Missio Dei

Soteriology II – Doctrine of Salvation

November 2, 2009 in Jesus Christ, Man, The Gospel, Theology | by Keith Walters | Leave a comment

On Sunday nights we are working through the church’s doctrinal statement; these are my notes from last Sunday. I hope you enjoy them.

―Justification, Regeneration, Repentance, and Faith―

V. Of Justification

We believe that the great Gospel blessing which Christ secures to such as believe in Him is Justification; that Justification includes the pardon of sin, and the promise of eternal life on principles of righteousness; that it is bestowed, not in consideration of any works of righteousness which we have done, but solely through faith in the Redeemer’s blood; by virtue of which faith His perfect righteousness is freely imputed to us of God; that it brings us into a state of most blessed peace and favor with God, and secures every other blessing needful for time and eternity.

VII. Of Grace In Regeneration

We believe that, in order to be saved, sinners must be regenerated, or born again; that regeneration consists in giving a holy disposition to the mind; that it is effected in a manner above our comprehension by the power of the Holy Spirit, in connection with divine truth, so as to secure our voluntary obedience to the gospel; and that its proper evidence appears in the holy fruits of repentance, and faith, and newness of life.

VIII. Of Repentance And Faith

We believe that Repentance and Faith are sacred duties, and also inseparable graces, wrought in our souls by the regenerating Spirit of God; whereby being deeply convinced of our guilt, danger and helplessness, and of the way of salvation by Christ, we turn to God with unfeigned contrition, confession, and supplication for mercy; at the same time heartily receiving the Lord Jesus Christ as our Prophet, Priest and King, and relying on Him alone as the only and all sufficient Savior.

Introduction

A Humbling Reminder ― I Corinthians 6:9-11

I think it is helpful to begin any discussion of salvation with the realization that we are in desperate need of it and that it is not something which we can carry out for ourselves; rather, salvation is something which has been carried out on our behalf, it is both divine in origin and accomplishment. God has, is, and will save us.

The Order of Salvation ― Beginning with the order of salvation helps us in several respects.

It results in praise.
It fosters humility.
It guards against error.

Next to each term is the Roman numeral to which it corresponds in our doctrinal statement. These topics are covered in both Community Training and in Wayne Grudem’s Christian Beliefs: Twenty Basics Every Christian Should Know which you read for community training.

Election (IX)

Gospel Call (VI)

Effectual Call (VI) ― Regeneration (VII)

Repentance and Faith (VIII) ― Justification (V) ― Adoption ― Sanctification (X) ― Perseverance (XI)

Glorification (XVIII)

I. Regeneration

A. Definition

Regenerating is the act of God by which the spiritually dead are brought to life, “thus restoring the person’s intellectual, volitional, moral, emotional, and relational capacities to know, love, and serve God.”[1] Within scripture this is often spoken of in terms of new life or new birth.

B. Explanation

First and foremost regeneration is a monergistic act (Ezekiel 36:26; John 1:13).
Second, regeneration is wholly an act of grace (Ephesians 2:1-10).
Third, regeneration is a result of the gospel (I Peter 1:23).
Fourth, regeneration is mysterious (John 3:8).
Fifth, regeneration is inextricably connected with our union with Christ (I Corinthians 15:23).
Sixth, regeneration results in faith, repentance, and obedience (Galatians 5:22-23; Ephesians 2:10; I John 3:9, 5:1).

C. Regeneration and the Effectual Call

Regeneration and effectual calling are two sides of the same coin. One speaks to the divine call (John 6:44) and the other to the divine enablement to respond to that call (John 6:65). “Effective calling is thus God the father speaking powerfully to us, and regeneration is God the Father and God the Holy Spirit working powerfully in us.”[2]

II. Repentance and Faith

A. Preliminary Considerations

Repentance and faith are inseparable; they are two sides of the same coin. Grudem explains that they are both related to the word “turning;” we turn from sin (repentance) and turn towards Christ (faith).[3] In such a sequence neither precedes the other; this is simultaneously a turning to and a turning from.

