bibliolatry

J.I. Packer in Truth and Power:

Bowing to the living Lord, then, entails submitting mind and heart to the written Word. Disciples individually and churches corporately stand under the authority of Scripture because they stand under the lordship of Christ who rules by Scripture. This is not bibliolatry but Christianity in its most authentic form.

(via)

our true good

J.I. Packer in Truth and Power:

When Christians affirm the authority of the bible, meaning that biblical teaching reveals God's will and is the instrument of his rule over our lives, part of what they are claiming is that Scripture sets before us the factual and moral nature of things. God's law corresponds to created human nature, so that in fulfilling his requirements, we fulfill ourselves. The gospel of Christ answers to actual human need, as glove fits hand, so that all our responses to God work for our good….

(via)

jellyfish

J. C. Ryle (1816 – 1900), Principles for Churchmen (London: William Hunt), 97–98:

Dislike of Bible doctrine is an epidemic which is just now doing great harm, and especially among young people. It produces what I must venture to call a “jelly-fish” Christianity in the land; that is a Christianity without bone, or muscle, or power. A jelly-fish is a pretty and graceful object when it floats in the sea, contracting and expanding like a little, delicate, transparent umbrella. Yet the same jelly-fish, when cast on the shore, is a mere helpless lump, without capacity for movement, self-defense, or self-preservation. Alas! It is a vivid type of much of the religion of this day, of which the leading principle is, “No dogma, no distinct tenets, no positive doctrine.” 

We have hundreds of “jelly-fish” preachers, who seem not to have a single bone in their body of divinity. They are so afraid of “extreme views” that they have no views at all. 

We have thousands of “jelly-fish” sermons preached every year, sermons without an edge, or a point, or a corner, smooth as billiard balls, awakening no sinner, and edifying no saint. 

We have Legions of “jelly-fish” young men annually turned out from our Universities, armed with a few scraps of second-hand philosophy, who think it a mark of cleverness and intellect to have no decided opinions about anything in religion, and to be utterly unable to make up their minds as to what is Christian truth. 

Worst of all, we have myriads of “jelly-fish” worshippers—respectable church-going people, who have no distinct and definite views about any point in theology. They cannot discern things that differ any more than color-blind people can distinguish colors. They think everybody is right and nobody wrong, everything is true and nothing is false, all sermons are good and none are bad, every preacher is sound and no preacher is unsound. They are “tossed to and fro, like children, by every wind of doctrine”; often carried away by any new excitement and sensational movement; ever ready for new things, because they have no firm grasp on the old; and utterly unable to “render a reason of the hope that is in them.”

nt canon

Michael Kruger posts Ten Basic Facts About the NT Canon that Every Christian Should Memorize. It's worth reading here.

1. The New Testament Books are the Earliest Christian Writings We Possess
2. Apocryphal Writings are All Written in the Second Century or Later
3. The New Testament Books Are Unique Because They Are Apostolic Books
4. Some NT Writers Quote Other NT Writers as Scripture
5. The Four Gospels are Well Established by the End of the Second Century
6. At the End of the Second Century, the Muratorian Fragment lists 22 of our 27 NT books
7. Early Christians Often Used Non-Canonical Writings
8. The NT Canon Was Not Decided at Nicea—Nor Any Other Church Council
9. Christians Did Disagree about the Canonicity of Some NT Books
10. Early Christians Believed that Canonical Books were Self-Authenticating

OT attitude

Gordon J Wenham wrote the following in Expository Times 102.9 (1991): 259-363 ...

That the Old Testament condemns homosexual acts is well known. Why it does so is a mystery. Various suggestions have been put forward. Driver and Miles[1] for example held that it was a development parallel to that in Mesopotamian law. The older Laws of Hammurapi do not mention the offence, whereas the Middle Assyrian laws condemn it. They suggested that a similar development occurred in Hebrew law. The earlier laws do not discuss homosexuality, while the latest (P) texts demand the death sentence for it (Lev 18:22, 20:13). Similarly Coleman[2] tries to derive the biblical attitude from the attitude of other nations, specifically the Egyptians. Indeed he suggests there was a common Semitic consensus opposing homosexual practice.

Now it cannot be ruled out a priori that the Old Testament shared its neighbours' attitudes to homosexuality. There does seem to have been a large measure of agreement in the ancient world as far as heterosexuality was concerned. Marriage law and customs, for example, the repudiation of pre-marital intercourse and adultery, the acceptance of polygamy and divorce, seem to be much the same throughout all those Near Eastern cultures for which evidence is available.[3] The most obvious difference between Israel and its neighbours as far as heterosexual morality is concerned lies in the area of incest. Here the Old Testament rules,[4] forbidding union with consanguines and affines of the first and second-degree, go much farther than their neighbours, who sometimes even countenanced unions of consanguines of the first degree, e.g. brother and sister. So it could be that in repudiating homosexual practice the Old Testament is simply adopting the attitudes of surrounding nations.

However the evidence at present available suggests that this is not the case. The Old Testament rejection of all kinds of homosexual practice is apparently unique in the ancient world. Most of the ancient Near East adopted an attitude to homosexuality very similar to that of classical Greece[5] and Rome which simply accepted it as long as it was done among consenting adults. Indeed Greeks and Romans often approved homosexual acts between adult men and youths where it was part of an ongoing educational relationship. This practice of pederasty does not seem to have been approved in the ancient orient, but in other respects the classical and oriental outlooks seem similar.

Since the Near Eastern background to the biblical pronouncements is little known, it is my first purpose to sketch it briefly. I then propose to address the question that this new reading of the Old Testament material inevitably raises: what prompted the revolution in the attitudes towards homosexuality expressed in the Bible.

We therefore begin with a view of the cultures adjacent to ancient Israel. Mesopotamian law and attitudes are carefully and thoroughly expounded in the article 'Homosexualität' in Reallexicon der Assyriologie (4. 559-68). From iconographic evidence dating from 3000 BC to the Christian era it is clear that homosexual practice was an accepted part of the Mesopotamian scene. This conclusion is confirmed by many literary and legal texts in which homosexual activity is mentioned.

Most interesting are the two laws in the Middle Assyrian collection devoted to it. MAL 19 involves a false accusation of passive homosexuality. Someone who accuses his neighbour of being involved frequently in such relationships and does not substantiate it is beaten, fined and has some mark of shame[6] inflicted on him. This law is very similar to the preceding one where a man is falsely accused of allowing his wife to be used as a prostitute. In both cases the accused man's reputation is at stake. He is being effeminate or unmanly in allowing his wife or himself to be exploited in this way. There are many texts indicating that passive homosexuals, though not guilty of breaking the law, were despised, so to accuse someone of effeminacy, especially in the masculine militaristic society of Assyria, was a grave slur on their reputation.

Apparently closer to the biblical prohibition is MAL 20 'If a man has intercourse with another and they indict him and prove him guilty, they will have intercourse with him and turn him into a eunuch'.[7] Certain things are clear about this law. It is the active male partner who is punished. The passive partner escapes all censure. This is unlike the punishment in the Bible (Lev 20:13) where both parties are punished. It is also unlike the oriental punishment of adulterers where both male and female parties receive the same penalty, unless circumstances suggest that the woman was raped. So here it seems likely that it is not because homosexual acts were forbidden that only one party is punished, but because one man imposed himself on the other that he is condemned. In other words MAL 20 is dealing with homosexual rape rather than an act between consenting adults.[8]

The Reallexicon der Assyriologie therefore concludes: 'Homosexuality in itself is thus nowhere condemned as licentiousness, as immorality, as social disorder, or as transgressing any human or divine law. Anyone could practise it freely, just as anyone could visit a prostitute, provided it was done without violence and without compulsion, and preferably as far as taking the passive role was concerned, with specialists.[9] That there was nothing religiously amiss with homosexual love between men is seen by the fact that they prayed for divine blessing on it.[10] It seems clear that the Mesopotamians saw nothing wrong in homosexual acts between consenting adults.

