Below is an article I was assigned to read in my Spiritual Formation group at DTS. I have looked and looked for it for years (as I lost my Spiritual Formation workbook), but could not find it. But a friend just sent it to me a few days ago! It is called “Sinners” who are forgiven or “Saints” who sin? and it definitely belongs in my portfolio.  The author is Robert Saucy. It’s long, but well worth the read. I hope you enjoy.

_________________________________________

“Sinners” Who Are Forgiven or “Saints” Who Sin? – Robert Saucy

The question of the true identity of the Christian has been the topic of discussion for some time. Although not directly framed as a question of identity, the issues of self-love, self-esteem, and self-worth all relate in some way to the question, “Who am I?” This question has been posed more sharply in the alternatives, “Am I as a Christian basically a sinner who is forgiven, or a saint who sins?”

The first of these alternatives may be associated with what Warfield favorably termed “miserable-sinner Christianity.”¹ He referred to it this way because similar terminology runs through Protestant confessional formulas and catechisms.² Luther’s Short Catechism, for example, teaches the believer to say, “I, miserable sinner, confess myself before God guilty of all manner of sins.” A Lutheran Confession of Sin reads:

I, poor sinful man, confess to God, the Almighty, my Creator and Redeemer, that I not only have sinned in thoughts, words and deeds, but also was conceived and born in sin, and so all my nature and being is deserving of punishment and condemnation before His righteousness. Therefore I flee to His gratuitous mercy and seek and beseech His grace. Lord, be merciful to me, miserable sinner.

A similar expression is found in the prayers of the Church of England. After acknowledging sinfulness and declaring that “there is no health in us,” the prayer closes with the petition, “But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us, miserable offenders.” One of the most rhetorical expressions of the concept of “miserable-sinner Christianity” is given by the Scottish minister, Alexander Whyte, in his work Bunyan Characters.

Our guilt is so great that we dare not think of it. It crushes our minds with a perfect stupor of horror, when for a moment we try to imagine a day of judgment when we shall be judged for all the deeds that we have done in the body. Heart-beat after heart-beat, breath after breath, hour after hour, day after day, year after year, and all full of sin; all nothing but sin from our mother’s womb to our grave.³

It would be wrong to take such a statement as necessarily signifying “miserable Christianity” rather than “miserable-sinner Christianity.” Many of those who confessed their situation in this way knew how to flee to the grace of God and find the joy of forgiveness. But such statements would also seem to color the self-understanding of believers as to their basic nature.

An example of the alternative understanding of Christian identity as a “saint who sins” is a statement by Neil Anderson in one of his popular books.

Many Christians refer to themselves as sinners saved by grace. But are you really a sinner? Is that your scriptural identity? Not at all. God doesn’t call you a sinner; He calls you a saint—a holy one. Why not identity yourself for who you really are: a saint who occasionally sins?⁴

If the word “occasionally” is excluded from Anderson’s statement, there is truth in both alternatives of the question. Believers are sinners in that they continue to sin, but Scripture also refers to them as saints. Believers therefore are sinners who by God’s grace are forgiven, and they are saints who sin.

Thus in a sense Christians have a kind of double identity. But this does not mean they are schizophrenic or multiple persons. Each believer is one person, one ego or “I”.  The Apostle Paul wrote, “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God” (Gal 2:20). There was only one “I” and one Paul throughout this transition. The question of the believer’s identity is therefore the question of the identity of that ego or “I.” And it would seem that that identity must be related to the actual nature and behavior of that ego. If the nature and activity of the person is primarily sinful, then it is difficult not to see his core identity as a “sinner.” On the other hand if the believer’s nature and activity is primarily holy, then that person’s real identity is that of a “saint.”

The Believer’s Positive Identity

Consideration of the scriptural description of the believer and his activity obviously reveals a mixture of sin and holiness. But when the focus is on the actual description of the person’s identity, the picture is decidedly positive. Even in the Old Testament, believers are described as living with a heart of integrity, soundness, and uprightness (e.g., 1 Kings 8:61; 9:4 {1 Kgs 9:4}; Pss. 78:72 {Ps 78:72}; 119:7 {Ps 119:7}). This of course does not mean that they were sinless or unaware of their sin. But they had a heart and life that was fundamentally devoted to God. Turning to the New Testament, Christians are frequently addressed as “saints” (e.g., Acts 9:32; Eph 1:1; Col 1:2). This surely has reference to their status in Christ, but other descriptions reveal that it also denotes something about their nature. Believers in the Lord are “sons” and “children of God” which, along with speaking of position or status, also depicts something of the nature of believers who are now oriented toward righteousness (1 John 2:29-3:2 {1 John 3:2}). Those in Christ are also called “light” (Eph 5:8) and “sons of light” (1 Thess 5:5), which means “they are characterized by light” as a result of the “transformation that takes place when anyone believes.”⁵

The believer is part of the “new creation” (2 Cor 5:17). He has put off the “old man” and put on the “new man” (Col 3:9-10; cf. Rom 6:6). This transition refers to the believer’s transference from the old corporate humanity under the headship of Adam to the new humanity with Christ as Head. But it also has reference to a change in the individual.⁶ Pointing to the imagery used of putting off and putting on clothing, Lincoln rightly explains that this “change of clothing imagery signifies an exchange of identities, and the concepts of the old and the new persons reinforce this.”⁷ Since the appellation “new man” also has reference to the individual, the descriptions of it as “created in righteousness and holiness of the truth” (Eph 4:24) and “being renewed according to the image of the One who created him” (Col 3:10) both have reference to the individual believer. Thus Bruce says, “The new man who is created is the new personality that each believer becomes when he is reborn as a member of the new creation whose source of life is Christ.”⁸ Putting off the old man and putting on the new are related to the teaching of the believer’s death and resurrection with Christ (Rom 6:4-6).⁹ In codeath and coresurrection the individual’s identity is radically changed. The old “I” dies and the new “I” rises in newness of life (Gal 2:20).

These descriptions of the Christian clearly indicate a positive identity and refer not only to status but also to the nature of the believer. This conclusion is borne out by the fact that the apostolic exhortation to new ethical behavior is made directly on the basis of the believer’s new identity. The apostles were not grounding their hope for a new behavior simply on a new position or status, but on a new nature which can produce new actions. True, these actions are due to the life of God in the believer and are called “the fruit of the Spirit.” But at the same time they are the product of the believer even as the fruit of the vine is the fruit of the branches (John 15:2-5,16). The exhortations to new ethical life are based on the principle Jesus taught that “good fruit” is borne by “good trees” (Matt 7:17). The nature as well as the identity of the believer is therefore seen as primarily “good.”

These descriptions of the believer point in the direction of the root identity of the Christian as “a saint who sins,” rather than “a sinner who is saved.” But that is not the whole of the matter. Practical experience as well as biblical teaching still relate the believer to sin. Consideration of the identity of the believer therefore cannot avoid discussion of his relationship to sin.

The Believer’s Relation to Sin

Believers Still Sin

It is not difficult to convince most believers from Scripture as well as from experience that sin is still a part of their existence. They sometimes act carnally (1 Cor 3:1-3). The promise of continual cleansing of sin as they walk in the light (1 John 1:7) as well as the present tense used for the confession of sins (1:9 {1 John 1:9}) suggest that sin is continually present with believers. To say “we have no sin,” John wrote, is self-deception and impossible for believers (1:8 {1 John 1:8}). Although the personal identity of the believer is in Christ, and thus in the new man which is being transformed into His image, the manner of life of the old man remains a part of the believer’s experience. This is why Paul directed believers to put off the practices of the old man (Eph 4:22; Col 3:8-9).

Calvin’s statement of what Christians ought to be should convince any believer that he or she has not attained sinlessness. “Since all the capacities of our soul ought to be so filled with the love of God,” he said, “it is certain that this precept [to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind] is not fulfilled by those who can either retain in the heart a slight inclination or admit to the mind any thought at all that would lead them away from the love of God into vanity.”¹⁰ “There remains in a regenerate man a moldering cinder of evil, from which desires continually leap forth to allure and spur him to commit sin.”¹¹

Does this true but rather bleak perspective make the identity of the believer a “sinner” as well as a “saint” so that he or she is actually both? Interestingly, although the New Testament gives extensive evidence that believers sin, it never clearly identifies believers as “sinners.” Paul’s reference to himself in which he declared, “I am foremost” of sinners is often raised to the contrary (1 Tim 1:15). Guthrie’s comment on Paul’s assertion is illustrative of a common understanding of Paul’s statement and what should be true of all believers. “Paul never got away from the fact that Christian salvation was intended for sinners, and the more he increased his grasp of the magnitude of God’s grace, the more he deepened the consciousness of his own naturally sinful state, until he could write of whom I am chief (pro,tos).”¹²

Despite the use of the present tense by the apostle, several things make it preferable to see his description of himself as “the foremost of sinners” as a reference to his preconversion activity as an opponent of the gospel. First, the reference to himself as “sinner” is in support of the statement that “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (v. 15 {1 Tim 1:15}). The reference to “the ungodly and sinners” a few verses earlier (v. 9 {1 Tim 1:9}) along with the other New Testament uses of the term “sinners” for those who are outside of salvation¹³ shows that he was referring to “sinners” whom Christ came to save rather than believers who yet sinned.

