In Part I of this article, we examined what, according to the Hebrew Scriptures, the people of Israel were “chosen” for:

1. They were to be blessed in order that they would pass that blessing on to the world.
2. They are to live in such a way that the world may know that Yahweh is God, the one and only true God, of the world.

When we reconnect with the people of Israel in the gospel accounts, 400 years have passed, during which time they have demonstrated that their ‘addiction’ to worshipping other gods has finally been cured. Without this change of heart, it would be impossible to claim Yahweh as the One and only God.
Where their struggle laid was with the fulfillment of their ‘chosenness’ – being freed from the bondage of their sin and the continual need for sacrificial atonement, and understanding how to live in the ‘kingdom of God’ – the orthopraxy of ‘being a blessing’ and ‘living in such a way that the world may know that Yahweh is God’.

Jesus’ Mission

When Simeon blesses the 8-day-old Jesus in Luke 2:30-32, he uses a turn of phrase that sometimes we miss in the English translation:

For my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all people, a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel.

Taken literally, Simeon says that Jesus will be a light to bring light to the Gentiles, which hearkens back to the language of God to Abraham, who would be blessed to be a blessing to the world. In John’s gospel account, his opening statements describe Jesus in similar fashion:

The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.

This language is not accidental. If he was to be the Messiah, then his purpose would have to be the purpose of his people.

[More]

I don’t normally address the fringe watchdoggie websites here. However, since a Paula decided to grace us with her presence, I decided to check out her blog. The first article I found really revealed how most of the watchdoggies are operating these days. Paula found an article about a scandal that took place at Calvary Baptist Church of Yorba Linda (no link provided). The story was as follows:

YORBA LINDA – A three-member faction of the board of Calvary Baptist Church of Yorba Linda that opposed informing members of alleged misdeeds by two former pastors gained control of the church Sunday night.

The three met without the other two board members Saturday to pick five new board members, who were all approved by a vote of the congregation Sunday night.

Members who wanted to nominate other candidates were silenced by board member James Hutchings, who told them, “If you can’t get with us, then go.”

Paula’s one and only closing remark was

Well looks as though they’re lining up the yes-men! And YES they are PD, in case you hadn’t guessed.

I nearly rolled over with laughter. Does she really believe that Purpose-Driven theology caused this church drama? And I would find it very hard to swallow that she actually believes that Purpose Driven churches are the only ones with church splits, hostile board take-overs or leadership scandals. I have been to pleanty of good ol’ fundamentalist churches where business meetings looked more like a war zone than a house of worship. Next time I hear of a church splitting over the color of the carpet, I should probably blame it on the church’s theology. Again, sound like the juicy headlines are out of season these days.

Normally, I don’t link to specific sermons I listen to online, but I’m going to make an exception today. The verse we quote in our masthead, Matthew 23:23, and it is at the center of the Mars Hill Bible Church sermon this past week. You can listen to it below for the next 12 weeks…

Grace and peace,

Chris

 

 Camels and Gnats: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

I am not too sure how many times Ken Silva is going to write an article based on this relevant magazine interview with Erwin McManus. I am getting tired of writing rebuttals that easily dismiss Silva’s articles as academically and theologically irresponsible. Here are a few notes on the latest [miss]ive.

Erwin McManus, an influential voice within the neo-liberal cult of the Emergent Church as well as lead vocalist pastor, cultural architect and distinguished futurist of Mosaic

Are the petty jabs really that pastoral or necessary here? Again, they are not only juvenile, but inappropriate for a pastor or spiritual leader.

For a more in-depth look at this issue I refer the interested reader to Rob Bell and Karl Barth. But for our purposes here Dr. Francis Schaeffer gives us a concise understanding of the neo-orthodox approach to the Bible when he points out that Barth

This is the basic logic here

• Ken say Bell agrees with Karl Barth
• Francis Schaeffer says Karl Barth is a heretic
• Therefore Bell is a heretic
• Because Ken says Bell and McManus are the same, McManus is a heretic

Ken continues

The reason why you will see so many leaders within the emerging church so unwilling to commit to the inerrancy of Scripture is their own adherence to Barth’s essentially higher critical i.e. near liberal approach to Holy Scripture. And for those who have not been taken in with McManus’ more mystic bent it then becomes clear that McManus interprets the Bible according to his own feelings about what he thinks God is saying

Unfortunately, McManus was not asked about the inerrancy of scripture. He was asked “How do we begin to move toward living a life that reflects God’s character? What are some practical ways?” Had he been asked about the inerrancy of scripture, he would have addressed the issue. That’s like criticizing someone for not saying the sky is blue when they were asked what the grass feels like between your toes. It is simply bad logic and research methods.

But, since Silva is so anxious to know McManus’ view of the scriptures, he only needs to look as Mosaic’s first core conviction: “The Bible is God’s infallible, authoritative word to us.” Now, the dictionary defines “infallible” as incapable of failure or error. So, sounds like McManus has clearly stated that the scriptures are not only the authoritative word of God, but they are incapable of error. That sounds a lot like inerrancy to me.

