City of God, City of Man

I’m currently reading Michael Horton’s “Introducing Covenant Theology.” I would recommend this book to just about everyone, especially to the dispensationalist or anyone struggling with or just not sure of their hermeneutical framework. Covenant Theology fits so cleanly with scripture that it puts other hermeneutics (e.g. dispensationalism) to shame, though some (e.g. dispensationalism) put themselves to shame anyway when in the light of sound reason and due to their extreme eisegetical approach.

Aside from the main thrust of the book, Horton pointed out something interesting concerning fundamentalism. I guess it’s something I’ve realized but have never put it quite together in words. Horton, like the fundamentalists themselves, traces the movement back to the Anabaptists circa 16th century. This group had a core distinction aside from their baptismal practices – total separation. Note what was written in the Anabaptist Schleitheim Confession concerning the practice of the Anabaptists:

A separation shall be made from the evil and from the wickedness which the devil planted in the world; in this manner, simply that we shall not have fellowship with them (the wicked) and not run with them in the multitude of their abominations. This is the way it is: Since all who do not walk in the obedience of faith, and have not united themselves with God so that they wish to do His will, are a great abomination before God, it is not possible for anything to grow or issue from them except abominable things. For truly all creatures are in but two classes, good and bad, believing and unbelieving, darkness and light, the world and those who (have come) out of the world, God’s temple and idols, Christ and Belial; and none can have part with the other… From this we should learn that everything which is not united with our God and Christ cannot be other than an abomination which we should shun and flee from. By this is meant all Catholic and Protestant works and church services, meetings and church attendance, drinking houses, civic affairs, the oaths sworn in unbelief and other things of that kind, which are highly regarded by the world and yet are carried on in flat contradiction to the command of God, in accordance with all the unrighteousness which is in the world. From all these things we shall be separated and have no part with them for they are nothing but an abomination, and they are the cause of our being hated before our Christ Jesus, Who has set us free from the slavery of the flesh and fitted us for the service of God through the Spirit Whom He has given us.

Note the disdain even for civil responsibility. One of the overarching philosophies of the Anabaptists is the idea that anyone who is not a Christian is wholly evil and all things done or instated by those who are not of the church are also wholly evil and therefore condemned to use by Christians. This includes academia, governments, and culture. Christ, to the Anabaptists, was against culture. This was largely in retaliation to the Roman Catholic church, which sought cultural assimilation as one of its main thrusts. Horton argues that “the problem with the Anabaptists on this point, Calvin argued, was that they would not distinguish between creation and fall or between the two kingdoms instituted by God. In this way, justification before God was confused with moral, social, and political righteousness, undermining both civility between Christian and non-Christian as well as the gospel.” In other words, the Fall tarnished the image of God found in Man. It did not, however, annihilate it. Man is corrupted with sin and fallen from glory but still bears the image of God and of a divine creation.

There is a people of God and a people against God, but this city of darkness is not to be confused with the City of Man. The City of Man is such that is marked by governments, civil legislation, and cultural inclination. It is interested in the physical and aesthetic qualities and properties of reality. The City of God is such that is categorized by the church. Its head is Christ, and its interests rest in pleasing and glorifying God. The redeemed have a dual citizenship in this present age. They are of the City of God, but also of the City of Man. Man’s systems are not the modus operandi of God, and one day “the kingdoms of this world” will become “the kingdom of our God.” But it is paramount to remember that mankind still retains the image of God, whether they are of the covenant or not, and the things that he build are not evil in themselves. It is not the “Christianizing” of civil governments but the Christianizing of individuals to become citizens of the City of God that the church has been charged with. All in all, we are not to assimilate government and church, as the Roman Catholic church, but neither are we to separate from and disdain the cultural and governmental aspects of the civil City of Man, as the Anabaptists. The difference between the Christian and the non is that the Christian, in his dual citizenship, has a responsibility to both cities. Horton puts it best when he explains that “while cultural activity can never be redemptive, the redeemed will view creation and cultural activity with new spectacles. The enormous interest in cultural pursuits that the Reformed tradition produced was never seen as entirely separate from heavenly citizenship but part of its embodiment in concern for neighbor.”

Christianity, therefore, is responsible to itself and to the mandates of Christ. It is the covenant of the redeemed, not for the secular world. Therefore, to conclude in the words of Michael Horton, it is not for the church “to seek to impose their distinctively Christian convictions on society through the kingdom of power, as both Rome and the radical Anabaptists tried to do. Rather, they are to pursue their dual citizenship according to the distinct policies proper to each kingdom. The Bible functions as the constitution for the covenant people, not for the secular state.”