Nor were homosexuals shut away in Mesopotamia. There were homosexual cult prostitutes, who took part in public processions, singing, dancing, wearing costumes, sometimes wearing women's clothes and carrying female symbols, even at times pretending to give birth. These professional homosexuals were forced to take the passive role in intercourse and for this reason were despised as unmanly. Sometimes they are called 'dogs'. 'It therefore appears that these types of person, as in other places and periods including our own, formed a shady sub-culture where all sorts of ambiguities, mixtures and transformations were possible.'[11]

Unfortunately there are no studies of comparable thoroughness and sophistication to elucidate the attitudes of other ancient Near Eastern peoples. Hittite Law 189 states that 'If a man violates his daughter it is a capital crime. If a man violates his son, it is a capital crime'. This juxtaposition of intercourse with one's mother, daughter, and son, show that the last union is not banned because it is homosexual, but because it is incestuous. The eminent Hittitologist H. A. Hoffner observes: 'A man who sodomizes his son is guilty of urkel (illegal intercourse) because his partner is his son, not because they are of the same sex'.[12] Later he notes, 'it would appear that homosexuality was not outlawed among the Hittites'.[13] It therefore appears that the Hittites shared the same attitude to homosexuality that the Assyrians did.

The evidence from Egypt seems more ambiguous and has been interpreted in different ways. Goedicke[14], followed cautiously by Westerndorf[15], argues that homosexual acts were not regarded as immoral where there was mutual consent. This interpretation may be supported by the grave of two friends which may imply that a homosexual relationship could be continued in the after-life. In a myth it is told how the god Seth attempted to rape his younger brother Horus. He later boasts of his manly achievements to the other gods. In iconography of the Amarna period 'The difference between the sexes appears to be almost obliterated... the ideal image of the body was virtually the same for men and women. It is the male image adapting to the female.'[16]

On the other hand in the Book of the Dead chapter 125 the soul twice protests his innocence in the words 'I have not had sexual relations with a boy'.[17] A story of king Neferkare spending the night with one of his generals may be told to illustrate the corruption of the king. However, both these examples involve relations between unequals where coercion may be inferred. In which case it may well be that Egyptians saw nothing immoral in homosexual acts where there was mutual consent. If this is correct, there would appear to be very little difference between their attitude and those of the Assyrians and Hittites.

Ugaritic texts give no clue to Canaanite attitudes.[18] However, passages such as Lev 18:3, 24-30 with their blanket condemnation of the sexual practices of the Canaanites and Egyptians may well imply that among other things the Canaanites tolerated homosexual practice. And if the story of Sodom (Gen 19) is supposed to illustrate Canaanite practice, the insinuation is even clearer.

To sum up: The ancient Near East was a world in which the practice of homosexuality was well known. It was an integral part of temple life at least in parts of Mesopotamia, and no blame appears to have attached to its practice outside of worship. Those who regularly played the passive role in intercourse were despised for being effeminate, and certain relationships such as father-son or pederasty were regarded as wrong, but otherwise it was regarded as quite respectable.

The Old Testament Picture

The stories of Sodom and Gibeah may be better understood against this background. As commentators have realized the demand to 'know' the visitors to Sodom must be a demand that they submit to homosexual intercourse.[19] That Lot offers his daughters instead and the Levite his concubine shows that the demand was for sexual intercourse (Gen 19:5-8; Jdg 19:22-26). Given ancient oriental attitudes it is by no means strange that the men of Sodom asked to have intercourse with men in Lot's household. What is surprising and deeply shocking is their total disregard for the accepted principles of eastern hospitality. Visitors, whether anticipated or not, must be treated with the utmost courtesy and kindness. Here the men of Sodom show utter disregard for the rules of hospitality, and suggest Lot's visitors submit to the most demeaning treatment they can devise, a treatment elsewhere used on prisoners of war.[20] So the sin of Sodom is not primarily homosexuality as such, but an assault on weak and helpless visitors who according to justice and tradition they ought rather to have protected (Ezk 16:49).

Yet having said this, undoubtedly the homosexual intentions of the inhabitants of Sodom adds a special piquancy to their crime. In the eyes of the writer of Genesis and his readers it showed that they fully deserve to be described as 'wicked, great sinners before the LORD' (13:13) and that the consequent total overthrow of their city was quite to be expected. It is often noted by commentators that the destruction of Sodom parallels the destruction of the world by Noah's flood. In both cases we have a complete population being obliterated and only one family escaping thanks to divine intervention. There are many verbal parallels between the stories too. It may also be noted that the motive for divine judgment is similar in both cases. The flood was sent because of the great wickedness of man demonstrated by the illicit union of women with supernatural beings, 'the sons of God'. In the case of Sodom another type of illicit sexual intercourse is at least contributory in showing it deserves its destruction.

This leads us on to consider the laws against homosexuality in the Old Testament. Though Middle Assyrian law punished homosexual assault and accusations of passive homosexuality (Middle Assyrian Laws A18-20), the biblical law is quite different. The key texts are Lev 18:22 and 20:13.

The exact terminology of these laws deserves note. Lev 18:22 states: 'You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination'. This obviously prohibits the active type of homosexuality that was quite respectable in the ancient world. It should also be noted that the passive partner is just described as 'male', rather than 'man' or 'youth'. Clearly this very general term prohibits every kind of male-male intercourse not just pederasty which for example the Egyptians seem to have condemned. Finally, the practice is condemned as an 'abomination',[21] one of the strongest condemnatory words in the Old Testament, for offences deemed specially heinous in God's sight.

Lev 20:13 states: 'If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them'. Lev 18 prohibits various acts but prescribes no penalties. Lev 20 does mention how offenders should be treated. Sometimes human punishment is decreed, sometimes it is left to God. Homosexuality here attracts the death penalty, which puts it on a par with adultery (Lev 20:10) or the worst cases of incest (Lev 20:11, 12). These were offences that nations outside Israel did view with extreme seriousness: but they never put homosexuality on the same level. Secondly it should be noticed that both parties in homosexual intercourse are punished equally: the passive partner and the active are both put to death. The use of the term 'lie' (here and in Lev 18:22) without any qualifying verb, e.g. 'seize and (lie)', and the equal punishment shows that consent to intercourse is assumed between the partners. Comparison with the laws on adultery shows that if it were a question of homosexual rape only the rapist would have been executed (cf. Deut 22:22, 23, 25). In other words the Old Testament bans every type of homosexual intercourse, not just forcible as the Assyrians did, or with youths (so the Egyptians). Homosexual intercourse where both parties consent is also condemned.

The two motive clauses also underline the culpability of both parties. 'Both of them have committed an abomination ... their blood is upon them.' The second clause occurs only in this chapter (vv.9, 11, 13, 16, 27) and in Ezk 18:13, 33:5 and apparently justifies the demand for the death penalty. It seems to be equivalent to the commoner phrase, 'his blood shall be on his head'. It appears to mean that if a man breaks such a law, he does so knowing the consequences, and therefore cannot object to the penalty imposed.

