Posted on 07/28/2008 10:39:19 PM PDT by Gamecock
Hello and welcome to another edition of the White Horse Inn. In our last couple of programs we have been talking about Pelagianism, its history, the nature of the heresy of Pelagianism, and the way it cashes out in contemporary American Christianity. We were talking in the last program particularly about how consistent the 19th century revivalist Charles Finney was in applying his theology to practice. He actually believed that essentially we save our selves, by following the example of Christ; exactly as Pelagius taught, and he totally transformed the view of the ministry in order to be consistent with that theology. "Sinners bound to change their own hearts" summarizes his theology - that was the title of one of his sermons. Since the Gospel in his view is a call to moral improvement and the church is a moral transformation society it only stands to reason that the criterion for the methods employed is pragmatic success. Where, for example, the Heidelberg Catechism reminds us that the Holy Spirit creates faith in our hearts by the preaching of the Holy Gospel and confirms it by the use of the Holy Sacraments. Finney was convinced that faith and repentance could be induced, as he put it, by the most efficient means. And therefore, his "New Measures" as he called them replaced the means of grace. Christians, he said, must be frequently converted which means there must always be new excitements to move people to ever higher levels of commitment and activism - this is precisely the logic of the righteousness that is by works, the Theology of Glory, to which Paul refers in Romans 10, striving to bring Christ down from heaven or up the dead as if he was not as near as the Gospel he proclaims to us.
If salvation is in our hands then the means are in our hands. If it is up to us to save ourselves, then it's up to us to build the church. Finney said, "The Great Commission just said 'Go' it did not prescribe any forms. And the disciples' object was to make known the Gospel simply in the most efficient way so as to obtain attention and secure obedience of the greatest number possible. No person can find any form of doing this laid down in the Bible." Which means of course do you not only have to ignore a whole lot of passages, but that basically its all up to the charismatic, clever evangelist and his circle to come up with the methods that can accomplish the glorious results that evidently the Gospel's preaching and delivery through the sacraments doesn't obtain.
Defining the church as a society of moral transformers Finney consistently related what he regarded the mark of the true church to its mission, where Reformation Christianity identifies the true church with God's activity through his means of grace, preaching and sacrament, for Finney the true church is identified with our activity. And all of this leads finally to the point where George Barna has argued recently in a number of books that we have reached the place of the "Revolutionaries," "Millions of believers" he says, "have moved beyond the established church and chosen to be the church instead. Based on our research" Barna relates cheerfully, "I have projected that by the year 2010 10-20% of Americans will derive all of their spiritual input and output through the Internet. Ours is not the business of organized religion" he says, "corporate worship or Bible teaching. If we dedicate ourselves to such a business, we will be left by the wayside as the culture moves forward. Those are fragments of a larger purpose to which we have been called by God's Word, we are in the business of life-transformation." That's what we are talking about folks. How far will this Pelagianism go? How far will the new excitements that spring us up that ladder to pull Christ down out of heaven, how far will this theology of Glory go? What's the end of the line? According to George Barna it ends with the end of the church. That's what we will be talking about in this particular program, the means of grace being consistent with the message of grace.
Indeed.... you've said a good thing..
He that has two good ears will hear it..
He with only one good one may not..
And he with none is dumb...
AMEN! AMEN!
True...It takes 2 for a church...
The new testament word church(Ekkesia) means "called out one(s)" not assembly...
There can be "1" called out.. of a sheep pen(John ch 10)..
So you are wrong..
The apostles seem to have missed the message in John ch 10..
That is, as Jesus said, they did (miss it)..
It is possible to be the only one..
Not preferrable but possible..
The paraclete(Holy Spirit).. will come along side to fellowship if there is only one.. because that is what paraclete means.. "one that comes along side to help"..
To help whom?.. Answer: the one(s) "called out".. whether one or more than one..
The object being meeting with the Holy Spirit not other sheep..
Following the Shepherd not other sheep..
