Darwin's Bulldog was Right!

I have always appreciated consistency, even when it comes from unbelievers. Thomas H. Huxley was a man that appreciated consistency too. Being the main propagator for Charles Darwin's evolutionary philosophy in Darwin's day, Huxley, an avowed agnostic, had no room for professing Christians who compromised the gospel by supporting evolutionary naturalism. He wrote the following in this regard:

I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how any one, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the “ten words” were not written by God’s hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated? And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands? [Huxley, T., Science and Hebrew Tradition, Vol. 4 of Huxley’s Collected Essays, ‘The Lights of the Church and the Light of Science’, (1890), pp. 207–208, , 18 March 2008. ]

Huxley also said that,

". . . the Universality of the Deluge is recognised, not merely as a part of the story, but as a necessary consequence of some of its details." [Ibid, 214.]

And concerning the attempts of theologians to say the Flood was only a local event, he wrote,

A child may see the folly of it.[Ibid., 225]

He went on,

When Jesus spoke, as of a matter of fact, that "the Flood came and destroyed them all," did he believe that the Deluge really took place, or not? It seems to me that, as the narrative mentions Noah’s wife, and his sons’ wives, there is good scriptural warranty for the statement that the antediluvians married and were given in marriage; and I should have thought that their eating and drinking might be assumed by the firmest believer in the literal truth of the story. Moreover, I venture to ask what sort of value, as an illustration of God’s methods of dealing with sin, has an account of an event that never happened? If no Flood swept the careless people away, how is the warning of more worth than the cry of “Wolf” when there is no wolf? If Jonah’s three days’ residence in the whale is not an “admitted reality,” how could it “warrant belief” in the “coming resurrection?” … Suppose that a Conservative orator warns his hearers to beware of great political and social changes, lest they end, as in France, in the domination of a Robespierre; what becomes, not only of his argument, but of his veracity, if he, personally, does not believe that Robespierre existed and did the deeds attributed to him? [Ibid., 232-233]

Concerning Matthew 19:5 [‘Have you not read, that He which made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?’], Huxley wrote,

If divine authority is not here claimed for the twenty-fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis, what is the value of language? And again, I ask, if one may play fast and loose with the story of the Fall as a “type” or “allegory,” what becomes of the foundation of Pauline theology?’ [Ibid., 235-236]

And regarding 1 Corinthians 15:21–22 [‘For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.’], Huxley wrote,

If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is merely an instructive “type,” comparable to the profound Promethean mythus, what value has Paul’s dialectic? [Ibid]

Summing up the position of theologians who compromised the words of the Bible, Huxley observed that "the position they have taken up is hopelessly untenable". [Ibid.] Huxley was right: The Christian faith makes no sense if we give up the first 11 chapters of Genesis and other Old Testament historical narratives by redefining them as allegories, meaningful myths, or fables. The faith once for all delivered to the saints stand or falls on the historical realities of these Old Testament events. Give that up, and you have no basis for the resurrection of Christ, if you have no resurrection of Christ, then you have no hope (1 Corinthians 15:12-19).

Considering Other Believers: Part III - 1 Corinthians 8:8-13

Wouldn’t it be awful if someone stood up in this fellowship and publically declared that they desire to willfully hurt and unnecessarily offend one of our brothers or sisters in Christ? That would be not only hurtful, but hateful. Such activity is the stuff of infidels and no true believer would ever knowingly do such a thing (cf. 1 John 2:9, 11; 3:15, 4:20). Our first teaching in this series defined and explained the problem of the “grey areas”, a study that is concerned with the limitations of Christian freedom and how that freedom should be exercised. Any discussion about the “grey areas” boils down to this issue: Because many behaviors practiced today are neither explicitly condemned nor condoned in the Bible, just how far can a believer go before he sins? Because many believers feel that these questionable practices are wrong yet are not specifically condoned or condemned in Scripture, debates have raged since the early Church regarding the freedom that believers have to engage in certain behaviors and practices. These types of issues are not “black or white” issues, meaning, they are not clearly defined in Scripture as sin and it’s not always clear whether such things will quickly lead to sin. These issues are neither black nor white; they are the “grey areas”. Confusion about how to Biblically handle the “grey areas” has led to legalism on the one hand, and license on the other. For the legalists, everything is black and white, sin or no-sin, regardless of the situation. These folks tell you what you are to wear, what you are to eat, and when and how you are to worship. Their slogan is, “We don’t drink, dip, or chew, or go with people that do.” Now, for the licentious person, everything not explicitly condemned in Scripture is grey. Various cultural and contextual differences don’t matter and cannot lead to sin, so those who are offended by their “freedom in Christ” should basically get over it and mind their own business. Their slogan is, “It’s all good, so go for it!”