Thoughts on a Passage – Romans 2:1-16

Rom 2:1-5

Therefore you are without excuse, whoever you are, when you judge someone else. For on whatever grounds you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment is in accordance with truth against those who practice such things. 3 And do you think, whoever you are, when you judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you have contempt for the wealth of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, and yet do not know that God’s kindness leads you to repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourselves in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed!

Paul drives it home to those who judge others. He brings up the argument that most of those who tend to so easily point out the sins of others are, in all actuality, simply trying, consciously or subconsciously, to justify the wrongs on their own behalf by shadowing them with those of another.  Of course, the entire coincidence being that those who fit this description will never admit to doing such. Paul’s motive here seems to be that the focus of all Christians must not be on the sins of others, but on our own hearts. That’s why Paul accuses these people of having “contempt for the wealth of [God’s] kindness” toward those who are still in sin. He declares that “God’s kindness leads [them] to repentance,” showing that the fact that God exercises patients and forbearance on the redeemed still struggling with their past sins as His tool to lead them to repentance. Therefore we must let the patience of God and His forbearance rule us when dealing with those who are still within their past sin. It’s not forcefulness, but patience that God uses to cause them to repent.

Rom 2:6-8

6 He will reward each one according to his works:  7 eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works seek glory and honor and immortality, 8 but wrath and anger to those who live in selfish ambition and do not obey the truth but follow unrighteousness.

Here Paul puts the spear in the heart of the commonly accepted idea of “works” that people believe will reward or punish them. The only “works” that count are really categories. They are not the specific works, but the category within which our works fall. It is the underlying motive. It is the heart of our own consciousness and motivation that influences the direction of and directly produces our works.

Rom 2:9-12

There will be affliction and distress on everyone who does evil, on the Jew first and also the Greek,  10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, for the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God. 12 For all who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.

Paul begins here to set up his argument for the foundation of his soteriology. The judgment of God is not partial to genetic disposition, even if you are a Jew by birth. It is not the specific “following of the law” that counts for anyone, that is the act of claiming yourself as one who follows the law. Whether you follow the law or not follow the law, the only thing that counts is whether you do what is right or not.

Rom 2:13

13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous before God, but those who do the law will be declared righteous.

It is important to note that here is where Paul begins to set up the foundation for his argument that all Men must be perfect in morality and according to the Law to receive the salvation offered in Christ.

Rom 2:14-16

14 For whenever the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things required by the law, these who do not have the law are a law to themselves. 15 They show that the work of the law is written in their hearts, as their conscience bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or else defend them,  16 on the day when God will judge the secrets of human hearts, according to my gospel through Christ Jesus.

Again, Paul disbands the idea that it is an association that will save us “on the last day” but a perfect obedience of the Law – whether that written to the Jew or that written on Mankind’s heart.

I also believe this passage to be a strong proof text for the fate of those who do not have the opportunity to hear the gospel before they die. No one will be condemned for ignorance. “Conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day.”  This is evidence that there will be a chance for these people on the final judgment, whereas those who rejected Christ in this life also are rejecting Him at the judgment. Those who are saved are brought from “life to death” in this life according to other passages. Those who reject Christ in this life are already dead. But there is another category, as evidenced by this passage.

A side note about this idea: If God calls you to be a witness to someone unto salvation, but you fail to heed that calling, it’s not their soul you have to worry about – it’s your own. I hear of many people who are ashamed that because of their failure to witness when God called them to do so, someone might not go to heaven. Unfortunately, they’re not ashamed that they’ve offended God Himself and made a mockery of the sacrifice of Christ, which is the real offense in this situation. God will deal righteously with those who don’t hear.

What’s Your Study Gear?

Almost as important as the subjects we study are the tools we use to study them. I’m constantly looking for new tools to enhance the way I read and study, and currently I’ve landed on just a handful of gadgets that have greatly enhanced the way I do work.

Here’s a picture of my standard study gear:

At the bottom of that pile there is my Amazon Kindle 2. I admit that I can’t always use it with the sort of books I like to study from and it’s quite often when I need to use the good ol’ print books. However, the Kindle, in my opinion, is more than worth the purchase for the few books that I can get for it. I say few, and indeed it is a few compared to the amount of print books available, but the biggest thing that turned me on about the Kindle over other e-book platforms was that it had the largest selection of books in my venue than the others. The second thing was the price of the books, and the third thing was the Whispernet instant purchasing. I love the ability to highlight and write notes in the books, and the Kindle places all my highlights and notes in a convenient .txt file for later use. It’s an indispensable tool for any serious reader.

