Posted on 09/07/2020 7:14:02 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A few months back, some guy began flirting with my 19-year old daughter via her Instagram account. This is (unfortunately) pretty common, but much to my delight she does a great job with slamming the door in their face.
However, this particular guy was more persistent than usual and wouldn’t back off. His tenacity led my daughter to use her excellent technical sleuthing skills to find out exactly who he was.
Turns out the guy was a married youth pastor.
My daughter found him, his church, his wife, and other details. That presented us with the dilemma of whether we should contact his church and wife and inform them of the guy’s problematic pastime.
The experience also led my daughter to open up to my wife and me about the continuing disappointment she has with other supposed Christians. She and my older daughter have stopped going to church because they found those in the young adult groups to be far less kind, welcoming and authentic than those in their secular college crowds.
We got story after story from her of young Christian guys going on mission trips who end up attempting to molest the girls in their group. Witnessing first-hand episodes of drug use, outlandish lying and deception and similar behaviors from their peers (and their peer’s parents) have both my girls thinking that people in the church cannot be trusted in any way, shape or form.
Not exactly a pick-me-up kind of tale, huh?
But wait – aren't we told that Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven? That if you ever find the perfect church, you shouldn’t join because you’ll spoil it (said Billy Graham and Charles Spurgeon)?
We say these things in hopes of convincing non-Christians that they shouldn’t let mistakes they’ve made in their life keep them from pursuing Christianity nor expect perfection from Christians when evaluating the faith. After all, the Bible tells us we all have a sin nature that causes us to fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23) and that, even after being born again, the same sin nature remains active and causes us to do wrong (Rom. 7).
But what if our critics are more right than we like to admit? What if hypocrisy and a spirit that is anything but Christlike typifies the Church’s behavior these days?
Studies done by David Kinnaman and his Barna group, which you can find summarized in books like unChristian and You Lost Me, show that the best argument against Christianity isn’t the problem of evil or any other apologetics-styled objection. Instead, it’s the lives lived out by professing Christians.
It’s what caused the German philosopher Nietzsche to say, “I might believe in the Redeemer if his followers looked more redeemed” and Gandhi to declare: “I like Christ, but I don’t like the Christians. The Christians are so unlike their Christ.”
We read in Scripture statements like, “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come” (2 Cor. 5:17) and “Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4).
If this is true, why is it that the “new things” and “newness of life” in professing Christian’s lives either seem completely absent or appear so seldom?
It’s at this point that many church leaders throw out the ‘church isn’t perfect’ line in hopes of blunting the accusation. Frankly, I’m tired of hearing it.
We’ve gotten to the point where this excuse uses Paul’s admissions of struggling with sin in Romans 7 like some kind of permission slip; it goes beyond admitting that we sin to almost justifying persistent sinful behavior. Plus, it does nothing to address the very real problem of incongruent behavior that exists between Christ and His Church.
I’d like to suggest a couple of possible root causes for what Kinnaman and others observe along with some cures for the issues.
I believe the biggest source of this problem to be the fact that today’s Church is 9-months pregnant with unbelievers. I say this not judgmentally, but rather because I used to be one.
There’s nothing wrong with unbelievers being in Church. But, there’s everything wrong with them staying unbelievers.
So many who sit in the pews think that because they believe in God, they’re saved and safe. So, you believe in God, do you? Big deal.
The Pharisees believed in God and Jesus rhetorically asked them how they would escape the sentence of Hell (Matt. 23:33). James told his readers if that’s all they possessed then they had nothing more than the demons (James 2:19).
When you combine a reluctance from the pulpit to offend audiences about the truth of their sin with nothing more than a general acknowledgement from that crowd that God exists, you have everything needed for a false faith, false assurance, and a life that in no way will live out the teachings of Christ because, simply put, it lacks the power to do so (e.g. Rom. 8:7).
Instead of services that resemble a comfy group Youtube session, the Church needs straightforward teaching that speaks the truth in love about sin in a way that makes an unbeliever’s conscience and soul uncomfortable to the point where they seek help. Only then will the unbeliever in the pew become a true Christian and start exhibiting the fruit and changed life that confirms a true conversion has taken place (James 2).
Lately I’ve noticed a very bad trend in my own life. When frustrated or angered, in the heat of the moment, I’ve started to let foul language fly.
This hasn’t been something with which I’ve ever really wrestled, and it’s bothered me greatly because Jesus said: “the mouth speaks that which fills the heart” (Luke 6:45). After some contemplation, I think I know what’s going on.
