SATURDAY CONTROVERSIES: CAN WE ALL GET ALONG? - INTRODUCTION TO A WEEKLY SERIES

 

Pandemonium by John Martin

"Now may the God of patience and comfort grant you to be like-minded toward one another, according to Christ Jesus, that you may with one mind and one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" Romans 15:5-6

"Fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind." Philippians 2:2

I have a friend who points out that Scripture tells us many places that we are to be like-minded. He's right. But what does it mean to be like-minded? Does it mean we're to agree on everything? Or is "like-minded" more like "keeping the main thing the  main thing," to be agreed on who the real enemy is?

In the next several weeks, I'll cover various controversial topics. And when I'm done, you'll know what the correct view is on every issue, right? Wrong! My goal in this is to try to encourage us to realize we're on the same side, with the same Savior, with a common enemy. Too often, there are people who have the uniform of the Lord's army, considering those not in that uniform their foe, and declare war on the Lord's navy, the Lord's marines, the Lord's air force, the Lord's coast guard, the Lord's national guard, and the Lord's local police departments. 

Of course, there are things that divide the saints from the ain'ts. Jesus is either God or He's not, and that is an essential. We either are saved by God's grace or we have to do our part, and that is an essential. Either the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God or it isn't. But there are many who agree on these issues that disagree on others. Yes, there are those who want to unite with those we should be divided from, but there are too many who want to divide from those we should be united with.

I've heard some say on any particular issue, "We can both be wrong, but we can't both be right." To be honest, I doubt many who take that view really believe that both sides can be wrong; they just are certain that I'm ever right when I disagree with them. This is based on a presupposition that I don't love God as much as they do, that I haven't studied the Bible as much as they do. But that presupposition is wrong, both ways.

Of course, dealing with free will and predestination will be one of the topics, but let me use it in pointing out that God desires us to realize His Church will have diversity on several issues. If He gave us free will, then we have the freedom on which side of a second or third tier issue is and still be part of the Family of God. If He didn't but predestined us, He obviously fashioned us to have different views, or we wouldn't. I remember a cartoon where two men were standing with their backs to each other and the one on the left had his arms crossed, and the wife of the other man said, "He can't help it if he's predestined to believe in free will."

Let me close this intro by asking for you to pray for me as I write this. My goal is to aim for unity, not division. My goal is when I present an opposing view, I do it in such a way one holding that view would say I accurately presented their view.

One last comment. You noticed I titled this "Saturday Controversies?" And you also notice I usually post on Sundays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays? I thought of having this series on Sunday, but I didn't want Sundays to be a day of dealing with disputes. So I'll be posting on Saturdays instead of Sundays. 

DOES CHRISTIAN LIBERTY EXTEND TO SIN ISSUES AND DOCTRINAL DISPUTES? - A STUDY ON ROMANS 14, PART 5 OF 11

 

Squirrel at our house; nice pose, huh?

 Are there limits to Christian liberty as in Romans 14? If there are, are they based on solid Biblical teaching, or are they excuses to silence those who disagree with us?

Romans 14 gives two examples of where Christian Liberty applies in verses two through six: eating meat or not, and observing certain days or not. I will look at those aspects, but let me first deal with possible limits.

I had a friend who believed we have freedom in those area, but only those two areas: that if an issue isn't given freedom, there isn't any. I find that contrary to Scripture as a whole. Most would agree that food and day-observance were merely examples that extends to other issues. However, I've heard two areas where this freedom does not apply. One is if we're talking about sin, and the other is doctrine.  

Do I believe that Romans 14 extends to behavior the Bible attends as sin? God forbid! If the Bible says an activity is wrong in the sight of God, then it's wrong. A change in opinion or polls doesn't change that. The same is true with doctrine: Christian Liberty doesn't allow for teaching works salvation or denying the Deity of Christ.

Yet, those Paul who was writing to DID consider eating meat to be a sin issue. Likewise, those WOULD identify day-observance as a doctrinal matter.

Needless to say, some who set up the limits are interested in excluding behaviors they consider wrong. Some would say it's a sin to listen to rock, so they justify condemning Christian rock music. There are Calvinists who have concluded they figured things out theologically, and anybody who falls short of their standard is an Arminian and thus teaching a false Gospel.  

It is true that many Christians want to unite from those they should be divided from. Yet, it's no less dangerous to divide from those we should be united with. Those who want to divide may believe they're seeking truth, but they have an appearance of wanting to shorten the list of those they're called to love and have been taken captive by pride.

