Christianity And Culture From An Non-Christian's Perspcetive

I get both heart broken and angered when I see leaders in Christianity rely on "communication experts," "stats, "polls" and other similar things to be more "effective" in preaching and growing a local church. It's rather interesting and sad that when I see leaders use this type of method, their churches tend to look more like the world rather than "a pillar and buttress of the truth."

One cannot do things better than God can. God works through the power of the Spirit in the preaching of His Word and administration of the sacraments. Worship services are to be conducted in light of who He is, as He's revealed Himself through His Word. Worship is to be done as God has prescribed and commanded; not in a manner popular to the culture.

When men need to rely on "experts" I wish they would at least consider experts like Alan Wolfe. A social scientist, and also an unbeliever, who seems to have a better understanding of Christianity and culture more than many Christians.

The following quotes are from Alan Wolfe:

Talk of Hell, damnation, and even sin has been replaced by a non-judgmental language of understanding and empathy. Gone are the arguments over doctrine and theology … More Americans than ever proclaim themselves born again in Christ, but the Lord to whom they turn rarely gets angry and frequently strengthens self-esteem. [As a result] the faithful in the United States are remarkably like everyone else.

 ...Generally speaking, preaching in evangelically oriented growth churches, however dynamic in delivery, has remarkably little actual content. Scripture is invariably cited but only as a launching pad to reinforce the message of salvation that Jesus can offer.

...Evangelicalism’s popularity is due as much to its populistic and democratic urges—its determination to find out exactly what believers want and offer it to them—as it is to certainties of the faith.

 ...But popularity means bowing to, rather than resisting, popular culture, and since American popular culture is one that puts more emphasis on feeling good than thinking right, these movements tend to be especially hostile to potentially divisive doctrinal controversy.

...This adherence to growth can have its frustrations; watching sermons reduced to PowerPoint presentations or listening to one easily forgettable praise song after another makes one long for an evangelical willing to stand up, Luther-like, and proclaim his opposition to the latest survey of evangelical taste.

*Cited in Gilley, G. E. (2006). This Little Church Stayed Home: A Faithful Church in Deceptive Times (55, 56). Darlington, England: Evangelical Press.

*Gilley took the quotes from Alan Wolfe's book The Transformation Of American Religion: How We Actually Live Our Faith? 

Gary Gilley On The Church As Pillar And Buttress Of Truth

Nevertheless, since it is the biblical position, we are not surprised to find Paul informing us that "the church of the living God [is] the pillar and support of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15b). Whatever else the church of God does, it must excel at undergirding and proclaiming the truth. I believe a local church can fail at many things, but it must not fail at holding forth the truth of the living God. To fail at this is to fail at the primary mission given to the church. The church is not free to create truth, to supplement truth, to alter truth, or to selectively obey truth. The church is "to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict" (Titus 1:9). The church is to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3). The church is to "preach the word; be ready, in season, and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction" (2 Tim. 4:2). To not accept these commands as a sacred trust is to totally miss the most important reason for the church’s existence.

 ...At certain points in history the church has served as a rebuke to the secular mindset of society. At such times Christians have challenged and exposed the popular fads that ruled the day, revealing those fads for what they were, shallow and empty, mere "broken cisterns that can hold no water" (Jer. 2:13). Sadly, now is not one of those points in history. Rather, the Christian community at the present time appears to be in lock step with the world system. Whatever the world is selling Christians seem to be buying. They may perfume it a bit, hang some religious ornaments on it, and throw some scriptures into the mix, but when stripped to its essence evangelicals frequently find themselves mimicking the world’s philosophy.

 We find this true with regard to postmodernity. Rather than repel the forces leading this ungodly worldview, we have welcomed them into our camp, adapted their most appetizing features and structured our ministries according to their market research. What polls and surveys have to say seem to carry considerably more weight in today’s local church than what the apostle Paul had to say.

Culture has always influenced the church, but in a real sense the postmodern culture has engulfed the church—and in many cases defined the church. We see its fingerprints everywhere we turn.