B. Repentance

1. Old Testament Terminology

nacham – “to become remorseful . . . to regret something”[4] (Job 42:5-6)
shub – “to turn around, repent” (II Coronicles 7:14)

2. New Testament Terminology

metamelomai – “to regret”[5] (Matthew 21:32)
metanoeo – “to change one’s mind or purpose, hence, to repent”[6] (Matthew 3:2)

At the most basic level repentance “involves a change in the outward life because such a change is a result of the change of inward opinions.”[7]

3. Definition

Repentance is therefore the abandonment of sin which results from godly sorrow over one’s sin.

Biblical repentance has intellectual, emotional and physical properties. It requires a radical change in both our way of thinking, feeling, and living.

4. Explanation

First, repentance is a voluntary act enabled by regeneration; therefore maintaining both divine sovereignty and human responsibility (See “Regeneration” above).
Second, repentance is necessary for salvation (Mark 1:14-15; Acts 3:18-20; see Romans 2:4-5 for a description of the unrepentant).
Third, while repentance marks the beginning of new life it must also continue throughout life (Matthew 6:12).
Fourth, repentance is a result of hearing the gospel.

C. Faith

1. Terminology

Within the New Testament there are two terms used to express the idea of faith; the verb, pisteuo, and the noun, pistis. They carry the basic meaning of faith, trust, confidence, or belief.

2. Definition

A biblical definition of faith has three aspects an action, a content, and an object. With this in mind I think it is best to define faith as a confidence (action) that Jesus Christ (object) has accomplished what He has promised in the gospel (content).

3. Explanation

First, faith is a voluntary act enabled by regeneration; therefore maintaining both divine sovereignty and human responsibility (See “Regeneration” above).
Second, faith is necessary for salvation (John 3:16).
Third, while faith marks the beginning of new life it must also continue throughout life (Galatians 2:20).
Fourth, faith is a result of hearing the gospel (Romans 10:17; Hebrews 4:2).

III. Justification

A. Old Testament Terminology

sadaq (hiphil form) – “declare righteous, justify . . . vindicate the cause of . . . make righteous, turn to righteousness.”[8]

B. New Testament Terminology

dikaioo – “to declare, pronounce righteous.”[9]

C. Definition

“Justification is God’s action pronouncing sinners righteous in his sight. We have been forgiven and declared to have fulfilled all that God’s law requires of us.”[10]

D. Explanation

I want to take this definition and break it down into several smaller statements which we can clearly see in Romans 3:20-26.

First, justification is a declarative act of God (Romans 3:20).
Second, justification is possible because of Christ’s propitiatory work (Romans 3:22, 24, 25) not because of personal merit. Furthermore, this maintains God’s justice as the sentence for our rebellion has been carried out on Christ.
Third, in justification God imputes Christ righteousness to us (Romans 3:22).

II Corinthians 5:21 also illustrates the link between justification and imputation. Would someone please read that for us? How does this relate to Romans 3?

Colossians 2:13-14 illustrates another stunning fact about justification, would someone read that for us?

Fourth, in justification God cancels our record of debt and its sentence of condemnation (Colossians 2:13-14). We read that He has canceled the record of debt that opposed us as well as its legal demands. Debtors would usually write their own records of indebtedness. Here Paul uses the word χειρόγραφον which is a combination of two words “χειρ” meaning hand and “γραφή” meaning writing. So we have this handwritten record which actively opposes us. Paul also mentions the legal demands of this record. The word here is δόγμα, which is where we get the word dogmatic. A dogmatic position is one which you are unwilling to give up. The legal demands which Paul is describing are unwavering and fixed. God has canceled this debt and these demands. Ancient scribes would write upon paper made of papyrus or vellum and unlike modern ink, ancient ink did not absorb into the paper but rather sat on top of the paper. As paper was expensive, scribes would often wipe this ink off and reuse the paper. That is what the word “canceling” means God has literally wiped our slate clean.

Application

•

[1]Bruce Demarest, The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of Salvation, Foundations of Evangelical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1997), 293.

[2]Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Bible Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 700.

[3]Ibid., 709.