Both views are opposite extremes of the Biblically-balanced position, which is summed up in this general principle: When our Christian freedoms cross the conscience of a weaker believer, especially when those freedoms are not necessary in our service to the Lord, we can incur sin and lead to the ruin of the weaker believer. In answering a question about food sacrificed to idols, Paul gives the Corinthians this general principle that can be applied to all doubtful behaviors throughout the Church age, regardless of the culture or context. The good news is that when we learn the general principle and apply it correctly to non-sinful activities, we avoid sinning against the brethren and our Lord (1 Cor. 8:12). Remember, the central theme of Paul’s instruction is this: “. . . take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.” (1 Corinthians 8:9) And so, before we exercise our Christian liberty in an area that is not forbidden by Scripture, we should carefully consider how it will affect others, especially our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. We will conclude this series by looking at verses 8-13 with this general principle in mind under the followings headings: (I) Food Doesn’t Commend Us to God, (II) A Word on the Conscience, and (III) Applying the General Principle.

TEACHING/APPLICATION

I. Food Doesn’t Commend Us to God: Verse 8-9, “But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat.” Eating or not eating food has no spiritual significance in itself. Neither act will “commend us to God”. To “commend” means to make us presentable. Eating or not eating certain types of food has nothing to do with making us presentable to the Lord. We cannot get closer to Him by eating certain types of food or avoiding others. Jesus made it very clear that “there is nothing outside the man which going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man.” (Mark 7:15). God’s command to Peter for him to “Get up . . . kill and eat” was both symbolic, referring to accepting Gentiles as equal participants in the gospel, and literal, referring to eating food that was previously considered unclean (Acts 10:10-16; cf. v. 28). Paul also told Timothy that he was to receive all types of food with gratefulness (1 Tim. 4:4). Doing non-sinful things has no significance in our relationship with God because these things are spiritually neutral. So, even though non-sinful activities will not commend us to God, we still must “take care that this liberty” of ours “does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak” (v. 9).

This is because verse 10 says, “For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols?” If an immature believer sees us doing something that bothers his conscience, his spiritual life can be harmed. We should never influence a fellow Christian to do anything that the Holy Spirit, through that person’s conscience, is protecting him from. The mature Christian knows that “dining in an idol’s temple” or attending some family or community event is not necessarily bad in and of itself. He can associate with pagan people because he is spiritually strong (i.e., “knowledge”), he just abstains from any pagan beliefs or practices that are associated with it. This is a benefit to the mature because they understand their freedom in Christ and they use those situations as an opportunity to preach Christ. But if a weak believer sees the mature Christian eating in a temple, he may be tempted to go against his own conscience and eat in the temple himself.

Verses 11-12,”For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died.” This is an example of how it can be dangerous for a believer to go against his own conscience. The Christian who goes against his own conscience can be “ruined” because he is placed in a situation that he cannot handle without being tempted to sin. This is a “brother for whose sake Christ died”, and we dare not “ruin” his spiritual condition by causing him to contradict his own conscience by asking him to bear up under a load of temptation that we know he cannot bear. We must always remember that the redeemed elect are not expendable on the altar of our Christian freedom.

II. A Word on the Conscience: The conscience is a gift from God. It is a special, internal instrument used by the Holy Spirit to warn us and protect us from danger. If a believer’s conscience is weak it is because he or she is spiritually immature. Our conscience is like a radar that warns us against going places and doing things we ought not do. As we grow in our faith, our conscience allows us to do more things because we have a greater understanding of our faith and we possess greater strength in Christ. John MacArthur describes the conscience well when he likens it to the maturation of a child over a long period of time. He says,

A small child is not allowed to play with sharp tools, to go into the street, or to go where there are dangerous machines or electrical appliances. The restrictions are gradually removed as he grows older and learns for himself what is dangerous and what is not. [John MacArthur Jr., The MacArthur New Testament Commentary on 1st Corinthians, (Chicago, Ill: Moody, 1984), 196.]