 ...What is happening? Having discovered postmodernists’ disdain for truth, the postmodern church has determined that the lost will never be reached through the offer of authoritative truth. To claim to be in possession of absolutes is viewed suspiciously today, since it is a thinly disguised power grab, so we are better off not playing the "truth" card too openly. In order to reach the citizens of this age we must give them what they want. And what do they want? They want to have their felt-needs met and they want to have a religious experience. If we desire to attract people to Christ these days, we are told, we need to understand their mindset. The old gospel of redemption from sin, righteousness in Christ and a future in heaven with our Lord just doesn’t play well any more.

I have documented this mentality toward evangelism from primary sources in my book This Little Church Went to Market, so I will not repeat those things here. But read some of the observations by respected Christian leaders who see what has happened. D. A. Carson writes,

Weigh how many presentations of the gospel have been "eased" by portraying Jesus as the One who fixes marriages, ensures the American dream, cancels loneliness, gives us power, and generally makes us happy. He is portrayed that way primarily because in our efforts to make Jesus appear relevant we have cast the human dilemma in merely contemporary categories, taking our cues from the perceived needs of the day. But if we follow Scripture, and understand that the fundamental needs of the race are irrefragably tied to the Fall, we will follow the Bible as it sets out God’s gracious solution to that fundamental need; and then the gospel we preach will be less skewed by the contemporary agenda … If you begin with perceived needs, you will always distort the gospel. If you begin with the Bible’s definition of our need, relating perceived needs to that central grim reality, you are more likely to retain intact the gospel of God (emphasis in the original).

Douglas Groothuis laments, "Some Christians are hailing postmodernism as the trend that will make the church interesting and exciting to postmoderns. We are told that Christians must shift their emphasis from objective truth to communal experience, from rational argument to subjective appeal, from doctrinal orthodoxy to 'relevant' practices. I have reasoned throughout this book that this move is nothing less than fatal to Christian integrity and biblical witness. It is also illogical philosophically. We have something far better to offer."'*

*Gilley, G. E. (2006). This Little Church Stayed Home: A Faithful Church in Deceptive Times (16–17,38-40). Darlington, England: Evangelical Press.

Dr. Richard Barcellos On Eph. 1:7-10

The particular focus of this study aims to explain what Paul meant by saying "to unite all things in him" (ESV), "the summing up of all things in Christ" (NASB), and "gather together in one all things in Christ" (NKJV). It will argued that this refers to the recapitulation of all created things by our exalted redeemer in accordance with the design of the Father.

The Bible is ultimately about God getting glory for Himself through the work of Christ, the incarnate Son of God, the mediator between God and men, the redeemer, the reconciler of all things created, the skull-crushing seed of the woman. This is one of my working assumptions as I approach this text. In this study, I want to analyze Ephesians 1:7-10, seeking to do exegetical justice to it in its immediate context and then place it in its wider redemptive-historical and canonical context. The fruit of this interpretive exercise will give some warrant to the claim that the Bible is about God getting glory for Himself through what He does in the Son.

...Before we move on it is important to note that the subjective knowledge of the mystery of God's will is based on the objective coming of Christ and the implications of His coming drawn out for us by the writers of the New Testament. In other words, that which God gives us in terms of understanding His will is based on His act in Christ and the subsequent interpretation of that act by apostles and prophets and, especially for us, the writers of the New Testament. Also, the implications drawn out by the writers of the New Testament were based on previous revelation concerning Gentile inclusion. The "mystery" was new revelation in the sense of being New Testament Scripture but it was also clearer understanding of previous scriptural revelation in light of the redemptive-historical revelation of the sufferings and glory of Christ. The New Testament writers, in other words, interpreted the Old Testament in light of God's revelation in Christ.*

Richard Barcellos, Southern California Reformed Baptist Pastors' Conference Papers (Palmdale, CA: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2012), pp. 68, 80.