[4]Ludwig Koehler and Walters Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. and trans. Johann Jakob Stamm, Benedikt Hartmann, Ze’Ev Ben-Hayyim, Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher, Philippe Reymond, and M. E. J. Richardson (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers, 2001), s.v. “נחם.”

[5]Ibid., s.v. “שׁוב.”

[6]G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (New York: T & T Clark, 1999), s.v. “μεταμέλομαι.”

[7]Ibid., s.v. “μετανοέω.”

[8]James P. Boice, Abstract of Systematic Theology (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1887), 383.

[9]Koehler and Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, s.v. “צָדֵק.”

[10]Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, s.v. “δικαιόω.”

[11]Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 968.

Acts 8:26-40: Phillip and the Sexual Deviant Part 2 — Responding to Alternate Interpretations

July 23, 2009 in Acts, Acts 8:26-40: Phillip and the Sexual Deviant, Culture, New Testament, News, Science, Series, The Gospel, Theology | Tags: Brian McLaren, sexuality | by Keith Walters | 2 comments

This is the second post in a series (Part 1) explaining Acts 8:26-40. This post in particular is aimed at addressing Brian McLaren’s post “Synchro-blogging on Sexuality.” He begins by explaining:

I knew from my many years as a pastor that sexual orientation was not a choice . . . So, I was uncomfortable with the conventional approach, but I was unsure how to construct an alternative that was equally faithful to Scripture and faithful to the reality I saw in human beings who came to me as their pastor, friend, and family member. Over many years, that alternative has become more and more clear, and surprisingly (to some), it was a passage of Scripture that opened the way for me to see it.

He goes on to tell that “Acts 8 was waiting with a story that is more powerful than many have realized.”

What follows is his explanation of Acts 8:26-40 and its implications for our understanding of human sexuality. Prior to addressing his explanation his motivation must be examined. He begins by explaining that he knew, by means of experiential knowledge, that sexual orientation was not a choice. Furthermore he sought out Scripture which would conform to his experience of reality. Yes, Scripture should accurately describe reality; however, we must also recognize what Scripture has to say about reality as we experience it. It is expressly clear from Scripture that the reality which we experience is a world at war. It is a world where man is at enmity with God, where man is at enmity with his fellow man, where man is even at enmity with himself, and where man is at enmity with creation. Within such a world these questions cannot be answered by experience rather they must be revealed by one who is not plagued by the curse which has beset our world. Answers based upon experience are like developing a theory of human sexuality based upon the horrors of D-Day. McLaren’s mistake is that he views his experience within a fallen world as normative. This thought will be returned to in part 3 of this series.

Turning to McLaren’s explanation of Acts 8 there aspects of his argument that we can agree with, although at points necessary critique will be given. Ironically at the outset McLaren makes much of the eunuch’s inability to fit within “the traditional family,” “to become heterosexual,” and to be “categorized in traditional sexual roles” he also notes that the eunuch exists in a “not-part-of-the-created-order sexual category.” This admission has no bearing upon what follows in his argument; although he admits that this man’s sexual identity has been profoundly affected by the fall he does little to speak of how redemption in Christ addresses this issue. McLaren also notes that:

He [the Ethiopian eunuch] has come to Jerusalem to worship God, but has, no doubt, been turned away- first because of his race and second because of his sexual identity: the Hebrew Scriptures explicitly excluded both Gentiles and people in his nontraditional, not-part-of-the-created-order sexual category.

One would have hoped that McLaren would have done his homework at this point and note the greatness of redemption in Christ, sadly he does not. There is no mention of Old Testament prophecy concerning eunuchs and foreigners or of prophecy concerning the coming Messiah whose inheritance is the nations, whose salvation will be made known among the nations, and around whom the nations will gather in praise. Instead McLaren gives the impression that the Old Testament has nothing to offer except condemnation. Furthermore the text itself paints a far different picture that the one given by McLaren. Rather than being turned away from worshipping in Jerusalem it would appear that he actually worshipped in Jerusalem and obtained a fairly costly scroll containing some or all of Isaiah’s prophecy. This mistake is poor exegesis at best or pure eisegesis at worst.

