Tag: spiritual

Ephesians 3 & 4 on Unity

~ Bob Hayton ~ 6 Comments

I’ve been involved in an online discussion recently on the topic of unity and separation. And I’m finding once again, that for many fundamentalists (surprise), even convincing them that unity with other believers outside a local church is not strictly optional is proving a hard sell.

I won’t bore you with the entire discussion (although some may find it helpful). I will however, take the occasion to share some thoughts on how Ephesians 3 and 4 make a strong case for the idea that unity with other believers is urged upon us in light of our mutual membership in the universal church, which is Christ’s body.

…I believe that in the world we find ourselves in, with its thousands of churches with no real interconnectedness and cooperation between most of them, intentional unity becomes somewhat odd and so a default isolationism sets in. The American situation of freedom from persecution, and good ol’ American individualism also prejudice us toward a self-existant, sufficient idea of our individual local church. Add the history of sectarian fights and all that fundamentalism has endured from all quarters, and I guess it’s little wonder that we have to defend the very idea of the “essential fact of unity” bearing with it a responsibility to act out that unity in visible ways.

Now tallying up the teaching on unity is a bit of a tall order, but just focusing on Ephesians 3 and 4 should suffice for my purposes. Given the setting I’ll just try to draw a brief sketch and not get too detailed.

Eph. 3:1-13 The inclusion of the Gentiles into the “one body” of the Church, (alongside Jews equally), is the mysterious “eternal purpose” of God. And through this new reality in the universal church, heavenly beings can see the manifold wisdom of God.

Eph. 3:14-21 Paul prays for the Ephesian believers individually to experience more fully and to know more deeply the love of Christ, together in a shared experience with all the saints. And he prays for Christ to receive glory in the universal church throughout all generations.

Eph. 4:1-3 On the basis of this cosmic purpose of the global and universal church, Paul exhorts the Ephesians to walk worthy of their calling (shared with all saints), and to bear with one another patiently aiming to maintain this unity of the Spirit (that God is working throughout the universal church as described previously) in a bond of peace. A bond between their brothers in their own city, and a bond which extends beyond even (by implication in the cosmic nature of Ephesians as the wider context).

Eph. 4:4-6 As a further ground for this activity of living together in light of the unity of the Spirit, Paul lists how unified the Ephesians are with all the saints, they share one Lord, faith, baptism and one Father God. God being over all and through all and in them all, as well as in all believers.

Eph. 4:7-10 As a practical reality working out from this existential unity, grace was given to Paul and the Ephesians, indeed to all of us, according to the measure of Christ’s gift that he gave to man in general. And this gift is tied into cosmic realities again as Jesus is ascended above all heavens, and filling up all things through this gift.

Eph. 4:11-16 The gift includes the offices of apostles and prophets and evangelists (all universal church offices, I would think), as well as pastor-teachers, and these men God has given the church (and by the way that means historical theology is important as the teachers of yester-year remain a gift to the church) are to equip all the saints for ministry-work and for mutual up-building of the universal body of Christ (as well as it’s local manifestations). All of this with the goal of all of us attaining to “the unity of the faith”, and knowledge of the Son of God.. leading to maturity and growth and experiencing the fullness of Christ, himself. Christ being the head joins the entire body, so it may grow and build itself up in love.

I would contend that yes, the local church is included in this picture. But everything about the context roots the local church reality in a context of global unity. And just as all believers want to have the fullness of Christ and true knowledge of the Son of God, so too, they should all have unity of the faith and work toward unity with one another.

Since Christ is head of the universal church, what right have we to act as if our own church is all that matters in a given locale? Why ignore other gospel preaching churches and seek to do everything on our own without recognizing and finding ways to celebrate our unity in the faith with these other believers? The mentality is wrong, not just the practice. Yes it’s easy to do nothing, given our current culture and background. It’s easy to focus on our own church and act independently of others. Easy, but is it right?