David Murray On The Preacher

A sinner sent by the grace of God

Paul not only speaks of being saved by the grace of God, but also of being called and sent by the grace of God. "To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ" (Eph. 3:8).

This is not the place to go into detail about the "call to the ministry". Suffice to say that the preacher should have two calls—the one internal and the other external. The exact nature of these calls varies from person to person. But, in general, we can say that the internal call is a burden or longing to preach based on right motives: the desires to obey God, to edify God’s people, and to save souls. The external call is the church’s confirmation of the internal call and involves the church’s examination of the preacher’s motives, gifts, character and Christian experience.

The preacher must work to maintain a constant sense of the divine call—when preparing to preach, when preaching, and when reflecting on the results of his preaching. This will set another pendulum swinging in his heart. It will swing from humility (resulting from the knowledge that it is divine mercy not human merit that has made him a preacher), to authority (resulting from the knowledge that God has commissioned him).

A sinner supplied with the gifts of God

Not only is the preacher saved by God’s grace, and sent by God’s grace, but he is also gifted by God’s grace. A man can be gifted without being called and sent, but a man cannot be called and sent without being gifted. God supplies both the calling and the gifts to fulfill that calling.

What kind of gifts will be present in the preacher?

     a. A strong self-discipline

As the preacher has no "boss", no supervisor, or manager, he is able to do as little or as much as he desires, in whatever areas that interest him. Hence why so many lazy and undisciplined men have been attracted to the ministry. But when a man is truly called of God to the ministry, he is divinely equipped with an ability to organize and discipline himself to do his duty, even when there is no one to check up on him.

                b. A love of studying

Paul admonished the young preacher, Timothy: "Till I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine … Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (1 Tim. 4:13; 2 Tim. 2:15). As the core of the preacher’s task is the study of God’s Word, God will usually bless the preacher with a love of studying.

     c. An ability to communicate

 As the preacher must not only understand the truth but also be able to communicate it clearly, God will usually give the preacher a clear mind and a clear voice, resulting in a clear message from God to men. God does not send messengers who confuse and bamboozle his people with displays of their learning—or their lack of it.

     d. A love of people

There are many preachers who love their studies, but wish they never had to come out of them! They love preparing sermons, lectures and addresses, but seem to wish that they did not need a congregation to deliver them to. The God-sent messenger loves the people God has given to him. He enjoys visiting the flock and feeding the flock.

The gifts summarized above, and others, must be sought, cultivated, stirred up and developed (1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6). J. W. Alexander warned: I fear none of us apprehend as we ought to do the value of the preacher’s office. Our young men do not gird themselves for it with the spirit of those who are on the eve of a great conflict; nor do they prepare as those who are to lay their hands upon the springs of the mightiest passions, and stir up to their depths the ocean of human feelings.

A sinner summoned to the bar of God

 "Preach the word!" (2 Tim. 4:2) was Paul’s last charge to Timothy and it was given in the context of the final judgement (v. 1). Paul’s whole ministry was conducted in the awesome shadow of the last day. Knowing he would one day be called to give an account of his life and ministry he said, "This being so, I myself always strive to have a conscience without offence toward God and men" (Acts 24:16). Al Martin writes:

 Next to the presence of Christ, there is no greater companion to the minister than that of a good conscience. To have the Lord at your side and a peaceful conscience in your breast—these are the preacher’s two greatest companions.

A constant awareness of the final judgement will help us to shun ignorance, dishonesty, laziness, vanity and self-seeking; and it will make us studious, honest, energetic, sober, prayerful and faithful.*

*Murray, D. (2011). How Sermons Work (12–15). Darlington, England; Carlisle, PA: Evangelical Press.