McLaren continues to explain the text as he tells of how Phillip ran to the eunuch’s chariot and asked if he understood what he was reading. Then he explains:

The man invites Philip into the chariot and asks if the writer was writing about himself or someone else – a question that suggests this man feels the prophet is talking about him in his sexual otherness: he too will have no descendants; he too has been rejected, misunderstood, despised, shamed … he too has been brought like a sheep or lamb before people with cutting instruments.

At this point McLaren’s exposition is laughable both in his treatment of the New Testament narrative and the Old Testament prophecy. Even a cursory reading of Isaiah 53 lends itself to quite a different understanding of the text than McLaren’s suggested lamentation of “sexual otherness.” The propitiatory tone of the text is unmistakable. Thus the eunuch’s question becomes one which asks “Who is it that has taken our grief, our sorrows, our transgressions, our iniquities, and given himself as an offering for our guilt so that we may be accounted righteous and have peace with God? Is it the writer or another of whom he speaks?” McLaren also notes that like the eunuch this “man of sorrows” had no descendants (v.8). Again McLaren has failed to do his homework. The word here means generation (דור) if Isaiah had intended to speak of His descendants he would have used זרע as found in verse 10. He appears to be using the NIV which poorly renders verse 8 and stands at odds with most other translations by translation דור as descendants. What the text is asking is “Did any of his contemporaries, the people of that generation, consider that he had been put to death for their sins?” The text is not mourning his inability to have children. Even more problematic for McLaren’s translation is that verse 10 speaks of how this suffering servant will see His offspring whose iniquities He has bore and whom He has made righteous. The text is clearly at odds with McLaren’s interpretation.

McLaren continues, “Philip explains that this passage can be read to describe Jesus, and he shares the good news of Jesus and the kingdom of God.” McLaren so distains exegetical certainty that he must put words into Phillip’s mouth at this point as he notes that Phillip explains “the good news of Jesus and the kingdom of God” as one of many readings of Isaiah 53. This is a messianic prophecy it is not enough to say that it “can be read to describe Jesus” this text describes Jesus, that is what the text is doing and any reading which does otherwise is not faithful to the text.

Ultimately McLaren concludes:

Neither race nor sexual identity was an obstacle for the apostles in welcoming a new brother into the community of faith. . . That’s why I am among those who dissent from the conventional approach and attitude, appealing back to Philip’s even more ancient church tradition.

Simply saying that “neither race nor sexual identity was an obstacle for the apostles” fails to do justice to the issue as we find it presented in Scripture. These were big issues that they took time to work through as they grasped the nature of redemption within the New Covenant. So we cannot say that these were non-issues it took time for them to understand the extent of redemption in Christ. At the same time we must recognize that ultimately Scripture declares, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). The gospel transcends the barriers which previously separated humanity, these barriers are still real and yet they have been overcome by the unity brought about by redemption in Christ. Ultimately, however, McLaren’s conclusion is both incorrect and it belittles the Gospel because of its failure to take into account the pervasive affects of the fall and the glorious riches of redemption in Christ.

In the upcoming and third post in this series we will examine the pervasive affects of the fall and the glorious riches of redemption in Christ as we seek to correctly understand what Scripture has to say on this issue.

The 2009 SBC Convention

July 5, 2009 in Mission, News, Personal Updates, Preaching, Theology | by Keith Walters | Leave a comment

I have one reflection from this year’s convention. You need to watch David Platt’s sermon from the Pastors Conference. It was a profoundly encouraging message and an extremely challenging one. I hope that its challenge weighs heavily on the hearts and radically reshapes the ministry of all who were present. The video is available here.

If you are interested in other’s reflections on the convention I would recommend the following posts by Timmy Brister:

Bottoms Up: Reflections on Alcohol and the Word of God

June 21, 2009 in Bad Theology, Bottoms Up: Reflections on Alcohol, Culture, History, New Testament, Old Testament, Series, Theology | by Keith Walters | 7 comments

Within “American Christianity” there is a longstanding tradition of legalism when it comes to the consumption of alcohol; however, this tradition is not as old as you may think. It was not until Dr. Thomas Bramwell Welch, a Methodist minister and the founder of Welch’s, developed a pasteurization process in 1869 that it became possible to produce and store unfermented grape juice for use in communion. Welch was a staunch prohibitionist and proceeded to persuade churches in New Jersey to abandon the use of fermented beverages and use his “unfermented wine” when celebrating the Lord’s Supper. His denomination then helped to spearhead the movement that led to the prohibition and now it is fairly normative that churches in America use Welch’s grape juice, or a generic equivalent, for communion.

When one views this phenomenon over the course of church history the current practice is an odd one indeed. From the church’s inception till the early twentieth century, that is twenty centuries for those of you who are mathematically impaired, the normative practice of the church has been to use fermented wine to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, not to mention its use in the home and for virtually every other celebration. Furthermore, if one views this phenomenon as it occurs within the global church the practice of most American churches stands out as an oddity as well with our little plastic cups and our unfermented wine. In fact if one were to explain this to Christians outside of America one would be surprised to discover how many would question whether or not our practice is biblical, after all Jesus used wine.

All of that is simply to give you a context in which to understand my reflections. How your church practices communion is neither here nor there; my main concern in this post is addressing the sinful and legalistic mindset that believes godliness necessitates abstinence. Such legalism is just as deadly and far more subtle than drunkenness; especially when it becomes a predominant expression of holiness within the church.

Scripture is undeniably opposed to the sin of drunkenness (Romans 13:13; I Corinthians 5:11; 6:9-10; Ephesians 5:18).
The priests were forbidden from drinking “wine and strong drink” when serving in the Tabernacle; however, when they were not serving they were commanded by God to drink “the best of the wine,” were to drink it as something “most holy,” and they were to drink it in a “most holy place” (Numbers 18:8-32).
Drink offerings were pleasing to the Lord (Exodus 29:38-41).
Jesus’ first miracle was to turn 120 to 180 gallons of water into wine at a wedding where the guests were already drunk (John 2:1-11). With this miracle Jesus would have been forbidden to minister by many American denominations; I find this very problematic.
Jesus compared the gospel to wine (Mark 2:21-22; Luke 5:36-39).
Jesus drank wine and spent so much time eating and drinking with sinners that He was accused of being “a glutton and a drunkard” (Matthew 11:18-19).
Elders and deacons are not to be drunkards (I Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9).
Paul, an apostle, instructed Timothy, an elder, to drink wine for his stomach (I Timothy 5:23).
When Paul addresses the Corinthian church concerning the Lord’s Supper he rebukes their drunkenness rather than their use of wine. Furthermore, his rebuke speaks primarily to their self-centered gluttony, i.e. he wrote to make sure that all in the church at Corinth were able to partake of the wine rather than a thirsty minority (I Corinthians 11:17-34).
The argument that wine during ancient times had a lower alcohol content than the alcoholic beverages of today is an inadequate justification for mandatory abstinence. Regardless of its alcohol content it is clear from Scripture that individuals were able to, and in many cases did, become drunk from drinking it in excess. It is also evident from Scripture that the OT priests, Jesus, the twelve apostles, and the vast majority of the early church were able to drink wine in moderation and avoid drunkenness. In the same way one can drink modern alcoholic beverages in excess and become drunk and one can drink modern alcoholic beverages in moderation and remain sober minded. The key in both situations is not the relative alcohol content of the beverage in question but its consumption in either moderation or excess.

As we approach this issue let us do so with both a wisdom that avoids the deadly dangers of legalism and liberalism. If you choose to discuss please do so with charity.

So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
—I Corinthians 10:31

The Absurdity of Emergent Rhetoric on Mission

May 28, 2009 in Bad Theology, Blogroll, Culture, God the Father, Jesus Christ, Man, Mission, The Church, Theology | by Keith Walters | 5 comments

This past Sunday I was reading the “Faith and Values” section of The Lexington Herald Leader and came across an interesting article entitled “Evangelicals must rethink mission.” It was written by Chuck Queen the senior pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church in Frankfort, KY and the title immediately piqued my interest. You can read the article in its entirety by clicking on the link above as only excerpts and critique will be given below.

He begins by urging us to rethink mission an then points the reader to Luke 4:18-19 and explains that Jesus is not mandating “a triumphalistic missionary enterprise that seeks to impose a particular set of beliefs and culture on people who have a different set of beliefs and culture.” Rather the mission of Jesus “was a mission to the poor, the disadvantaged, the oppressed, and the spiritually blind. . . . Jesus realized that spiritual oppression from sin could not be separated from economical, political, and social oppression from the powers that be.”

I agree Jesus did not come to impose a particular culture; however, I always find it odd to hear individuals claiming “Jesus was concerned about the total person” and then reducing his ministry to a mere social ministry. How can Jesus minister to the total person if He comes only to shape their sociopolitical circumstances and not their belief structures as well?

The article continues:
Jesus’ vision for humanity was that of a world under God’s rule where peace, compassion, and distributive and restorative justice prevails. When a crowd of people tried to get Jesus to stay in their town Jesus said, “I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God (God’s vision for the world) to the other cities also; for I was sent for this purpose” (Luke 4:43).

Jesus intended his community of disciples (the church) to be an outpost for the kingdom, reflecting the values and characteristics of God’s new world. But the church is not the kingdom, though it is part of the kingdom. The kingdom of God is much broader and wider than the church. So catching people into the net of God’s kingdom may or may not involve catching them into the net of the church.

The kingdom of God as it pertains to humanity is about human beings becoming more truly human; that means becoming the persons and communities God intended for us to be. It is not about propagating a particular brand of belief or doctrine. For Christians, Jesus is the representative, quintessential, revelatory human being on what it means to be human.

At this point I am beginning to wonder if he is just stringing together quotes and pithy sayings to make his version of Jesus sound cool. It is quite ironic that he speaks of Christ’s global vision and global kingdom, even going so far as to describe it as a place “under God’s rule where peace, compassion, and distributive and restorative justice prevails,” and yet he has the audacity to claim that the kingdom is not about doctrine. Maybe he thinks his readers are not listening or are too dumb to notice that he is giving us a doctrine of the kingdom.

As for the kingdom being larger than the church I agree the kingdom is global, as Abraham Kuyper has so vividly stated, “there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine’(1)!” However, Queen oversteps his bounds by claiming that “catching people into the net of God’s kingdom may or may not involve catching them into the net of the church.” The church as the body of Christ is an outpost of the kingdom and a witness to the redemption and reconciliation that will extend to the whole of God’s creative order. Such an outpost is necessary because it exists amidst a world in need of reconciliation and redemption; a world of rival kingdoms and rival kings. What is the use of such an outpost within Queen’s theology where both those within and those without are members of the same kingdom? Maybe a kingdom divided against itself can stand after all.

Again I agree Jesus is the ideal human; however, we must frame this within the larger context of the imago Dei. Humanity was made in the image of God, that image was holistically and pervasively corrupted by the fall. Jesus comes as “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15) and so redeemed humanity is being restored into the imago Christi. It is in this sense that Jesus is the ideal human, He is the ideal human in that He is the exegesis of God; in Christ we have the attributes of God demonstrated in concrete form. This is a problem for Queen as it undercuts his theologically amorphous version of God. Queen’s god cannot have his attributes concretely demonstrated because he cannot be described by “a particular brand of belief or doctrine.”

Now for some tidbits on Jesus:
For Christians Jesus is the way that leads to truth and life; though he is not exclusively the way for all people. A God of love would not be so stingy as to exclude vast numbers of humanity who happen to be born into non-Christian cultures.

Is it just me or do you recall Jesus arguing to the contrary of Queen’s statement? What does he mean by “God of love?” Whatever he means he is not using this in the sense that Scripture does (see here for a more thorough treatment of this.)

After all of this he concludes:
The mission of the church is to proclaim, teach, manifest, and work for the kingdom of God, not get people to believe what we believe about Jesus. And yet, as Christians, we invite people to be disciples of Jesus because we know that by following Jesus, God’s dream for the world can be realized.

What is the point? Who cares? If it does not matter what one believes about Jesus then why talk about him at all? If there are other, broader, more kingdom oriented ways to realize “God’s dream for the world” then why limit ourselves to the narrow perspective of Jesus and the church?

This is what makes emergent rhetoric on mission so absurd. After all their talking all and arguing that mission is not about doctrine but “peace, compassion, and distributive and restorative justice” we are left with nothing. We have an inconsequential Christ, a narrow and largely irrelevant church, and a god who is so theologically amorphous that he is hardly worth knowing.

Chuck if there is salvation outside of Jesus then why should your church waste their time looking like bigots by promoting some narrow-minded Jewish messiah who is practically useless to the rest of humanity?

(1) Abraham Kuyper, “Sphere Sovereignty,” in Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, ed. James D. Bratt (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1998) 488.

Ecclesiology in Dialogue — A Proposition

May 20, 2009 in Series, The Church, Theology, Theology in Dialogue — Ecclesiology | by Keith Walters | 4 comments

Recently I have been engaged in a conversation with several friends about the essential nature of the church and its implications. I want to continue that dialogue here and I hope you will help. In one of my early seminary classes we were asked to write a paper answering the question “What is the irreducible ecclesiological minimum?” That is the basically question I want to ask here; however, rather than tackle such a massive question in one post I want to divide it up into several smaller questions, that as a whole will answer the larger one.

I want you to post what you think those smaller questions should be. After this I will do another post where we can discuss the ordering of the questions as well as the validity of the questions. Then I will post each question individually and we will set out to answer them.

At this point I am not looking for anyone to justify the validity of their question I just want the questions themselves. Please read the other comments so that questions are not repeated. Please do not criticize questions posted by others. Feel free to post as many questions as you like, just make sure to leave a blank line between them so that they are easier to catalogue. Comments that do not conform to these guidelines will be deleted. I look forward to reading your comments and I hope this will be a beneficial dialogue. I will begin by posting the first question.

My Thoughts on Catalyzing Community

May 18, 2009 in Blogroll, God the Father, Jesus Christ, Mission, The Church, The Holy Spirit, Theology | by Keith Walters | 2 comments

Please read Eric Bryant on Reaching the “Hard to Reach” for the background on this post. I hope that what follows does more to build off of what Bryant has written than to tear it down. I read his blog, his books, and have heard him speak on several occasions. I appreciate the evangelistic thrust of his writing and his continued emphasis on xenos; while we do differ at points I hope this post conveys that appreciation.

Principle #1: Christ Creates Community. (Bryant’s 1st Principle)
I mean this in two ways. First, Christ creates all things and all things are a reflection of His, i.e. God’s, attributes. So in this sense all community is a reflection of the intertrinitarian community. Second, as we are specifically speaking of the church we must also understand that Christ has created the church as His body to physically bear witness to Himself. Bryant argues that “cause creates community” and this is true; however, various causes create various communities which reflect the nature of the cause. Here we are forced to be more specific and focus upon the creator of community and subsequently the giver of cause, Jesus Christ.

Principle #2: Christ Transforms Humanity. (Bryant’s 2nd-5th Principles)
I appreciate Bryant’s 2nd-5th principles and my only critique is that, once understood within the biblical framework of the imago Dei, they become the same principle. Man was created in the image of the triune God this image was marred in the fall and now redeemed humanity is being transformed into the image of Christ. We must “develop authentic friendships with those [we] know” (Principle 4) because we were created in the image of a relational God and are being transformed into the image of a relational Christ. We must “meet the needs of those around us” (Principle 2) because we have been made in the image of a God who provided for those needs in the garden and are being transformed into the image of a Christ who met those very needs during his earthly ministry. Finally, we must “reach out to Xenos” (Principle 3 and 5) because we have been made in the image of a missional God and are being transformed into the image of a missional Christ who came to seek and save the lost. I think it is important to remember that these things take place within the context of relationship, not a “Christian” welfare system or environmental agency. We meet the needs of those whom we have relationships with as those needs become apparent to us and as we understand the context in which those needs can be properly met. Furthermore, we must understand that changed individuals create changed culture and so our approach to environmental and social issues comes through engaging individuals with the gospel and not through engaging social policymakers through legislative process.

For a further explanation of the imago Dei I recommend reading this essay.

Principle #3: Christ Leads His Church. (Bryant’s 6th and 7th Principles)
And we are His disciples whom He commanded, with the Great Commission, to make other disciples who will in turn make disciples who will do likewise. This process will not be complete until Christ calls a people from every tribe and language and people and nation. We must not be prone to self-centered spiritual myopia, but must look beyond ourselves and our circumstances toward what God is doing and is going to do among the nations. Then we must live and work towards the fulfillment of this great vision. Bryant’s 6th and 7th principles have a similar thrust; however, I want to focus beyond what God is doing in your particular locale to what God is doing throughout history and around the globe.

Extended Critique―Principle #5: Allow people to belong before they believe.
Under this principle Bryant writes, “We should never allow our convictions to become a litmus test for friendship. In fact, we should actively pursue friendships with people – even people with whom we may disagree. Go to www.mosaic.org/faq for more on the staff process at Mosaic.” In a sense this is redundant and simply expounds what is means to “reach out to Xenos.” Furthermore, I thoroughly agree that “we should never allow our convictions to become a litmus test for friendship” and that “we should actively pursue friendships with people – even people with whom we may disagree.”

Eric has commented below and I think his comments thoroughly clarify this point. Also I would recommend reading The Suicidal Missionary where in a comment following the post he exclaims, “I am calling for the proclaiming of the gospel AND embracing of all those who need to repent.” I think that is the heart of what it means to allow people to belong before they believe.

Eric Bryant on Reaching the “Hard to Reach”

May 16, 2009 in Blogroll, Mission, The Church, The Gospel, Theology | by Keith Walters | 5 comments

Eric Bryant, the author of Peppermint-Filled Piñatas: Breaking Through Tolerance and Embracing Love, recently posted on “Hindus, Homosexuals, and the Hard to Reach.” He has written similar things before (see the audio file below) and I appreciate what he has to say; however, I also think there is room for critique. I have posted his seven points below and look forward to your thoughts; don’t forget to drop by his site as I know he would appreciate the feedback as well.

Principle #1: Cause creates community.
Our cause = moving people to become the person God created them to be.

Principle #2: Meet the needs of those around us.
We need to seek to meet the physical, emotional, economic, and spiritual needs of those around us. We should be pursue helping change the environment and change the individual who is looking for change.

Principle #3:Reach out to Xenos
Hospitality means loving strangers. A similar word, “hospice,” means “a safe place.” Our homes, our businesses, and our churches should become safe places for strangers to experience kindness and love.

Principle #4: Develop authentic friendships with those you know.
OIKOS is the Greek word for household (family, neighbors, co-workers and friends)

Principle #5: Allow people to belong before they believe.
We should never allow our convictions to become a litmus test for friendship. In fact, we should actively pursue friendships with people – even people with whom we may disagree. Go to http://www.mosaic.org/faqfor more on the staff process at Mosaic.

Principle #6: Raise up a team of leaders to replace you
MPAC = Ministry through a pastor, assimilator, and catalyst
We need to make decisions based on who is not yet here rather than who has been here the longest.

Principle #7: Start Over

Catalyzing Community: starting a small group, a ministry, a non-profit, or even a church (Download MP3 Here)

	a friend on The Absurdity of Emergent Rhet…
	Keith Walters on Bottoms Up: Reflections on Alc…
	Edwin Crozier on Bottoms Up: Reflections on Alc…
	Keith Walters on Acts 8:26-40: Phillip and the …
	JTapp on Acts 8:26-40: Phillip and the …

Missio Dei

Soteriology II – Doctrine of Salvation

Acts 8:26-40: Phillip and the Sexual Deviant Part 2 — Responding to Alternate Interpretations

The 2009 SBC Convention

Bottoms Up: Reflections on Alcohol and the Word of God

Ecclesiology in Dialogue — A Proposition

Collaboration

Movement

Momentum

Memories

Motifs

Supplements

Foundations

Associates