Second, Paul’s reference to himself as a “sinner” is followed by the statement, “And yet I found [past tense] mercy” (v. 16 {1 Tim 1:16}), clearly pointing to the past occasion of his conversion. Paul was grateful for God’s mercy toward him, “the foremost of sinners.” A similar present evaluation of himself based on the past is seen when the apostle wrote, “I am [present tense] the least of the apostles, who am not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God” (1 Cor

15:9). Because of his past action, Paul considered himself unworthy of what he presently was by God’s grace and mercy, an apostle who was “not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles” (2 Cor 11:5; cf. 12:11 {2 Cor 12:11}).

Declaring that he was “the foremost of sinners,” the apostle also declared that Christ had strengthened him for the ministry, having considered him “faithful” or “trustworthy” for it, to which He had called him (1 Tim 1:2). As Knight concludes, “Paul regards this classification of himself as `foremost of sinners’ as still valid (eijmi, present tense); though he is fully forgiven, regarded as faithful, and put into service, he is still the notorious opponent who is so received.”¹⁴ Thus the apostle was not applying the appellation “sinner” to himself as a believer, but rather in remembrance of what he was before Christ took hold of him.

James’ reference to turning “a sinner” from the error of his ways is also best seen as bringing someone into salvation rather than restoring a genuine believer to repentance (James 5:19-20).

Though the erring one is described as one “among you,” the

resultant outcome of saving the soul of the turned “sinner” from “death,” which is most likely spiritual death, suggests that the person was not a Christian.¹⁵ Scripture surely teaches that unbelievers can be “among” the saints (cf. 1 John 2:19).

This is not to say that in the Scriptures believers did not see themselves as sinful. Confrontation with the righteousness and holiness of God frequently brought deep acknowledgment of an individual’s own sinful condition. Peter’s recognition of himself before the Lord as a “sinful man” is not uncommon among the saints (Luke 5:8; cf. Gen 18:27; Job 42:6; Isa 6:5; Dan 9:4-20). The believer is sinful, but Scripture does not seem to define his identity as a “sinner.”

Believers Are Opposed to Sin

Instead of being identified as a “sinner,” the real person or “I” of the believer is opposed to sin. Before salvation the “I” or the “ego” of the believer, like the “I” of all “sinners,” was in radical rebellion against the true God. Now the “I” of the believer is on God’s side seeking to mortify the rebellion that is still present in the believer. Several truths combine to teach this new identity of the believer and his change of nature.

First, death and resurrection with Christ severed the believer from sin. The believer’s participation in Christ’s death and resurrection is a way in which Paul expressed the change that takes place when one becomes a Christian. According to the most extensive explanation of this truth in Romans 6, the primary significance of this transaction is the change of dominions over the believer. Christ’s death and resurrection signify (a) death to the old age of sin and its dominion and (b) resurrection to a new sphere ruled by God. These objective realities take place in Christ as the Head of the new humanity much like His actions as the Head of the corporate “new man.”¹⁶ But also like the transfer from the “old” to the “new” man, Christ’s death and resurrection apply subjectively to the person of the believer who participates with Him.

In Rom 6 Paul is not simply concerned with the two dominions, but with the decisive transfer of the believer from the one dominion to the other. The believers were enslaved to sin, but now they stand under a new master. This change has taken place through dying with Christ…. Dying with Christ means dying to the powers of the old aeon and entry into a new life under a new power.¹⁷

The believers’ union with Christ in His death and resurrection transforms them not just legally but also personally. As the person’s

“I” previously had a nature that willingly chose to serve sin, now he or she is a new “I” who willingly chooses God. Paul’s testimony was that having been crucified with Christ, he now lived in such union with Him that his “I” could hardly be separated, not just legally but morally. Paul’s “I” was willingly united with Christ, who continually and willingly obeyed the Father’s will. As Bonar said, “The cross, then, makes us decided men. It brings both our hearts and our wills to the side of God.”¹⁸

Second, the transformation of the believer in the change of dominions over him through dying and rising with Christ is further seen in the biblical concept of having a “new heart.” As Jewett explains, “A characteristic of the heart as the center of man is its inherent openness to outside impulses, its directionality, its propensity to give itself to a master and to live towards some desired goal.”¹⁹ This characteristic stems from the fact that Christians as finite persons can live only in “radical dependence on otherness.”²⁰

Most significantly, as Jewett noted, what the heart takes in becomes its master, stamping the heart with its character. What truly determines the heart and consequently the person is therefore the nature of the desire of the heart. After defining the heart as “our center, our prefunctional root, ” Kreeft adds, “at this center we decide the meaning of our lives, for our deepest desires constitute ourselves, decide our identity.”²¹

According to Scripture the deepest desire of the believer has been changed. This truth is seen in the apostle’s words to the Galatians: “And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, `Abba! Father!’” (4:6 {Gal 4:6}). The cry, “Abba! Father!” is typical of a son and represents the believer’s most basic relationship with God. This cry is determined by the presence of the Spirit who brings Christ the Son into the center of one’s personality to live within his or her heart. “The center of man is thus his heart; the heart’s intentionality [or desire] is determined by the power which rules it. In the case of Christian[s], the direction of the heart’s intentionality is determined by Christ’s Spirit.”²²

The desire or intentionality of the human heart is in reality its love. As Augustine noted, love is what moves an individual. A person goes where his love moves him. His identity is determined by his love. The identity of the believer is thus a person who basically loves God rather than sin.

The presence of sin in the life of the believer indicates that remnants of the old disordered love of self remain. But those remnants now stand at the periphery of the real core of the person who is redeemed, God-oriented, and thus bent toward righteousness in his nature. “God begins his good work in us, therefore, by arousing love and desire and zeal for righteousness in our hearts; or, to speak more correctly, by bending, forming, and directing, our hearts to righteousness.”²³

This core of the new person is often not evident in conscious life, but it is nevertheless the dominating aspect of his being. As Delitzsch notes, there is a kind of will of nature that is basically self-consciously unreflected. This deep will of nature precedes the conscious actions of the person. The will of the believer has been changed through regeneration despite the fact that remnants of the old life still remain and continue to express themselves. The action of regeneration is directed not so much to “our occasional will, as to the substance of our will,

i.e. to the nature and essence of our spiritual being.”²⁴ Thus the regenerate individual in the depth of his heart is changed; he has a nature oriented toward God. Although the person can still sin, this sin is related to a more surface level of his being which can still act contrary to the real person of the heart. But these surface actions do not change the real nature of the heart and thus the person’s identity. The relationship of the real core nature of the human heart to its more surface activities is seen in Pedersen’s discussion of the “soul” or what is perhaps better termed the heart.

It [the soul] is partly an entirety in itself and partly forms an entirety with others. What entireties it is merged in, depends upon the constant interchange of life.

Every time the soul merges into a new entirety, new centres of action are formed in it; but they are created by temporary situations, only lie on the surface and quickly disappear. There are other entireties to which the soul belongs, and which live in it with quite a different depth and firmness, because they make the very nucleus of the soul. Thus there may be a difference between the momentary and the stable points of gravity in the soul. But none of the momentary centres of action can ever annul or counteract those which lie deeper.

The deepest-lying contents of the soul are, it is true, always there, but they do not always make themselves equally felt.²⁵

This understanding of the human heart helps explain the practice of sin in the believer’s life as well as the “good” in the life of the unbelieving sinner. The true nature of the person does not always express itself fully in actual life. But the basic identity of the individual is still there, and in the case of the believer it is positive.

Third, this same truth is seen in the positive nature of the ego or “I” of Romans 7:14-25. Paul’s description of the “I” in this passage suggests that it refers to someone who has experienced the regenerative grace of God. Also this person is viewed in relation to the law of God apart from the empowerment of the Spirit of God. It could thus have reference to a Christian living according to the flesh in his own strength,²⁶ or more probably to the experience of the pious Jew living under the Mosaic Law viewed from a Christian perspective.²⁷

Of interest in this passage is the description of the “I” which is solidly on God’s side. If what is said of this “I” or ego could refer to a pious Jew living under the Old Covenant, how much more would it be fitting for the believer of the New Covenant as part of the new creation through union with Christ. Considering the actions of the “I,” all three dimensions normally seen as constituting personhood, that is, thought, emotion, and will, are all oriented toward God and His righteous law. Regarding the element of thought, the apostle wrote in 7:15 {Rom 7:15}, “For that which I am doing, I do not understand,” or perhaps better with Cranfield, “I do not acknowledge” or “approve.”²⁸ In other words his thinking was opposed to his action of sin. This is also seen in verse 25 {Rom 7:25}: “I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but with my flesh the law of sin.”