Why the Clark / Van-Til dichotomy?

by Felipe Diez

(Minister_of_Music@yahoo.com)

 

 

 

 

Friends,

 

I do not say this lightly, but in a thought-for-thought manner, and not simply for charitable purposes, I consider Dr. Cornelius Van-Til and Dr. Gordon Clark to be among the most significant Christian thinkers of the 20th century. Not only have they both enriched my life (I read their books and form my opinions on their primary sources first and not on the words of their fans, followers, bloggers, etc) but I have been able to teach others about what they desired to be taught to the world. My parents know about them, my friends know about them, acquaintances know about them, and fellow students know about them because I like to talk about them. They are like heroes to me. I admit I have read many more of Dr. Clark's works than I have the other's, but I can notice many similarities and differences in their works. It is the same when I read the works of other Christian philosophers / apologists, they have some similarities and some differences. I even have in my possession Herman Hoeksema's book concerning the "controversy." But so what? I like them both. Can you say the same thing?

 

This blog post is about a young man named "Johnny." Johnny is into presuppositional apologetics and has stumbled on a few blog posts or videos by the fictional Mindy Collins. Mindy is a strong van-tillian and only has negative things to say about Dr. Clark. Enter Sam Roberts. Sam is a Clarkian and has very negative things to say about van-Til. Sam also has a very condescending attitude. Well, Johnny begins to dislike Dr. Clark (while not having read a single book of his) because he likes Mindy's blogs, yet when Johnny's friends ask him why he doesn't like Dr. Clark, Johnny replies with "well, Mindy (who has never read Van-til and only works about others) said so and so, and also, I don't like Sam." Does this scenario sound familiar?

 

It's a scenario I've had to witness again and again. My question to you is, why the dichotomy? Why do some folks find it necessary to base their decisons on emotional data? When I speak to folks about this, they always reference the two scholars spoken about in this blog as if they were perpetually at each others' throats (when in fact they were both gentlemen who did not have personal ills regarding the other). The scholars are long gone, and in a sense, it is their students who have perpetuated much of this misunderstanding. Some people find it perplexing that I do not speak badly of either scholar, and often out of spite, I will speak well of one scholar in the presence of people who dislike that scholar over the other, and vice versa. And there are many ways in which van-tillians misrepresent Dr. Clark and vice versa - I can catch the misrepresentations quite easily. When I speak with someone, and ask them: "Do you like Cornelius Van-Til? I am reading his "Introduction to Christian Epistemology part II." They say: "I like Gordon Clark." But notice that this is not what I asked. I was not talking about Clark or referencing Clark at all. For now, imagine that he never existed. My question to them was: "Do you like Cornelius Van-Til?" That was the question. I was not attempting to invoke the whole controversy nor was the other scholar present in my mind. But some folks simply cannot think rationally enough and, in my opinion, must get past their emotional presuppositions. When I ask: "Do you like Gordon Clark's works?" Some people say: "I'm a van-tillian." But notice that this was not referenced in the question. It was not part of the question, and I was not asking for the information provided to me. And often times, the person who disdains Clark has only read - what - 3 or 4 books? (I've read 12 so far and have many more on my shelf). People are taking the ramifications of this controversy too seriously and are going about this in the wrong manner, and many bloggers and other writers are advancing the same erroneous dichotomy. They sometimes think of me as "that odd ball who actually likes and reads both of them."

 

So Johnny, if you would, ignore Sam's attitude and Mindy's misrepresentations (fictional characters), pick up a few books by these men, not about them, and feed your mind - learn to defend the Christian faith and practice cogent and comprehensive thinking.

Abraham's Reward in Genesis and the NT

by Felipe Diez (Minister_of_Music@yahoo.com)

 

        "After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: “Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.” ² But Abram said, “O Lord God, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” ³ And Abram said, “Behold, you have given me no offspring, and a member of my household will be my heir.” ⁴ And behold, the word of the Lord came to him: “This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir.” ⁵ And he brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” ⁶ And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness." (Genesis 15:1-6)

 