The laws just discussed cover both private (secular) homosexual acts and religious homosexuality. But in that homosexual male prostitution was well established in the ancient orient, it is not surprising that there are a number of laws aimed at this particular phenomenon and its associated practices. Dt 23:17 prohibits male and female cult prostitution in Israel. The following verse describes a male homosexual prostitute as a 'dog', a description also found in Mespotamian texts[22] and in the book of Revelation (22:15). The books of Kings state that when Canaanite religious practices were introduced into Israel, so was cult prostitution and three reforming kings attempted to abolish the male prostitutes (1 Kgs 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kgs 23:7).

Since male prostitutes were sometimes castrated and often took part in ceremonies flaunting their effeminacy, it may well be that aversion to homosexuality partially explains the ban on castrated men participating in the public assembly, or on wearing women's clothes. The latter is described as 'an abomination to the LORD' (Dt 23:1; 22:5). It could well be that the law is banning anything suggestive of homosexual practice (cf. our summary of Mesopotamian attitudes).

Seen in their Near Eastern context the originality of the Old Testament laws on homosexuality is very striking. Whereas the rest of the ancient orient saw homosexual acts as quite acceptable provided they were not incestuous or forcible, the Old Testament bans them all even where both parties freely consented. How can we explain this innovation? To ascribe this to Israelite reaction against the customs of their neighbours is too simple, for such an explanation in fact explains nothing. Israel did not reject all the religious and moral practices of Canaan. They accepted some and rejected others. They offered similar sacrifices, but they refused to eat pigs. The Canaanites believed their gods heard prayer, so did Israel, but they maintained there was but one God. Similarly in the realm of sexual ethics, Israel accepted, like their contemporaries, that adultery was the great sin, that premarital sex was wrong, but Israel went much further in banning incest and homosexual intercourse. Aversion to Canaanite custom no more explains Israel's attitude to homosexuality than it does its preference for monotheism. That Canaanites practised homosexuality no doubt enhanced Israel's aversion to it (cf. British dislike of certain foreign habits), but it is not the fundamental motive for it.

It is now generally recognized that many of the most fundamental principles of Old Testament law are expressed in the opening chapters of Genesis. This applies to the laws on food, sacrifice, the sabbath as well as on sex. Gen 1 repeatedly insists that God created plants, fish, birds, and other animals to breed 'according to their kind'. God created the different plants and animals to reproduce according to their own particular type. Hence the law forbids any mixed breeding or acts that might encourage it (Lev 19:19; Dt 22:9-11). The worst case of mixed breeding is described in Gen 6:1-4) and that prompted the flood.

When Genesis comes to man's creation, it states that God deliberately created mankind in two sexes in order that he should 'be fruitful and multiply'. This is the first command given to man and is repeated after the flood; contrast the gods of Babylon who introduced various devices to curtail man's reproduction.[23] In that homosexual acts are not even potentially procreative, they have no place in the thinking of Gen 1. Nor do they fit in with Gen 2. There the lonely Adam is provided not with a second Adam, but with Eve. She is the helper who corresponds to him. She is the one with whom he can relate in total intimacy and become one flesh.

It therefore seems most likely that Israel's repudiation of homosexual intercourse arises out of its doctrine of creation. God created humanity in two sexes, so that they could be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Woman was man's perfect companion, like man created in the divine image. To allow the legitimacy of homosexual acts would frustrate the divine purpose and deny the perfection of God's provision of two sexes to support and complement one another. St Paul's comment that homosexual acts are 'contrary to nature' (Rom 1:26) is thus probably very close to the thinking of the Old Testament writers.[24]

References

[1] G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles, The Assyrian Laws (Oxford, Clarendon Press [1935]), 71.

[2] P. E. Coleman, Christian Attitudes to Homosexuality (SPCK [1980]), 52-57.

[3 ] For a convenient summary cf. S. Greengus, 'Law in the OT' (Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume), esp. 533-34.

[4] For a discussion of Lev 18 and 20 cf. G. J. Wenham The Book of Leviticus (Eerdmas [1979]), 253-58, 279-80.

[5] Cf. K. J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality (Duckworth [1978]).

[6] So G. Cardascia, Les lois assyriennes (du Cerf [1969]), 130.

[7] The translation of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary Volume N, 198.

[8] This is what Cardascia, Les lois assyriennes, 134-35 suggests. Bottero and Petschow in Reallexicon der Assyriologie 4, 462 are more dogmatic. 'The verb niku/ náku ... implies a certain constraint on the part of the protagonist. Its literal translation would be "to do violence to" and almost "violate". It is precisely because the victim submits to violence that obliges its author to submit in his turn to violence himself.'

[9] Reallexicon der Assyriologie 4, 467.

[10] Ibid, 468.

[11] Ibid, 465.

[12] H. A. Hoffner, 'Incest, Sodomy, and Bestiality in the Ancient Near East' in (Orient and Occident: Essays in Honor of C. H. Gordon, Neukirchen, Neukirchener Verlag [1973]), 83.

[13] Ibid, 85.

[14] H. Goedicke, 'Unrecognized Sportings' (Journal of the American Research Centre in Egypt 6 [1967], 97-102).

[15] W. Westendorf, Lexicon der Ägyptologie 2, 1273.

[16] L. Manniche, Sexual Life in Ancient Egypt (Routledge [1987]), 25-26.

[17] A20; B27, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 34-35.

[18] M. H. Pope, Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume, 416.

[19] Cf. C. Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary (SPCK [1986]), 301.

[20] M. H. Pope, art. cit, 416.

[21] Cf. E. Gerstenberger in Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament, 2, 1051-55.

[22] Reallexicon der Assyriologie 4, 465.

[23] Epic of Atrahasis 3:7:1-8.

[24] By 'contrary to nature' Paul clearly means 'contrary to the intention of the Creator', C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans I (T. & T. Clark [1975]), 125. For an extended discussion of the New Testament teaching on homosexuality see the articles of D. F. Wright: 'Homosexuals or Prostitutes: The Meaning of arsenokoitai' (Vigiliae Christianae 38 [1984], 125-53), and 'Homosexuality in the Early Church' (in A. Higton, ed., Sexuality and the Church, Kingsway [1988], 39-50).

false messages

Messages that are falsely claimed to be the gospel from IX Marks:

1. God wants to make us rich. Some preachers today say that the good news is that God wants to bless us with loads of money and possessions—all we need to do is ask! But the gospel is a message about spiritual blessings (Eph. 1:3): God sent Jesus Christ to die and rise again for us so that we would be justified, reconciled to God, and given eternal life with God (Rom. 3:25-26, 6:23; 2 Cor. 5:18-21). Moreover, the Bible promises that Christians will not have material prosperity in this life, but tribulation (Acts 14:22), persecution (2 Tim 3:12), and suffering (Rom. 8:17), all of which will one day give way to unspeakable glory (2 Cor. 4:17; Rom. 8:18).
2. God is love and we’re okay. Some people think the gospel is that God loves us and accepts us just as we are. But the biblical gospel confronts people as sinners facing the wrath of God (Rom. 3:23, John 3:36) and tells people about God’s radical solution: Jesus’ sin-bearing death on the cross. This gospel calls people to an equally radical response: to repent of their sins and trust in Christ for salvation.
3. We should live right. The gospel is not a message that tells us a live a better life and so make ourselves right with God. In fact the gospel tells us exactly the opposite: we can’t do what pleases God and we can never make ourselves acceptable to him (Rom. 8:5-8). But the good news is that Jesus has done for us what we could never do for ourselves: by living a perfect life and bearing God’s wrath on the cross he has secured the salvation of all those who turn from their sin and trust in him (Rom. 5:6-11, 8:31-34).
4. Jesus came to transform society. Some people believe that Jesus’ mission was to transform society and bring justice to the oppressed through a political revolution. But the Bible teaches that this world will only be made right when Jesus comes again and ushers in a new heaven and new earth (2 Thess. 2:9-10, Rev. 21:1-5). The gospel is fundamentally a message about salvation from the wrath of God through faith in Christ, not the transformation of society in this present age.