The conscience of a believer is like that. As they grow in their spiritual maturity, their conscience will allow them to do more for the Lord. A person should never do more than their conscience permits. We must also remember that new believers may not be able to participate in some of the things that more mature Christians are able to do and so, we should not compel them to participate in something that we know might offend their conscience. This is why Paul goes on to say in 12, “And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Causing a brother to stumble isn’t just a sin against him; it’s a sin against our Lord. That is a strong warning that all of us should consider, especially since none of us would want to “sin against Christ”. We should always be willing to set aside our freedoms to help a weaker believer. Christ died for them, He loves them, and we should too; especially when it comes to showing our love by avoiding behaviors in from of them that we know will cause them to stumble.

Verse 13, Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.”

III. Applying the General Principle: If we need to know how to put the tires of this teaching onto the road of life, we need to be reminded that problems occur when we (1) tread on others with our freedom, or (2) our freedom to participate in a non-sinful activity turns into idolatry. This is why Paul warns us against encouraging weak believers to participate in any non-sinful activity that goes against their conscience since it causes us to run the risk of sinning against them and Christ (v. 12). We should never practice a non-sinful activity in front of another believer again if it causes them to stumble. Thus, when we are trying to decide whether or not to participate in any doubtful behavior, we should first consider the following Biblical principles:

1. Is it excessive?: Is the activity necessary or is it something that isn’t really important? Is it an activity that we can easily give up? Hebrews 12:1 says, “Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us . . .”

2. Is it expedient?: Paul says, “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable,” or expedient (1 Cor. 6:12).

3. Does it emulate Christ?: Are we following Christ with our actions? If so, we can be guaranteed that what we are doing is not only acceptable, but also godly and true. “. . . the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.” (1 John 2:6)

4. Does it provide a Christ-like example?: Are we being a godly example for others to follow, especially for weaker believers? If we follow Christ’s example, other believers will be able to follow our example. Paul said to Timothy, “Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe.” (1 Timothy 4:12)

5. Does it hinder evangelism?: Will unbelievers be attracted to Christ by my words and deeds? Will I turn unbelievers away by what I am doing? Will my actions allow me to say that I have conducted myself “with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity.” (Colossians 4:5)

6. Does it edify?: Will both I and other believers be built up in the faith by my actions? Paul said, “All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.” (1 Corinthians 10:23)

7. Does it exalt Christ?: Can the Lord be glorified by what I’m doing? Scripture teaches that God’s glory and exaltation should be the motive behind everything we do, “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” (1 Corinthians 10:31)

CONCLUSION

Do you remember the question I asked at the beginning of this teaching? “Wouldn’t it be awful if someone stood up in this fellowship and publically declared that they desire to willfully hurt and unnecessarily offend one of our brothers or sisters in Christ?” I said that such behavior is the stuff of infidels, and so it is. While it is true that such a thing would constitute a verbal display of hatred of the worse kind, what about when we engage in practices that we know will offend weaker believers and lead to their spiritual ruin? How is that any better? Why are believers quick to express outrage over one Christian verbally assaulting another, yet when it comes to using our “freedoms” to abuse weaker believers, we sometimes try to justify our unnecessary and offensive actions? The answer is because sometimes we are selfish and we want to protect our functional saviors even though our conscience tells us we are wrong. Instead of being loving and humble by setting aside the offending practice for a time, we partake in front of the weaker believer and ruin them at the expense of our “freedom in Christ”. That’s just plain horrible and it’s the height of hypocrisy! But yet it happens all the time. Worse yet, we sometimes do these things without realizing we’re doing them. The cure to such selfishness is to replace it with Christ-like self-less-ness. This is the put-off/put-on principle that brother Paul teaches us about in Colossians 3:1-17. This means that you must be willing to set yourself, your desires, and sometimes your “freedoms” aside so that another believer might flourish in Christ. This is what King Jesus did and He is your Grand Exemplar. In conclusion, let us all take note of what Paul says about our Master’s example in Philippians 2:3-11,

Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; 4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

An Explanation of the Trinity by Matt Slick

Note: The following is an excellent explanation of the differences between the ontological Trinity and the economic Trinity. This information is so helpful when discussing the nature of God with various cultists. I have found that almost every Jehovah's Witness or Mormon I have spoken with cannot accurately define the Trinity in even the most basic terms and many of them don't even care to. Thus, it is important that we can articulate these things to them with gentleness and reverence (1 Peter 3:15).