Abram’s faith, arriving to him as a result of a trusting relationship with Yahweh and His promises, is a well-known theme in the book of Genesis. This essay will examine the implications of what Genesis 15:1-6 teaches with regard to the term “reward” and the other events surrounding these few verses, such as Abram’s mentioning of Eliezer the servant, the fact that the Lord calls Himself a “shield,” and what signified the stars in the Ancient Near Eastern sky. A sustained exegesis of each of the six verses will be provided, as well as some words concerning Biblical Theology. The essay will focus mostly on verse 1. It is important to note that the word “reward” in verse 1 is sometimes accompanied by other words in other translations to form phrases such as “your very great reward” (NIV), “your exceedingly great reward” (NKJV), or simply “your reward shall be very great” (NASB). The Hebrew word that is translated in these various ways is “sakar” (shkr). Its simple definition is “wages,” but it can also be used to mean “reward” and even “hire.” Sakar is a masculine noun, very well suited to refer to the Lord, since He is often called Father. Other instances of uses of sakar in the Old Testament will be mentioned as well as the existence of other Hebrew words that can also be translated “reward” in order to help paint a picture of this theme. This essay is descriptive, but will argue for an interpretative case. It is exegetical in nature, but will go further than to simply translate the chosen verses.

The Hebrew word for “reward” (sometimes translated as “wages” or “repay”) occurs about 28 times in the Old Testament. This does not count for other usages of “wages” that may possess more obscure definitions. The most basic definition for the term translated “reward” or “wages” is something given or received in return or recompense for service, merit, or hardship. “Sakar” (your reward) along with “ishlm” seem to be the most used words for “reward” and “wages” with the aforementioned definition although a secondary definition is also possible: “a sum of money offered for the detection or capture of a criminal, the recovery of lost or stolen property.” This definition accounts for few of the verses used in the OT for “reward” and is, then, not the one in view with regard to the verse in Genesis. Some other OT examples of the first definition of “reward” (Hebrew “ishlm”) are found in 2 Samuel 3:39

“And today, though I am the anointed king, I am weak, and these sons of Zeruiah are too strong for me. May the LORD repay the evildoer according to his evil deeds!" (NIV).

The NKJV, following the tradition of the KJV, translates the same verse containing “ishlm” as “reward” instead of “repay” here:

“And I am this day weak, though anointed king; and these men the sons of Zeruiah are too hard for me: the LORD shall reward the doer of evil according to his wickedness.”

Another verse where “ishlm” occurs is in Ruth 2:12:

“May the LORD reward your work, and your wages be full from the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to seek refuge." (NASB).

The NIV translates the first few words of this verse as ‘May the Lord repay.” Other than the main verse of study in this essay (Gen.15:1) “After this, the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision: "Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your very great reward,” there is another verse that uses “sakar” (shkr) instead of “ishlm.” It is Numbers 18:31 “You and your households may eat the rest of it anywhere, for it is your wages for your work at the Tent of Meeting (NIV). Here, the Hebrew word is “sakar.” The NKJV, again, translates this same Hebrew word as “reward” in the same verse. Other Hebrew words that are translated “repay,” “reward,” or “bribe” are nebizbah, pelluah, and shalmon, although these occur with less frequency out of the total 28 verses in the OT translated “reward.” Shalmon occurs in Psalm 5:15. An instance of “nebizbah” used in the second definition to mean “recovery of stolen goods or property” happens in Daniel 6:14 “When the king heard this, he was greatly distressed; he was determined to rescue Daniel and made every effort until sundown to save him." (This verse is not included in the total 28 instances of “reward” in the OT).