Thanksgiving Benediction

~ Bob Hayton

“Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited those devoted to them. We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat. For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. Therefore let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured. For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come. Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have for such sacrifices are pleasing to God…. Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, equip you with everything good that you may do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.” ~ Hebrews 13:7-16, 20-21

Quotes to Note 19: John Gerstner on Literal Interpretation

~ Bob Hayton ~ 18 Comments

A while back I was reading through Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism by John H. Gerstner (Draper, VA: Apologetics Group Media, 2009 updated edition]) and came across some profound insights he shared regarding the role “literal interpretation” plays in dispensationalism. Many on both sides of the dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology debate think the issue of a literal, or “overly-literal” hermeneutic determines the debate. If you use the “proper hermeneutic”, from dispensationalism’s perspective, you will interpret the Bible like dispensationalists do.

Gerstner argues that this is not the case. The literal method employed by dispensationalists stems from their pre-conceived over-arching views of prophecy and the Scripture, not the other way around. In pointing this out, I think he helps both sides to see that the argument isn’t as all-pervasive and wholistic as some make it out to be. Listen to Dr. Gerstner below, as I really think he hits on something very important for all to consider, when it comes to our interpretation of Scripture.

…there is a small area of Scripture, mainly in the area of prophecy, where there is a lively debate as to whether one interprets literally or figuratively. The vast proportion of Scripture is admitted by both sides to be either obviously literal or obviously figurative. It is only in a relatively few disputed areas where we differ with one another. Only there does the question whether Scripture is to be taken literally or figuratively arise. We should not accuse the dispensationalists of being absolute literalists nor should they accuse non-dispensationalists of being absolute spiritualizers. We are all literalists up to a certain point. At the point where we differ, there is a tendency for the dispensationalists to be literalistic where the non-dispensationalist tends to interpret the Bible figuratively. But to say on the basis of that limited divergence of interpretation that the two schools represent fundamentally different approaches is not warranted.

Many on both sides think that this minor “hermeneutical” difference is a more foundational difference than the theological. I profoundly disagree for I believe that the dispensational hermeneutic is driven by an a priori commitment to dispensational theological distinctives… (pg. 80)

Gerstner proceeds to show how in prophecy even dispensationalists find figures of speech and don’t interpret literally across the board. He talks of O.T. Allis’ “point(ing) out that they [i.e. dispensationalists] tend to reverse the usual view and instead of reading history literally and prophecy figuratively, they spiritualize history and literalize prophecy. Israel must mean Israel, Canaan must mean Canaan. On the other hand, Eve, Rebecca, and Zipporah may be viewed as spiritual types and branch is a symbol.” (ibid, pg. 81)

He then goes on to cite a non-controversial (at least to the participants of this intramural debate) example which highlights how the “literal method” is quite powerless to settle this theological debate.

The real point of divergence is that dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists have different conceptions of what constitutes a plausible interpretation. The question of what is plausible is, it should be noted, a theological rather than an interpretive question.

Let us take a biblical example. Some of the most controverted words in history are Christ’s “this is my body” at the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Luke 22:19). There is no disagreement abut the words this, my, or body. They are construed literally by all concerned. The debate concerns the interpretation of the word is. Some say is should be taken literally; that is, it is understood to mean literal identity of body and bread, of blood and wine. Others say that is should be taken non-literally or metaphorically; that is, to mean “represents”. There is nothing in linguistics, per se, that will ever settle that question. There is no non-arbitrary way (nor can there be) of saying that the word cannot mean something other than its usual meaning.