My wife and I have been consistently streaming various drama series that, while containing good story lines and acting, are overloaded with bad language. I’m convinced my new problem with expletives is related to that which I’ve been constantly letting in my ear-gate.
The battle with our fallen nature is real. Paul confirms this when he says, “For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please” (Gal. 5:17). Ingesting a constant, bad diet through the eyes, ears, wrong relationships and actions will result in ungodly habits forming, just like the old Church proverb says:
Two natures beat within my breast
The one is foul, the one is blessed
The one I love, the one I hate.
The one I feed will dominate.
This is why we’re told: “sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it” (Gen. 4:7). Disregarding this truth and immersing oneself in the world is a recipe for disaster where Christlikeness is concerned.
Look how fast it happened to me.
The letters of Paul are full of admissions about the struggles with sin and our spiritual war. But let’s not forget that the same Paul who wrote those things also wrote:
Paul didn’t let the reality of Romans 7 keep him from pursuing the goal that is in front of you and me each morning: Christlikeness. In fact, Paul was so confident of his behavior that he exhorted others to mimic him.
Would you feel comfortable right now doing the same?
No, the Church isn’t perfect, but if we’re not careful, we’ll use that reality as a green-light to sluff off sin and before you know it, you’re a married youth pastor who makes sexual advances over the Internet to 19-year old girls.
And that’s one tragic place to be.
Robin Schumacher is an accomplished software executive and Christian apologist who has written many articles, authored and contributed to several Christian books, appeared on nationally syndicated radio programs, and presented at apologetic events. He holds a BS in Business, Master's in Christian apologetics and a Ph.D. in New Testament. His latest book is, A Confident Faith: Winning people to Christ with the apologetics of the Apostle Paul.
Regarding James vs. Paul, the questions is do works follow faith, or is it faith + works? c.f. Ephesians 2:8-10.
James and Paul are not in opposition, rather they stand back-to-back to antinomians and legalists.
These four Canons, with the text I quoted in bold:
CANON 18. That grace is not preceded by merit. Recompense is due to good works if they are performed; but grace, to which we have no claim, precedes them, to enable them to be done.
CANON 19. That a man can be saved only when God shows mercy. Human nature, even though it remained in that sound state in which it was created, could be no means save itself, without the assistance of the Creator; hence since man cannot safe- guard his salvation without the grace of God, which is a gift, how will he be able to restore what he has lost without the grace of God?
CANON 20. That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it.
CANON 25. Concerning the love with which we love God. It is wholly a gift of God to love God. He who loves, even though he is not loved, allowed himself to be loved. We are loved, even when we displease him, so that we might have means to please him. For the Spirit, whom we love with the Father and the Son, has poured into our hearts the love of the Father and the Son (Rom. 5:5).
You literally just outright claimed that the canon of Scripture contains false teaching and that the Apostle Paul is a heretic.
That sounds like rejecting the authority of both Scripture AND the Apostles!
How can it possibly be not?
______________________________________________________
Because those verses of Scripture that are false or that are susceptible to false interpretation are balanced by other verses that correct or properly contextualize the prior verses.
Why couldn’t Paul could have injected his own personal theological opinions into his letters alongside legitimate, widely-agreed upon Christian doctrine?
Because those verses of Scripture that are false or that are susceptible to false interpretation are balanced by other verses that correct or properly contextualize the prior verses.
***
Why should I believe that the verses YOU claim are true really ARE true?
Since Scripture, according to you, teaches falsehood, how am I to tell what parts are true?
Why couldn’t Paul could have injected his own personal theological opinions into his letters alongside legitimate, widely-agreed upon Christian doctrine?
***
Well, if you believe what Paul has to say, it’s because he was taught by Jesus himself...
So either Paul is a most horrendous liar, or Jesus is a heretic too.
ALSO, considering that HUGE swaths of Paul’s writing are specifically dedicated to defending salvation through faith alone, that’s a lot more than “injected his own personal theological opinion.”
As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18, note the following Early Church Fathers promise in the profession of faith of Vatican 1:
• Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:
'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. — Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.
• Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:
You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. — 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].
• Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:
'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. — Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455
• Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:
Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. — Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)
• Cyril of Alexandria:
When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”. — Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.
• Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):
“For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'
“For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.” — Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)
• Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II):
Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.
Sigh...
25 When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?”
26 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”
28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’[c]”
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.
40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
Ok, thank you for clarifying. These Canons demonstrate the influence of Augustine’s theology and the final, utter rejection of Pelagianism.
I’ll try to briefly explain how Augustine’s views (which these Canons are) do not necessarily conflict with mine.