The genre of the passage is "prose narrative concerning a vision." It describes a short but meaningful conversation between Abram and God. It is covenantal in that it involves a promise and a vision to authenticate the scope of the promise. There is symbolism in the passages that aid the reader in understanding past revelation and how it continues – progressively providing more information concerning God’s management of Abram’s life and future. The Lord presents Himself for the third time to Abram, this time as a “shield” and a “reward.” It is not a human shield or a monetary reward that Abram will be protected by or receive as some recompense, but the present tense in verse 1 “I am your shield; your very great reward” strikes the reader as something that God is (Sovereign) and what He signifies (a reward in and of Himself). Chapter 15 is a new passage, however, the phrase “after this,” in the first part of verse 1 gives a clue that the following verses may contain some information that takes into account the preceding story. Previously, Abram had interacted with the King of Sodom, and had refused an offer to keep treasures of war for himself, so as to remain unstained by that King’s nefarious influence. In the ancient Near East world, a king signified protection (shield) from all manner of harm. A powerful ally would have served a landless sojourner such as Abram well. The Lord’s dealing with Abram states explicitly that no other King but Him would provide Abram with protection, nor would he be comforted with extra riches as a reward. God’s relationship to Abram would be his comfort and estate. Neither should Abram be afraid of any ruler but the Lord.

As is usual in the lives of the patriarchs, there are complaints of something lacking, and in Abram’s case, it was a male child who would be his heir. Abram is quick to attribute this perceived problem to the Lord’s doing in verse 3 “you have given me no children.” Eliezer of Damascus was Abram’s only link to an heir. He was probably a beloved slave, such as those who would be purchased in the ancient world if a man was childless. Some commentators suggest that Abram could have obtained Eliezer during his journey southward to Haran. In Genesis 24:2, there is a servant who remained “unnamed.” Some speculate that this could have been Eliezer himself. Studies of ancient Near Eastern texts (Code of Hammurabi) strongly suggest that a childless male could make one of his male servants an heir. It appears this way in verse 2. At any rate, this was not God’s plan (verse 4), for Abram was promised a child even at his old age. This was another one of his complaints to God, which eventually resulted in the birth of Ishmael, who was not destined to be the carrier of the seed (Abram’s descendants). The Lord has Abram contemplate the night sky. There were probably many thousands of bright starts in the ancient night sky. This, along with the grains of sand of the beaches, was to be the analogy concerning the number of descendants that Abram would have (verse 5). God would surely and sovereignly bring all of this to pass, even if Abram could not fathom it. In earlier encounters, similar things were spoken by the Lord to him. Three visions, an important number in ancient culture, constituted a well-rounded set of events that ensured, in totality, the veracity of the vision as well as the divine reputation of the enactor.

 

An exceedingly important verse is the final one in this study “Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.” This verse not only has New Testament implications (as do the others), but very personal issues that concern every believer. The fact that Abram believed God is a sovereign result of God’s good and reliable character – that He fulfills all promises – yet even though Abram faltered in many ways, he is credited with trusting the Lord so as to be called righteous (just). There is a two-way relationship between God and the patriarchs – one of mutual trust, although it is God who is perfect and finally responsible for carrying out the task. His divine condescension is proof that He is kind and caring toward His creatures. He works in the lives of those who believe and trust in His promises as well as Himself. Since God is not separated from what He proclaims (in the Bible), one is not a believer who does not trust in God’s promises, for then she does not trust in God’s character.

 

The theological content of these six verses supply a dense narrative of information with regard to the Abrahamic covenant. God is to be regarded as Lord over Abram in every sense. God, who is the protector of His people, does not want them to trust in kinds or in chariots, but in the Lord Himself. Him being the shield, He sets a hedge over those whom He calls. There is surely a rewarding content to this covenant. There is land and offspring – greatly coveted items in the ancient world and even today. But Abraham would not see the result of this promise nor would he meet the Christ. Not even Moses was able to enter the land. In a sense, Abram was not rewarded by the items themselves (except for the birth of Isaac), but with righteousness for having believed God. This was experienced by Abram, and the source of this righteousness is God Himself, therefore verifying the words of the vision in verse 1: “I am your shield; your very great reward.” That relationship with God which affects all those who believe is a form of protection from the final consequences of unbelief – spiritual death. A vision from God was not experienced by every person, and an important question must be asked: Why does God single people out and leave others to perish? Even among His children, why do some receive more information than others and a closer relationship with God? An exposition of answers to these questions is beyond the scope of this essay, but some passing mention can be given soon with regard to the theological implications of not only national election (Israel), but a very personal and individual election and favoritism in the Lord toward people of various kinds and in various manners.