That other cool gadget there is the recently released Viliv S5. The Viliv S5 is a fully functioning, handheld, Windows XP computer. Its internals are basically the same as an HP Mini netbook – Intel Atom 1.33 GHz processor, 1 Gb RAM, 60 Gb HDD. It’s a world more practical for reading internet articles, etc. than having to always use the notebook form factor. Using Bible study software on the S5 turns it into a reference library in your pocket. Taking quick notes can also be done using the on-screen keyboard. If the typing is more serious, I use my bluetooth keyboard (that device in the middle), though the on-screen isn’t that bad – I typed this entire blog on the onscreen during a commute. That’s the great wonder about the Viliv S5 – small enough to take anywhere with you so you’re prepared for anything. Reading blogs on this thing with the screen rotated in portrait mode is just beautiful. I’d recommend this device to any serious studier or student, of the Bible or otherwise

Currently, I’m using PC study Bible 5 as my reference software, though when I get the chance (i.e. money), I’ll be getting the Logos software. I find their interface more appealing, and the Logos add-on library is so extensive as to be pretty insane. The doctrinal fair of Logos’ book choices seems to suit m taste better as well.

So there you have it, my study tech. What electronic gear do you use to enhance your studies? Leave a comment!

Thoughts on a Passage – Romans 1

Rom 1:5-7

“5 Through him we have received grace and our apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles on behalf of his name. 6 You also are among them, called to belong to Jesus Christ.  7 To all those loved by God in Rome, called to be saints: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ!”

Salvation itself is a calling. There is a moment for all those who are truly saved when they truly knew that they had been called to their faith in Christ. Belief is not faith. Many believe who are not called. Many are enticed by the words of the gospel who are not called. But those who are truly called are called to faith and surrender in Jesus Christ. Faith is therefore the response to the calling of God to salvation. The true saints are those who respond to God with the “obedience of faith” required by all who have truly been called to salvation. Faith is trust in the face of any adversity. It is a requirement of the truly called, those who truly have been led of God to be saved, to have this trust in the face of any adversity toward Christ.

There are those who would believe that it is for anyone at any time to be saved by any means. The same purport that if they may give someone the gospel, if that person likes the sound of the message, and if the same prays a certain prayer, then that is salvation. This sort of evangelism is contrary to many of the passages of Paul. As shown here in this greeting, Paul believes it is a response of faith to a calling by God that is true salvation.

Rom 1:8-15

8 First of all, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed throughout the whole world. 9 For God, whom I serve in my spirit by preaching the gospel of his Son, is my witness that I continually remember you 10 and I always ask in my prayers, if perhaps now at last I may succeed in visiting you according to the will of God.  11 For I long to see you, so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you, 12 that is, that we may be mutually comforted by one another’s faith, both yours and mine. 13 I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that I often intended to come to you (and was prevented until now), so that I may have some fruit even among you, just as I already have among the rest of the Gentiles.  14 I am a debtor both to the Greeks and to the barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. 15 Thus I am eager also to preach the gospel to you who are in Rome.

It is the duty of Christians to impart their gifts to those abroad, not just in their local church community. Though it may not be the will of God for some to travel constantly as Paul did, when it comes time to be temporarily in a place away from home, we must remember that there are children of God in that location also. We need to exercise the gifts of the Spirit that have been imparted to us upon those assemblies as well. We never know when a simple vacation or work relation trip may become a work of God to help a certain community of believers.

Rom 1:16-1

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.  17 For the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel from faith to faith, just as it is written, “The righteous by faith will live.”

It is the gospel – the message of the redeemer Messiah, his death, burial, resurrection, and the reconciliation between man and God by the fulfillment of the covenants in Christ – that is God’s tool for salvation. This is the means God has chosen to bring about salvation to the world in the new covenant. It is the hearing of the gospel that brings about the calling of faith that must end with a response to the obedience of faith in Christ that brings salvation. This not only brings salvation, but the righteousness of God. Paul is not here referring to righteousness in man, but the imparted righteousness of God that is shared by all the saved by their placement in the body of Christ. The statement that “The righteous by faith will live” is not an admonition for those who are righteous to live by faith. It is a statement that declares that the righteous are those that live by faith. It’s a duel dependency. Those who live by faith are the righteous, and those who are the righteous live by faith.