**********************************************************************************
The Ontological Trinity

The Trinity is the Christian teaching that God consists of three simultaneous, eternal persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each of the three persons are equal in their attributes and nature, but differ in how they relate to the world and to each other. When we say they are equal in nature and attributes, we are speaking of what is called the Ontological Trinity (ontology - study of being and essence). Each of the three persons in the Godhead is divine, has equal attributes (omniscience, omnipresence, holiness, etc.).

When we speak of how they relate to each other and the world, we are speaking of the Economic Trinity (economic - from the Greek oikonomikos, which means relating to arrangement of activities). To be overly simplistic, we could say that the Ontological Trinity deals with what God is and the Economic Trinity deals with what God does.

Within Christianity there is no debate on the Ontological Trinity. It is universally accepted as true that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each divine, holy, unchanging, etc.

The Economic Trinity

As stated above, the Economic Trinity deals with how the three persons in the Godhead relate to each other and the world. Each has different roles within the Godhead and each has different roles in relationship to the world (some roles overlap). The Father-and-Son is an inter-trinitarian relationship since it is eternal. The Father sent the Son (1 John 4:10), the Son came down from heaven not to do his own will but the will of the Father (John 6:38). For a single verse that shows differences in roles, see 1 Pet. 1:2, "According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood," You can see that the Father foreknows. The Son became man and sacrificed himself. The Holy Spirit sanctifies the church.

The Father sent the Son (John 6:44; 8:18). The Son came down from heaven not to do his own will (John 6:38). The Father gave the Son (John 3:16), who is the only begotten (John 3:16), to perform the redemptive work (2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:24). The Father and Son sent the Holy Spirit. The Father, who chose us before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4), predestined us (Eph. 1:5; Rom. 8:29), and gave the elect to the Son (John 6:39).

It was not the Son who sent the Father. The Father was not sent to do the will of the Son. The Son did not give the Father, nor was the Father called the only begotten. The Father did not perform the redemptive work. The Holy Spirit did not send the Father and Son. It is not said that the Son or the Holy Spirit chose us, predestined us, and gave us to the Father.

Furthermore, the Father calls Jesus the Son (John 9:35), not the other way around. Jesus is called the Son of Man (Matt. 24:27); the Father is not. Jesus is called the Son of God (Mark 1:1; Luke 1:35); the Father is not called the Son of God. Jesus will sit at the right hand of God (Mark 14:62; Acts 7:56); the Father does not sit at the right hand of the Son. The Father appointed the Son as heir of all things (Heb. 1:1), not the other way around. The Father has fixed the time of the restoring of the kingdom of Israel (Acts 1:7), the Son didn't. The Holy Spirit gives gifts to the Church (1 Cor. 12:8-11) and produces fruit (Gal. 5:22-23). These are not said of the Father and Son.

So, clearly we see differences in function and roles. The Father sends, directs, and predestines. The Son does the will of the Father, becomes flesh, and accomplishes redemption. The Holy Spirit indwells and sanctifies the Church. Without these distinctions there can't be any distinctions between the persons of the Trinity, and if there are no distinctions, there is no Trinity.

Extraordinary Certainty about Religion - Jonathan Edwards

The following quote is one of the best and most excellent explanations of why so many new converts are so passionately convinced of the truthfulness of the Scriptures in spite of the reigning skepticism of our times.

Converting influences commonly bring an extraordinary conviction of the certainty of the great things of religion. Of course, in some people this is much greater some time after conversion than it was at first. They see and taste of the divine excellency of the Gospel, which more effectively convinces them than reading many volumes of arguments about it. It seems to me that in many instances, when the glory of Christian truths has been set before a person and he has at the same time seen and tasted and felt the divinity of them, he is as far from doubting their truth as he is from doubting whether there is a sun when his eyes are open under a clear sky.