 

The fact that Eliezer and Ishmael were not to be counted as heirs, and the youngest (Isaac) received that favored treatment (not based on anything he did) gives us a picture on divine election not based on personal merit. This kind of theology can be explored in the NT when discussions of merit and righteousness are had. Where did Abram’s righteousness come from if not himself? Was God fully responsible for Abram’s belief, or was it a synergistic relationship where God initiated the content of this faith and Abram responded with a “yes?” If this synergistic model is true, then was it possible for Abram to have probably held to unbelief, thus ending the possibility of the promise being fulfilled? Absolutely not! If Abraham was treated as he was because of who he was or what he did, there would be a type of favoritism with God. But does God react to something in a person to then promise them something? When Isaac and subsequently Jacob were born (elect and then elect of the next generation), they were counted as heirs, and God’s promise to have the older serve the younger is seen here (as opposed to Ishmael and Esau, respectively, as those reprobated). Joseph, then, with his tragic moments carried through by his brothers against him, and with Potifar’s wife and Pharaoh, preserved the promised lineage. It was the Lord who ultimately planned these occurrences for the benefit and carrying out of the promises made in Genesis to Abram. God is faithful and His word does not fail, despite attempts by many Jews to raise questions concerning belief:

 

“It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.” (Rom.9:6-8)

 

These verses are both inclusive and exclusive, and deal with the ramifications of Abram’s third encounter with God. The non-believing Israelites throughout all its history were in fact not those in God’s overarching plan of salvation. Some have argued that this election is to service and membership, not to salvation, but an examination of other texts proves this interpretation to be reactionary and insufficient. If God’s promise to Abram was predicated on human belief and then ratified upon that belief, and not otherwise, then what does the Apostle Paul mean with this?

 

“For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.” Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad —in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” (Rom.9:9-13)

In other words, was God’s election of the Hebrews out of Egypt an act based on foreseen faith and inherent righteousness?

“It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the LORD your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” (Deut.9:5)

Abram, the previous idolater, had been chosen for a very special mission and had been given the necessary equipment to believe – to be able to trust God’s promises, therefore God Himself. His descendants refer to believing Israelites and also believing gentiles, which seem to comprise most of God’s children. This is a tremendous amount of grace bestowed to ill-deserving humans. Galatians has a great deal to say concerning Abraham and faith.

 

“So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.” (6-9)

 

Abraham is undoubtedly a model for proper faith in both the Old Testament and the New. Believers can look up to him and understand that his greatness and importance as a patriarch is due to his obedience as we take into account human responsibility, but ultimately Abram’s story is a result of God raising up this man whom He elected (foreknew) from before the foundation of the world (Rom.8), promising him love and possessions, and sustaining him through his difficult journey. We can expect, as believers, to have similar difficulties in our faith, and could be comforted with the fact that God’s faithfulness in Abram’s life is a result of His omnipotence and everlasting love toward His remnant (true Israel) elect in both the OT and the New.

SOURCES

 

Beale G.K. Handbook on the New Testament use of the Old Testament. Exegesis and        

Interpretation (Baker Academic, 2012).

Brotzman R. Ellis. Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction. (Baker

Academic, 1993)

 

Everett F. Harrison, Pfeiffer F. Charles. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Moody Press.

Chicago, IL, 1962

 

Horton, Michael. Introducing Covenant Theology. (Baker Books. Reprint Edition, 2009)

 

Mann, Thomas W. The Book of the Torah: The Narrative Integrity of the

Pentateuch. Atlanta: (John Knox Press, 1988).

