Healthy Christianity: Its Root and Foundation. Series on Sanctification (Part Three)

Healthy Christianity:  Its Root and Foundation (Series on Sanctification part Three)

Series Part One            Series Part Two

What does healthy Christian growth look like?  I would like to believe that all professing Christians were on the same page on this concept.  This is especially true when applied to the category of Christian growth (think: progressive sanctification).  Let's assume for the sake of argument that people have passed through the doorway (the right door, and there's only one), and now being in the room how will they live while in the house?  Yes, I know this is just an illustration but if a person claims to be a Christian (let's give the benefit of doubt, assuming they have true saving faith), what does or should their life look like?  Are they bearing fruit?  Are they producing good works?  Are they making any effort to obey any command period actually found in the scriptures? (Just for sake of acknowledgement: Christians bear fruit in various degrees, times, and appearance).

Let's reconsider some concepts mentioned above.  What is a professing Christian?  What is true saving faith?  Who defines these terms?  Of course whatever your answer it has something to do with a Biblically-informed content but what content (even cults can do this)?  Will it be so minimal that it basically avoids the offense of nearly every self-proclaimed church or believer (even cults can mention the name of Jesus or believe something)?

We will revisit these ideas much later down the road but let me highlight two words again, "professing" Christian and "saving" faith?  Hope you caught it earlier but these are huge concepts and areas of division among evangelicals.  Who are these people?  Eventually we will have to discuss terms like assurance, perseverance, and preservation but for now the general topic is sufficient.  So who is this person and how does this topic related to the series on sanctification?  Let's consider some options from systematic theology (which may or may not include all the available biblical data).  For sake of familiarity (I'll use the phrase, "Perseverance of the Saints").  Historically this is the the "P" from the acronym TULIP (please note I am not commenting on whether the phrase is correct or not but simply a point of reference for illustration).

1.  Why do we use the adjective "professing" Christian?  Are there fake Christians or people that only look like Christians on the outside?  Consider some phrases you've probably heard before: they have head knowledge but not heart knowledge, they are professors but not possessors, or they have religion but not a relationship.  I would suggest these phrases are all struggling with the same kind of issues (and they all have their own trumping proof texts which they believe solves the issue).

2.   Why do we use the adjective "saving" faith?  Are there Christians who have unsaving faith or a faith that doesn't save anyone?  James tells us that even demons believe and tremble.  Does hiding in the content or object of faith help any?  Can you faith increase or grow?  Again, why the need for the adjective?  Just like point one, there is a struggle here....................

3.  Why does the "P" of the TULIP use the word saints?  Why does it not say, "Perseverance of all believers"?  Why not perseverance of everyone that walks an aisle, prays a prayer, raises their hand, fills out a card, becomes a member of a local church?  If you carefully look at the text of the epistles, the audience is always addressed as "saints" or "brethren," so the writers don't seem to make the distinction we do (just to be fair, we will address spiritual/carnal later).  

4. Does God's character change if it doesn't match my interpretations of the text?  Is God not keeping his promises according to my theological boxes?  Am I creating a God of my own making who allows me to live and do whatever I want?  Is it the same God that promises both blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience (or do we only want to emphasize one part)?

All these areas questions are part of progressive sanctification (health Christian growth).  Eventually we must deal with issues such as fruit bearing, good works, or obedience.  But these will come in time as we actually address specific texts in their context (especially how they get used and abused).  I would like to suggest that a great deal of misunderstanding comes from dealing with certain texts individually and then treating them alone as though they are the sole voice on this particular issue.  Struggling through multiple texts on an issue may produce brain sweat but they both are true whether we can harmonize them or not.

Hope this helps some.

Comments encouraged.

Orthodoxy, Orthopraxy, and Orthopathy: Series on Sanctification (Part Two)

Orthodoxy, Orthopraxy, and Orthopathy

Series Part One

You may or may not have experienced these terms before but they are crucial to understanding a healthy view of Biblical Christianity.  Consider their three simple definitions:

First, orthodoxy is correct doctrine/teaching.  The content is right.

Second, orthopraxy is correct living.  The lifestyle is right.

Third, orthopathy is right emotional and/or affections.

To deny a right doctrine or teaching at worst case could produce a false teacher or false preacher.  Church history preserves this pillar for us through creeds, confessions, and doctrinal statements, all of which show that certain beliefs are correct and others are not.  But the scriptures do not stop identifying a healthy Christianity with beliefs alone, there is more.  Even those who adopt a minimalist view of core beliefs for the sake of fellowship or defining what a Christian is are in fact admitting that certain beliefs do matter.