His emotion is likewise seen to be on God’s side in opposition to sin. “I am doing the very thing I hate” (v. 15 {Rom 7:15}). As Dunn puts it, “he wholly detests and abhors what he does.”²⁹ If hatred is the opposite of love, then his love is directed toward righteousness. A further expression of emotion is indicated in verse 22 {Rom 7:22}. “I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man.”

Also his will or volition is for God and against sin. “What I want [or `will,' qevlw] to do,” Paul wrote, “I do not do. I have the desire [qevlein] to do what is good” (vv. 15,18 {Rom 7}, NIV). The verb qevlein is used seven times in the passage, the last when he described himself as “the one who wishes to do good” (v. 21 {Rom 7:21}).

These descriptions of the personal attributes of the “I” clearly define it as one with a positive nature. But more than this, the apostle went so far as to absolve, as it were, the “I” from sinning: “if I do the very thing I do not wish to do no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which indwells me” (vv. 16-17 {Rom 7}; cf. the same thought in v. 20 {Rom 7:20}).

Since the same passage clearly shows the “I” as the subject of sinful actions as well as being opposed to sin, the apostle was not trying to evade the personal responsibility of the “I” in sin. But when the “I” is related to sin, it is never described in terms of the functions of personhood. There are no equal statements of thought, emotion, and will on the side of sin. Paul did not say, “I want to do the will of God, but I also want to sin.” Nor did he say, “I love the law of God, but I also love sin.” Thus the “I” that is positively oriented toward God is the person in the deepest sense of his personhood or identity. He is the “I” of the “inner man” (v. 22 {Rom 7:22}), the “I” that is the subject of the “mind” (v. 25 {Rom 7:25}).

The assertion that it is no longer “I” but sin that actually does the sinning is similar to other apparently contradictory statements of the apostle when he was referring to the dominating power that mastered him: “it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live” (Gal 2:20); “I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me” (1 Cor 15:10; cf. Matt 10:20). In these statements Paul was not intending to disavow responsibility, but to affirm the existence in himself of a power that exercised a dominating influence on him. The real person of the believer willingly assents to this dominating power, but in the case of sin as in Romans 7 the real “I” opposes it and can thus be set against it. Here the ego or real “I” in the believer is viewed as so opposed to sin that they can be isolated from each other. And the actual committing of sin, instead of being the action of the ego can be regarded as the action of the sin that enslaves the ego contrary to its will. As Delitzsch says, “the Ego is no longer one with sin-it is free from it; sin resides in such a man still, only as a foreign power.”³⁰

Romans 7 thus presents the real person of the believer as positive. To be sure, he commits sin both in thought and act but he also does righteousness. Sin and righteousness, however, do not characterize the real person of the believer in the same way. The believer is capable of experiencing a double servitude expressed in the apostle’s words, “on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin” (v. 25 {Rom 7:25}).³¹ But as this statement, along with the entire passage, indicates, the real person of the believer willingly serves God.

The description of the believer in Romans 7 thus fits the same picture of the believer seen in the teaching of his death and resurrection with Christ and his new heart. The Christian has been radically changed in his relationship to sin and righteousness from what he was before salvation. And this change is more than simply positional or judicial consisting in the forgiveness of sin and the imputation of righteousness. It includes a radical change of nature. The Christian is a new person. He has a new heart which is the real identity of the person.

Conclusion

The full picture of the believer’s relationship to sin and righteousness is obviously beyond the scope of this study. But when the question of his identity is posed-is the Christian a saved sinner or a saint who sins?-the Scriptures seem to point to the latter.

There is truth in the following explanation of so-called “miserable-sinner Christianity” expressed by Luther:

A Christian is at the same time a sinner and a saint; he is at once bad and good. For in our own person we are in sin,

and in our own name we are sinners. But Christ brings us another name in which there is forgiveness of sin, so that for His sake our sin is forgiven and done away. Both then are true. There are sins and yet there are no sins. thou standest there for God not in thy name but in Christ’s name; thou dost adorn thyself with grace and righteousness although in thine own eyes and in thine own person, thou art a miserable sinner.³²

Christians are sinners who are forgiven. But there is more to it than that. They are regenerated persons whose root core has been changed. They are forgiven, but also their heart-the spring of their life and their true identity-is new.

To confess as present-day Anglicans do³³ that “there is no health in us” or that “all my nature and being is deserving of punishment,” as also stated in the old German Lutheran confession, is contrary to the biblical picture of the believer.

All the apostles’ ethical imperatives are addressed to

believers on the premise that their natures are now on God’s side and have a new ability to obey God. The very assumption that Christians should grow demonstrates a belief that the positive dominates over the negative in their being. For a Christian to grow, there must be a stronger inclination toward God than toward sin.

Although the terminology “miserable sinner” does not adequately define the true identity of the believer, several

truths at the heart of so-called “miserable-sinner Christianity” must be retained even when viewing the believer as a “saint who sins.”

First, despite the truth that the believer’s heart and thus his or her identity have been transformed to an orientation toward God and His righteousness, one’s acceptance before God is only on the basis of Christ’s righteousness. One’s salvation is complete in Christ’s righteousness alone.

Second, the believer who sins must experience misery over sin. If a persons’ affections have truly been changed so that he or she is now on God’s side, then that one must hate sin and experience a godly sorrow over what grieves and wounds the One who loves believers deeply. Fisher’s description of sorrow over sin should be the experience of all believers.

When faith hath bathed a man’s heart in the blood of Christ, it is so mollified that it generally dissolves into tears of godly sorrow; so that if Christ turn and look upon him, O then, with Peter he goes out and weeps bitterly. And this is true gospel mourning; this is right evangelical repenting.³⁴

Third, even though God in His grace has created in believers

the germ of a new nature which gives them a new identity, their focus in life must be not on themselves, but on Christ. Dying and rising with Christ means the end of self-trust. Therefore, even though they are new persons, their source of life and growth is not in their own identity but in Christ. Their focus must be on Him and not on their own new identity. In Him they are new creatures (2 Cor 5:17).

_______________________________

1 Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield, Perfectionism, 2 vols. (New York: Oxford University Press, l931), 1:113-301.

2 Ibid, 115. The following quotations expressing the “miserable-sinner” concept are cited by Warfield (ibid., 118-19, 123).

3 Cited by Warfield (ibid., 128).

4 Neil Anderson, Victory Over the Darkness (Ventura, CA; Regal, 1990), 44-45. The word “occasionally” should be omitted from Anderson’s statement as he has indicated to this writer in personal conversation that it was not his intention to include this word.

5 Leon Morris, The First {1 Thess} and Second {2 Thess} Epistles to the Thessalonians, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 155.

6 Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1982), 190-91; and Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, TX: Word, 1990), 287.

7 Lincoln, Ephesians, 285.

8 E. K. Simpson and F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 273. O’Brien similarly says that in addition to a reference to the new corporate humanity, the “new man” designates “the new nature which the Colossians had put on and which was continually being renewed” (Colossians, Philemon, 190).

9 Robert C. Tannehill, Dying and Rising with Christ (Berlin:Töpelmann, 1967), 52; and A. Van Roon, The Authenticity of Ephesians (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 336-37.

10 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.3.11; cf. 3.12.1.

11 Ibid., 3.3.10.

12 Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles (London: Tyndale, 1957), 65 (italics his).

13 Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “aJmartwloj”,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 1:327-28; and George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 101.

14 Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 102.

15 Peter H. Davids, The Epistle of James (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 200.

16 “When Paul speaks of dying and rising with Christ, he is referring to Christ’s death and resurrection as eschatological events. As such, they concern the old and new aeons. Through this death and resurrection the believers are freed from the old aeon and the new aeon is founded…. Because the existence of all within an aeon is based upon and determined by the founding events, the whole of the aeon shares in these events” (Tannehill, Dying and Rising with Christ, 39). On the similar significance of dying and rising with Christ and stripping off the old man and putting on the new, see ibid., 52.

17 Ibid., 21.

18 Horatius Bonar, God’s Way of Holiness (New York: Carter & Bros., 1865), 108 (italics his).

19 Robert Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 313. John Laidlaw describes the heart as “the work-place for the personal appropriation and assimilation of every influence” (The Bible Doctrine of Man [Edinburgh: Clark, 1895], 122).

20 Andrew Tallon, “A Response to Fr. Dulles,” in Theology and Discovery: Essays in Honor of Karl Rahner, ed. William J. Kelly (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1980), 37.

21 Peter Kreeft, Heaven: The Heart’s Deepest Longing (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989), 45.

22 Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms, 322-23.

23 Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.3.6.

24 Franz Delitzsch, A System of Biblical Psychology (reprint, Grand Rapids; Baker, 1966), 416.

25 Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture, 2 vols. (London: Oxford University Press, 1973), 1:166.

26 James D. B. Dunn, “Romans 7:14-25 in the Theology of Paul,”Theologische Zeitschrift 31 (September-October, 1975): 257-73.