A careful look at the two examples in Romans 14 show Christian Liberty is expanded beyond where we may think. For example, 1 Corinthians 8-10 deals with eating meat sacrificed to idols. After all, the pagan's "gods" don't have much of an appetite when they're offered food, so then it goes to the discount aisle of Main Street Grocery Store. Some avoid eating any meat because they don't want to take a chance of eating food offered to idols and thus taking part of idolatry; others don't care where the meat came from and like the good price.

I naturally assume that Romans 14 deals with the same issue, but in studying this chapter, I've realized this issue is not specified here. Yes, it is logical to consider that the above issue is covered in Romans 14, but it isn't limited to it.

Moving to verses 5-6 which talks about observing days: At first, I assumed it was important festival days from the Old Testament such as Passover. Then, looking at the wording, I came to believe that it's referring to the Sabbath. Reason? It refers to day in the singular; if it's referring to the holy days, it would be in the plural. Also, it is the more radical suggestion to the Jewish mind.

However, David Stern in the Jewish New Testament Commentary made a valid point: We automatically assume that "the day" that is esteemed is connected with Judaism. But it doesn't say which day, meaning it could be any day - Jewish feast day, Christian calendar event, or the Academy Awards. He's not saying that it doesn't apply to the Passover or the Sabbath, but that it's not limited to them.

The focus of this chapter is that we need to receive one another, and we too often look for a good alibi to exclude others.

Are there any areas where you are quick to exclude other Christians that probably shouldn't be excluded? How about ways you try to reach out to others and showing liberty and tolerance?

ROMANS 14: THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT - A STUDY ON ROMANS 14 PART 3 OF 11

 

Observation tower stairs, Edgar Evins State Park, Tennessee

For those unfamiliar with the program "Through the Bible with Les Feldick," Les taped four 1/2 hour programs each month. He spent 71 programs on Romans. The final four covered Chapters 12-16. Similarly, I heard that at my Bible College, the professor ran out of semester as he got to Chapter 12. 

In the previous installment, I gave a quick overview of the book of Romans, and dealt with four major points of the first eleven chapters. For review, they are:

1. No one is righteous (Rom. 1:18-3:18).
2. Christ paid the penalty of our sins so we can be justified by Him through faith (Rom. 3:19-5:21).
3. As Christ died for our sins and was raised, we should die to our past sinful life and live life in the Spirit (Rom. 6-8).
4. God has cast off Israel due to their unbelief and grafted the church in through faith, but if and when they turn from their unbelief, they will be restored according to the Sovereignty of God (Rom. 9-11).

 Paul starts with practical application at this point in this letter (remember, he didn't divide his letters into chapters and verses any more than we do) with three concepts: 

1. We should present ourselves as a living sacrifice to God (Rom. 12:1).
2. We should not be conformed to the world but renew our minds and think soberly (Rom. 12:2-3).
3. We are one body in Christ, functioning as members through spiritual gifts (Rom. 12:4-8).
   

 You may notice common ground between the two lists I just gave you, but there's a difference: The list of four doctrines are what we believe, and the next three is how we think and act based on that belief. Those three points deal with the following: 

• A checklist of behaviors consistent with the above foundations (Rom. 12:9-21).
• How we are to live as citizens (Rom. 13:1-7).
• Love being seen as how we are to live (Rom. 13:8-10).
• The call to live and walk as being in the light of the Lord, not the darkness of the world (Rom. 13:11-14).

And finally:

• How to watch out for each other and live out our differences (Rom. 14:1-15:7).

This brings us to where I'm going to focus for the next week. Y'all ready?

ROMANS 14: THE GREATER CONTEXT - A STUDY ON ROMANS 14 PART 2 OF 11

 

Cool Creek Park, Westfield, Indiana

One bit of Bible study advice I've known since I started attending Bible College: "A text without a context is a pretext." So I will spend the next two sessions developing the context of Romans 14.

First, we need to look at where Romans fits into Scripture. Christians believe that there is a two part division of Scripture: The Old Covenant (or Old Testament) and the New Covenant (New Testament). The former focuses on Israel with a look at the coming Messiah and His Kingdom. The latter focuses on Jesus as the prophesied Messiah (Greek word for Messiah is Christ) and His present tense Kingdom in the Church (as well as looking for the future Kingdom when He returns). Romans - or more completely, the Letter of Paul to the Romans - is a New Testament book.

Allow me to take a step back here and point out that not all editions of Scripture, while having the same books, do not have them in the same order. The Jews have a different order of the books (and some of the books were combined - "The Book of the Twelve" is the same as the twelve Minor Prophets). Likewise, some of the New Testament texts would have a differing order of the four Gospels or may have the General Epistles preceding Paul's, but it is just a rearrangement of the same contents.