Indeed, the strong blaze of God's light overcomes all objections. And yet many of these people, if we were to ask them why they believed those things to be true, would not be able to adequately express or communicate a sufficient reason to satisfy our inquiries. Perhaps they would give no other answer except that they see that God is true. Even so, if someone were to have a deeper conversation with these new converts, he would be satisfied with that, by their answer, they mean to say that they have intuitively seen and immediately felt the most glorious works and the powerful evidence of divinity in them. [Jonathan Edwards, The Surprising Work of God, (New Kensington, PA: Whitaker House, 1997 reprint), 86-87]

I remember before my own conversion that I was indeed amazed at the accuracy, perspicuity, and predictive power of the Bible. As an unbeliever, I amassed several apologetical works regarding the trustworthiness of the Bible. I studied subjects such as inerrancy, predictive prophecy, creation and the Bible, archaeology and the Bible, textual criticism, etc., and even though I was amazed at the scholarly work that had been done in defense of the Holy Scriptures, those things never made me a Christian. When God regenerated my soul and with it granted me faith and repentance, my heart saw the excellency of the Scriptures above all other writings because the Holy Spirit had set me free to do so. After being taught of God, my heart could readily agree with the 1646 London Confession,

XXII. FAITH is the gift of God, wrought in the hearts of the elect by the Spirit of God; by which faith they come to know and believe the truth of the Scriptures, and the excellency of them above all other writings, and all things in the world, as they hold forth the glory of God in His attributes, the excellency of Christ in His nature and offices, and of the power and fulness of the Spirit in its [His] workings and operations; and so are enabled to cast their souls upon His truth thus believed.

Thank you precious Holy Spirit for your illuminating work in opening our minds to see the excellency of the Scriptures above all other writings! The work of God in regeneration and subsequent illumination is a most amazing thing, and in conclusion, is the most effective "apologetic". May our hearts trust in Him to do the work of convincing, and may we trust that He will do so in accordance with His own sovereign workings.

Beware Your Seminary Professors by Jonathan Leeman

Jonathan Leeman over at 9Marks had some perceptive things to say about the differences between seminary profs and elders. I highly commend this article as I have made some of the same observations myself.

Beware Your Seminary Professors

by Jonathan Leeman

A seminary professor is not the same thing as a church elder. That was probably the main thing I observed at last week’s Gordon Conwell Seminary conference “Renewing the Evangelical Mission,” which I attended with Michael Lawrence. Consider a couple of obvious matters:

· An elder is chosen (hopefully) for his exemplary character, his ability to teach, and his track record of doing spiritual good (fruitfulness); a seminary professor is chosen because he or she excels in research and writing.

· An elder’s position requires a holistic regard for his sheep (their intellectual, emotional, spiritual, and physical states); a seminary professor need only be concerned with the “intellectual.”

· An elder’s entire life is expected to be integrated into the congregation’s life (like a shepherd and sheep); a seminary professor need only interact with students in the classroom.

What struck me at this academic conference, however, was how much the “rules of engagement” differed for elders and academics. Three examples:

· In the Western secular academy, one of the highest values is an open exchange of ideas without pre-judgment, a value which has clearly transmitted into Christian academic circles. Yes, there should be a place for Christians to openly consider new ideas, but consider the anthropology behind that democratic value: it assumes (these days, at least) that people are rational, objective, and basically good. When this is our starting point, we feel free to say whatever, whenever. An elder has a very different starting point. He knows that his sheep are weak and susceptible to temptation and self-deceit. Like a parent, he knows that intellectual growth is highly intertwined with spiritual and social maturity. So he takes great care in what he says and does not say. He’s not nearly so democratic. Instead, he must be judicious.

· The academy, by definition, places a higher premium on saying something “new.” Many churches wrongly do this as well, and, admittedly, there is a right place for a “new song.” But the eldering enterprise, by definition, is about faithfulness. The best Christian academics, that is, the Christian academics to whom we are all indebted, say new things from time to time, but only in the effort to be faithful. Too often, however, the ambition for newness is an utterly different thing than the ambition for faithfulness.