Ken continues to scrape at any hope of pinning his self-defined advisory by trying to prove McManus and John Shelby Spong hold to the same theological views on scripture. You can read for yourself, but they are unmerited, and unsupported at best. Ken does not address McManus’ statements

but I do see the Scriptures as the primary access, a portal into God’s presence. I began to have a clear sense of God’s voice in my life through reading the Scriptures and hearing God’s voice through the Scriptures… The Scriptures are to me the instrument that God has placed in history for me to learn the voice of God. (emphasis mine)

He did address McManus’ statement “I treasure the Scriptures.” However, he calls the statement “patronizing”. I suppose David was patronizing when he wrote, “Your word I have treasured in my heart,That I may not sin against You.” You can be the judge of the rest. I find it interesting that Silva writes yet another [miss]ive on this interview with McManus after being proven inaccurate here.

Apparently I was missing something, and Ken Silva laid it all out for me in his latest [miss]ive. Ken begins to debunk my article earlier today by showing my obvious link to McManus (insert gasp here). But then he reference one of the articles on his own website that I have already addressed. Ron Foster, formerly a part of mosaic, makes this hilarious statement:

Really, Ken? Maybe Foster holds the same prophetic gifting as you. He can actually know what people really mean, even though they have clearly spelled it out. That seems like sound research… say Christian Research for a Christian Research Network to me, right? We wouldn’t want to bother with anything like…say, hard evidence, interviews, writings or sermons. Ken continues in the [miss]ive by addressing my statement that the watchdoggies hold to historical writings just as much as scriptures. Silva writes

So let me get this straight Ken, you don’t hold to early church writings as much as scriptures. Yet, you are upset that I have criticized the faith of the reformation, specifically the writings of Spurgeon? On top of that, you equate my criticism of Spurgeon with a criticism of “biblical” Christian faith. Which is it? Ironically Ken goes on to defend the doctrines of Spurgeon with little to no scripture. Here are a few highlights of the rest of the [miss]ive.

Highlight #1
Ken: The problem is Spurgeon wasn’t advocating that anyone “fatally wound people”
Spurgeon: His communications with the corn are sharp and cutting. He cuts right through, cuts the corn down, and casts it to the ground.

sounds pretty fatal to me.

Highlight #2
Ken: Then Neighbour trots out the old Emergent eggplant about how Jesus was only “strong with” people who were “religious leaders.”The New Testamen record doesn’t bear that out.

Any scripture to back that up? Or maybe Edwards would have the answer.

Highlight #3
Ken: He whines in his version of the “gospel” that, “It should not be a tool to simply walk through fields of people, cutting people down that are not well.”

Uh, who was it again that said, “”It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”?

Highlight #4
More ranting on the quote from Marianne Williamson, falsely attributed to Nelson Mandela.
So my sin here would probably be nothing more than not updating my blog. Go watch Akeelah and the Bee

Highlight #5
FINALLY some scripture! Ken quotes Mark 4:26-29. He tries to apply it to Spurgeon’s quote. However, this scripture is talking about bringing souls into the kingdom. It really isn’t about cutting people down with the gospel, and leaving them… how did Spurgeon put it? Oh yes… cuts right through, cuts it down, and casts it to the ground.

Highlight #6
closing arguments: I humbly offer that before a young man like Neighbour decides to take on a man powerful in Christ like Spurgeon he should spend a lot less time meditating on the mystic musings of Erwin McManus and instead start listening to the absolute Truth of Jesus Christ.

So am I taking on Christ or Spurgeon? Or is it the absolute truth of Spurgeon? Am I missing something here?

For the record, I am a Spurgeon fan and studied his work and life extensively in my undergrad work. But unlike some, I am able to find elements of his writings that I disagree with. His word is not perfect or biblical. Last time I checked, it was the Catholics that made people into saints. Also, 6 out of the 7 information links in the article were from (you guessed it) Ken himself. Once again, bad “research” methods.

I know that the watchdoggies hold to the words of Spurgeon just as much as the words of Christ. It seems like the voices of the past are at equal level with scripture. In fact, this latest article is almost comical in its opening line

There are many of those who accuse our Calvinist brethren of being cold-hearted toward evangelizing the lost. Well, apparently Charles Spurgeon missed that memo [emphasis mine]

Aside from the one verse provided, maybe they should have consulted the many scriptures on the subject before consulting Spurgeon and Calvin. However, since we are holding Spurgeon now at such a high level, we will go with his words. The quote provided paints a picture of believers being laborers in a corn field. Our tool is a sickle. And this is what Spurgeon says our work should be:

His communications with the corn are sharp and cutting. He cuts right through, cuts the corn down, and casts it to the ground…The preacher must make his sermons cut. Our sickle is made on purpose to cut. The Gospel is intended to wound the conscience and to go right through the heart, with the design of separating the soul from sin and self, as the corn is divided from the soil.