27 For a brief sketch of this latter interpretation, see N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 196-200.

28 C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1975), 1:358-59.

29 James D. B. Dunn, Romans 1-8 {Rom 8}, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, TX: Word, 1988), 389.

30 Delitzsch, A System of Biblical Psychology, 438. Delitzsch gives a helpful description of the interaction between the believing ego opposed to sin and the power of sin. Referring to the sin of unchastity, he says sin “is possible only when the might of temptation succeeds either in overmastering, or even in interesting, the Ego of the man. At times there are mingled in the range of man’s thoughts impure thoughts which he acknowledges as not less thought by his Ego than the pure ones which it opposed to them in order to dislodge them. Sometimes temptation succeeds in drawing in the man’s Ego into itself; but in the midst of the sinful act, the man draws it back from it, full of loathing for it. Sometimes, moreover, the Ego, in order to complete the sinful act unrestrainedly, is voluntarily absorbed into unconsciousness, and does not until after its completion return in horror to recollection of itself; and the spirit with shame becomes conscious of its having been veiled by its own responsibility” (ibid.).

31 J. Knox Chamblin, Paul and the Self (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 173-74.

32 Martin Luther, Werke, Erlangen ed., 2.197; cited by Warfield, Perfectionism, 1:116.

33 J. I. Packer, Keep in Step with the Spirit (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1984), 123.

34 Fisher, Marrow of Divinity, cited by Bonar, God’s Way of Holiness, 72.Similar Posts:

• Paul and Justification by Faith
• Do People Who Commit Suicide Go to Hell?
• Avoid Every Appearance of Evil!
• Why I Do Not Teach Christian Living Principles
• Inner Pain – Curse or Blessing

That’s how the verse reads in the KJV: Avoid every appearance of evil. It’s 1 Thess 5.22 and it puts a damper on everything. But does it really mean this? Does it really mean that even if something looks like it’s evil to some, we can’t enjoy it? Hardly.

The Greek text really should be translated, abstain from every form of evil. There is a genuine correspondence between form and evil: that is, stay away from evil things. But the reason that form (or, in the KJV, appearance) was used is because Paul is speaking about false doctrine. This verse, in fact, was more often attributed to Jesus than to Paul in the early church, suggesting that Paul got this line from his Lord and that it was one of the sayings that for some reason didn’t make it into the gospels but was nevertheless an authentic saying of Jesus. It was used with literal reference to coins; to abstain from every form of evil was to avoid counterfeit teaching. Further, in the context, it seems clear that Paul is speaking about false teaching. Verses 19-22 read as follows:

Do not quench the Spirit;
Do not despise prophecies;
But examine all things: cling to the good, abstain from every form of evil.

In context, Paul is saying that false teaching should be avoided, but true teaching should be what believers follow. They shouldn’t be duped, shouldn’t become gullible, but must test prophets and see whether they are from the Lord. They need to examine all these teachings and cling to the good and throw out the bad.

If we look at the broader context of the New Testament as a whole, we see that Paul was certainly not speaking about avoiding every appearance of evil in 1 Thessalonians 5. His own mission was governed by the mantra, I have become all things to all people, so that by all means I might save some (1 Cor 9.22).

Further, consider the life of Jesus. The distinct impression one gets from the gospels is that Jesus simply did not have the same scruples about his associations that the religious leaders of the day had. They avoided the appearance of evil at all costs; Jesus seems almost to have had the opposite approach to life and ministry (see, e.g., Luke 7:39). Even his disciples had been oppressed by all the rules and traditions of men. But Jesus freed them from such nonsense. In Matt 15, the Pharisees were stunned that Jesus’ disciples did not perform the Jewish hand-washing ritual before they ate. They hammered on the disciples and on Jesus for not obeying the oral commandments. Jesus did not say, Sorry, boys. I didn’t mean to cause offense. It won’t happen again. Instead, he very boldly pointed out that these religious leaders had exchanged the laws of God for their own self-made rules. He called them hypocrites who had no heart for God. The most remarkable verse in this whole pericope is verse 12: Jesus’ disciples came to their Master and said, Did you know that the Pharisees were offended by what you just said? Didn’t they know that offending the Pharisees was part of Jesus’ job description!

To wield 1 Thess 5.22 as a weapon to restrict a believer’s personal freedom is against the general tenor of the New Testament and of the Lord’s life in particular. Ironically, to avoid every appearance of evil is far more in keeping with the Pharisees’ model of righteousness than with Jesus’! I like John Piper’s notion of Christian hedonism for it falls in line with the Westminster Confession’s statement that our prime objective is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. Gee, maybe that’s what the Christian faith is all about? What a novel concept!Similar Posts:

• Was James Being Legalistic in Acts 15? or “Can I Eat a Rare Steak?”
• The Myth of “Abraham’s Bosom”
• Don’t forget to enjoy life
• Inviting Jesus into your Heart (Dan Wallace)
• Walid Shoebat Youtube Video on the Mark of the Beast

Though I don’t know where (c^{itation needed}), it is said that when Martin Luther rediscovered the idea that justification was by faith alone, without the aid of any meritorious good deeds, the leadership within the institutionalized church of the day said, “You can’t teach that. You know what will happen if you do? Everyone will be doing whatever they please.” To which Luther responded, “This is true. Now what pleases you?”

The idea Luther was promoting was not unlike the same idea posited by Augustine before him: when we become believers in Christ, our nature changes; with it, our pleasures. Our greatest pleasure, our greatest satisfaction, our loftiest ambition, and our lifelong goal, after faith is ignited in our soul, becomes to please our Lord. Why? Because we have changed, because we have graduated, because it is the best thing to do. This change will continue from the inside out for the rest of our lives.

I believe in the doctrine of sola fide. Sola fide means “faith alone.” It means you and I are justified, not by any good things we do, but by simply trusting in Christ. My Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Mormon friends do not share this belief. In fact, I don’t know of any religion in the world that does or ever has. All other systems of being made right before God involve some sort of merit system. Ultimately, for them, you have to perform well here on earth. You have to refrain from enough sin and add enough good deeds to your resume, which you will one day present to your creator. What a terrible (and fear-inducing) system. I don’t want God (or anyone else) to see my resume. It would not be pretty. I need a substitute resume. Therefore, I have acquired one which is not my own: Jesus Christ’s. His is the only resume God will accept, because he is the only one who lived a perfect life. And, indeed, I do have his resume. But I did not buy it, lease it, or put it on layaway. Nothing can be done to purchase or deserve his resume. He offers it to us freely. All we have to do is extend our hand (an act of faith) and take it. Hence, our justification (perfect resume) is a gift that comes only by faith.

It is a wonderful message. It is an unbelievable message. However, it is an offensive message. First, it is offensive because we are a prideful people. We think our resume is not too shabby. Many just want to take their chances on their own. Second, it is offensive because people are scared. They are scared of what this might mean. They are scared of abuse. They are scared of grace. Grace means it is free. If it is free then people will do whatever they please. Here are some of the common road blocks I have heard from others:

“So, what if a person becomes a believer, then goes and murders a hundred people?”

“What you are doing is giving people license to sin.”

“If you give people such freedom, there will be anarchy.”

“Pfff…So what you are saying is that I can go out and get drunk every night and all is covered?”

“Good, this mean that I can commit adultery with no consequences.”

And a thousand others like this. At first glance, it is the same as I said before: “If this is true, then I can do whatever I please.”

I agree with Martin Luther. Yes, it does mean we can do whatever we please. But if we have truly turned to Christ in faith, our pleasures will change. Some faster than others. Some more definitively than others. It does not mean that we will not be in a battle with the flesh for the rest of our lives. It does not mean that we won’t lose the battle with the flesh from time to time. Heck, I would be willing to say (from personal experience) it does not even mean that we won’t lose the battle with the flesh more often than not. What it means is that we actually desire the flesh to lose. What it means is that our ultimate pleasures come when we do beat the flesh. What is means is that we are changing from the inside out. What is means is that engaging in the sinful pleasures of this world does not taste as sweet as it used to. And – this is the key – when we do follow the Lord  and make the right decisions, we are not doing it for some reward or for fear of being punished (though even as Christians there are serious “built-in” consequences to sins), we are doing it because it is right. We understand it is right not because retribution is glaring at us or because our feet start to feel more than a little cozy as the fires of hell come a little closer, but because we have been changed, from the inside out. Isn’t this the gospel?

I think John says as much:

1 John 5:3
For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

If we stopped with the first half of the verse, we might have reason to object. However, the second half tells us the means by which following the Lord is accomplished. Far be it for me to argue with the way John worded this, but let me put it more positively (as John can be somewhat of a glass-half-empty guy). Instead of saying, “His commandments are not burdensome,” I think we are justified in putting it this way: “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments; it is a joy to do so.” God does not just call on us to do something we don’t want to do, but he changes our wants to conform to the greatest joy in the universe. He is not some cosmic pleasure killer, but the creator of the very idea of pleasure. Therefore, he is qualified to say that what the greatest pleasure is.