To deny a right lifestyle is essential and many times may have its own motives: avoidance of confrontation, refusal to address a known sinful lifestyle, refusal to obey clear commands found in scripture, avoidance of ad hominems such as "legalist," etc....  In recent evangelical history, primarily in writing and preaching, this has been an issue of divide.  Consider the terms indicative and imperative.  The orthodoxy (point one above) has this one nailed down.  They believe in right doctrine however when it comes to the imperatives then we have a new ball game.  Actually its kind of ironic that the same ones accusing others of Pharisaism, legalism or any other self-defined position turn around and make up their own lists (usually from a minimalist position).

But in the end there are too many action verbs (regardless of verb tense) orchestrating the lives of every believer.  You could also view this through the lens of bearing fruit and good works repeatedly demanded of true believers.  If this were not enough, right doctrine and practice is still not enough to produce a truly desirable Christianity.  Even as I write this I am looking at the mission statement of a our church our family attended years ago.  Their statement ends with this clause, "glorifying God our Father in all we do and say."  Here's a test case question: when you hear or read someone use the phrase sola scriptura, what do they really mean (maybe sounding reformed is cool, relevant,  or trendy)?  Do they mean the Bible is sufficient or the only source of authority for doctrine alone?  Very interesting that sola scriptura doesn't apply to how we actual live (think: right beliefs, but wrong lifestyle).
      
Lastly, to deny that right emotions or affections are necessary leaves you open to influence from a plethora of external sources (all of which of course are neutral and unbiased, as some will claim).  These last two are commonly denied to make it convenient for focusing only on correct doctrine and practice (that is right living and affections don't matter).  There are many doors to the human heart changing and/or affecting our desires (eyes, ears, touch, etc...).  I'll be blunt to end this section.  If the sounds going into your head are producing emotions and affections that do not correspond with scripture, then the sound is not aiding in your sanctification.  If what is placed before your eyes, is producing horrible images and thoughts in your mind and heart, then what you are viewing is not helpful.  Or worse any of these gates to the heart produces sinful thoughts (followed with sinful actions), then don't claim it is aiding in your personal growth.

In recap as this series on sanctification begins there are multiple aspects to a healthy view of Biblical Christianity.  

History through careful Biblical exposition, creeds, and confessions has repeatedly defended that orthodoxy (right beliefs), orthopraxy (right living) and orthopathy (right affections) are all necessary for a correct view of Biblical Christianity.

Hope this is helpful to your personal daily walk with the Lord.

Comments encouraged.

Christian Growth: Misnomer or Personal Necessity? (Series on Sanctification) Part One

Christian Growth: Misnomer or Necessity? (Series on Sanctification) Part One

Believe it or not every form of religion teaches and practices some form of growth or maturing process (even if dying, rebirth, or rituals).  It is not my intention nor purpose to encourage or teach on the belief and practices of what I consider to be false religions.  It is however my intention here to discuss the differing views of sanctification within what is called Biblical Christianity (yes many use the name but have dramatically different definitions for the term).

So before we can dive into this topic I need to elaborate on several specific terms (mentioned already above).

(Caveat: I am well aware of many textbooks (written or electronic), systematic theologies, creeds, confessions, lectures, sermons, etc.  that begin their topics with definitions.  Many times their entire argument is a defense of their own definitions, which have been carefully crafted, whether they be self-derived straw men, either/or,  or other fallacies is another question entirely).  So with that in mind let me craft some straw-men, how well they burn is up to others.  I will list some recent publications at the end of this article.

Click link here to review the previous article on informal fallacies.     Informal Fallacies Article

First, in reference to the term Christian growth.  I am referring to what is known in broader evangelical Christian circles to what we call progressive sanctification.  I wish it were true, but not all Christians actually believe sanctification is progressive (chances are, you've got some of their books and aren't aware of what they actually say--a hidden danger).  We will address this issue in time.

Second, in reference to sanctification.  I am referring to the traditional three-part division.  It commonly is divided with the use of adjectives (you should be concerned if the speaker/author denies one of these three).  Consider the terms, you'be probably heard before: (1) initial (maybe even "definitive" sanctification perhaps chronological placed near justification), (2) progressive sanctification (actual daily Christian growth and maturing), and (3) final sanctification (related to issue of glorification).  These three terms can also be identified with actual Greek verb tenses.  Many verbs related to this topic occur in the past tense (both aorist and perfect tense).  In a similar way a vast selection of verbs appear in the present tense (now).  Lastly, verbs associated with this issue occur as future tense verbs (things that will happen).