For Augustine, a person is so utterly depraved that he or she cannot even think good thoughts of any kind. Human beings can do good deeds, but only after God puts the idea in their mind. Another consequence of man’s fallen nature is that human beings mostly do not want to do good deeds even after God puts the motive in their mind. At first glance this does not violate Free Will. And I’m apt to agree up to this point.
But Augustine takes things a step further. He says that God can not only put good motives in a person’s mind, but also make them strong enough to be overwhelming, if God so desires. He does not say if God has ever done so, but hints that he may have had (Think about how he “hardened pharaoh’s heart”.) The obvious danger here is Predestination which pulls some to salvation while driving others to condemnation.
So, how does this tie in with your claim that my views violate the below mentioned Canons? In short, I’m not denying the effects of Grace in human life so long as 1) grace leaves some room for free will and (as a consequence) 2) grace does not imply that man is incapable of rejecting God freely in the future. If a man honestly believes in God fervently in his youth, but then goes to University and becomes steeped in Marxism only to vehemently deny God’s existence for the rest of his life unto death, then that man will not see the face of God. What he passionately had faith in during his youth is irrelevant.
ALSO, considering that HUGE swaths of Paul’s writing are specifically dedicated to defending salvation through faith alone, that’s a lot more than “injected his own personal theological opinion.
________________________________________________
No, it really isn’t.
29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
_____________________________________________
Concerning verse 29: So there is at least one work that man must do?
Concerning verse 40: I say “Amen!” But before people “believe in him”, they have to know what believing in him means. The devil is in the details. This is where one either sets a person on the path to lifelong faith or eventually loses them (if you even get them at all).
From your response, it seems clear that you do not agree in totality with the Council of Orange, since you stated that is it influenced by Augustine’s theology and also stated that he was a heretic.
What council or papal bull reversed the Council of Orange, and how do we know that the latter is correct?
Were the people Jesus was teaching and preaching to under the Law??? The answer is yes, of course...They were devout law abiding Jews...
At what point were they no longer under the law???
When did the events in James take place and when was it written???
Like Paul's epistles was the book of James written to the church???
Who was James written to???
The actual apostle appointed to lead the Catholic Church and all other Gentile churches you call a heretic??? You have rejected ALL the scriptures written to the church...
No, it really isn’t.
***
Prove it.
Am I to assume by your lack of response to my other two posts that I have you over a barrel and you concede all my other points?
Well Paul DID write over 50% of the New Testament. He also referred to "my gospel" numerous times as that which he received DIRECTLY from Jesus Christ, for example:
2) Paul didn’t “write down what Jesus said”. He’s not like Muhammad who supposedly dictated the literal words directly from God’s mouth. We was inspired to write down what he wrote. That does not mean it is the literal Word of God spoken directly from the mouth of Jesus (or the Father).
Doesn't sound like you understand what "verbal plenary inspiration" is. The prophets of God wrote as they were moved by/carried along by the Holy Spirit (II Peter 1:21). Paul explicitly taught and wrote what he received directly from Christ:
What we don't do is presume Paul's writings are in any way superior to the other books of Holy Scripture. That's because it is ALL by revelation of the same Holy Spirit. It is why they are the authority for our faith. They set the rule of our faith and this is something that was believed and upheld long before the church of Rome decided they were an authority over the word of God.
There are no scriptures that are false...If you can't reconcile two scriptures that appear to oppose each other the fault doesn't lie in the scriptures...The fault is yours for not being able to get beyond the milk of the word...
Why couldn’t Paul could have injected his own personal theological opinions into his letters alongside legitimate, widely-agreed upon Christian doctrine?
Now that's funny...Do you honestly think Paul or God cared a whit about widely-agreed Catholic or any other doctrine??? How ridiculous...Legitimate Christian Doctrine...What hubris...
God created the doctrine and Paul passed it on to us...And that's why the Catholic religion exists...They didn't care much for God's doctrine so they invented their own...
And Paul DID inject his own personal opinions but where he did, he let us know he did...Every thing else came from God, whether you like it or admit it or not...
1Co 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
1Co 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
1Co 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
They DO??!!??
I guess why it is spelled out so clearly in every epistle that them apostles wrote; just so no one would be confused or even; GASP!; lost!!
Prove it.
____________________________________________
I already did to the extent that it is possible to prove anything to you.
Narrowly, Paul’s position on Justification was not and is not orthodoxy among the majority of Christians who have ever existed throughout the world. On many other issues there are agreement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.