 

Julius Scott Jr. On Church And Culture

The whole orientation of the New Testament writers assumes that the present condition of society is abnormal. The Biblical doctrine that God’s creation was originally "good" establishes that. But the effects of sin are not limited to nature and the individual. Society too is not now as it was meant to be. Along with the natural order, the structures within which humans live and relate to each other do not recognize, honor, and serve God and do not submit to his rule and will. Furthermore, the Biblical writers teach that this abnormal condition of society will not continue. The New Testament is alive with the reality that Christ’s atonement was directed to all that was affected by sin, "God so loved the world" (John 3:16). The sovereignty of God and the in-breaking of his rule subjects society to his redeeming influence. To say the least, Christ does transform culture, although not necessarily directly in this phase of Salvation History. He transforms people in culture and they, in turn, spread the claim and implications of his rule over society. But, "as it is, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him" (Heb 2:8). The tension between "Christ and Culture in Paradox" and "Christ the Transformer of Culture" will reach resolution at the consummation. The time will come when God will "subject all things to himself" (Phil 3:21), when "at the name of Jesus every knee [shall] bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue [shall] confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:10–11).

The redemption and reconciliation purchased by Christ includes all of creation, "God so loved the world"—in all its parts: natural, societal, and human persons. Thus, the fact and scope of salvation prohibit Christians from being unconcerned about all that is about him or her. We have learned something of the nature of the present context and relationship between church and society, but we have not answered the question of this chapter.

Witness of the Church to the Saving Work and Lordship of Christ

Both in "The Great Commission" of Matthew 28:18–20 and in his parting words, recorded in Acts 1:8, Jesus made clear that the church is to bear witness to society of the nature of the spiritual situation, including its rebellion against God and the fact of his saving work and Lordship. We noted this command when summarizing the mission and task of the church. A part of the church’s relation with society is its prophetic role; a role which will often result in resentment and hostility by society. Nevertheless, the church has the responsibility to relate to society in this way.

In describing the root cause of the difference between the false and the true prophet, Jeremiah records God’s stating that the true prophet has "stood in the council of the Lord" (23:18). That is, the true prophet has been made aware of the very person and character of God. The prophet’s word must be based on the awareness of God’s nature. Then, God continues, speaking of the false prophets, "If they had stood in my council, then they would have proclaimed my words to my people, and they would have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings" (23:22). The true prophet speaks against sin in order to turn hearers away from it. So too the true church calls attention to societal (as well as individual) sins, denounces them, and calls for repentance. This is precisely what Paul did before Felix, the representative of Roman society and government, as "he argued about justice and self-control and future judgment" (Acts 24:25).

Church history is replete with accounts of those who have taken this responsibility seriously, and delighted in doing so. But denunciation of sin and warning of judgment must come from those who have learned that the greatest of the spiritual endowments is love (cf. 1 Cor 13:13). Tears, not glee, befit the preacher of impending doom who would follow him who wept over Jerusalem. Another side of the relation between the church and society must be her compassion for those blinded and bound by the evil one, even though the object of that compassion is her persecutor.

The church bears witness, not only to society’s sin and eventual judgment, but also to the fact of the presence of the Kingdom of God. It joyfully affirms that light has shined in the face of Jesus Christ who has brought forgiveness and freedom from enslaving evil. It also proclaims the victory won by the death and resurrection of Christ and the fact of the coming consummation.

The church is responsible to bear witness, to announce the good news to society. Hers is not the responsibility for the response. Little matter if, after being faithful in discharging her duty, the church suffers a like fate from those who killed the prophets, or receive a response similar to that of Felix to Paul’s witness, "Go away for the present; when I have an opportunity I will summon you" (Acts 24:25).

The church is to relate to society as witness with all the available methods appropriate to the message she gives. These include words, the preachment, but also behavior. Included too are deeds which show to the world Christian concern, love, justice, and mercy even in the face of the exact opposite from society. There is also the witness through lifestyle, of which we have spoken. Yes, it may evoke hostility and abuse; it may also bring admiration, conviction, and conversion.*

*Scott, J. J., Jr. (2008). New Testament Theology: A New Study of the Thematic Structure of the New Testament (267–270). Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor.