Drawing the Line

One of the arguments against the continuance of the charismatic gifts today is that it would be a challenge to the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. Now since I cannot find a basis in Scripture for saying these gifts have passed away, I have to ask it there is a way to avoid this danger. It says in 2 Timothy 3:16,17 that Scripture is profitable for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness that we may be equipped for every good work. That is, the Scripture is the sufficient standard for faith and practice. If someone is claiming to have a new revelation regarding faith and practice, they are claiming to be providing us with new Scripture. If they do so they must pass the Scriptural tests for genuine inspiration, the primary one being that everything they say must square with the Word of God (Isaiah 8:20; Galatians 1:8,9: Deuteronomy 13:1-5). I know of no one who makes such a claim who passes all the tests. But does this answer all the questions?

Now there are other sets of questions that Scripture does not deal with, such as how to cook roast beef or how to use a computer. But there is a set of questions that lies somewhere in the middle. These involve questions such as where should I live, what should I do for a career, praying for someone that God brings to my mind, and numerous other similar issues. These must be decided some way, whether by our human reason and common sense, circumstances, subjective experience, or some combination of these. There is danger in all of these. Scripture warns against too easily trusting in our human wisdom or sense (1 Corinthians 3:18; Proverbs 3:5,6; Colossians 2:8). Nor can we simply follow every impulse, but must carefully test if it is from God (1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1-3; Jeremiah 17:9). Nor can we always trust in circumstances, for God does call us to trust Him in spite of circumstances (Hebrews 11:8-12; 2 Corinthians 5:7; Romans 4:17-22). While all these things should be considered, every individual situation must be carefully examined to discern what God wants us to to do. And while I am convinced God is in control of the world and will direct us to where He wants us to be (Ephesians 2:10; 1:11; Romans 8:28), it is still necessary to decide what we should do next. It is in this area I would understand the charismatic gifts (short of the claim of actual inspiration) to function. And this is where I would draw the line.

A Touch of Humor - The Options

What things do Christians fight over? What things, if any, should they fight over? How can we avoid fighting over unnecessary issues?

A Voice from the Past - Lewis

Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books.

C. S. Lewis, 1898-1963, On the Reading of Old Books, God in the Dock, Part II, 4 (William Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970, p. 202)

What do you think of this? Does it make sense to you?

How Advanced Was Early Church Government?

It has been claimed that 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus could not have been written by Paul because the church government pictured there is more developed than it would have been in Paul's time. Now this comes from applying the Theory of Evolution from biology to other disciplines without any justification. The truth is, organizations develop at different speeds and it is impossible to predict how quickly they will develop.

There are three titles mentioned in the letters in question: overseer (or bishop), elder, and deacon. It is my understanding that overseer and elder are really two names for the same office (Acts 20:17,28; Titus 1:5,7), but there are at most three offices mentioned. It is rare to find an organization without at least three offices. Even a bridge club or a chess club generally has at least three offices. Once the church became too big for the apostles to  personally govern directly, we would expect some structure to be created. This is, of course, what the New Testament claims (Acts 14:23; 20:17; Philippians 1:1), but it is also what would be normally expected. Notice that these offices are mentioned in regards to local congregations, which suggests rudimentary leadership. Further, the idea of elders was already present in Judaism, so this system is not a total innovation (Luke 22:66; Acts 4:5; 23:14). 

It is claimed that the early church was run by charismatic leadership. Now I have been acquainted with various charismatic churches, including ones that might be considered extreme. I have yet to find one that does not have established leadership. Nor am I acquainted with any other group without continuing leadership and would be interested to know how they work, if they exist. The basis of this claim of charismatic leadership is 1 Corinthians 14. But this is not talking about leadership, but order in the service. And it very clearly implies someone in charge who can say who speaks next and make sure people take their turns. A charismatic system requires strong leadership to keep those involved under control. 

Also, this idea assumes that the Christian church is not a creation of God. Which is to assume the point at issue. But if the Christian church is from God, it can be made as complicated as He wants it to be. In fact, based on the description given, I would conclude God did not intend to prescribe a specific form of church government. Rather, He has given us broad principles but leaves the specifics flexible, allowing considerable freedom. But if God had commanded a detailed system with bishops, archbishops, patriarchs, and a pope at the top, it would not be a problem. In fact, it is not a clear difficulty for such a system to develop quickly on a natural basis. But I do not see how the system given in the New Testament is a problem on any grounds at all.

Is Faith a Private Thing?

Some people say their faith is a private thing and something they are unwilling to discuss in public. Now there are many different faiths in the world. But this approach does not fit with Biblical Christianity (Matthew 10:32,33; 5:16; Romans 10:9,10). This is important because we live in a culture where faith is becoming more and more marginalized. The idea is that it is all right to believe in God as long as you do not publicly profess it or do anything about it. This idea of a compartmentalized faith does not meet the demands of Scripture that Christ be Lord of all of our life (1 Corinthians 10:31; Romans 12:1,2; Matthew 10:24-26). This does not mean that we should be nasty or obnoxious about what we believe (2 Timothy 2:24-26; Colossians 4:6; 1 Peter 3:15). But we do need to stand firmly for the truth.

One thing this implies is our open involvement in the public square based on our faith. There are dangers here. There is the danger that we can think we can produce a Christian nation or at least a moral nation just by passing the right laws. But while laws may have a function in restraining blatant evil (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13,14; Deuteronomy 17:8-13), even God's perfect Law cannot genuinely change people without a work of grace in the heart (Romans 7:12-14; 8:3,4; Galatians 3:19-22). But we are called to stand up for truth and rebuke evil (Acts 5:27-32; 1 Kings 21:17-26; Proverbs 14:34). I would conclude this includes working for good laws wherever  possible, though with a realistic understanding of what they can do. But we must not accept a neutered faith that applies to only a corner of our life.

Now one argument by those who would restrict the influence of Christianity on society is to bring up past atrocities such as inquisitions and witch trials. But it is clear that atheism has shown itself capable of its own atrocities: the Soviet Gulag, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, and the Killing Fields. As an argument against any view this is simply mud-slinging. Any belief may be twisted into being used as a basis for tyranny. But the practical moral is that everyone is capable of taking their beliefs and forcing them on others and we need to be wary of this no matter what the position involved is, including our own. Nor does it solve the problem simply to have no definite belief. The Roman Emperors were very broad-minded and persecuted Christians for being obstinate and not going along with what they thought reasonable. The only escape is for all of us to be allowed to openly avow and follow our beliefs, but not to force them on others. It is only then that Christians can confess  their faith as they should, in a peaceable but firm manner, without it leading to force being employed by one side or the other.

A Touch of Humor - The Lodge

How far should we go to make people feel comfortable at our church services? Is there a danger in this?

A Voice from the Past - Clement of Rome

Think, my dear friends, how the Lord offers us proof after proof that there is going to be a resurrection, of which He was made Jesus Christ the first-fruits by raising Him from the dead. My friends, look how regularly there are processes of resurrection going on at this every moment. The day and the night show us an example of it; for night sinks to rest, and day arises; day passes away, and night comes again. Or take the fruits of the earth; how, and in what way, does a crop come into being? When the sower goes out and drops each seed into the ground, it falls to the earth shriveled and bare, and decays; but presently the power of the Lord's providence raises it from decay, and from that single grain a host of others spring up and yield their fruit.

Clement of Rome, To the Corinthians, about 99 AD, v. 24 (Early Christian Writings, The Apostolic Fathers, translated by Matthew Staniforth, Penguin Books, c, 1968)

What do you think of this? Is there any value to the idea expressed here?