Third, many polarizing terms appearing under this theological umbrella have multiple meanings (equivocation, see blog post on Informal Logic).  These different meanings have actually changed over time.  Someone can be accused of one definition of the term but not the other definitions of the term.  Let's consider one example here of a term which does not appear in scripture: antinomianism.  Does this mean only "against the law" or "no law" (easy bullet to dodge if definition is restricted only here)?  Does it mean that part of the Mosaic law doesn't apply today or all the mosaic law doesn't apply today?  Is there a sanctifying or even teaching purpose for the law?  Does it mean obedience to NT commands/imperatives is not necessary or required of believers?  Does it mean I should use the term grace in every other sentence so that I'm not accused of being a legalist (whatever this term means)?   Can it be both a theological and practical concept?  You decide.

Lastly, when I use the term Biblical, I am referring to the idea that all of our theology and practice must find its source within the scriptures.  Much disagreement happens with people who don't agree on acceptable proof texts, exegetical methodology, or systematic theology grids.  This is just my opinion but I would challenge you if you claim to believe sola scriptura (then do you actually believe it includes every area of life (theology, daily living, morality, ethics, music, culture)?  Or is it only the convenient to believe this when I can self-create adiophora boxes (think: "things indifferent").

Let's take one of these terms just as an example to show the varying degrees of difficult grappling with this topic.  Consider the term: believe.

It appears as both a substantive (think: noun or subject) and as a verb.
The verb can appear as a command and as past, present, and future verbs (including infinitives and participles).
The verb for believe has varying relationships to the word repentance (vast groups disagree here).
The verb has multiple chronological and theological positions in relation to the ordinance of baptism (both with water and spiritually).
The verb even has moods and motivations (this is a key area where ad hominems emerge--think name-calling).

And yes, all these examples for this one term are related to the concept of Christian growth.  How it starts, presently occurs, and finishes.  Even the continued concepts of prescriptive and descriptive verses comes into play in this conversation.  Consider some abuses (even informal fallacies) made from the above data:

1.  I could present sanctification as though it is completely past tense (making no reference to present or future verbs)?  This turns it into a indicative only form of sanctification (little room if any for obedience).

2.  I could present sanctification as though it is completely present tense (making no reference to past tense verbs)?  This creates a imperative only form of sanctification with what motive?

3.  I could take a verse here or there and create a mood or motivation that trumps even direct biblical statements in many other places (then call others names for disagreeing with my motivations).

4. I could accuse others of not being Christians for not seeing all the specifics of salvation just the way I do (insert terms like faith/repentance, faith/regeneration, faith/baptism, etc...).

5.  I could make up my own list of tasks and/or beliefs for sanctification then evaluate my progress based on my own list (even worse I could evaluate others sanctification based on my list).  Principles derived either through a descriptive and/or prescriptive means have dramatic implications in this area.

Please consider a sample listing of the following recently published books directly addressing this issue in relation to progressive sanctification.  Most of these were written directly or indirectly to address an error they perceive on this subject--some more helpful, others less (listed in alphabetical order).  I have deliberately selected broader conservative or new evangelical sources to show they are struggling with this issue as well as Biblical Fundamentalists.

Bridges, Jerry. The Pursuit of Holiness: Run in Such a Way as to Get the Prize 1 Corinthians 9:24. (NavPress, 2006).

DeYoung, Kevin. The Hole in Our Holiness: Filling the Gap between Gospel Passion and the Pursuit of Godliness. (Crossway, 2014).

Ferguson, Sinclair.  The Whole Christ: Legalism, Antinomianism, and Gospel Assurance--Why the Marrow Controversy Still Matters.  (Crossway, 2016).

Jones, Mark. Antinomianism: Reformed Theology's Unwelcome Guest? (P&R Publishing, 2013).

Piper, John. Acting the Miracle: God's Work and Ours in the Mystery of Sanctification. (Crossway, 2013).

Ryle, J. C. Holiness: Its Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties, and Roots (Multiple Printings).

Tchividjian, Tullian. Jesus + Nothing = Everything. (Crossway, 2011).

Hope this helps some.  Hope you are growing (whatever this means).

There will be much more to come in this thread.

Thoughts and comments encouraged.

Logic Resources to help Christians think better (Series part Two)

Logic Resources to help Christians think and reason better (Series Part Two)

Logic Series Part One

In a previous thread I mentioned several different informal fallacies used in sermons, teaching, and books (paper or digital).  For those interested in expanding their exegetical and theological tool box I am providing some sources here that I have found helpful over the years.  I have used them both on a personal growth level and for academic pursuits.  They can be found via kindle, logos, pdf, and even paperback or hardback books.

I am listing these alphabetically (not necessarily in order of value, importance, or personal favorites):

Adler, Mortimer J. and Charles Van Doren.  How to Read a Book.  Revised and Updated Edition. (New York: Simon and Schuster), 1972.