Doesn’t God want us to be more like my daughter? Doesn’t it please him more when we find our pleasure in following him? Isn’t he, by default, the greatest pleasure in the universe? Isn’t he the one who is at work within us both to will and do his good pleasure? You see, God does is not enlisting a fearful, reluctant army. He enlists only family members who not only have the resume of Christ, but are being changed from the inside out. Therefore, the doctrine of sola fide is not only the best option to understand the Scriptures, but it just makes more sense.

Psalm 37:4
Make Yahweh your joy and he will give you your heart’s desires.Similar Posts:

• An Emerging Understanding of “Orthodox” – Part 3: The Maturing of Orthodoxy
• “Sin Boldly”:What Would Luther Blog (WWLB)
• Historical Renewal Friday: Jonathan Edwards
• “Will One Sin Really Send You to Hell for All Eternity?” or “Why is Hell Eternal?”
• Is the New Birth in the Old Testament? or Why Was Christ So Hard On Nicodemus in John 3:10?

In Acts 15, we find the first council of church history (at least, that we know of). It is sometimes called the “Jerusalem Council”. Let me explain the occasion of the council. In Antioch there were large numbers of Gentiles who had come to the faith. However, there were certain Jewish Christians who were teaching these Gentiles that they had to be circumcised in order to be truly saved (Acts 15:1). Paul and Barnabas did not like this much (as you can imagine). Therefore, they began to dispute with these Jews. The Christians in Antioch decided to send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem to settle the matter once and for all with the head honchos (Acts 15:2).

It starts out tremendously. If I was in the crowd at the council, I would have been so excited I probably would have started the wave. Peter nails it with an epic argument for the Gospel of grace: “Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are” (Acts 15:10-11; emphasis mine). Kaboom! Issue settled. Let’s go home. Right? Not so fast. James has yet to speak.

After Paul and Barnabas were able to add their 2 cents, James began speaking. And those of us on the side of grace don’t really know what to do. We thought James was on our side, but it is hard to tell. Let me give the play-by-play.

First James affirms that the Gentiles have been called by God just as the Jews had by giving a hat-tip to Peter’s ministry (Acts 15:14). Then he roots the conversion of the Gentiles in Old Testament prophecy (Acts 15:16-18). Good stuff so far. He then seems to fumble the ball with these words: “Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood (Act 15:19-20). My paraphrase: ”Listen boys. Peter was right. We cannot expect the Gentiles to follow the Law that we could not follow. [I wish he would have stopped there] Therefore, let’s just make them do four things: 1) Eat no meat sacrificed to idols, 2) stay away from sexual immorality, 3) no eating animal which are strangled, and 4) no drinking blood.” What is that all about? They cannot abide by the Law, so no circumcision necessary. But here is the three main things that they must do? You chose those four things James? Those four things are the most important? Really? I can understand the sexual immorality stuff, but not the rest. Why not: 1) abstain from selfish living, 2) help the widows, 3) do not neglect the fellowship of believers, and 4) love your children? Or any number of random commands that could have been given. Or just tell them to ”remember the poor” as they told Paul to do as they sent him on his way (Gal. 2:10).

I am not the only one who has had some trouble with this. It would seem that some early western scribe did not like James’ choices either, so he changed the text. The three stipulations in the Western Greek text are that Gentile Christians should abstain from idolatry, immorality, and blood (that is, murder). I like that. It let’s me eat my steak without breaking fellowship with my conscience. It also seem to be much more in tune with the Gospel of grace.

So, the queston of the hour: Why did James include these four?

There are a few options here:

1. James was wrong and was being legalistic.

The apostles are not perfect so recording this in the book of Acts is not an endorsement of the stipulations. After all, didn’t Peter have similar scruples that Paul had to confront (Gal. 2:11-14)?

Problems:

• It is hard to see why Luke would have included this if it were not a legitimate pronouncement.
• Acts 15:22 says that this “seemed good to all the Apostles and elders”. This would include Paul.
• Is seems to still be in practice many years later (Acts 21:25).

2. James was right, but this was only one of those confusing “transitional” or timely issue in the book of Acts.

In other words, like so many confusing transitional occurences like the instant death of Ananias and Sapphria (Acts 5:1-10), the post belief baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:2-6), and Peter’s replacement of Judas (Acts 1:15-26), this was not meant to be normative.

Problems:

• The idea of “transitional” issues in the book of Acts, while necessarily present, is hard to be definite about, especially with this issue.
• It is hard to see how abstaining from sexual immorality is a transitional or timely issue.

3. James was right and these stipulations still apply to believers today.

This would mean that the four requirements were not merely descriptive of what was going then, but prescriptive to all believers of all times. We are not to eat meat sacrificed to idols, eat or drink blood, eat anything that has been strangled, and abstain from sexual immorality.

Problems:

• It seems to be placing the yoke of a modified law upon all people.
• Paul has no problem with eating meat sacrificed to idols, even calling those who do as “weak” (Rom. 14; see also 1 Cor. 8:4-8).
• I would not be able to enjoy my steak.

4. James was not being legalistic nor transitional, but practical for the sake of fellowship.

These stipulations are included because the issue, at this point, was not a definition of the Gospel, but a way to make fellowship between the believing Gentiles and the believing Jews in Antioch more attainable during the current crisis. While James did not encourage the Gentiles to be circumcised, he did encourage them to keep from being ceremonially defiled. The reason why these four things are singled out is due to the fact that they were particularly heinous to the Jews, making fellowship almost impossible. Therefore James lays down these four things not because of his own scruples, but because of the scruples of the Jews.

Problems:

• This would make sense of the meat sacrificed to idols, blood, things strangled, but would not make sense with the issue of sexual immorality. How is this a ceremonial thing? It is a moral thing.
• Considering the teachings of Paul on the subject of meat sacrificed to idols, it is hard to see how he would have stood in approval of such a cyclical admonishment which has the potential of obscuring the Gospel of grace.

What do you think? The first is what I was taught long ago. The last is the position taken by most commentators.Similar Posts:

• Beware of “Professional Weaker Brethern”
• Beware of “Professional Weaker Brethren”
• Some Jews, Gentiles and Random Thoughts About Christmas
• Avoid Every Appearance of Evil!
• Twelve Reasons Why Romans 9 is About Individual Election, Not Corporate Election

You know what I hate? I hate when I am corrected by my wife. Especially when she is right! My first tendency is to get defensive. “Michael, do you think you can start trying to spend more quality time with the kids?” (just to throw something completely random out there that I have never actually heard ). “It seems like you have been working a lot lately.” “What?!! I have not. Yes, I have had a lot of projects over the last month or two, but this is necessary to make ends meet. Which is more important: spending time with the kids or making sure they have food?” That is how things often go down when the confrontation is just between me and my wife. My first reaction is to get defensive. Many times I have sat in church and listened to a sermon where I could swear my wife must have called my pastor and given him fodder for the morning. The pastor essentially says the same thing as my wife, but to a more general audience. “The Bible tells us that we need to spend time with our family. Are you working too much? . . .” etc. I can’t tell you how many times this has happened. When it does, I can do nothing other than bow my head and say, “Yes Lord. I hear you.”

I have a hard time listening to the correction of others, especially when the correction is so direct and focused on me and my failings. Quit smirking. You do too. I often have to laugh at my sin nature as I reflect upon it. When someone attacks me personally, I usually won’t listen. When admonishment is given to a general audience in which I happen to reside, I will listen. Why? Because it is less personal. It seems more like God is the one doing the correcting, not the individual. Take this particular post for instance. I am indicting myself here, exposing my personal failings. Why does this come so easily right now? Because I am the one instigating the admission. Rarely do I write a blog of confession right after I have received an email or message of direct criticism (and I get plenty). This is just our nature – our sin nature.

In matters of biblical studies and theology, the ante is raised, especially for those of us who teach. Besides the corrections I receive on this blog, and from other bloggers who feel the need to write their own blogs correcting me, I often get emails from people who see themselves as called by God into the ministry of correction (is that a spiritual gift?). I am amazed at the number of people whom I have never met and who have never contacted me before, who feel ordained to send me a “first contact” of correction. There are people that I, upon seeing their name in my inbox, avoid like the plague. Feelings of dread come at the very sight of their names. Why? Because every time, their communication consists of some sort of criticism. Don’t get me wrong; I am not saying that every time we are corrected individually, we should submit to the correction. Often times the correction is off-base. However, there are those times when the correction is much needed, but the person giving the correction does not wisely consider our sin nature.

Isn’t there a Proverb for this? Hold on…Yep, here it is:

Proverbs 15:1
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

Tact. Tact. And, did I mention tact? Oh, wait. Here is another.

Proverbs 12:18
There is one who speaks rashly like the thrusts of a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.

Speaking of correcting those whom you feel are spreading dangerous doctrine:

2 Timothy 2:24
The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition. (emphasis mine)

Concerning those who have fallen into sin:

Galatians 6:1
Brethren, even if a man is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, lest you too be tempted. (emphasis mine)

That “you who are spiritual” qualification discredits my intervention, oh, about sixty percent of the time. The other forty percent of the time I am disqualified by my tone!