· Academics tend to work in isolation, and are assessed only (i) for their ideas (ii) by a small group of similarly-situated experts in their sub-specialty. Elders work in the midst of the assembly, and are assessed (i) for their ideas and their lives (ii) by the whole church body in all of its sociological diversity.

None of the rules for academic engagement are bad, per se. But they become bad in the Christian academy when they're divorced from pastoral sensibilities. This struck home, to speak frankly, by the utter lack of pastoral carefulness demonstrated by many of the speakers, a carelessness which I’ve witnessed too often in Christian academic circles. Here are three examples which showed up last week:

· Most of the speakers seemed only too happy to treat Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox as “brothers and sisters in the faith,” as easily as a Baptist might refer to a Presbyterian. Now, I trust that some RC and GOs are Christians, but such unqualified, unnuanced passing remarks effectively dismiss the Reformation and jeopardize souls. Don’t you realize the effect your passing comments have on sheep?

· One speaker presented what he described as a “new” formulation of how the divine nature participated in Christ’s death on the cross, which involved jettisoning divine impassibility and simplicity. At the conclusion, another professor responded by saying that he was willing to go along with this new formulation. Really? A sixty minute lecture and you’re persuaded? You’re willing to re-conceive the divine nature because someone really smart gave a paper? No prayer? No long hours of investigation? No discussion of the matter with the elders of your church?

· At a conference with the title “Renewing the Evangelical Mission,” not a single talk of the eleven was about the gospel (with one abstruse half-exception, mentioned in the last bullet).

Numerous matters like these, all heaped together, reminded me what a different thing the academic enterprise is from the eldering enterprise. One is about intellectual stimulation between supposedly good, rational people; the other is about spiritual warfare between desperate, clinging-to-grace people. It’s as if you enter the Christian academic realm and all the rules for pastoral care and wisdom suddenly change—in fact, it’s as if all the rules suddenly go out the window. “We’re all equals here. We’re all discerning and wise and godly. Take no heed!”

I praise God for the faithful academics who trained me in seminary. Yet the best ones were good because they were churchmen first and academics second. Any academic who takes offence at my remarks, I dare say, just might take offense because he or she finds more identity in being an academic than in being a churchman.

If you are an academic, may I propose, do not conceive of your students, colleagues, journal editors, and publishers any differently than you conceive of the members of your church. All of them are sheep who are threatened with temptation and deception on a minute-by-minute basis. Remember that you, too, are a sheep, and that you need the accountability and restraints of your church and its elders in your academic work, even if you are smarter than all of them.

Question for Pastors: Are you ready to die?

As a pastor, I was very convicted by reading this on the Heartcry Missionary Society website:

7. True Missions is Costly. Amy Carmichael explained that missions is no more and no less than an opportunity to die. We live in a fallen world that is at enmity with God and opposes His truth; therefore, missions and suffering go hand in hand. Any advancement of the kingdom of Christ into the dominion of the devil will be met with warfare. There are many countries and people groups where martyrdom cannot be avoided.

Have you ever read something and then said, "O.k., I’m undone." Well, the little paragraph above did just that to me today. I have always considered myself to be a missionary to Greensboro, but after I read that, I had to do a "heart check" and ask myself the following questions:

"Am I really ready to become a martyr if necessary in order to preach the gospel to my city?"

"Have I really considered what preaching the gospel might cost me?"

"Have I truly considered that suffering may be part of serving Jesus?"

"Even if God does not call me to die physically, am I willing to die socially and become a fool before men?"

Ouch. Food for thought indeed.

Considering Other Believers Part II - 1 Corinthians 8:4-7

INTRODUCTION

Look around your world. Take a close look at your daily lives. All of us are surrounded by idols of some form or fashion. For most people, these idols exist both within and without. They are not only all around us, but worse; they reside within the hearts of men, clawing to the surface if given the opportunity. They make war against the souls of men and seek to lead us astray from pure and sincere devotion to Christ. These false gods are nothing more than gold, silver, stone, money, houses, cabins, cars, or some other material thing, but the spiritual power behind them is real and penetrating; real because real demons are there working diligently behind the scene, and penetrating because the battle takes place in the mind, on the plane of the spirit, rather than the material plane of the flesh (Eph. 6:12). Paul said “that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. . .” (1 Cor. 10:20) The idols are false gods that exist only in the minds of men, but the demons are there as well as the thoughts that are manipulated by them. How they manipulate our minds is not clear, but what is clear is that they do it, and those who give in to their own temptations and lusts through inward corruption are more susceptible to the enticements of the demonic realm (James 1:13-15). That is why those who live loose lives tend to be open to New Age, Wicca, and other earth religions.