Bluedorn, Nathaniel and Hans Bluedorn.  The Fallacy Detective.  Thirty-Eight Lessons on How to                Recognize Bad Reasoning.  (Muscatine, IA: Christian Logic), 2002.

Bluedorn, Nathaniel and Hans Bluedorn.  The Thinking Toolbox: Thirty-Five Lessons That will Build your Reasoning Skills. (Muscatine, IA: Christian Logic), 2005.

Carson, D. A. Exegetical Fallacies. Second Edition. (Grand Rapids: Baker), 1996.

Lisle, Jason. The Ultimate Proof of Creation.  Resolving the Origins Debate.  (Green Forest, AR: New Leaf Publishing), 2010.

Nance, James B. and Douglas J. Wilson. Introductory: Logic. Fourth Edition. (Moscow: Canon Press), 2006.

Nance, James B. Intermediate Logic.  Second Edition. (Moscow: Canon Press), 2006.

Pirie, Madsen. How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic.  (New York: Continuum), 2006.

Weston, Anthony.  A Rulebook for Arguments. Fourth Edition. (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing), 2009.

I pray these resources will be of help in your logical thinking and evaluating of both text and teaching (especially during this election year).

Comments encouraged.

Use and Abuse of Logic in Theological Discussions (Series Part One)

Logic is employed in multiple degrees and usefulness when discussing biblical texts and theology (whether explicitly or implied).  I've used some words in the past that may have caused confusion.  You may have even read them in books and wondered what they are saying (or meant to say).  I am also concerned that you know how to recognize logical fallacies when you hear or read them through sermons, classes, lectures or in writing (electronic or paper).  Evaluating the opinions and views of others is especially important during an election year.  You can easily also apply the below fallacies to debates and political rhetoric.

From here I will list several (definitely not exhaustive) informal logical fallacies often employed via the above listed sources (preaching, teaching, writing, etc...).  These are some of the more common fallacies employed and at first glance they may preach, teach, or in article sound good and convincing but upon further glance the arguments or positions are nothing more than fallacies of formal or informal logic.  At a later date I may add full length articles on each fallacy identifying specific books, sermons, and authors who employ these fallacies on a regular basis.

Quick note (but not entirely), formal logic employs structured formulas.  For example:  All dogs are mammals.  All poodles are dogs.  Therefore, all poodles are mammals.  Since these sentences must meet certain forms and rules adhering to subject (s), predicate (p), and middle (m) terms they are considered formal.  They can be identified by their form and/or structure. The arguments validity and/or reliability is another subject.

Informal arguments must be evaluated based on their content (not the form "All S are P").  So what people say and/or write (their content) is critical in determining whether they are committing an informal fallacy.

Don't forget these positions are not actually the right alternatives and certainly not the only available positions.  These are examples to show why they fit into the category of informal "fallacy."  Consider the following (including illustrations of how they are used in preaching, teaching, and writing):

First, we will consider the either/or fallacy.  Put simply the presenter gives only two available alternative options and the listener must chose from only these two options.  If you don't believe position/doctrine A then you must believe the only available alternative position B.  Consider some examples (to make them easier to read I will use "if...then" statements):

If you are not a Dispensationalist then you must be the only other option a Covenant Theologian.
If you are not a Calvinist then you must be the only other option an Arminian.
If you don't believe God is absolutely sovereign then you must believe in free will.
If you don't believe in a plurality of elders then you must believe in congregational polity.
If you don't believe in Calvinistic Monergism then you must believe in Arminian Synergism.

Again, I'm not saying the above arguments are Biblically accurate.  I am only making the point to show how this fallacy is used.  They allow for no third option painting only two available options.  Usually presented in a manner that their option is the only orthodox or even acceptable option .

Second, we will consider the definition fallacy.  I am deliberately placing this fallacy after the either/or fallacy because it is so easy for a preacher, teacher or writer to employee these to help promote or justify their exegetical position or theological view(s).  The definition fallacy is primarily a way to define the term/position with all the proper caveats and exceptions so as to make other options sound or look incorrect or less than appealing.  What is then the standard for evaluating everyone else's position/views?  Their own definition.  This is especially why it is important to define exactly what someone means before labeling someone a certain way (not a helpful option).  Consider the polarizing terms such as legalist, antinomian, synergism, or new evangelical.

Third, building off the definition fallacy, we will consider the ad hominem fallacy.  In essence this fallacy attacks the person instead of their argument.  This is the normal name calling or character attack argument.  Using this name calling invokes a definition of the term employed primarily by the speaker/writer. You've heard the terms before (we will readdress this one below under equivocation).  Names like Calvinist, Arminian, Legalist, Synergist, Arminian, Fundamentalist, Liberal, Conservative, and Evangelical.  It makes it much easier to call people names and try to discredit them instead of ever actually exegetical interacting with their theological or exegetical position.  Sad thing is that the more super-charged the name the worse it appears.