And then there is the “apologists’ creed:”

1 Peter 3:15
But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.

How often do we read the first part, bear up arms, load the guns, and forget about the major qualification: “with gentleness and reverence.” (Not to mention this is to come “to those who ask!”) Again, this is just tact.

Some points to consider when you feel called to the ministry of correction:

• Search for the plank in your own eye (Matt. 7:3). When found, get rid of it. If you can’t get rid of it, stay silent.
• Attacking someone personally when you have never contacted them before is not tactful. You don’t have their audience. You should not expect them to listen.
• Attacking someone personally every time you correspond with them is not wise. I try to live by the 5/1 rule. Five words of encouragement for every one word of correction.
• Publicly condemning someone comes at great expense, not only to the ones who are directly involved, but to those who are introduced to the controversy. Think long and hard before airing your complaint publicly.
• Realize that most of the time, the people you correct are not under your authority. Therefore, you have no right to speak to them as if they are in submission to you. This is a tremendous problem as Christian leaders attempt to use the internet to conduct ministry. It is so easy to write a quick “open letter,” arrogantly supposing that you are something you are not. This can do more damage to the body of Christ than the error your are supposed to be correcting.
• If you are to call someone out publicly, write your statement, then rewrite it ten times. Each time, soften your complaint with more gentleness.
• Remember that the person against whom you are logging your complaint is one who was created in the image of God. Live in fear of this. Follow David who, though he had every reason to start a public campaign against Saul, feared Saul due to his own fear of the Lord. Due to this, he would not lift up his hand against him (1 Samuel 24:6). We need more Davids.
• To the one being corrected: do your best to consider what is being said, even when the correction did not come tactfully.
• To the one who is falsely confronted: forgive the person. Don’t let it eat at you. Forgive them the moment you are hurt. Remember, they are sinners are well. Grace goes both ways.

Rarely do I use this ministry as a platform to call someone out. This is just not the place. Don’t get me wrong. This does not mean I have not often been tempted. In fact, three weeks ago I spent all day working on a 3000-word post which was directed at a theologian whom I believed was taking a serious turn for the worse. I reworked and reworked it. I deleted words and rephrased sentences. I did everything I could to follow the principles I laid out above. When I finished, I read it out loud and asked for feedback from some members of my staff. They were encouraged by it and felt that it was tactful. I waited ten more minutes and then decided to delete it. This is what I told our staff: ”This is just not us. It is not what I want us to be known for. I will let others write these types of things if need be. I don’t care about the traffic it could bring. Let’s continue to do what we do and deal with these things in a more indirect way. It is more tactful and effective anyway.” A day wasted? Yes. But as my mentor Chuck Swindoll would say: “phooey.”

When we follow these principles, not only will we be more biblical, but when a time of stern correction is needed, we will have an audience with the one who needs the correction.Similar Posts:

• Calling in “Spiritually Sick” to Work Today
• Let Ninety-Five Percent Roll off Your Back
• How to Listen in Sunday School
• What if God Read Your Posts? Christian Conduct on the Internet
• What Part of Gentleness and Respect Don’t You We Understand?

Make-up is not the issue. I don’t want to go there. We all have scruples. That is not really a technical theological term, though it is in the dictionary. This is how it is defined: “An uneasy feeling arising from conscience or principle that tends to hinder action.” However, when it comes to our faith, scruples are hard to deal with. You have these militating  terms: grace and liberty.

When grace and liberty clash with “scruples,” more often than not, unfortunately, the scruples win. Why? Because unfortunately we are so told that we always need to sacrifice our liberty for the sake of the “weaker brethren”. This “weaker brethren” card is often pulled and legalists love it. In fact, it is used most often by those who are legalist wearing the disguise of those who are free. It is not that this card is always illegitimate. There are true weaker brethren. But in my experience, more often than not, the idea of “weaker brethren” is misused and abused. Result? Slavery.

I remember Chuck Swindoll talking about this saying: “Be careful, there are some people out there who are ‘professional weaker brethren.’”

“Kristie, I have scruples with this make-up thing. Maybe I cannot find a verse or a solid principle upon which to rest my head, but you need to be sensitive  and understanding to my hang-ups for the sake of my spirituality. One more year and my scruples will be gone.”

I highlighted some key words that legalists will use to manipulate the situation. “Sensitive,” “understanding,” “hang-ups,” “sake,” and most importantly, “my.”

We are guilted into sacrificing our liberty through some pretty sneaky manipulation.

“I don’t go to the movies because I don’t want to cause anyone to stumble.”

Often implied translation: “You should give up your liberty too if you want to do what is right like me.”

“I don’t ever drink alcohol because a weaker brethren might see me and fall into sin.”

Often implied translation: “I have scruples with this issue and you should too.”

“If someone saw me befriending this person, they may think I am condoning their actions. Therefore, I sacrifice my liberty for the sake of their frailty.”

Often implied translation: “I can’t be friends with people who are that sinful.”

Of course we have our passage that we go to which justifies our self-imposed bondage: Romans 14.

“As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions” (Rom 14:1).

“So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding. Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats” (Rom 14:1).

Paul is talking about one who is “weak in faith”. In the example Paul gives, the person has scruples over the food that someone else was eating. Some were vegetarians and never ate meat. This was probably due to the meat’s connection to the idols. In this culture, the best and cheapest meat was that which was sold out the back door of temples. Because of the meat’s association with idolatry, many Christians thought that it was morally wrong to eat meat. But Paul makes it clear that it is not wrong: “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself” (14:1a). However, though there was nothing inherently wrong with eating meat (even if it had been sacrificed to an idol), if the person thought it was wrong, then it was wrong for them: “But it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean” (14:1). Therefore, when one of these “veggie only” guys was around, Paul encouraged believers to be sensitive to them due to their scruples. Otherwise, Paul says, we might cause them to “stumble” (i.e. they might see you doing what they think is wrong and do the same even though they think it is wrong). Paul considers the one who thought it was wrong to eat meat to be “weak in faith”.

However, we need to be careful here. While we certainly need to be sensitive to “weaker brothers and sisters”, we can take this too far. We are not obligated to bow our liberty to everyone who has a problem with our actions. It is very important to realize that a “weaker brother” is one who is truly weaker. He is weaker because he has not been educated in these issues. You must understand, he is not supposed to or expected to stay “weaker”. Eventually, he is needs to become stronger. Unfortunately, far too often these weaker brethren realize their power and become “professional weaker brethren.”

Don’t misread Paul by reading this one passage in isolation. Paul had no desire to compromise his liberty. We must temper the Romans passage with his message to the Galatians:

“But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you” (2:4-5).

Here we have a situation where legalists are trying to impose their scruples turned law on Christians. They had a long list of unbiblical laws that they thought every Christian should abide by. But Paul would have none of it. I suppose that they should have played the “weaker brethren” card.

“Hey, Paul, you cannot do that or I will stumble.”

“Paul, what if there is someone who has scruples with what you are doing? Do you want them to stumble? Its better to just sacrifice your liberty.”

In fact, they may have played these cards. As I said, Paul did not put up with it. Not for a second. Why? Because when you do, the Gospel is lost. Notice Paul said he did not subject to them even for an hour “so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.” Without liberty, there is no good news. Bondage only begets bondage. The Gospel is about being free.

But some people expect us to give up our liberty at every turn for the sake of “weaker brethren”. But think about this: If we were to give in to every so-called weaker brethren what would the result be? We would always be bowing to the least common denominator. Just about everything would be off-limits. Think of all the things people have scruples with:

1. Going to movies
2. Dancing
3. “Mixed” bathing
4. Caffeine
5. Tobacco
6. Reading Harry Potter
7. Reading C.S. Lewis
8. Saying “oh my God”
9. Wearing flip flops to church
10. Drinking alcohol
11. Reading any Bible translation other than the KJV
12. Listening to Rock music
13. Going to church on Saturday rather than Sunday
14. Making a purchase that others think is a sinful waste of money
15. Playing video games
16. Taking anti-depressants
17. Women wearing pants
18. Sending your kids to public schools
19. Homeschooling
20. Going to a “seeker” church

For all of these things, I really do have representatives in my life right now. Every one of them would be offended if I crossed their line. I actually have someone who thinks homeschooling is morally wrong. As well, I have someone who thinks that public schooling is morally wrong. Seeing as how we started homeschooling our kids this semester, how can I keep both of these from stumbling? Is it even my job to do so? If I were to follow this “no-offense” policy in my life, I would be completely immobile in this and a thousand other actions. So would you.

“It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery” (Gal 5:1).

We need to be sensitive, I know. But I am afraid that often our sensitivity only serves to fuel others’ faulty understanding and legalism. People will control you to the degree that you let them. If you allow this to go on without discernment, not only will you be immobile, but you will have lost your liberty. Lose liberty, lose the Gospel.