One interesting phenomenon is that Paul's letters are immune from this variation. Every edition starts with the letters to Churches, starting with Romans to the Thessalonian letters, and followed with the letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. Les Feldick indicates that the fact it always has been in this order is God's design. On the other hand, Frank Viola proposes that the order is based on book length, starting with the longest (Romans).

Paul didn't plant the church in Rome, though some believe he did indirectly, being started by those discipled by Paul. In reading this letter, it is evident that his audience was mixed between Jews and Gentiles. Most believe Paul wrote this letter in Cornith, at the end of his third missionary journey on his way to Jerusalem, where he was arrested and eventually sent to Rome.

A common trait in Paul's letters was to start with doctrine and then move to practical application, and Romans is no exception. The first eleven chapters are doctrinal, and the remaining five are practical. (Keep in mind that the Biblical authors did not divide their writings into chapters and verses; these were done later for reference.)

Allow me to give a list of doctrinal foundations given that chapters 12-16 (including our focal point on chapter 14) are built on.

1. No one is righteous (Rom. 1:18-3:18).
2. Christ paid the penalty of our sins so we can be justified by Him through faith (Rom. 3:19-5:21).
3. As Christ died for our sins and was raised, we should die to our past sinful life and live life in the Spirit (Rom. 6-8).
4. God has cast off Israel due to their unbelief and grafted the church in through faith, but if and when they turn from their unbelief, they will be restored according to the Sovereignty of God. (Rom. 9-11).
   

 Are you all ready for a break after this? I am! So I'll be looking more at the context for the 14th chapter of Romans in my next installment.

But for those brave enough to answer a question I post in my blog (I haven't had many takers thus far), here's a question for you: With the four points I listed above, how would you say we should live? What does that look like?

ARE GOOD DOCTRINE AND GOOD CHARACTER SYNOMONOUS? - A LOOK AT CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

 

Cyril of Alexandria by Rousanu

 

Let's say I'm writing a novel with the twelve church fathers Bryan Litfin covers in his book Getting To Know the Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction having dinner together. (Would it be considered historical, since it deals with individuals who lived between 100 and 500 AD, or speculative since they weren't all contemporaries of each other?) One of the guests gets murdered. Which one? Good question, but it isn't Cyril. For me, the question is whether I want to make Cyril the killer, or just the red herring you suspect until he becomes the second victim.

First, I'll deal with why he is included as a Church Father. You probably are familiar with the 4th century conflict with Arianism during the days of Constantine and Athanasius (definitely if you've been reading this series and quite probably even if you haven't).  However, the 5th century had it's own controversies, which were more Christological. What relationship did the eternal Begotten Son of God have with Jesus of Nazareth? Was His real nature divine? Human? Or both?

One of the promoters of a variant teaching on the subject was Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople. (NOTE - an excellent book dealing with Nestorianism and other Christological heresies like Arianism and Modalism is Superheroes Can't Save You: Epic Examples of Historic Heresies by Todd Miles, where he compares various false teachings concerning Christ with various superheroes.) The orthodox view was defended by Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Cyril held that Christ was fully God and fully man, not some strange hybrid. He was the one to introduce the theological term "Hypostatic Union", of how Jesus Christ was one person with two natures.

Why, then, do I have a problem with Cyril? Remember two installments ago when I was mentioning Theophilus, then Bishop of Alexandria, was unhappy with John Chrysostom being Bishop of Constantinople, and gave trumped out charges which resulted in John being exiled and dying due to his treatment? Do you want to guess who Theophilus' nephew was? Yep, it was Cyril. Did Cyril have a problem with how John was treated? Not at all. Now, after the dastardly deed  was done, Cyril did reluctantly admit that Chrysostom was orthodox, and later on quoted him.

Was that the only question mark I have about Cyril? I wish. In Alexandria, some "Christian" thugs brutally and savagely murdered a pagan prophetess. Do you remember what Cyril said against that attrocity? Same thing I did at that time - nothing! Of course, I can say I didn't say anything because it occured over 1500 years before I was born. Cyril did not have that excuse.

Let's go to the Council of Ephesus, where Cyril successfully defeated Nestorianism, with Nestorius being declared a heretic and his ideas being condemned on the first day of meeting. Could it be that was because Cyril was appointed as representative of the Roman party until they arrived, not to mention the senior bishop of Alexandria, he took charge? Maybe, though he did have the authority to do so. How about the council being called to order on time, even though Cyril knew many of Nestorius' supporters had been delayed from being there at the time? Now that wasn't completely kosher or, in 21 century terms, fair and balanced, was it?

So here's the question: Is good doctrine negated by bad character, or vice versa for that matter?