(Some of this material has been adapted from Nine Marks of a Healthy Church by Mark Dever,

pages 80-90)

(via)

tl on altmc

We've heard what Thomas John Creedy had to say about Ken Wilson's A Letter to my Congregation, now let's here from Thomas Lyons.

In Lyons' series of posts (1, 2, & 3), he focuses on Wilson's treatment of Romans 14-15, specifically term pornia. The first post is a "brief ... history and development of the biblical concept of porneia (and the related semantic family) through its usage in the NT." The second post begins by pointing us to Revelation where over one third of the use of the word porneia occurs.

After providing yet another excellent overview, Lyons focusses our attention on the letters to the seven churches:

While the arrangement of these letters seems to correspond to the order each would be delivered along a courier’s route, these seven churches can be categorized into three groups based on the contents of the narration to each church. Some of the churches, namely Smyrna and Philadelphia, have nothing wrong with their community (and thus there is no call of repentance) and are instead exhorted to remain strong in the face of their present adversity and persecution. Other church communities, Sardis and Laodicea, have nothing to be commended to their name and simply need to repent of their current wickedness. While still others, Ephesus, Pergamum, and Thyatira, are a proverbial ‘mixed bag’ where they are to be both commended for some things and yet rebuked for other activities. Robert Mulholland has helpfully labeled these various church groupings as “the good, the bad, and the ugly.” Both of the occurrences of porn- related language occur in these “ugly” churches. We’ll consider each of the three churches in turn (even though the porn- language only occurs in two of the three). 

The church at Ephesus is affirmed for their works, toil, patient endurance, and the fact that they do not tolerate those who do evil, which contextually seems to be those who are claiming to be apostles yet are found false (most likely by some combination of their doctrine, teaching, and works). But in their opposition to these false/evil ones (probably teachers or prophets), the Ephesian church missed the mark. Jesus rebukes them for they have abandoned the very love with which they first set out. They got a lot of stuff right –but doing so without love risks the community the very essence of its church-hood. Jesus threatens to “remove their lampstand” (which identifies the community as a church, see 1:20) unless they repent. It appears that, in their pursuit of doing right, of being right, they moved from hating sins to hating the people practicing those sins. Let me restate this a bit more clearly: Being right and doing right, if a community is doing so in an unloving manner, risks a churches’ status as a church in Jesus’ eyes—that is, they risk their community’s identity as participating in New Jerusalem. And yet, Jesus wants to make it clear—he hates, as the Ephesians do, the works of the Nicolaitans (just not the people). Nothing else is said at this point of who the Nicolaitans are, what they believe or practice. 

The next ‘ugly’ church, Pergamum, provides a little more clarity. This community is quite unlike Ephesus. This community is under persecution, living in the pseudonymously named “Satan’s throne” … yet they are holding to Jesus’ name even as individuals within their community are being killed. For this endurance and faithfulness they are to be commended. But Jesus also notes that they have individuals within the community who hold to the teachings of a pseudonymously named “Balaam” (explicitly used to invoke the parallel OT narrative of apostasy and sexual immorality) and the result is the activity of porneuō (sexually illicit activity) and eating food sacrificed to idols within the Pergamum community. Within this letter joint activity of porneuō (sexually illicit activity) and eating food sacrificed to idols seems to be directly linked to the teaching of the Nicolaitans (which may serve to inform us about the freedoms which this group taught). Within this community, there are individuals holding to such teachings and for those who do not repent, Jesus promises that he will come make war against them with the sword of his mouth (2:16; also in later in 19:15). 

Finally, we come to Thyatira. The Thyatiran community receives one of the most glowing reports of all the seven churches. Their works are prolific—they are affirmed for their love, faith, service, and patient endurance. Regarding their love, a clear contrast is set up between Ephesus and Thyatira—where Ephesus departed from the love that they first had, these works (including love) in Thyatira have only grown. But there is the catch. Jesus then rebukes the Thyatiran community for they are tolerating (in contrast with Ephesus) the pseudonymously named Jezebel who is a self-proclaimed prophet (probably invoking the Holy Spirit as an inspiration and authority for her teachings) that is teaching and beguiling individuals in the church to practice porneuō (sexually illicit activity) and eating food sacrificed to idols. Unlike Pergamum where adherents to teachings of “Balaam” were present, the false teacher herself, “Jezebel,” has taken up residence in this community—she has authority, and leadership, and is “beguiling” people away from the Lord. G.E. Ladd describes what is being observed as an “unhealthy tolerance” for the world. He suggests that, “The Ephesians had tested those who called themselves apostles and had rejected pseudo-apostles, but this had made them harsh and censorious. Here is a church abounding and increasing in love and faith which is tolerant of false prophets to her own detriment.” 

The letter suggests that Jezebel’s judgment is set but for those that continue to commit adultery (presumably against God) with her, their reward will be death. Each will be judged according to their works (2:23; also later in 20:12). But the Thyatiran community is also unique amongst the churches in that they have a group among them who do not share Jezebel’s teachings (2:24), who remain resolute in their faithfulness, and may be beyond the scope of the initial rebuke. This is a divided community; some within the community affirm the teachings that lead to porneuō while others do not. To these who are faithful and find themselves in these divided communities, Jesus exhorts them to only hold fast to what they have until he returns as he seeks to “not lay on you any other burden” (2:24-25). As an aside, I think it is interesting to note that an allusion to the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:28-29) is likely behind this letter to Thyatira based on particular linguistic and thematic elements. 

...

In his third post, Lyons proposes a way for radical welcome as well as radical holiness [copied here nearly entirely]:

On one end of the spectrum, we have an otherwise healthy church who, in their rejection of sin (which probably included some porneia), have become unloving. Somewhere in the middle, we have a community who are under persecution, even to the point of being martyred, but Jesus even corrects them for allowing people within their community to be deceived by false teaching, which is leading to porneia being practiced in the church. On the other end of the spectrum, we have a church where porneia is not just being practiced but also endorsed by leadership who is described as a self-proclaimed prophet and is probably invoking the Holy Spirit to give authority to her teachings, teachings that are declaring licit that which was previously declared illicit by the Holy Spirit. 

... 

On Porneia Practice in Pergamum and Thyatira 

In both Pergamum and Thyatira, Jesus calls those engaged in the activity of porneia to repent of this activity. In Pergamum, Jesus promises that he will come and “war against them with the sword of his mouth” (Rev 2:16) and that points forward toward Jesus’ final decisive actions (Rev 19:15). Likewise, in Thyatira, judgment seems to already be decided for Jezebel (!) but her followers still have an opportunity to repent. Jesus promises that each will be given according to their deeds (Rev 2:23; likewise echoing the language of final judgment in 20:12) and that a lack of repentance will result in death. 