Believe it or not, there are people out there who hate our liberty and will do anything to make us lose it. They see the advantage of using the “weaker brethren” card, and use it to manipulate, control, and imprison others. Beware of “professional weaker brethren”.Similar Posts:

• Beware of “Professional Weaker Brethren”
• How Bad Can a Christian’s Doctrine Be Before they Are No Longer Christian?
• Was James Being Legalistic in Acts 15? or “Can I Eat a Rare Steak?”
• Can Christian’s Curse?
• Are You a Misfit in the Church?

The last few months, in keeping up with my weekly reading of “what is happening now” in theology, I have begun to experience theological nausea. My spirit is sick and it is about to hurl. I don’t know what that looks like, but it does not feel right. There are simply too many “opt outs” being offered – we are beginning to look more like a cafeteria than a church.

In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty . . . right? Let me try to briefly state the issue that I have, today, at 5:24pm CST. I am getting the feeling that Christian apologists and theologians, in order to make our faith more palatable to the outside world, are attempting to move all difficulties of our faith into the “non-essential” category in order to create “opt outs.” This is where just about everything outside of the person and work of Christ becomes negotiable. When does the form of Christianity we offer become something different than the historic Christian faith?

Some examples are in order here (please forgive the snarky spirit of the following):

1. Problem with the doctrine of eternal punishment? No problem. We have these two less common options: universalism or annihilationism. You can believe that all people will eventually be saved or that all the damned will cease to exist.

2. Problem with the truthfulness of Scripture? No issue at all. There is no need to believe that the Scripture is true in everything it says, only the “big parts” like Christ’s resurrection.

3. Problem with a donkey talking and other crazy things? Let me point you to an important word: “metaphor.” Yep, just about any portion of Scripture can be turned into a metaphor, myth, parable, symbol, or any number of things. Point being, you don’t have to accept it.

4. Problem with creation account in Genesis? No need to get down. We have lots of options here, including our latest, theistic evolution. The point is that whatever modern science proposes, you can accept. (See number 3 for the means of acceptance.)

5. Problem with God’s allowing for evil? Easy. We have an option that says God, in order to preserve freedom and true love, cannot know about (much less intervene) in the free-will evil choices that people make. Therefore, he is off the hook. Its called “open theism.” Have fun.

6. Problem with the doctrine of election? I understand. This is a particularly nasty one. However, no need to fear. You don’t have to believe this. There is a modified form of divine election which says God’s choice is based on your choice. There . . . the sting is gone.

7. Problem with the exclusivity of Christ? Again, we have the answer. Nowadays, we have this idea called “inclusivism.” With this fancy option, we say that people can be covered by the blood of Christ without actually accepting the Gospel. Awesome.

Next…

8. Speaking of the “blood” of Christ, some of you might have a problem with the idea that the Father sacrificed his son (and that he was actually happy about it). You know all that archaic stuff about sacrifices and the shedding of blood? You don’t have to accept that either. There are some who believe that Christ was an example rather than the subject of “divine child abuse.” God’s forgiveness is based on his love, not blood.

9. Problem with homosexuality being a sin? Don’t let that hold you back. Many of our most astute theologians have been able to rework this issue so that there is an option on the table which proposes that homosexuality was not universally condemned in the Scripture. Though the ranks of those who advocate this may be few, it is enough to create a loophole to get out of this one. There are even many “gay churches” that you can attend.

Next…

10. Problem with male headship in the church and family? This is one of the easier ones. We have tons of representatives in the church (even denominations) which disagree here. You are free to reject any idea of male headship based upon “cultural context.”

Okay. I am done with the examples…

Here is the problem I have. While I hold to pretty traditional beliefs in these areas, many (not all) of these listed I agree with. In other words, I do believe there are some legitimate alternatives, most notably on the issue of election. While I am a Calvinist, being very committed to unconditional divine election, I understand there are alternative options here that are viable. In short, I don’t believe that a rejection of unconditional election amounts to a rejection of Christianity.

However, when does our removal of intellectual and emotional stumbling blocks create an aberration of Christianity that is Christian only in name? When does our theology get manipulated enough to where it is no longer Christian theology? When do we offer so many choices on the Christian smörgåsbord that the cafeteria’s name needs to change? When does our theology cross the line to where it is “something, but not Christian”?

While writing this, I was talking to a friend who said that she knows a person whom she is trying to evangelize, but that this person has some “issues” with the Christian faith. She wants to bring the friend to the Credo House to discuss them with me. I said in jest, “No problem. Whatever issue the person has, we have multiple alternatives! I can get out of anything.” In other words, whatever their problem is, so long as it is not about the resurrection of Christ, “we know a guy” that can take care of it, if you know what I mean.

I am suspicious of any mindset that is compelled to produce all of these “opt-outs” in order to make Christianity more palatable. Who said that was our job? When did palatability become a test for veracity? Sometimes we believe things that are not palatable, don’t we? Is our desire to be intellectually and culturally viable causing our witness to misrepresent “the faith once for all handed over to the saints”? When do we lose the “fellowship of the saints” due to our minimalization of the Christian faith? Just because something is hard to believe, does this give us the right to scavenger hunt for other options? When have we pulled up so many anchors that we are adrift in a different sea? When is it “something, but not Christian”?

I am tired of all the options. Can we just preach our convictions in the church and not the cafeteria?Similar Posts:

• Engaging Postmodernism (3): Changing the Horse
• Engaging Postmodernism (5): Changing the Water
• Can Catholics Affirm Sola Scriptura?
• Engaging Postmodernism (2): Denying the Horse is Postmodern
• “Good Question. I Will Find the Answer and Get Back to You” . . . And Other Stupid Statements

“Since we can live only in one area of relationships of our life at any given moment, it is evident that we can be in a Spirit-controlled area one moment and in a flesh-dominated area the next. This is why we can be a great person to live with one minute (delightful, because we are in the Spirit) and then a moment later some old habit of the flesh reasserts itself and we are right back in our old covenant behavior—harsh, nasty, or cruel. When we become aware of those feelings within, we know we will lose our Christian reputation if we are allowed to show, so we snatch an evangelical veil and hide the fading glory.

But how encouraging to know that the Spirit will never give up the battle! He seeks in a thousand ways to invade each separate relationship of the soul, and gradually He is doing so—sometimes faster, as we yield to him; sometimes very slowly, as we resist and cling to our veils. The more we work and live with the face of Jesus clearly in view, the more quickly we find each area of our life being changed into His likeness” (102-103).

Similar Posts:

• Questions I Hope No One Will Ask: Why Aren’t Christians Better People?
• What is Satan’s Goal?
• The Voice of Reason: Decision Making and Spirit-Led Direction
• The Book of Job and the Problem of Pain
• On Authenticity, Condemnation and Community

While the issues are complex and I do not wish to enter into a dialogue about this person’s spiritual state, I do want to mention a verse that has put him in a spiritually catatonic state. He believes that, “like it was with Esau,” it is too late for him. He believes that the repentance that he seeks has been removed from the table. In other words, he believes that there is a time when repentance is no longer possible.

Here is the verse often referred to in support of this idea:

Heb 12:17 
“For you know that even afterward, when he [Esau] desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears. (NAU)

The impression is that Esau rejected the blessing of God through his birthright (which is true). When he later realized how fool-hearted this was and turned to God for repentance, he was rejected. It was just too late.

Even John Piper, whom I love and respect very much, uses this verse in such a way. Speaking about those who are in hell, he says that they will desire repentance, but have their desire rejected. Like Esau, it will be too late

When he [the unbeliever] dies, he will be shocked beyond words. The miseries [in hell] are so great he would do anything in his power to escape. That it is not in his power to repent does not mean he wants to be there. Esau wept bitterly that he could not repent (Hebrew 12:17). The hell he was entering into he found to be totally miserable, and he wanted out. The meaning of hell is the scream: “I hate this, and I want out.” (source)

While I have a different take then Piper concerning people’s disposition in Hell (see my “Why is Hell Eternal“), I also think he follows the popular (and understandable), yet wrong, conception of what is being communicated here.

The question is What did Esau seek with tears? What is the “it”? Piper assumes that it is repentance. While the translation I used (NAU) leaves the question open for interpretation, the word order in English does not bring out the possibilities. It does seem like it is repentance that Esau is seeking. Notice how so many other translations give this impression as well:

KJV: For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

ESV: For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.

NKJ: For you know that afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought it diligently with tears.

NLT: You know that afterward, when he wanted his father’s blessing, he was rejected. It was too late for repentance, even though he begged with bitter tears.

RSV: For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.

All of these translations give the impression that what Esau sought for was repentance. If this were the case, this is a cause for great concern since it would teach that we can turn to God with tears, truly seeking repentance, but be unable to find it. It would teach that there are people who truly want to turn from their sin, but cannot find the ability to repent. It would teach that there exists the possibility for you to approach the throne of God requesting the gift of repentance and be turned down. It would teach that there is a time in this life when it is just too late, no matter how much you desire to change. That is scary.