Fourth, we will consider the straw man fallacy.  This one is quite simple.  Present the position you want to attack in extreme terms so that it is easier to refute.  Consider this slant: No Calvinists are evangelistic, Calvinism kills evangelism, or Calvinism leads to antinomianism.  Notice how heightened these statements are in attacking a particular theological system.  How about Bible-believing Fundamentalism being a group of KJV-only, Hell, fire, and brimstone Bible thumpers.  Does this mean that evangelicals don't believe in a literal hell or could hold to a KJV-only position?  Of course not.  But this makes the point.  The more extreme I can paint another person's position the less appealing it becomes.  It also makes it easier to attack, especially the more universal language employed then you can point out some exception to discredit the position (All Evangelical Arminians believe in prevenient grace).

Fourth, we will consider the genetic fallacy.  I will deliberately follow the straw man fallacy with this one.  The genetic fallacy put bluntly is to point to the source (origin) of the argument, not the argument itself.  If I can attack the source of an argument without actually interacting with the argument and showing why it is wrong, then I have committed the genetic fallacy.  Position A is wrong because it originated with organization or person B.  Not necessarily the association with B but position A found its source in organization/person B, therefore it must be wrong.

Fifth, the Red Herring fallacy.  Basically this is a means of introducing irrelevant information into an argument (not necessary for the argument), but it functions to distract from the real argument.  The person then reacts or responds to the unnecessary information never actually refuting the original argument.

Lastly, we will consider the equivocation fallacy.  This is very similar to several above fallacies.  Equivocation is using a single term/thought in multiple different ways within a single argument, article, sermon, etc....

Consider the following illustration combining many of the above fallacies.  See if you can catch them all (remember the terms and how they appear or are used).

All Fundamentalists are just a bunch of legalists.  So the only other safe and intelligent option is to be a conservative and balanced evangelical.  The Gospel Coalition has many evangelical adherents so it must be the right and educated alternative.  Of course, since evangelicals are not legalists then they must be antinomians.  Again, many liberals are also educated, so we should view education and evangelicals with suspicion.  Tree-huggers are concerned about conserving the environment.  Aren't Christians supposed to liberal givers?

So did you catch any of them?  There are quite a few fallacies in that one paragraph.

I will follow up this article with a listing of resources to help anyone and everyone on these issues of formal and informal logic.  Please train your heart and mind to read, listen and write with Christian discernment.  I pray this and the following helps will help you (it definitely has helped me over the years).

Hope this helps provide some tools to be a logically informed listener and reader.
Listen and read with a discerning eye and ear.

Christian Liberty and the Lord's Day/Sabbath Situation (Part Nine)

Series Part One     Series Part Two       Series Part Three       Series Part Four
     
Series Part Five     Series Part Six         Series part Seven       Series Part Eight

One issue that has continually reappeared throughout church history is the Sabbath/Lord's day issue.  Before closing with some descriptive/prescriptive principle/commands/patterns drawn from Rom 14 and 1 Cor 8-10 I would like to review some issue discussed in this series.

First, when did the Sabbath begin?  Is it a creation ordinance such as marriage?  Was it a latter motivation for one of  ten commandments?  If only one of the ten does it still have force today, some say yes and some say no?  

Second, how was the Sabbath practiced within the nation of Israel in the Old Testament and in the gospels?  It obviously was important and even selected and practice after returning from a 70 year captivity.  It is obvious that Jesus still observed the sabbath day (though not according to the man made additions of the Pharisees).

Third, the book of Acts records for us the disciples worshipping in the synagogue on the sabbath and meeting in churches on the first day of the week.  It was on the first day of the week when the historical event of Christ's bodily resurrection occurred.

Lastily, Paul's epistles to several local NT churches addressed this issue, both directly and in principle.  

So if many evangelical Christians today make not connection between the Sabbath and the Lord's day in 2016, how and when should we worship?  Some have taken great liberties while others have not.  Historically some people have fled homes and came to new countries for religious freedom.  I would also had from a historical stand point several church confession have highlighted this idea of personal liberty, especially in relation to application of the OT ceremonial law, and the uses and abuses of liberty (see London Baptist Confession, Chapter 21, "Of Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience"). 

I would like to suggest some principles (out of an actual belief in sola scriptura) on how we can live our Lord's day in a way pleasing to the Lord.  I will extract these principles from the above mentioned texts Rom 14 and 1 Cor 8-10.  By way of introduction, anyone familiar with these texts knows they can pack a punch to liberty, conscience, stumbling blocks, and actually practicing love for a brother.  Typically ad hominem rhetoric can emerge here in heavy dose: worldly, licentious, liberty, legalist, and antinomianism (whatever these terms mean).