Let’s address the elephant in the room. Given the historic understanding and development of porneia (see part 1), it is hard to understand same-sex sexual activity as anything other than porneia. Such an understanding is in-line with second temple Judaism and early Christianity and the prohibitions against porneia for both Jews and Gentiles within the church are consistent. We can’t ignore the reality that Scripture’s witness on porneia is uniformly negative: wherever it is addressed, whether on the lips of Jesus or at the pen of Paul, the witness is negative. Porneia is bad and must be avoided. 

Previously, I had mentioned that, “licit sexual activity was defined by Torah and served as a cultural boundary marker where everything beyond Torah-observance was categorized as illicit and labeled as porneia.” In essence, scripture suggests porneia continues to function similarly as a boundary marker within Kingdom praxis. That is, porneia practice is one of the boundary markers for the Christian identity. This boundary is not an issue of Torah observance or law keeping; it is an issue of community identity through holiness. As N.T. Wright appropriately notes: “the praxis of the kingdom (holiness) is defined without reference to Torah” in the Christian redefinition of the Kingdom. Holiness is the praxis and Paul suggests that porneia practice is antithetical to holiness at the most basic level. Embracing porneiais embracing an identity marker that is antithetical to holiness and thus is equated with rejecting God himself. THIS is why this issue is so important. We can jigger with definitions within society and culture; but we can’t redefine holiness. To do so would be to redefine who God is. 

But, I hope astute readers will have noticed that I’ve focused on porneia rather than on same-sex sexual activity throughout my discussion. This is intentional. Is same-sex sexual activity porneia? Yep. So is premarital sex. And adultery. As is arbitrary divorce and even some remarriage. Complacency towards porneia arguably extends beyond these textual parallels to issues like our modern pornography epidemic, the proliferation of the sex trade and facilitation of a rape culture. Our culture, at best, is complacent and, more often than not, subversive and enabling of this brokenness. 

Ken appropriately saw this and cried foul to our inconsistency. He needs to be commended for this. But the answer in such circumstances isn’t to declare porneia clean. It is to repent and pursue Jesus and His holiness. Gather together frequently and call one another to accountability. Cry with one another. Pray for one another. Seek His face. 

Never stop thirsting for righteousness nor become complacent and tolerant of sin, for that is the path to destruction. 

We have a porneia problem in America and we need to repent. 

On Ephesus’ Love Deficit 

Jesus’ word to the Ephesians is a call to repentance and return to the love and practice that they first pursued. Jesus’ warning and call for repentance is testimony to the fact that you can be theologically right but pastorally wrong. If you are, as a community, proceeding unlovingly, then you are doing it wrong. It is worth noting that only at Ephesus is the whole community under risk of judgment and retribution. In Ephesus, the whole church needs to change its behavior or otherwise risk being proverbially “divorced” by Jesus. This is very different than the calls to repentance at Pergamum and Thyatira, where specific factions are being warned rather than the church community as a whole. The seriousness of this call to repentance cannot be overstated. 

While those in this community are appropriately called to repent for being unloving, defining what is “unloving” will certainly be the central sticking point and discussion around this will continue to be needed. As we move forward and begin to discern what being “loving” looks like in our contemporary contexts, let me propose a couple guidelines from the wider context of these letters for what we may conclude it doesn’t look like: 

1) It does not include affirming porneia. God makes it explicit that he hates the works of the Nicolaitans [2:6] (which contextually seems to include porneia, based on 2:14-15).

2) It does not include enduring or tolerating leadership, especially those claiming to be apostles or prophets, who are promoting and teaching in such a way that will endorse porneia. Jesus clearly commends Ephesus (2:2) for not enduring such individuals and rebukes Thyatira (2:20) for tolerating them.

3) It does not include allowing, to the extent possible, individuals within the community to be led astray by such teachings. Jesus rebukes Pergamum (2:14) for allowing this to occur within the community. 

Those seem to be the boundaries for being loving from the context of these letters. What is certain is that room should always be made for those moving towards Jesus and abundant grace for those struggling to follow in His footsteps. I think that charting a way forward will require “prophetic imagination” (in the words of Walter Brueggemann) as we attempt to reimagine how to do life in a way that is both radically welcoming and radically pursuing holiness. Whatever way we discern forward needs to hold these two calls in tension. 

On the Faithful in Thyatira 

Finally, a faction within Thyatira, those that have rejected Jezebel’s teachings, are surprisingly encouraged instead of rebuked. Jesus promises them he will lay no additional burden upon them (which, as mentioned previously, seems to be echoing the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15) and exhorts them to remain faithful and “hold fast” (Rev 2:24-25) until He comes. 

This exhortation may strike some as odd given our fractious, Protestant heritage. In neither Pergamum nor Thyatira does Jesus exhort the communities to split. In both communities it is He that will war against the transgressors and bring judgment. Surprisingly, church discipline and ejection from the communities don’t seem to be within view, at least not explicitly, in either of these communities. While the faithful within Thyatira may have been in the minority within this community (and thus unable to exercise authority to remove Jezebel), Jesus does not exhort these faithful to leave and start Thyatira church plant 2.0. In some sense, this church community seems to be a living example of the parable of the wheat and the tares (Matt 13:24-30). While some may see this as an argument from silence, I think Jesus’ exhortation to the faithful in Thyatira is particularly telling. For those who are finding themselves in divided communities, I think Jesus word is significant: “Remain faithful and hold on.” 

Furthermore, if I may go one step farther, I think an appropriate inference in that exhortation is also this command: “Continue witnessing to the truth so that some may be saved.” Such advice seems inline with Paul’s advice to spouses who find themselves married to unbelievers, a situation not totally unlike what is happening within these communities.[10] Just as Paul acknowledges that an unbelieving spouse may be saved, so too may fellow believers in covenant communities come to see their sin through the witness of the faithful and repent. 

Let me be clear: I am not suggesting doing away with church discipline (where appropriate) but rather acknowledging that such options may not be available in some communities, especially when it is leadership who are part of the compromised parties. For those in such divided communities, I think the exhortation is to remain faithful and maintain your covenant commitments to your faith community and witness to the truth as the Holy Spirit leads and empowers you to. I recognize such an exhortation will most likely not be received in our factionary, western Protestant consumer Christianity but I think it is something that we all must consider as we discern what “unity” looks like in the Church. For those willing to receive this word, my personal exhortation would be to stay with the proverbial “unbelieving spouse” for as long as they will have you; if they leave, in the words of Paul, “Let it be so…It is to peace that God has called you” (1 Cor 7:15). 

Radical Welcome and Radical Holiness 

So there we have it. As a whole, I think the letters to these three churches in Revelation form a much more comprehensive and appropriate model for understanding all of the various elements and currents within this discussion on LGBT practice within the church as well as providing particular calls to repentance to individuals and communities at various points along the spectrum of responses. 

I profoundly agree with Bill Arnold on the point that we are “starting in the wrong place” with LGBT issues. I think any discussion on this must start with porneia, not same-sex sexual activity. I certainly think Ken is right in his critique of some of the ways we have dealt with divorce and remarriage. There is certainly a reason why Jesus’ disciples marveled at this teaching and suggested it might be better not to marry at all (Matt 19:10)! I likewise largely agree with Peter Davids, a NT scholar and friend of the Vineyard, that with wholesale “accepting divorce evangelicals largely went against scripture…. Yes, this is a wakeup call to revisit the question of divorce.” 

But this is even bigger than divorce. Remember that these prohibitions apply equally to a wide range of sexual activity also including adultery, most divorce, premarital sex, polyamory/polygamy, incest, and bestiality. Luckily, many of these activities are not socially or legally acceptable so they are not in view of the current debates…yet. 

Ultimately, I think this entire issue speaks to a much more significant, underdeveloped area in Vineyard’s Kingdom Theology. Traditionally, we have done very well talking about the Kingdom coming powerfully through signs and wonders. Our very origin as a movement echoes with these elements of the Kingdom. In recent years, the Vineyard has done an excellent job exploring what it looks like when the Kingdom comes and encounters issues and systems of social and economic injustice. We do a very good job theologically and practically describing what the telos of the Kingdom looks like in these instances. 

But this is the question we need to spend a little more time reflecting on and developing: what does it look like when the Kingdom of God comes into the interior life of a believer? Or, rather, what John Wesley, when talking about the Kingdom of God, describes as “heaven opened in the soul” and God setting “up his throne in our hearts.” Or, more systematically, what is often referred to simply as “holiness.” What is does the telos of the Christian life look like? 

Finally, however we proceed from here must include both radical welcome and the radical call towards holiness. Ephesus failed the radical welcome. Some in Thyatira and Pergamum failed to pursue the radical holiness of Jesus. We must hold on to both and continue to be a both-and people, a people in and through which God’s eschatological in-breaking Kingdom life and praxis is realized in ever increasing degrees of holiness.

scripture and the kingdom

NT Wright in Surprised by Scripture:

… the point about God’s authority is that the whole Bible is about God establishing his kingdom on earth as in heaven, completing (in other words) the project begun but aborted in Genesis 1– 3. This is the big story that we must learn how to tell. It isn’t just about how to get saved, with some cosmology bolted onto the side. This is an organic story about God and the world. God’s authority is exercised not to give his people lots of true information, not even true information about how they get saved (though that comes en route). God’s authority, vested in Jesus the Messiah, is about God reclaiming his proper lordship over all creation. And the way God planned to rule over his creation from the start was through obedient humanity. The Bible’s witness to Jesus declares that he, the obedient Man, has done this. But the Bible is then the God-given equipment through which the followers of Jesus are themselves equipped to be obedient stewards, the royal priesthood, bringing that saving rule of God in Christ to the world.

(via)

views of tradition v. scripture

Great summary by Michael Patton on tradition's role in the christian life:

“If it ain’t in the Bible, I don’t believe it.” Have you ever heard said that? How about this one: “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.” You might have that bumper sticker. Why not? Doesn’t this represent the glory of the Protestant Reformation’s elevation of Scripture to a position of the sole source of authority in the Christian’s life? Don’t these pithy statements represent the best of what it means to adhere to the doctrine of sola Scriptura?

No, they don’t. In fact they unfortunately represent a common misunderstanding of what sola Scriptura means.

Where does one go for authority? In whom do we place our trust? The Church? Tradition? Scripture? The Pope? These represent important questions that are normally not understood outside the perspective of individual traditions.

There are essentially five views that exist in the church today concerning the important issue of authority.

1. Dual-source theory

Belief that Tradition, represented by the magisterial authority of the Roman Catholic Church, is infallible and equal to Scripture as a basis for doctrine; the Church itself is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice since it must define and interpret Scripture and Tradition.

Adherents: Roman Catholics

Notice that there is one complete deposit of faith, given by Christ to the Apostles. This one deposit is transmitted by two sources, written tradition (Scripture) and unwritten tradition. Notice also the dotted line as Scripture moves from the “Age of the Apostles” to the “Age of the Church.” This represents that the Scriptures were not complete in canonized form (all the books were not decided upon) until the forth century. The Roman Catholic church believes itself responsible for the interpretation of both written and unwritten tradition. Because of their belief that the Holy Spirit protects the Roman Catholic church from error, they believe that they are the ultimate and final authority for the Christian. This is why this view is often referred to as sola ecclesia (”the church alone”).

2. Prima Scriptura

Belief that the Body of Christ has two separate sources of authority for faith and practice: 1) the Scriptures and 2) Tradition. Scripture is the primary source for authority, but by itself it is insufficient for all matters of faith and practice. Tradition also contains essential elements needed for the productive Christian life.

Adherents: Some Roman Catholics (an alternate view)

Like the previous, the prima Scriptura view has an abiding dual-source of authority. Notice how the dotted line representing Tradition continues on in this model. This is illustrative of Tradition’s continued subordinate influence within the Church. For the prima Scriptura model, Tradition must be continually “kept in check” by Scripture. If there is ever a conflict between Tradition and the Scriptures, the Scriptures are to correct and interpret Tradition. Scripture, according to this model, is the primary and final authority in all matters. According to this view, the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and is, therefore, “materially sufficient.” But it is not “formally sufficient,” since it must have an infallible interpreter, the Church.

3. Regula Fidei

Lit. “Rule of faith.” Belief that tradition is an infallible “summary” of Scripture passed on through apostolic succession. Ultimately, there is only one source of revelation, but two sources of authority. In other words, Tradition is Scripture.

Adherents: Eastern Orthodox, some Protestants

Notice how the dotted line representing Tradition continues on in this model. Like the previous, this is illustrative of Tradition’s continued subordinate influence within the Church. For the regula fidei model, however, tradition equals Scripture in an infallible summary form (example: Nicene creed). The Church carries the correct interpretation of Scripture but does not add anything new to it (unlike the previous two). Therefore, all interpretation of Scripture must agree with the interpretation that has been consistently held within the Church—the regula fidei or ”rule of faith.”

4. Sola Scriptura

Belief that Scripture is the final and only infallible authority for the Christian in all matters of faith and practice. While there are other authorities, they are always fallible and the must always be tested by and submit to the Scriptures.

Adherents: Reformed Protestants/Evangelicals

Notice that the only difference between the sola Scriptura view and the regula fide view is that in the sola Scriptura view tradition is not infallible. It is very important to realize that advocates ofsola Scriptura would believe that there were two sources of authority for the first 300–400 years of the Church. Like the previous view, tradition would be understood as a summary of what was written in Scripture that had always been accepted by the universal Church. Unlike the previous view, this summary is not infallible.

At this time, Scripture was in the process of being recognized (canonized) and the teachings of the apostles which had been passed on through word of mouth (tradition) was only reliable for the first 100 years (or so) of Church history. The majority of Scripture (Gospels, Acts, and Pauline corpus which makes up at least 80 percent of the NT) was accepted as authoritative by A.D. 200, if not earlier. At the same time, the teachings of the apostles that were being passed on through word of mouth was becoming increasingly obscure and unreliable. Once the New Testament had been circulated throughout the Church, and once the canon had been recognized, the Church became totally reliant upon the Scriptures (both Old and New Testaments) for ultimate authority in all matters of faith and practice. Scripture is always to be interpreted according to the accepted, albeit fallible, regula fidei of the early church as represented in the early creeds and councils.

As an important and related sidenote, there has been much recent discussion among Protestants and Orthodox concerning the similarities in the two traditions’ view of authority. In fact, mutual consent has been attained and confessions of misunderstanding given from both sides. Notice here the agreed statement from The Dublin Agreed Statement 1984 involving Anglicans and Orthodox:

“Any disjunction between Scripture and Tradition such as would treat them as two separate ‘sources of revelation’ must be rejected. The two are correlative. We affirm (1) that Scripture is the main criterion whereby the church tests traditions to determine whether they are truly part of the Holy Tradition or not; (2) that Holy Tradition completes Holy Scriptures in the sense that it safeguards the integrity of the biblical message” (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985), 50–51.

As well, notice this agreement between Lutherans and Orthodox:

“Regarding the relation of Scripture and Tradition, for centuries there seemed to have been a deep difference between Orthodox and Lutheran teaching. Orthodox hear with satisfaction the affirmation of the Lutheran theologians that the formula sola Scriptura was always intended to point to God’s revelation, God’s saving act through Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit, and therefore to the holy Tradition of the Church . . . against human traditions that darken the authentic teaching in the Church.” —Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue: The Agreed Statements 1985–1989. (Geneva: Lutheran World Federation, 1992), 11.

5. Solo Scriptura or Nuda Scriptura

Belief that Scripture is the sole basis and authority in the life of the Christian. Tradition is useless and misleading, and creeds and confessions are the result of man-made traditions.

Adherents: Radical Reformers, Fundamentalists, Restorationist Churches

This is not a formal position but a pejorative designation of a practical one. It represents the unfortunate position of many evangelical or fundamental Protestants who misunderstand sola Scriptura believing that it means that the ideal place for believers to find authority and interpret Scripture is to do so in a historical vacuum, disregarding any tradition that might influence and bind their thinking. Not only does this undermine the Holy Spirit’s role in the lives of believers of the past, but it is a position of arrogance, elevating individual reason to the position of final authority. It also disregards the fact that it is impossible to interpret in a vacuum.

Protestants have many authorities in their lives. Whether it be parents, government, the church, or traditions. The doctrine of sola Scriptura does not mean that we don’t have any other authorities or even sources of revelation, but that the Scripture alone is the final and only infallible source—it is the ultimate source.

Just for good measure so that I cannot be accused of not trying to get in trouble, here is how I would chart some traditions and denominations.

the whole word

"The Word of God well understood and religiously obeyed is the shortest route to spiritual perfection. Nothing less than a whole Bible can make a whole Christian." ~ A. W. Tozer

(via)

new ideas

When hearing new ideas, take great care. Do not be closed - no one has fully considered all that should be considered. But take great care.

"Really great moral teachers never do introduce new moralities: it is quacks and cranks who do that." - C. S. Lewis

fires and fireplaces

For your thinking caps:

“The fire of evangelical conviction, when scripturally governed, cries out for a fireplace to burn in. A well-designed fireplace, put together by biblically-minded craftsmen, cries out for a fire to go in it. A fireplace without a fire is cold and dead. A fire without a fireplace is fierce and destructive. Shouldn’t we be able to work something out? . . . The Bible brings the fire, and the Bible contains drawing for the fireplace” (Doug Wilson in Against the Church, p. 77).

expository preaching

“One great reason why many ministers find expository preaching difficult is, that they have not been sufficiently accustomed to study the Bible” (Broadus, Preparation and Delivery, p. 308).

(via)

knowledge and obedience

From John Frame in The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God:

Knowledge subject to God's authority. In Scripture knowledge is very closely linked with righteousness and holiness (cf. Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10). These "go together" (1 Cor. 8:1-3; 1 John 4:7f.). Knowledge of God, in the fullest sense, is inevitably an obedient knowledge. Let me sketch five important relations between knowledge and obedience.

1. Knowledge of God produces obedience (John 17:26; 2 Peter 1:3, 5; 2:18-20). God's friends necessarily seek to obey Him (John 14:15, 21; etc.), and the better they know Him, the more obedient they become. Such a relation to God is inevitably a sanctifying experience; being near Him transforms us, as the biblical pictures of God's glory being transferred to His people, of His Spirit descending on them, and of their being conformed to His image indicate.

2. Obedience to God leads to knowledge (John 7:17; Eph. 3:17-19; 2 Tim. 2:25f.; 1 John 3:16; cf. Ps. 111:10; Prov. 1:7; 15:33; Isa. 33:6). This is the converse of the previous point; there is a "circular" relation between knowledge and obedience in Scripture. Neither is unilaterally prior to the other, either temporally or causally. They are inseparable and simultaneous. Each enriches the other (cf. 2 Peter 1:5f.). In my view, some Reformed "intellectualists" (Gordon Clark has applied this label to himself) have failed to do justice to this circularity. Even in the writings of J. Gresham Machen, one often finds the slogan "life is built upon doctrine" used in a way that distorts the fact that in some senses the opposite is also true. It is certainly true that if you want to obey God more completely, you must get to know Him; but it is also true that if you want to know God better, you must seek to obey Him more perfectly." [The circle goes even farther: knowledge originates in God's grace and leads to more grace (Exod. 33:13), which leads to more knowledge. In this case, however, there is a "unilateral" beginning. Grace originates knowledge, not vice versa.]

This emphasis does not contradict our earlier point that knowledge is by grace. Knowledge and obedience are given to us simultaneously by God on the basis of Jesus' sacrifice. Once they are given, God continues to give them in greater and greater fullness. But He uses means; He uses our obedience as a means of giving us knowledge, and vice versa.

3. Obedience is knowledge, and knowledge is obedience. Very often in Scripture, obedience and knowledge are used as near synonyms, either by being set in apposition to one another (e.g., Hos. 6:6) or by being used to define one another (e.g., Jer. 22:16). Occasionally, too, knowledge appears as one term in a general list of distinctly ethical categories (e.g., Hos. 4:lf.) and so is presented as a form of obedience (cf. Jer. 31:31f.; John 8:55 [note the context, esp. vv. 19, 32, 41]; 1 Cor. 2:6 [cf. vv. 13-15; "mature" here is an ethical-religious quality]; Eph. 4:13; Phil. 3:8-11; 2 Thess. 1:8f.; 2 Peter 1:5; 2:20f.). In these passages, obedience is not merely a consequence of knowledge but a constitutive aspect of it. Without obedience there is no knowledge, and vice versa.

The point here is not that obedience and knowledge are synonymous terms, interchangeable in all contexts. They do differ. Knowledge designates the friendship between ourselves and God (see below), and obedience designates our activity within that relation. But these two ideas are so inseparable from one another that often they can legitimately be used as synonyms, each describing the other from a particular perspective.

4. Thus obedience is the criterion of knowledge. To determine if someone knows God, we do not merely give him a written exam; we examine his life. Atheism in Scripture is a practical, not merely a theoretical, position; denying God is seen in the corruption of one's life (Pss. 10:4ff.; 14:1-7; 53). Similarly, the test of Christian faith or knowledge is a holy life (Matt. 7:21ff.; Luke 8:21; John 8:47; 14:15, 21, 23f.; 15:7, 10, 14; 17:6, 17; 1 John 2:3-5; 4:7; 5:2f.; 2 John 6f.; Rev. 12:17; 14:12). The ultimate reason for that is that God is the real, living, and true God, not an abstraction concerning whom we can only theorize, but one who is profoundly involved with each of our lives. The very "I am" of Yahweh indicates His presence. As Francis Schaeffer says, He is "the God who is there." Thus our involvement with Him is a practical involvement, an involvement with Him not only in our theoretical activity but in all of life. To disobey is to be culpably ignorant of God's involvement in our lives. So disobedience involves ignorance and obedience involves knowledge.