Rom 1:18-25

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness,  19 because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves.  25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

Paul is here referring to the pagan nations of old. He is not here saying that they should have been Christians or believers in the mode of Judaism because of the simple testimony of nature, but rather that God’s glory, eternal power, and divine nature – His attributes have been revealed in nature, but they instead went contrary to nature and the law of their hearts and gave themselves to the more debased, animal attribute of humankind. Man, being an “animal” in a sense, yet also embodying the image of God” has a dualistic nature of sorts. He may give himself over to the animal, earthly nature, or may follow his “divine nature” that is not present, but attainable from God.  Here Paul is saying that these pagans of old, instead of seeking that “Divine Nature” that is revealed in the hearts of man as well as nature itself, sought the lower, more debased forms of life. Instead of aspiring to the higher creation, the “higher evolution”, they instead looked lower to the animals, and worshipped God as an animal, and sought to be as the animals. For this God gave them up to their desires and allowed them to continue on the path toward the animal nature of Man and away from the Divine nature of God that man ought to seek for himself.

Rom 1:26-32

26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones,  27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done.  29 They are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice. They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them.

In verses 26 – 28 it is often argued that this passage deals with homosexuality. Though there may be a possibility this is included in the context, I believe what Paul is referring to here is in a far broader sense. Here he is speaking of an animalistic sexuality that gives no thought for the propriety and the place for sexuality. It is Mankind again becoming animalistic in his sexual passions and not giving these passion their due place in the role of human life.

The rest of the chapter explains the manifold sinfulness and wickedness and, really, just down-right miserable existence of those who have given themselves over to this that sensual, animal nature. Here Paul ends this discourse by explaining that these people do indeed know what is right from what God has written on their hearts and from what is stamped upon them from being in the very image of God Himself, yet these people do not seek to obey these things. They know what is right, yet give themselves over to the animal passions which they allow to win over their “spirited element” that lets them know these things are wrong.

Today’s Quick Thought – Heb. 13

Hebrews 13 sure is a popular chapter. It’s too bad only a couple verses out of this immensely inspirational book are the most oft quoted. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard a preacher/Sunday school teacher/bible college professor in the Fundamentalist camp quote verse 17 as a proof text that I needed to cut my hair, or not listen to rock music, or not wear jeans, etc. “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls.” How can you argue with this logic? The most frustrating thing, of course, was that after many good minutes (or even hours) of debating one of these topics, this verse would pop up as an easy-out any time the argument for a certain belief of conduct drew them into a corner. It works really well. I wish I’d have thought of it first. This argument may be found from pulpit to Fundamentalist magazine (where I once read it within an article as an argument for how a Christian should dress). It’s a very unreasonable claim to a “because I said so” sort of argument.

I am in no way downplaying the words of the scriptures. But I believe the problem here is that this passage must be taken with a very strict caveat: Which authority? The author of Hebrews clearly intended authorities whom he knew that were firmly grounded in good Christian doctrine and practice. If I can read this and say it applies to my church, no questions asked, then who’s to say a Charismatic can’t to the same? Or even a Muslim? It is therefore up to us to discern Biblical doctrine, to seek out those authorities whom we may say are truly Christ-like and doctrinally strong in both knowledge and practice. If we may find any discrepancy in the given authority, that particular area of doctrine or practice should not be followed according to their ideas. We’re deceiving ourselves if we think those to whom the author referred are any authority of any church.

Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t endorse rebellion and constant questioning of authority. But I believe that the author of Hebrews gave us the extent to which we are to obey our authorities right in the very same verse: “Let them do this with joy and not with complaints, for this would be no advantage for you.” I’ve already argued the absurdity of wholesale followership to arbitrary leaders. But it seems what the author wanted to avoid most was useless argumentation. If I go to a Bible College that tells me I must wear suits every day, I’ll be in the wrong for trying to rebel simply because I believe a Christian doesn’t necessarily best express his position by dressing like a corrupted politician or lawyer or Mormon or… alright, that’s enough . It’s incorrect for me to assume that it is now morally wrong for me to differ and to dress differently when I’m not at the college. But it’s equally wrong for me to cause contention about things that I need not bash heads about.

Also, on a side note, I’m tired of hearing about how we need to obey the government, respect the president, be good citizens, etc. because of Paul’s mandate to obey the governmental authorities. Paul didn’t live in America. America was built on a rebellion! It functions by people complaining and doing something about it – it endorses a type of rebellion. This isn’t a dictatorship (not originally, at any rate). This is a government that requires a rebellion of sorts. Now civil disobedience in terms of criminal action is wrong, and I believe that this is what Paul was more referring to, considering his governmental situation.