However, there is another, and I believe, more faithful way to understand this passage. You see the pronoun “it” has not one but two possible referents. When structured like the translations above, the common way to read this in English is to look for the closest possibility as the referent to what Esau sought. The closest referent to “it” is “repentance.” However, the Greek goes by different rules. Word order is secondary to inflection. The word “it” is a feminine pronoun. This means that the noun which it modifies will be feminine too. In this verse there are two feminine nouns: “repentance” and “blessing.” Therefore, there are two viable options here for what Esau sought with tears. It was either repentance or the blessing. Neither is preferred based on grammar and syntax, therefore we must look to the context of the story the author of Hebrews is alluding to.

When we turn back to this story in Genesis 27, we see Esau being tricked out of his blessing by both Jacob and his mother. After Esau found out he had been tricked and Isaac had blessed Jacob rather than him, he broke down. Notice how the narrative goes:

Gen 27:35-38
And he [Isaac] said [to Esau], “Your brother came deceitfully and has taken away your blessing.” 36 Then he said, “Is he not rightly named Jacob, for he has supplanted me these two times? He took away my birthright, and behold, now he has taken away my blessing.” And he said, “Have you not reserved a blessing for me?” 37 But Isaac replied to Esau, “Behold, I have made him your master, and all his relatives I have given to him as servants; and with grain and new wine I have sustained him. Now as for you then, what can I do, my son?” 38 Esau said to his father, “Do you have only one blessing, my father? Bless me, even me also, O my father.” So Esau lifted his voice and wept. (NAU, emphasis mine).

You see that Esau did indeed weep. He did indeed repent. But what was it he repented and wept over? It was the loss of his blessing. The context seems clear that the author of Hebrews is saying that Esau sought his blessing with tears, not repentance.

I think some of these translations do a good job of bringing out this nuance:

TNIV: Afterward, as you know, when he wanted to inherit this blessing, he was rejected. Even though he sought the blessing with tears, he could not change what he had done.

NJB: As you know, when he wanted to obtain the blessing afterward, he was rejected and, though he pleaded for it with tears, he could find no way of reversing the decision.

NRS: You know that later, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, even though he sought the blessing with tears.

NAB: For you know that later, when he wanted to inherit his father’s blessing, he was rejected because he found no opportunity to change his mind, even though he sought the blessing with tears.

NET: For you know that later when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no opportunity for repentance, although he sought the blessing with tears.

It is unfortunate when Bible translations seek to leave the options open in situations such as this. This is one of those places where I believe translation philosophy militates against the clearer meaning of the text. I understand the reasoning in many cases, but here, the casualties are plenty as the implications are severe. Normally we would seek to leave ambiguity where it truly exists. I get that. But can we really say that this passage presents us with such a dilemma? Its it really ambiguous enough to leave the English word order in such a misleading way? I applaud the later translations for bringing out the meaning of this passage and hope the updates on other translations such as the ESV and the NAS follow suit.

I believe that the Bible teaches that there is never a day when repentance is beyond our grasp. Even the thief on the cross was able to find humble repentance in his words “remember me when you come into your kingdom.” This is the wonder of our God and the Gospel message. God’s love makes repentance always acceptable no matter where you find yourself in life. If you seek repentance, you will find it. God’s grace is that radical.

Mat 7:7-8
Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.Similar Posts:

• Inviting Jesus into your Heart (Dan Wallace)
• How to Know if you’re Elect (Sam Storms)
• Letting My Children Cry
• Will One White Lie Send You to Hell for All Eternity?
• Why Do I (A Calvinist) Go to An Arminian Church?

1. Women in ministry

2. Creation/Evolution issues

3. Calvinism/Arminianism stuff

I would put them in that order too. Talk about these topics, and be prepared for a divided crowed. Blog one of these issues and get ready for the comments section to explode. Take a stand on one of these and prepare yourself to be assigned with some nasty label. Stay away from these issue and live long and prosper . . . or something like that.

As controversial as these topics are, I have also found that there is one greater than all of these. It is not necessarily in the area of systematic theology. It would fit better in practical theology. While those referenced above may get one’s blood boiling in the heat of the battle, there is one that has a greater more sustained and nuanced effect upon our disposition. I would call it “ecclesiology” (the doctrine of the church), but I think that such an academic designation would detract from its broader appeal. Simply put, it is How we do church.

I make it a habit to take breaks from my local assembly and visit other churches that are not of my ilk. Sometimes it is just a one time visit. Other times it is for an extended stay. (Some people are shifting in their seat right now, others have quit reading.) Sometimes it is a church with a “high” liturgy. Others it is at a church that would say “litur-what?” I do this for self-preservation. I do this for spiritual edification. I do this for ecclesiastical exercise. Most of all, I do this so that I can have grace.

I believe that one of the greatest grace killers that we can have in our lives is an overly critical spirit about other churches.

I was having lunch with a pastor not too long ago who only wanted to talk about another church in the area. His opinions about the way they do church were not favorable. Though he had never been to this church, he had heard enough. His church was a “Bible-centered Church for believers.” Their church was a “Seeker driven church for unbelievers.” In his opinion, they were too fast and loose with their accommodations to the world. They were trying to build bridges to the lost, but now they had taken on the identity of the bridges, not the Kingdom to where the bridge was supposed to lead. Though the Gospel was preached, it was only milk that they offered. In his opinion, they should have a “Meat unavailable” sign out front.

I was reading another local pastor who was going off about another pastor in the area. This time it was just the opposite. This guy led a “seeker” church (which essentially means that more than fifty-percent of the intentionality of the main church service is based on getting the lost saved). He came down hard on the other pastor because he was referencing Greek and Hebrew during his message. “The church is not a seminary,” he said. He emphasized that this will do nothing but produce high and mighty arrogant Christians, and will run the rest off.

The main point that both of these pastors expressed was that their church was the one right way to do church (or at least much more right than the other). Veer just a bit from their sanctified methodology and hands are no longer held in the missio dei.

I used to be this way. Let me rephrase: I am this way, but I am in recovery.

“Hi, my name is Michael and I am a Church critic.”

“Hi Michael.” 

My approach to evaluating churches is becoming quite simple. I am starting to be able to appreciate just about any church where the Bible is being taught and the Gospel proclaimed. There can be all kinds of things I would do different. There can be all kinds of weaknesses in other areas. But when I find a church where the word of God is consistently proclaimed, more often than not, I find the power of God. When I visit a church where the Bible is respected as the final authority, I find those who are on the same mission as I. When I find a church where people are led to the Gospel, I find myself among brothers and sisters. Most importantly, when I find a church where the Bible is believed, I am surprised. It is a rare treat these days. 

Sometimes we go to churches and think:

“Maybe the Bible is being taught, but it is not expositional. God is only slightly here.”

“Maybe it is expositional, but the music is compromisingly loud. God cannot exist in such chaos.”

“Maybe the Gospel is strongly proclaimed, but people don’t know what to do next. God is waiting for them to get to step two.”

“Maybe there is good discipleship, but the Gospel is not clearly proclaimed each week with an alter call. God does not appreciate the snub.”

“Maybe people open their Bible’s here, but they use the Message. God does not like the Message.”

“Maybe these people know doctrine, but I never see them at the downtown mission. God does not like inlets with no outlets.”

On and on we could go. Yes, we could do this about your church too. I promise.

I have to train myself continually to appreciate the methodology that others are using. I have to train myself to recognize God’s presence in any number of situations. I have to remember that the Bible does not give too many “hows” of doing church.

Today I sat at a certain worship service of a church I do not normally attend and saw so many things that I could criticize, come down upon, and get worked up over. Here and there I had to stop myself. At my best moments I knew, as the Bible was being taught, that I was at the house of brothers and sisters. I knew that God works in spite of all our methodologies. I know that we are all traditionalists at heart. There is no one perfect way to do church. But there is a way to kill grace. And if grace has died, what have we got?

How do we become children with regard to our criticism of other churches? How do we unmake our beds of methodological triumph? Who’s victory are we proclaiming when we look down on other Bible believing churches? Why are we so territorially inclined?

“Hi, my name is Michael and I am a critic of Church methodology.”

“Hi Michael.” 

Don’t get me wrong. I have a particular way in which I would conduct a church. A bit more traditional than some. A bit more progressive than others. Neither high-church nor low-church. But my way is not the right way. It is not necessarily even more right than another. It is just my way, with its relative strengths and weaknesses. I am glad God gave us this freedom. I think it is why the church can shape itself in every culture and in every period of history.

In my opinion, to say that there is a “biblical liturgy” or a biblical way of doing church is about as unbiblical as we can be. It is a grace killer. And in the end, it is not the Spirit of God you are quenching in that church, it is the Spirit of God in you.Similar Posts:

• In Defense of Seeker Churches
• Should the Church Seek for Miracles Signs?
• It is Foolish to Continue to Have Evangelistic Crusades in our Postmodern World
• Why Do I (A Calvinist) Go to An Arminian Church?
• A Call for a Diversified Pastorate