5. Therefore it is clear that knowledge itself must be sought in an obedient way. There are commandments in Scripture that bear very directly on how we are to seek knowledge, that identify the differences between true and false knowledge. In this connection, we should meditate on 1 Corinthians 1-2; 3:18-23; 8:1-3; and James 3:13-18. When we seek to know God obediently, we assume the fundamental point that Christian knowledge is a knowledge under authority, that our quest for knowledge is not autonomous but subject to Scripture. And if that is true, it follows that the truth (and to some extent the content) of Scripture must be regarded as the most certain knowledge that we have. If this knowledge is to be the criterion for all other knowledge, if it is to govern our acceptance or rejection of other propositions, then there is no proposition that can call it into question. Thus when we know God, we know Him more certainly, more surely than we know anything else. When He speaks to us, our understanding of His Word must govern our understanding of everything else. This is a difficult point because, after all, our understanding of Scripture is fallible and may sometimes need to be corrected. But those corrections may be made only on the basis of a deeper understanding of Scripture, not on the basis of some other kind of knowledge.

the bible in 20 minutes

First Jason DeRouchie with the Old Testament in Ten Minutes:


The Old Testament in Ten Minutes from Desiring God.

Then Andy Nasilli does the New Testament in Ten Minutes:


The New Testament in Ten Minutes from Desiring God.

gospel indicatives and imperatives

Sinclair Ferguson in Our Holiness: The Father’s Purpose and the Son’s Purchase:

The great gospel imperatives to holiness are ever rooted in indicatives of grace that are able to sustain the weight of those imperatives. The Apostles do not make the mistake that’s often made in Christian ministry. [For the Apostles] the indicatives are more powerful than the imperatives in gospel preaching. So often in our preaching our indicatives are not strong enough, great enough, holy enough, or gracious enough to sustain the power of the imperatives. And so our teaching on holiness becomes a whip or a rod to beat our people’s backs because we’ve looked at the New Testament and that’s all we ourselves have seen.

We’ve seen our own failure and we’ve seen the imperatives to holiness and we’ve lost sight of the great indicatives of the gospel that sustain those imperatives. Woven into the warp and woof of the New Testament’s exposition of what it means for us to be holy is the great groundwork that the self-existent, thrice holy, triune God has — in Himself, by Himself and for Himself — committed Himself and all three Persons of His being to bringing about the holiness of His own people. This is the Father’s purpose, the Son’s purchase and the Spirit’s ministry.

(via)

what the bible is about

Tim Keller speaking on what the Bible is basically about ...


(ht)

macarthur heresy

More wisdom from Brendt Waters on the MacArthur Heresy:

Hey, Wait - You're Ruining My Stereotype

Every once in a while, in his arguments, MacArthur states something that so obviously contradicts his viewpoint that it causes a cognitive dissonance in him. In his argument for the cessation of all gifts, he states:

Amazingly, leading continuationists readily acknowledge this fact. Wayne Grudem, for example, agrees that apostleship has ceased.

Um, no. This is only “amazing” to someone that thinks that either you are full-blown cessationist or you believe that anything goes. The simple fact that this “amazes” MacArthur is evidence enough that his brush is much too broad.

You Don't Count Too Good, Do You?

MacArthur goes on in his “proof” of cessationism (emphases his):

[Grudem] further argues for a modern version of prophecy that is fallible and frequently characterized by mistakes. Sam Storms has a whole article attempting to justify the idea that modern tongues do not have to be real human languages. And in a recent interview, John Piper acknowledges that there was something unique and unrepeatable about the healing miracles of Christ. 

Based on those admissions, I would challenge them to consider in what sense they should even be called ‘continuationists,’ because they essentially acknowledge that the biblical gifts have not continued.

Let us, for the time being, accept the idea that MacArthur’s definitions (like the “irrational babble” false dichotomy) are entirely accurate. And let us ignore the fact that Piper was talking specifically about the healing miracles of Christ (not all healings detailed in Scripture). We still have three men separately acknowledging a difference – or in the case of Grudem and apostleship, cessation – of four gifts. And yet, somehow, MacArthur jumps to the conclusion that they have all completely admitted to the complete cessation of all biblical gifts.

"Logic" That Chases Its Tail

Ephesians 2:19-22 states (emphasis mine):

Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

MacArthur uses verse 20 (the underlined portion) to argue for cessationism:

Before the canon of Scripture was complete, that foundation was still being laid through the apostles and prophets, and through the miraculous and revelatory gifts that accompanied and authenticated their ministries. But once the foundation was laid, those offices and gifts passed away.

Let us disregard the fact that pulling anything pneumatological from this passage goes beyond mere eisegesis into textual origami. Instead, I shall merely note that the reasoning here is entirely circular. Nowhere does this passage (or any other Scripture) state that the apostles were the sole possessors of the gifts.

Sidebar: in fact, this passage strongly implies that such is not the case, as Paul distinguishes between the apostles and the early church in general, other parts of which he specifically encouraged to practice the gifts. But I digress ….

One must assume that the apostles or – if we’re going to be generous and disregard MacArthur’s contradiction of Scripture – the early church were the sole possessors of the gifts, and only then can it be said that upon their deaths, so ended the gifts. But if you make that assumption at the start, then your reasoning is entirely circular.

More Tail-Chasing

MacArthur correctly states that:

[t]he New Testament explains that [the gifts] functioned to authenticate God’s messengers.

citing Acts 2:22, 2 Corinthians 12:12, and Hebrews 2:4. But then he engages in further circular reasoning in the completion of his sentence:

… while the canon of Scripture – and thus the fullness of God’s revelation – was still incomplete.

Nowhere does Scripture state that the authentication existed solely for the time period during which the canon was still being developed. In order to embrace this concept, one must start with cessationism as an assumption. But (again) you have proven nothing if you start with this assumption.

The Gifts As God's Band-Aid

MacArthur continues his point (emphases mine):

After the apostolic age passed, with the foundation of the church laid and the canon of Scripture closed, such attestation was no longer required. The sufficiency of Scripture and the fullness of God’s completed revelation in His written Word is so glorious that it no longer needs miraculous confirmation.

Here’s the problem with that statement – such attestation was never required. What a low view of God – that somehow he “needed” (see Acts 17:25 again) the gifts to give validation to his Son or to kick-start his church. In one sentence, MacArthur has reduced the gifts to a band-aid that God hastily applied to a bullet wound until he could finish the canon and get all the apostles to die.

Romans 1:20-21 tells us:

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

So, to a degree, even Scripture is not “required” – it is simply the most straightforward manner in which God reveals himself to us.

And yes, it is sufficient. But in his appeals to the sufficiency of Scripture, MacArthur conflates sufficiency with exclusivity.

LaLaLaLaLa, He Can't Hear You

Wrapping up his (mis)handling of these Scriptures, MacArthur states:

Now, I realize there are disputes over some of those passages. But that is the very discussion I want to spark in the evangelical community. Let’s dig into the Scriptures and deal with the biblical and theological issues. I should add that we address these and other passages in much greater depth in they Strange Fire book.

It’s too bad that MacArthur didn’t think of this whole “discussion” thing before the conference. He could have invited people that disagreed to the conference to, you know, discuss the issue.

Oh. Wait. What?