But then again, the Patriots did that too…

Proposition 8 and The Question of True Freedom

(originally written by myself on 29 Oct 2008)

It seems that the people I associate with, the Christians, are torn apart on this. However, it is for all the wrong reasons. On the one side, there are those who are against the moral issue of homosexual union in marriage or otherwise. These, according to moral conviction, are voting positive on Proposition 8 to ban homosexual marriage. The other side of the Christian community, a minority amongst evangelicals, is voting negative on the proposition, but also according to moral conviction that homosexual marriage is not wrong. The major discrepancy is what both sides have in common – voting according to moral conviction.

It seems that there is a growing sentiment that we must vote for what we believe, and that voting to allow something considered sinful is in itself a sin. Let’s explore this notion a bit. Our constitution allows the citizens of the United States the freedom of and from religion. Any Christian would vote for freedom of religion. However, allowing this free practice of faith and belief also allows other religions onto the playing field that the Christian church would consider an abomination to God. Is it then wrongful for a Christian to support the freedom of religion? No sensible Christian I know would say that. It certainly is not. But it’s a system of give and take. It would be wrong, however, for a Christian (or any citizen) to support any proposition of government that favors only one institution of religion. A Christian could not rightfully wish this one imposed and established institution to be Christianity, for they know it could easily have been made another religion or even a different Christian denomination. Therefore, all reasonable Christians I’ve known support both the freedom of and from religion and the banning of government established religions. Both have a flip side to the coin – they allow the practice of other religions without imposition from their own. Supporting this is then also supporting the free practice of religions against the cause of Christ. So we may see that the simple act of allowing a law that permits sin is not necessarily itself a sin.

The other argument is the family structure and the detriment of tearing down the natural order. But, as we just have explored, Christians are willing to allow the freedoms of religions that most would believe are a detriment to the nation or any group of people – because it may allow them to worship and practice as they wish. It’s also a rash fallacy to assert that allowing for homosexual marriage would influence the majority’s opinion on what true marriage is and that this “breaking down” of the genetic structure of families will landslide into the breaking down of the nation and the majority opinion of family. Tied into this is the argument of what children will be, or must be, taught in public education. Whether or not children are taught about marriage in the school structure or if they then, if homosexual marriage is allowed, will be taught homosexual marriage and encouraged to celebrate it is not an issue of Proposition 8. Such a biased and unwarranted response from the public education systems may be a possibility, but this is a fault of the educational system and must be addressed separately as are all such matters (Creationism vs. Evolution). The educational systems should not respond in this way without a consensus of the people. Education is not necessarily a “civil liberty” as far as the manner of the education administered but is rather a personal choice on the behalf of the affected parties. As far as what exactly is being taught in schools to young children is a matter that should be assessed by a general consensus from the parents whose children it affects (All of these matters, however, would be far more greatly resolved with an at least semi-privatized educational system, of course, but that’s neither here nor there). In the end, the civil liberties and rights of certain citizens should not be detained on behalf of an improper reaction by other citizens to those rights being administered. After all, the Second Amendment gives me the right to keep and bear firearms, but it doesn’t mean that second graders have to be taught how to use one.

The only sin occurring here is that of selfishness and pride. It’s unfair, as far as government is concerned, to assert one’s personal freedom, yet decisively disallow another’s. The Christian must learn that it is necessary to separate moral opinion from political decision. This is an issue of government and is separate from any opinions of right or wrong. The church itself owes a debt of gratitude to the free practice of personal morality. If moral decision was not made free, there would be no soul winning, no knocking on doors, a passing out of tracts. If laws are passed based on moral issues such as the banning of homosexual marriages, then who’s to stop the attempt at passing propositions to ban evangelical efforts? This is not a landslide. It’s a very real comparison and a very real potential threat. The church must be careful when dealing with the affairs of the world and when trying to impose its moral grid on those who don’t necessarily believe. As citizens of free government, we must endorse freedom for all. As Christians, we must remember that God’s chosen tool to impart His Spirit, salvation, and Holy Word upon mankind is not the government, but the church. It is a sad day in the church’s existence when it sees itself as so powerless that it must look to the systems of the world to make its impact.

“For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Are you not to judge those inside? But God will judge those outside.” (1 Corinthians 5: 12-13, NET Bible)