By way of distinction, I would like to suggest Rom 14 addresses conscience/practice issues based on actual OT precedent or command among believers (I see no reference in the text to unbelievers).  On the other hand, 1 Cor 8-10 is addressing a believers partaking in a "neutral" activity made sinful based on its association to a place or ritual.  This context in contrast to Rom 14 contains scenarios pertaining to both believer's practice with believers and with unbelievers.  It is this latter category that feeds the music and culture and "neutral" issue.  If people can be convinced that culture and/or music is morally neutral then they can fight to apply these three chapters (don't need to make this one up, read the literature on this one). 

First some principles from Romans 14.  Paul addresses two kinds of believers: weak and strong.  Some would suggest we don't want to be either but a third type who is neither weak nor strong.  I do not expect anyone to agree with these, but these are only suggestions hopefully obvious from the text;

1)  Whether Jew or Gentile, some genuine Christian people, believe there are principles and or commands given in the Old Testament which their consciences are bound to keep (both days of observance and/or food and drink categories).  They may be tempted to or actually do look with judgment upon others.  

2)  On the other hand, whether Jew or Gentile, some genuine Christian people, do not believe there are principles and or commands given touching on days of worship (Sabbath in specific--for Israel only) and food/drink consumption (usually but not always fleshed out in alcoholic consumption).

From here I would like to make some applications that I have preached on multiple times extracted from Rom 14:13-23.  For sake of this thread I am rewording the statements to be applicable to the Lord's day/sabbath issue.  Consider with each point the consideration: Is my liberty or view here more important than love for a brother?
1) Do not knowingly cause another Christian to stumble through you liberties practiced on the Lord's Day?  (v.13)
2) Do not knowingly cause another Christian grief through your liberties practiced on the Lord's day? (v.14-15)
3) Do not knowingly destroy another Christian through your liberties practiced on the Lord's day? (v. 15)
4) Do not knowingly ruin your own testimony, witness, credibility, or ability to minister to others through your liberties practiced on the Lord's day (v. 16-19)
5) Do not knowingly tear down another Christian through you liberties practiced on the Lord's day (v. 20-21).
6) Do not condemn yourself by practicing your liberty on the Lord's day (v.22-23).

On to 1 Corinthians 8-10.  This section begins in the same fashion as 1 Cor 16 with "Now as touching" (same underlying Greek text).  The focus here directly referenced by many Bible chapter headings is "Food offered to idols."  So right off the bat the topic is the consumption of food but not just any food but food (meat in this case) associated with idol temple worship "things offered to idols" (v. 1).  Here again I would like to extract some principles from this three chapter context of 1 Cor 8-10.
1) Will this activity of mine on the Lord's day edify or tear down my fellow believer (1 Cor 10:23-30)?
2) Will this activity of mine on the Lord's day cause a "weaker brother" to stumble and/or to violate his conscience (1 Cor 8:9-13)?
3) What activity or liberty of mine will most contribute to the cause of the gospel (1 Cor 9:1-27; 10:32-33)?
4) Can I participate on the Lord's day in this liberty of mine to the glory of God (a good old camp verse I quoted many times before a meal at the WILDS) (1 Cor 10:31)?

This does not exhaust the issues involved but is simply an example of principles for living and worshiping on the Lord's Day.
I don't expect this to convince anyone but perhaps it will be a help to some struggling with this issue.

Thoughts and comments encouraged.

The Epistles and the Lord's Day/Sabbath Conversation (Part Eight)

The Epistles and the Lord's Day/Sabbath Conversation (Part Eight)

Series Part One     Series Part Two       Series Part Three       Series Part Four
     
Series Part Five     Series Part Six

There are very few actual references in the epistles to the Sabbath or to the Lord's Day.  Technically there is only one reference to the "first day of the week."  It is this one reference we will end with.
So from here we discuss 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 after some preliminary comments on related passages.

"Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.  Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come."

Two other related texts are Gal 4:10 and Col 2:16.  Gal 4:10 reads, "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years" and Col 2: 16 states, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days."

From here we have two goals: (1) to explain the texts in their specific context, and (2) to revisit the prescriptive/descriptive discussion as each text relates to the Lord's day/sabbath issue.