The fellowship and facility of similar minds is a good thing too.
Is a sheep pen a church?.. according to Jesus.. or something else?.. The book of revelation treats the word church/assembly not in the highest regard.. John ch 10 treats the word church/flock a bit differently.. Could be an interesting discussion about this word/ concept/ metaphor.. However many with an ax to grind over the english word church might be afraid to discuss it..
No contention here just pointing out that the body of Christ is divided by the use of the word Church. IE Where do you go to church what church are you a member of. Paul had lots to say about the devision he was seeing and was glad that he did not baptize any of them.
You don’t see it?
I don’t see Jesus in the desert alone as a church model for us today.
One thing I've encountered frequently of late is exemplified in the following encounter:
I'm talking with a business owner about his business. He mentions he's the member of some non-denominational denomiation called "Christ the King". I'm not sure what this is exactly, but believe from what I've heard that they are one of the myriads of groups that takes a rather light view of God.
I mentioned that I had met a sweet elderly lady from that church who grew up Reformed. I mentioned that my family is Reformed.
He quips back: "Well, we'll ultimately be Reformed when we stop using denominational labels."
I just laughed it off and bid him good day, but was thinking that THIS exemplifies the irrelevance of the church. What this well-intentioned gentleman was really saying is that we'll be better off when we all believe in nothing.
How big was Moses’?
At times, he was quite alone.
Interesting interchange.
Seems to me that the Biblical model is to have connectivity/oversight between bodies of believers. Non-denom churches don’t have that.
I call myself by various labels one of which is Particular Baptist in the sense of Bunyan, Dr. (Voluminous) John Gill, .... That means, as you know, we differ on baptism & in some sense on the governance of the Church.
Recently I became aware of a number of recantations regarding believer's baptism: so I asked "why?"; but as the arguments were a bit too involved for my (false humility) pea brain I googled for an answer. That led me to a website where I was advised to read "A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology". That discourse defined "Church" as consisting of both believers & non-believers: for that definition I always use (capital "c") Church, whereas for "church" I substitute "body of Christ". The "... Overview ..." made it clear (my def of) Church, not church, the body of Christ, was in view.
So to simplify "A Simple Overview...": Baptism is for the Church, as Circumcision is for national Israel: which means, as infants were Circumcised, whether of the true Circumcision or not(Romans etc), so infants of the Church are to be Baptized: that is, some are under the C of Works & some the C of Grace, but both are within the domain of definition of Church. The problem I have is it seems to me to be a "working backwards from the result, padeo-, to a reason for it". Frankly I have speculated that infant- was the result of coupling "Baptismal Regeneration" with "a plethora of untimely deaths".
I have yet to see a direct connection between Circumcision & baptism; but rather as in type & anti-type. Note I used "baptism" as in Romans 6.
All said, I have no fight, especially with Luther: who I understand once said something like "what better way to show the grace of God than to Baptize one who had no idea of what was happening": even though that smacks of "Baptismal Regeneration". I have been Baptized in a Lutheran Church & baptized in a (Arminian) Baptist Church. I was/am only trying to understand the recantations.
But what about the Church?
If I hear the voices correctly some would go so far as to imply they would pool their ignorance rather than go to Church; I can understand why if like me they wonder how one can remain a Christian after seminary. There is a great radio station "Pilgrim Radio", available on the internet, where I heard parts of a book entitled "Young,Restless, & Reformed" wherein a seminary head stated that there was a much bigger problem in his seminary than holding to the doctrines of grace; the bigger problem was professors who did not believe Jesus was raised from the dead; I do not imply he said they were currently on staff: I do not know; he was simply stating he had no agenda for doctrines of grace, he has a more important problem.
I suppose contrary to you I hold to the local Church as the Independents, Congregationalists, etc. But I certainly would be a member of any Church whose constitution/pastoral-staff is consistent with God's Sovereignty/Doctrines of Grace
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.