complementarian, he believes that a woman should not have spiritual authority over a woman.

    (run down...see my post from yesterday)

    Phil didn't use these words, but we have used these terms before. It's the narrative.

    The author of the article made a (false) assumption that Piper's concern was about the female body...and ran with that assumption...ran fast and hard.

    Once the narrative was set, no amount of reasoning was going to shift the conversation to where PIPER had his concerns...women in authoritative teaching positions over men.

    It's the narrative. And we hear the familiar refrain: words like evil, bigoted, hateful, comparisons to Islam...even the theory that he's not comfortable with the menstrual cycle (???) or that he cannot get beyond the "allure" of the female body...

    Unable to discern between reading a book and sitting under authoritative teaching in person...I seriously don't get that. Example: I've read several of Rob Bell's books. I've gotten some good information...but I refused to even visit his church, with was only around 10 miles away from me (he recently left) - reading his book, I can put it away...in his church, with him in the pulpit, he become my teacher. But (you know...) it's the narrative.

    I'm sure that these are not unintelligent people, but they are unwilling, or unable to veer from the narrative. It is not for me to judge whether unwilling or unable, but veering they will not or cannot do.

    •

    Thoughts on "Hey John, Is My Femininity Showing?"

    The offending podcast is here.

    The way I'm reading it goes like this.

    The basics

    1. John Piper is a Complementarian
    2. He believes that men should be the leaders in the home and church and further...
    3. women should not be in spiritual leadership positions over men.

    The question the podcast answers the question: Can men use commentaries written by women?

    The logic:

    1. Piper doesn't have a problem reading spiritual material written by women
    2. Piper does have a problem with a woman sitting in spiritual authority over a man, whether in a church, or seminary class.
    3. Therefore: the mere presence of a female body (in general) is offensive to John Piper.

    Apparently, most egalitarians don't see the distinction between reading a book (sitting and gathering information) and sitting under teaching authority.

    You don't submit to a book, you do submit to a teacher.

    You can put a book down, you can give it away, throw it away, burn it...you can't do those things to a teaching authority. You can get yourself out from under the authority, but as long as you're in that class, you're under authority.

    I understand that it's not the body parts, it's the authority. Piper makes that clear when he says, "whereas if she were standing right in front of me and teaching me as my shepherd< /strong>…I couldn’t make that separation"

    This is not the voice of "femininity" - it's the voice of worldly feminism (which is antithetical to femininity.) It's the brand of feminism that cannot tolerate dissension, cannot respect differing viewpoints and must tear down those who disagree.

    So Rachel, don't worry...it's not your femininity that's showing.

    • 2 Comments

    •

    Wayne Grudem's article is no longer on CBMW.

    I'm putting it here as a reference for myself...if Grudem doesn't approve, I'd love for him to contact me and see if he can get it back on CBMW as a reference (and to let him know that I now work with one of his former students 😉

    But What Should Women Do In The Church?

    Wayne Grudem

    ...continue reading →

    • 3 Comments

    •

    So....shall we talk about expanding definitions?

    Our definition of sexual assault is any type of sexual behavior or contact where consent is not freely given or obtained and is accomplished through force, intimidation, violence, coercion, manipulation, threat, deception, or abuse of authority. This definition gets beyond our society’s narrow understanding of the issue and expands the spectrum of actions to be considered sexual assault.

    ("Rid Of My Disgrace" by Lindsey and Justin Holcomb)

    What is the problem with this definition?

    "assault" is an ugly word, and it should be. But (for the sake of the victim and the aggressor) it needs to be defined objectively.

    For instance, define "freely given" - does that mean that a partner needs to explicitly give consent each and every time an encounter happens? Does it mean that a consent that was granted when a wife accepts her husband's advances because he wanted her, even though she wasn't in that perfect "mood," that consent was not "freely" given?

    Who gets to decide when "manipulation" happened?

    The big one is "abuse of authority" - I'm firmly in the complementarian camp and I believe that the husband is an authority over his wife. If there is a pattern of him denied access to the blessings of the marriage covenant, and presses the issue, is that an "abuse of authority?"

    These are subjective definitions.

    If a girl or woman was treated inappropriately, does that rise to the level of "assault"?

    For instance...when I was a teen, one of the fashions of the day was a button up shirt...not buttoned, but tied in a knot right at the bridge of the bra. Lots of cleavage there. (this, by the way, is something that I may have told one or two people...ever) A friend and I had been baby-sitting and when the man in the home came to pay us and send us on our way, he got real close to me, put the backs of his fingers inside my shirt and stroked my breast.

    It was sexual behavior, consent was not give, and I felt intimidated. Inappropriate, certainly. Absolutely - and I was very uncomfortable with it. But, Inever ratcheted up to the level of "assault."

    I rarely think about the incident, only when I hear similar stories, only the "victim" is so wound up about her "assault" that she cannot function. I end up thinking..."really?"

    I have a friend who was brutally raped by multiple young men. The wounds went deep, and they should.

    I have a problem when the distinction between my incident and gang rape is blurred. There should be "levels of guilt" (for lack of a better term) in this area. If we bring everything to the level of "assault" - then everything is assault and everybody is a victim. I'm not prepared to live life as a victim.

    Women are strong (or should be) and resilient (or should be) - instead of being told that we are all victims of assault, we should be taught to distinguish between those levels and deal with the behavior at that level.

    My friend, Jan, has what her husband calls the "awfulizer" - she can take a fairly mundane thing and "awfulize" it (but can't we all?")

    By taking an inappropriate act and "awfulizing" into "assault" we are running the risk of taking an objective definition, leaving it at the mercy of subjective feelings, then having a few women "awfulize" it, leaving men to wonder if they're going to be forever branded as sex criminals on Megan's List.

    That could be a very bad thing.