However, there is only one true God (John 17:3; 1 John 5:20). Our Great God is powerful and gracious, “He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth; and no one can ward off His hand or say to Him, 'What have You done?'” (Dan. 4:35) and “The LORD is gracious and merciful; Slow to anger and great in lovingkindness. The LORD is good to all, and His mercies are over all His works.” (Psa. 145:8-9) Because He exercises ultimate control over the demonic realm and He loves His children, He is the only power that can enable us to successfully resist the Devil and his emissaries (James 4:7-8). The problem is that we often don’t understand the nature of the battle, we don’t understand the nature of God, nor do we carefully think through what the Bible has to say about the nature of man (Eph. 6:10-20). Satan is exceedingly evil and more intelligent than any man, God is omnipotent and super-abounding in grace and mercy, and man is desperately wicked. The failure to recognize all these things as we ought leads to the ruin of ourselves and others around us, even if we think we know God and ourselves as we should.

Paul rebuked some Christians in Corinth for being arrogant by thinking that since meat sacrificed to idols was just meat then they could eat this meat in front of anybody that they wanted to without worrying about sinning. They had knowledge without love. They understood doctrine without understanding the needs of their fellow believer. They didn’t understand that even though eating meat sacrificed to idols wasn’t sin in and of itself, they were sinning against their fellow Christians who thought it was a sin to do so. They were abusing their freedom in Christ by eating meat sacrificed to idols in the presence of believers who were saved out of paganism and thus were contributing to their ruin.

TEACHING/APPLICATION

Verse 4 – “Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.”

In verses 4-6, Paul states his agreement with the Corinthians who were theologically well taught. First he agrees that there is no such thing as an idol in the world. The stone, precious metal, or wood is real, but here is no god behind it. The image is not of anything that really exists. It only reflects the imagination of the one who designed it, or the impersonation of the demon that deceives through it (10:20). Often, when people bow down to a statue, there is nothing actually there but wood, stone, or metal. However, there is a representative demonic force behind the idol that works with the inherent, God-hating depravity already resident within a lost person that spiritually fuels the idolatry. This is designed to keep people enslaved and blinded to the light of the One True God.

Verse 5 – “For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords . . .” As Paul says, “there is no God but one”. But people follow after “so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords . . .” Some gods are obvious fakes and some are demons, but none are truly gods. These so-called gods have a demonic reality behind them, but not like the Creator Who is sovereign over all things. Do you remember that pagan silversmith in Ephesus named Demetrius, the man who said this about the Apostle Paul, "You see and hear that not only in Ephesus, but in almost all of Asia, this Paul has persuaded and turned away a considerable number of people, saying that gods made with hands are no gods at all.” (Acts 19:26) Paul was only saying what the prophets of old had said,

To whom then will you liken God? Or what likeness will you compare with Him? 19 As for the idol, a craftsman casts it, A goldsmith plates it with gold, And a silversmith fashions chains of silver. 20 He who is too impoverished for such an offering Selects a tree that does not rot; He seeks out for himself a skillful craftsman To prepare an idol that will not totter. (Isaiah 40:18-20)

Their idols are silver and gold, The work of man's hands. 5 They have mouths,
but they cannot speak; They have eyes, but they cannot see; 6 They have ears,
but they cannot hear; They have noses, but they cannot smell; 7 They have hands,
but they cannot feel; They have feet, but they cannot walk; They cannot make a
sound with their throat. (Psalm 115:4-7)

And God had a way of mocking these false gods by challenging those who were worshipping them to see if these idols could do three things: (1) tell us what the future will be, (2) tell us what happened in the past, and (3) tell us why they happened or why they will happen.