In Gal 4:1-7, Paul focuses on the believers sonship.  In verses 9-12 he focuses on their desire to want to return again to a situation he describes as "to the weak and beggarly elements" (v. 9).  He immediately qualifies this statement by identifying their observance of particular calendar events.  The events being described no doubt are part of the Jewish ceremonial calendar.   If not this then what is he referring to?  The text does not explicitly say observing these events is sinful in and of itself.  This would be contradictory to his own personal practice throughout the book of Acts, both passover, pentecost, the sabbath, and vows.  It would also be in contrast to his own teaching from Rom 14:5, "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike."  So if I am following Paul's argument it is not the observance of the sabbath (think: day, months, times and years) which is sinful.  It is the intent or motive that is driving the observance of these events.  This interpretation meshes well with Gal 3:1-5, where Paul was addressing a similar issue of law and faith and its relationship to receiving the Spirit (think: new birth).  It seems most obvious that they are trying to return to a position of having a righteous standing before God on the basis of obeying the law itself (I would suggest this is actual "theological legalism").  That position in itself is contrary to a righteousness of God by faith alone (Rom 3).

If a position on the church and its relation to the law is taken not allowing for the above interpretation then of course this makes it easy to see Paul's direct reference to any part of the ceremonial (or even any pre-determined part) of the law to not apply to the church.  I still have problems with this interpretation for the following summary reasons (not exhaustive): (1) nearly every NT sermon bases its texts or proof-texts from the OT; (2) the ten commandments themselves are repeatedly quoted even in direct reference to the church (see Eph 6:1-2); (3) you have to come to the conclusion that both Paul's teaching throughout the epistles and his personal practice in Acts are in error, since he is repeatedly trying to obey the law and avoid offense in its practice.  As to the ongoing application of the Mosaic law for the church today needs to be the topic of another thread (I would suggest this boarders on "theological antinomianism" not to be equated with "practical antinoianism").  I would define this (practical antinomianism) as the belief that a believer does not have to obey the precepts and/or commands of scripture nor is the reality of "progressive" sanctification a necessity for believers (these ideas will be readdressed in a later thread). I would suggest to an extent this in no way detracts from those who believe they are presently under the law of Christ as NT believers.  I do want to be careful here to avoid being accused of setting up straw men, ad hominem arguments, equivocation, and especially not either/or fallacies. If using the above labels draws criticism in this regard, then I apologize in advance.

Back to the other two texts.  Col 2;16 appears in a section where Paul is addressing a false philosophy.  Again the idea appears to be a warning of the concepts taught by false teachers.  Similar terms appear in relation to the Mosaic law, especially with ceremonial overtones: "holy day" "new moon" and "sabbath days."  Clearly the context again is drawing attention to the fact (just like back in Acst 15) there are people teaching that the observing of the these calendar and/or ceremonial aspects of the law are necessary to have a righteous standing before God.  Later on he reemphasizes this which the addition of human elements "Touch not, taste not, handle not" (v. 21).  Again issues that are of man-made derivation, "the rudiments of the world" (v. 20) and "the commandments and doctrines of men" (v. 22).  None of this is in contrast or contradiction to Paul's lifestyle practice or doctrinal teaching elsewhere on this subject.  To try to earn a righteous status before God via obedience to these would be in my estimation "doctrinal legalism." Not trying to create a straw man but the unfortunate reality is that there are those in evangelical circles who would accuse the same of Christians either of "doctrinal or practical legalism" for actually suggesting that Christians should obey the 500+ imperatives in the NT (ironic concept to obey scriptural commands out of love for Christ and God, the one law giver according to James).  (There are other dangers in this area making it certain that a thread on progressive sanctification is forthcoming).

Again these previous two texts did not directly address the "first day of the week" terminology.  They only made reference to "days' or to the "sabbath."  We turn now to the only reference in the epistles to "the first day of the week" (1 Cor 16:1-2).  This text is introduced by one of the last of introductory formulas in 1 Corinthians translated with the phrase "Now concerning."  Paul's immediate concern is the collection of finances (v. 1).  Paul uses an plural imperative verb (one of the 500+ NT commands) to instruct them to gather money for collection (v. 2).  It is not the collection of money that is our focus here, but on the particular day of the week in which it is to be collected, "the first day of the week" (v. 2). The text itself makes not direct connection with the sabbath nor with Christ's bodily resurrection form the dead (we would need to extrapolate this information from the gospel accounts).  What is important is how Paul addresses his readers.  It is almost as though the pattern for meeting on this day has already been occurring.  He gives no command for them to meet here nor in any other text (via command) to meet on the "first day of the week."  But he from what I can surmise assumes this is the day on which they are meeting corporately.  I don't believe it is too much of a stretch to interpret the text this way.  Consider the the fact that this letter was most likely written on his third missionary journey (Acts 18-21).  It is in this same chapter content where the previous identification occurred in Ephesus when they met on "the first day of the week."  Again its not that much of a guess to assume Paul already understood this corporate meeting pattern already in progress when he writes this letter.

So with this information in mind what should we do with it.  Is there a direct command or pattern to worship on the first day of the week?  I find a lack of any chapter and verse that says Christians must (via obedience to a NT command, "assuming this is not legalism").  On the other hand I find an incredible descriptive pattern showing on multiple occasions that NT believers in two different cities (Ephesus and Corinth) met on "the first day of the week."

The most I can extrapolate from the "day" and "sabbath" references is that some people do not believe there are in any way, form or fashion principles that can be applied to "the first day of the week."  Again I am perplexed in addressing a position that finds no place for the mosaic law for believers (especially considering the vast plethora of OT texts used to draw principles, applications, and even commands for NT believers).  So I guess if you have to be dogmatic needing a chapter and verse (prescriptive reasoning) for a NT worship day of the week, your going to have struggles.  However if the NT pattern matters (descriptive reasoning) then there is great weight to say Christians should be meeting corporately "on the first day of the week."  I would suggest this is "the Lord's day" (Rev 1:10).  This is the day Christ rose bodily from the grave and the NT church met corporately for worship.

Hope this helps some.
Again comments encouraged.
In so far as interpretation errors emerge of which I am to blame (I can only hope a better more consistent option for these texts can available).

One more thread to come on Christian Liberty and the Lord's Day/sabbath issue.

Worship Pattern in Acts: Prescriptive or Descriptive? (Part Seven)

Worship Patter in Acts: Prescriptive or Descriptive (Part Seven)

Series Part One     Series Part Two       Series Part Three       Series Part Four
     
Series Part Five     Series Part Six   

So when did the first century believers actually meet for corporate worship?  This is an important question.  In my lifetime alone there have been mega-churches and religious meetings on nearly every day of the week.  But which day did the disciple/apostles first meet?

Okay stop here and think.  What principle does the above paragraph encourage?  Did you notice it?  What is descriptive and what is prescriptive?  We can't forget this pattern which repeats throughout the scriptures.  The transitional period in which our next text appears is a critical moment in church history.

Let's rehearse some the transitional elements from Acts two thru chapter twenty.  Remember the monumental change in history (Pentecost) has just occurred.  We now have the outpouring the Holy Spirit upon every individual, both man and woman (not just leaders or specific individuals).  How or in what manner are they worshiping?

Notice in Acts 2:46 that from a corporate religious perspective nothing has really changed after Pentecost, "they continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house."  These believers are still going to the temple.  This same pattern will continue in the next chapter when a man is healed "into the temple" (3:1).  Here in the latter portion of this verse is one of several verses used by the house church movement to justify/defend their activities (many books written on this subject).  But consider this from a descriptive/prescriptive view point?  Are we commanded today to have worship services in our houses?  Are we commanded to have a church building?  If we want to be consistent with the verse and not have any alternative motives then we as Christians should still be meeting in the temple?  Note also they were "breaking bread" in their homes not having worship services.  As the book of Acts progresses it is clear that the focus is still around "the sabbath" and "the first day of week" (whether or not these two overlap or not is another issue).

Fast forward to Acts 20.Our concern is verse seven, "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them."  This is the first and only reference to the disciples meeting on the first day of the week.  Let's consider the text and then think carefully about some descriptive/prescriptive applications (sadly, the temptation is to think, "they did it so we should too, howbeit this is very selective on our part).  So what are the details.

First,  why did they choose this particular day of the week?  The only reference to this day is all four gospels recording this is when the women went to the tomb and Christ was not there.  It is a specific day not a daily activity.

Second, the terminology to "break bread" occurs here again.  This is what Acts 2 recorded was happening from house to house.  Here they are meeting in an "upper chamber" with height enough to cause some pain if one should happen to fall out of the window.

Third, there is no command in this verse to gather on this particular day of the week.  Note in the text it appears to be a pattern already in practice, "when the disciples came together."  For the technical type, the verb is a perfect passive participle (to be fair, very few commentaries I checked draw attention to this verb, howbeit they do acknowledge the pattern/command struggles, with differing terminology).  Put simple it is a past action with ongoing results.  If this is true, then they have been meeting in the past on the first day and are continuing to meet on the first day at the time of this verse.  Even without the verb as weight on this matter, the descriptive/ prescriptive struggle does not go away.

So let's apply the basic details here.  From a descriptive point of view, we can see what they were doing in Acts 20.  Is this a pattern we are to repeat today or was this meeting on the first day a one time event (we will address this again in 1 Cor 16)?  Is this only a first century situation that has no bearing on what we do in 2016?  On the other hand, from a prescriptive view, there is not command to worship corporately on the first day of the week.  Do we need a command here to do so?  Is there enough of a pattern developing built upon texts of scripture that will not be contradicted later in the epistles?  We shall see.

Hope this helps some.
Comments and corrections encouraged.