At the Colloquy of Marburg (1529), Luther agreed with that as he defended his principle, “literal wherever possible.” His opponents, likewise, agreed with him on that principle. But Luther thought it was necessary to take is literally…. The Swiss theologians, Zwingli and Oecolampadius, found it palpably absurd that Christ could hold the bread in His hand (His body) and mean that that bread actually was His body. Both interpreters started as always with the literal meaning intending to accept it if possible. One found it necessary and possible in this case; the other found it absurd and impossible. (ibid, pg. 83)

I think perhaps some of the rancor and bitterness in the dispensational-covenantal debate would subside if we took a more measured assessment of the actual differences between the two sides. We shouldn’t try to claim the high ground in the debate by denying the other view has a concern for Biblical truth, or that they are only and always overly literal, or excessively spiritualistic. Truth be told, we differ in the realm of prophecy, primarily. And the differences do not of necessity lead one down the road of total theological error. No matter which position is right, people can hold it and avoid the extremes (of say John Hagee on one side or liberal/postmodern theology on the other).

*Note: bolded emphasis is mine, I standardized the italicization of individual words where appropriate, too.

Tim Keller on the Gospel versus Moralism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

I recently picked up Tim Keller’s new discipleship DVD Gospel in Life: Grace Changes Everything (Zondervan) [watch the trailer here]. It looks excellent, and I was struck by his description of the Prodigal Son parable and the 3 ways to live.

Here is a brief summary of his 3 ways to live:

  • Religion: I obey, therefore I am accepted by God.
  • Irreligion: I don’t need to obey anyone but myself.
  • Gospel: I am accepted by God at an infinite cost to Jesus Christ, therefore I obey.

I also stumbled across a brief online article adapted from Keller’s teaching on how the Gospel is the key to change. I thought I’d share an excerpt on how the Gospel counters this religious way to be your own savior. It’s the Gospel vs. Moralism.

Jesus lived the life we should live. He also paid the penalty we owe for the rebellious life we do live. He did this in our place (Isaiah 53:4-10; 2 Cor 5:21; Mark 10:45). We are not reconciled to God through our efforts and record, as in all ther religions, but through his efforts and record. Christians who trust in Christ for their acceptance with God, rather than in their own moral character, commitment, or erformance, are simul iustus et peccator (Latin) – simultaneously sinful yet accepted. We are more flawed and sinful than we ever dared believe, yet we are more loved and accepted than we ever dared hope at the same time.

Without this unique understanding of grace-salvation, religions have to paint God as either a demanding, holy God who is placated by back-breaking moral effort, or as what C.S. Lewis calls “˜a senile, old benevolence’ who tolerates everyone no matter how they live. The problem is that if I think I have a relationship with God because I am living morally according to his standards, it do s not move me to the depths to think of my salvation. I earned it. There is no joy, amazement, or tears. I am not galvanized and transformed from the inside. On the other hand, if I think I have a relationship with God because the Divine just embraces us all, no matter what how we live”” that also does not move me to the depths. I simply have the attitude of Voltaire, who, on his deathbed famously said, “Of course God forgives””that’s his job.” Any effort to take away the idea of Christ’s substitutionary atonement and replace it with a moralism (i.e., being moral, working for others, imitating Jesus) robs the gospel of its power to change us from the inside out.

The gospel is, therefore, radically different from religion. Religion operates on the principle: “I obey, therefore I am accepted” . The gospel operates on the principle: “I am accepted through Christ, therefore I obey.” So the gospel differs from both religion and irreligion. Not only can you seek to be your own “˜lord and savior’ by breaking the law of God (i.e., through irreligion), you can also do so by keeping the law in order to earn your salvation (i.e., through religion). A lack of deep belief in the gospel is the main cause of spiritual deadness, fear, and pride in Christians, because our hearts continue to act on the basis “I obey, therefore, I am accepted.” If we fail to forgive others–that is not simply a lack of obedience, but a failure to believe we are saved by grace, too. If we lie in order to cover up a mistake–that is not simply a lack of obedience, but a failure to find our acceptance in God rather than in human approval. So we do not “˜get saved’ by believing the gospel and then “˜grow’ by trying hard to live according to Biblical principles. Believing the gospel is not only the way to meet God, but also the way to grow into him.

Let me know what you think. I think Tim Keller has struck gold here. This is what legalism really is at heart. It’s a moralism which strikes at the root of the Gospel.