I don’t recall where we are called to fatally wound people with gospel. I see stories of Jesus being direct and strong with gospel, but never fatally wounding. In fact, the only people he was that strong with, were the religious leaders who were hurting people with the law of God. Unfortunately this example proves the editor’s concern, that Calvinists are seen as cold-hearted when it comes to evangelism. And, so many of the problems that arise in the church today stem from the unbiblical and heartless work that Spurgeon prescribes. There is a fine line between being too accommodating and too strong. It is our job to walk that line carefully.

I have always seen the gospel more like a scalpel than… say, a sickle. It is used to cut, but it always meant for healing. It should not be a tool to simply walk through fields of people, cutting people down that are not well.

As Christians, we read in the Hebrew Scriptures (which we refer to, somewhat incorrectly, as the Old Testament) that the children of Israel were God’s “chosen” people. This “chosen”-ness often accompanies confusion, as Christians read it. Chosen for what? Too often, I hear people assume that this “chosen”-ness means that, before Christ, all men apart from Israel were hell-bound. This is a sadly mistaken interpretation, as there is no emphasis on the afterlife in the sciptures, prior to the arrival of Christ.

So, then, what were the Israelites chosen for? Perhaps we should begin with the first usage of “chosen” in scripture for a clue:

Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him. Genesis 18:18-19

So here, we find that Abraham was chosen so that a) he and his descendants would keep to the way of the LORD; so that b) the LORD would bring about His promises. What were these promises (in relation to mission)?

I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing.

I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you. Genesis 12:2-3

So here we have a double-statement of the same promise. God will bless Abraham and his descendants in order that they will be a blessing to all peoples on the earth. They are blessed to be a blessing. This is then reiterated as a promise after Abraham is tested in his willingness to give up his only son, Isaac.

I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me. Genesis 22:16-18

So, once again, Abraham’s descendants are promised to be numerous so that all nations on earth will be blessed. Here again, they are blessed so that they will be a blessing.

[More]

In the comments section of this post (where Ben Witherington III takes on John Piper’s view of the Minneapolis bridge collapse – an excellent read), Ben makes the following observation which meshes with a number of the recent discussions on free will/predestination on this site:

First of all, it is not correct to say in any way that “what God permits, he also wills”. This is to ignore that it is one thing to say God is sovereign, quite another to talk meaningfully about how God exercises his sovereignty which is always for good. God of course could have pre-ordained all things. Had God, who is light and in whom there is no darkness at all, done this. the world would certainly look like a very different place than it does.

God instead chose to create a world in which his will is not the only will in play. There are other actors in the drama and they are responsible for their own moral actions. Why did God do this, when God knew that there would be those who exercised their will at least on some occasions in ways that violated God’s will for their lives? Why did God create a world where sin and evil was possible? One answer, but by no means the only one, is that God wanted a world in which loving relationships were possible between God and those created in God’s image. And if love, which must be freely received and freely given, and can never be coerced or forced or predetermined, is possible in that world, then also its opposite is possible. Read again the heartache of God in Hosea 11 because of Israel’s rejection of God Does this sound like a God who preordained for Israel to sin and reject him? I think not.

The more profound question is, why would God not intervene and stop that disaster in Minneapolis? This is an excellent question, and simplistic answers will not do because: 1) sometimes God does intervene and stop disasters for his people; and 2) certainly God has not run out of power. My answer to this question is a more philosophical one, taken from the arena of parenting. What happens to a child where the parent always hovers, never allows the child to grow up, never allows any risk to enter the picture for that child. Does the child ever learn to become a responsible moral adult, a person who will take responsibility for his or her own choices? No, they do not, I am afraid. If you want to have a world where love and human virtue is actually possible, then you have to allow more than one moral agent to be acting in that world, and sometimes even at odds with God’s will. Doubtless God could have predetermined all things, but once he chose to create a world where love between higher beings, and real moral virtue and real free choices were possible, then sin, and evil became possible as well.

Think for a moment about Jesus himself. When Jesus submits to God’s will in the Garden of Gethsemane, could he have done otherwise? Well, Jesus seems to think so, indeed he struggles here because his personal will is actually at odds with God’s in this case. Did he freely choose to obey and do God’s will, or was it a situation where he could not do otherwise? Now if you say the latter, then you actually have removed part of your Bible from existence, namely the stories about Jesus enduring real temptations from Satan whether at the beginning or end of his ministry. Temptation by definition is only as temptation if you are inclined to do it, and there is actually a possibility that you might do so!

Think of a text like Rom. 8.28 which we might translate “God works all things together for good for those who love God…” this does not in any way suggest that all things in themselves are good, or willed by God, even indirectly. It does suggest that an almighty God can intervene and weave things together for good for those who love God. That is frankly a different matter.

HT: iMonk