Present your case," the LORD says. "Bring forward your strong arguments," The
King of Jacob says. 22 Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to
take place; As for the former events, declare what they were, That we may
consider them and know their outcome. Or announce to us what is coming; 23
Declare the things that are going to come afterward, That we may know that you
are gods; Indeed, do good or evil, that we may anxiously look about us and fear
together. 24 Behold, you are of no account, And your work amounts to nothing; He
who chooses you is an abomination. (Isaiah 41:21-24)

Verse 6 – “Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.” Paul repeats again that “for us there is but one God”. He says that from the One True God come “all things and we exist for Him”. This echoes what Paul says elsewhere that “from Him and through Him and to Him are all things” (Rom. 11:36) and it is through the “one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things” that “by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him.17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” (Col. 1:16-17) We not only exist for God the Father’s own sovereign purposes but the Lord Jesus Christ created all things for His own purposes and He holds all of reality together, both physically and spiritually. Think about that! The unity between the Father and the Son in their will and their work is in complete agreement. The Father decrees all things for His own glory and the Son creates and upholds all things in perfect unity within the Godhead. Even though the Corinthians knew that idols and so-called gods are not real and that only the One True God exists, they did not rightly apply that truth to the way they treated their fellow Christians. They had the doctrinal concepts right, but they didn’t carry that over to right relationships with others, especially their fellow Christians (cf. 1 Cor. 13:2).

Verse 7 – “However not all men have this knowledge. . . ” Paul reminds them of a nugget of truth that they didn’t consider when considering their fellow Christian: Not all believers are mature in their knowledge of the faith. Some of these freshly minted Christians were still acutely aware of the deceptions of paganism and idolatry, and some of them still thought that these idols of stone and wood were real and the gods behind them were real. They understood that there was only one right God but may have not yet understood that there was only one real God. Confusing beliefs like this are prevalent among new-born Christians. Even if they did understand that only one real God existed, being put in a situation where they would have to eat meat sacrificed to idols was just too much too soon for them because it tempted them to go back to these evil practices. Paul goes on to say, “but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol” When less mature believers follow more mature and knowledgeable believers in doing what their conscience tells them not to do, “their conscience being weak is defiled”, even if the act itself isn’t sinful. Any non-sinful act becomes sinful when it is committed against one’s conscience. A defiled conscience is a violated conscience. A person defiles their conscience when they fail to listen to the internal radar that goes off to warn them not to do or participate in something. Defiling your conscience will bring confusion and frustration into your life as well as causing you to resent those that led you to violate it. If a person continues to defile their conscience, feelings of guilt will permeate the person’s life and should they continue in this course without repentance, guilt can give way to a seared conscience that rushes face first into sin.

When a person violates their conscience with a non-sinful act, they are sinning in their mind. This is why a person should refrain from any non-sinful act that convicts their conscience. Until they understand that the act is not sin in God’s eyes and that they are free to participate in it, they should not participate in it. This is why Paul says in Romans 14:23, “But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.” If you are participating in an activity with the clear conviction that it is sinful even when it really isn’t, you are setting yourself up for spiritual ruin. Worse yet, if you are a mature believer with the “knowledge” that what you are doing is not sinful yet you are encouraging someone to participate in it that you know doesn’t believe the same way, you may be encouraging their spiritual ruin. Explain to them what the Bible says about the activity, explain to them clearly why it is not sinful and then trust the Holy Spirit to teach them in His time, not yours. A defiled conscience leads to a defiled faith. A person with a defiled conscience can become a guilt-monger because they become consumed with thoughts about their former life without Christ. This can lead to their spiritual ruin because some people may be tempted to go back to the very life that they ditched to follow Jesus!

CONCLUSION

Never knowingly defile a believer’s conscience. Seek the best for the brethren by not engaging in activities in front of them that they find to be offensive even though those things are not sinful. Patiently teach them from the word, and after doing that, give them time to hear God’s word. Don’t force them, let the Holy Spirit be their teacher (1 John 2:27). For different reasons, they may never come around to your understanding of Christian freedom. However, that shouldn’t stop you from loving them, bearing with them, and seeking to minister to them while learning how to give up some of your freedoms so as to develop your own self-control and godly discipline. That’s where mutual exhortation and edification comes in (Heb. 10:24-25), and that is why sanctification doesn’t take place alone, but takes place in a community of called out saints who are at different stages of spiritual growth as they follow Jesus.