Rick Warren up to his old tricks again...

OK, not exactly Rick Warren per se, just his spin doctors. Apparently, being called on to discipline Rupert Murdoch didn't go down too well for this 'humble' and 'god-fearing' pastor and his PR machine.

[HT:: Christian Research Net]

The Gospel and its proclamation (part 2)

[continued on from here]

The Gospel is be proclaimed for the salvation of sinners, and the message of the Gospel is derived from Scripture. However, what about the method? Do the ends ever justify the means in Gospel proclamation and Evangelism?

The answer is definitely no. God Himself has ordained the means by which we are to evangelize within the texts of Scripture, which is via proclamation of the Gospel in God's Word (Rom. 10:17). Since Man is saved via believing, which requires understanding, any method which does not proclaim the Gospel is definitely wrong. This would definitely rule out so-called 'lifestyle evangelism' (lifestyle pre-evangelism is fine) which does not communicate the Gospel at all and any so-called 'evangelism' activity where the Gospel is not presented; of which the worst is the 'seeker-sensitive circus church' phenomenon whereby unbelievers come to the church to be entertained and the most they ever get to a Gospel message is a pep-talk saying that 'God loves you and thus please accept Him (otherwise He is very lonely)' type of anti-Christian message which you WILL NOT find anywhere in Scripture (more on this later).

Rom. 10:17 thus summarizes the entire method by which Scripture dictates that Evangelism be done, which is through proclaiming the Gospel in words, since spiritual hearing is 'through the Word of Christ'. In the Great Commission in Mt. 28:18-20, teaching was central to making disciples, and the apostles in the narrative of Acts always proclaimed the Gospel through the method of preaching. In 1 Cor. 2:1-5, the Gospel was said to be proclaimed in speech. Through all this, we can see that words is the God-ordained medium for the transmission of the Gospel, not music, drama or whatever else that can be thought of. Therefore, without the sharing of the Gospel in words, there is no evangelism, regardless of the 'atmosphere' of the place or the 'professionalism' of the performers.

Now, as to whether music or other devices could be used to 'supplement' Evangelism, the question to look at is in what ways they are being used. If they are used in such a way that the message is undermined, by drawing attention to them instead of the message, then obviously they are not to be used. Similarly, if they are used as 'enhancers' for the message in order to 'manipulate' people into a more receptive state to make a 'decision' for Christ, then its use is similary heinous. Since no one can come to God unless the Father draws him (Jn. 6:44), there is nothing anyone can do which ultimately alters a person's destiny and therefore to attempt to do so would tend to create false converts by bringing these people at the most to a point of worldly grief which leads to death (2 Cor. 7:10). Not to mention the fact that it may cause a receptive person to confess Christ before he/she is prepared to do so and in so doing, the person may be discouraged by the promised persecution (2 Tim. 3:12) and leave hardened against the faith. We should therefore present the Gospel as it is instead of trying to soft-peddle it to make it more palatable to the masses.

Speaking of soft-peddling the Gospel, to present only half the Good News is definitely wrong, because it would alter the Gospel message in some way or another and thus bring down the curse of God upon that person (Gal. 1:8-9). Another detestable method is the bait-and-switch method of evangelism, whereby something 'attractive' is presented (the bait), and then substituted with the Gospel when the person has took interest in the bait (Assuming that they did indeed go to the Gospel). Such a method would of course end up presenting the Gospel, but then the people who are only interested in the bait you are offering would feel cheated and cause the church to bear reproach. More seriously, it betrays a fundamental distrust in the power of the Gospel in reaching out to those are lost. Practically, such a move often give rise to a very strong temptation to NOT even present the true Gospel to these people after baiting them out of a fear of them leaving the church, and down goes the tithing along with them, thus tempting these churches to compromise the Gospel message.

With the basics of the Gospel and its proclamation covered, let us look into a specifc area of the Gospel proclamation — Firstly, is it true and biblical that God loves everyone and earnestly desires their salvation, and secondly, should we present the Gospel to everyone in this manner?

[to be continued]

The Gospel and its proclamation (part 1)

[continued on from here]

The Gospel is the message of salvation; the Good News that is to be proclaimed to evey creature under heaven. It proclaims to all the way of salvation for all who believe (Rom. 1:16), such that all who hear and obey the message will be saved; and apart from it no one can ever be saved (Rom. 10:14-17). Therefore, it is imperative that we get the Gospel message correct, as a wrong 'gospel' would damn others instead of saving them (Gal. 1:6-9).

So what exactly is the Gospel? In its broad sense, the Gospel is the entirety of Scripture, because ALL of Scripture is Good News and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting an training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16 -NIV). However, the Gospel most definitely have a narrower and more popular sense, in that it demarcates the basics of the faith that is to be proclaimed and believed in order for people to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved. It is this sense which is prevalent in the NT Scriptures, whereby it is distilled into a one-sentence message of 'Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit' (Acts 2:38); 'if you confess with your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved' (Rom. 10:9), or into proto-creeds as can be seen in 1 Cor. 15:3-8. Thus, we can see that the Gospel consists of propositional truth statements that are to be understood and believed in (not merely paying lip service), which results in the salvation of all who will do so. Such biblical passages definitely seems minimalistic; with the Gospel proclamation being reduced to one statement or a collection of statements. Or is that so?

What then does the Gospel consists of? The Gospel proclamation as found in Scripture is actually very simple and can be succintly stated as: calling on all Man to repent of their sins and believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior (Lk. 24:47; Acts 20:21). Together with the other passages we have looked at earlier, this seems to suggest that the Gospel message is very simple and easy, and it is. However, Man, due to sin and our own creaturely limitations, complicate matters. God intended the Gospel to be simple, but then it is only able to be effective in communicating its message if it is understood, which mankind fail to do so due to our own sinful, creaturely nature. Our hearts are darkened (Rom. 1:21) due to the rebellion of our depraved nature against God, and we have became blind to spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14) and without understanding (Is. 6:9-10; Eph. 4:18). Therefore, when given a simple Gospel presentation, rebel Man cannot understand it, and if they do, they would attempt to distort it. It is precisely because of this that the context of the various passages and the entire Bible itself is employed for the sake of the Gospel; that the meaning of the simple Gospel message can be made abundantly plain and clear (perspicuous); such that all Man would be able to understand it and be without excuse as to their rejection of the message.

This suggest, therefore, that the Gospel message is a simple message which must be understood in the way of how God wants it to be understood. In other words, the Gospel message is the simple message of repentance of sins and belief in Christ as Lord and Savior; according to the definitions of the terms and concepts as dictated in Scripture. For example, what is 'sin'? Sin must be understood in the biblical sense of a rebellion and crime against God which Man commit against God by breaking His holy Law and thus incurring wrath and punishment. Any other definition like being just 'wrong choices which prove that we are human' would constitute a denial of the Gospel message, even though the word 'sin' may be used. This goes for the other words like 'Jesus Christ', whic must be understood as being the name of the Second person of the Trinity which was incarnated on Earth by being born of the virgin Mary, lived a sinless life, and suffered and died on the Cross for our sins etc, and definitely NOT the New Age 'Jesus Christ'.

Now, such an exercise of the definition of words used could theoretically go on ad infinitum ad nauseum, leading to a semantic 'turtles all the way down' infinite regression scenario (which seems to be the rage within Emerging church circles, I may add). However, the Bible does not lend itself to such skepticism, as God has created Man in His own image (Gen. 1:27) and has even written the work of His Law on the hearts of all Man (Rom. 2:14-15), and has also revealed Himself to them through the work of Creation in what is known as General Revelation, thus Man are all born with a recognition of God but reject Him anyway. Part of the image of God that Man has is the capacity to communicate, and therefore there would not be an infinite regression scenario whereby Man could never understand anything of the Gospel at all, though our sinfulness do mar our understanding. It is because of this General Revelation that the Gospel proclamation, and all communication, is possible. With sufficient clarification, the Gospel could be communicated and understood, and the amount of clarification needed for the Gospel message to be sucessfully communicated would vary between different persons.

The next important question is with regards to how many truths are therefore needed to be communicated in order for the Gospel to be understood exactly as the Scriptures meant is to be? This would definitely depends on the audience. For simple folks, the basic message of repenting of sins and believing in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior would suffice, as their conscience could aid in the understanding process. However, such is not the case for most people who have bought into the philosophy of the world and have therefore suppressed the truth (Rom. 1:18-19) and seared their conscience against the Truth of God. For example, a consistent evolutionist would already have suppress the general revelation given within him/herself regarding the Creation of the world and thus the existence of sins, and therefore cannot understand the Gospel message with regards to sins (which furthermore removes the need for a Savior). Therefore, the Gospel message must include the entire account of the Creation and the Fall in order to 'fill up the gaps' he/she has created through his/her embrace of the evolutionary worldview.

The contents of the Gospel proclamation therefore is a modular one based on the core truth: 'Repentance of sins and belief in Jesus Christ', and explanations which clarify this truth. Typically, most people are not so degenerate as to require detailed understanding of correct doctrine in order to be saved, except for those in cults. What is meant by this is that a typical non-Christian wouldn't be thinking that perhaps the Gospel message is a commitment to a demigod whose name is Jesus Christ, or to Michael the Archangel when he/she hears the Gospel message, unless they are from a cult who teaches that. Occam's razor does apply to our thinking process too, and therefore human beings do not normally unnecessarily multiply ignorance by trying to make a message more complicated than it actually is. The Gospel message thus can normally be commuicated and clarified without trying to do the equivalent of giving the unbeliever a crash course in soteriology in a Gospel presentation.

So what are the truths to be included within a Gospel presentation? The truths to be included within such a presentation would be those which most people do not believe in and would be a stumbling block to their coming to faith. It is for this reason that the reality and awfulness of sin MUST of necessity be proclaimed, since Man typically either disregard or downplay sin. With this in mind, the reality of Creation, the Fall, the Substituionary Atonement of Jesus Christ are the key doctrines which must be covered so that the Gospel could be clarified. (For a reasonable Gospel presentation, check this out) Other doctrines like the Trinity are important too, but they would be important only if the person being witnessed to comes from an anti-Trinitarian cult.

With this in mind, let us look more in-depth into the proclamation of the Gospel.

[to be continued]

Naming heretics: The accuser of the brethren?

Yes, since when naming heretics = being the accuser of the brethren? Only in the eyes of the naive and foolish New Evangelicals, and their progeny the Emergents and Emerging Church movement. My brother Vincent has ambly proved that naming names is biblical here and thus in fact, not doing is unbiblical! It is sad that this mindset has even permeated conservative, reformed circles ...

The essence of Neo-Evangelicalism

Something I have came to a realization to today:

---

The essence of Neo-Evangelicalism is the inability to even see a need to obey Jude 1:3 as seen in the refusal to name and warn against names of 'Christian ministers' and 'Christian' events and movements that blaspheme the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Virgilicious...

Look at the video clips found in here. If such "satire" rap is the humor that conservative Lutherans can come up with, then I have nothing much to say. Some parts look sexually improper also.

Check out the feedback here.

Back from trip

OK, I have just came back from my grad trip to Pulau Redang thi morning. It was fun, anyway, though a bit sunburnt. Now, time to restart where I have left off...

'Tolerance' not tolerated by the Lord

Here is Dan Phillip's take regarding tolerance as seen in what is said about the church of Thyatira in Revelation (2:18-29).

Making 'Jesus' in 'our own image'

Unfortunately, this is not satire. Check this out to see the blasphemy occuring within the 'Christian' church. Here is a slight description:

These figurines are available for purchase thanks to the marketing efforts of a company called "We Are Fishermen". This clever company has made it possible for you to pick and choose the Jesus that best fits your personal tastes and hobbies. The idea here is to make a Jesus in your own image. (Isn't that the very definition of an idol?)

Utterly disgusting!

[HT:: Christian Research Net]

Article: Global Pew Warming

Now this is something that Christians should be more concerned about: the worldwide phenomenon known as 'Global Pew Warming'. Read more about it here.

Exposition of 1 Tim. 5:17: On the office(s) of elders

Over at my brother-in-Christ Vincent's blog, he has been writing a series of posts on the office of the eldership [here, here and here]. In general, I agree with what he has to say, and I definitely agree with his π-1 (2.14159...) office view. Without duplicating any of the points which he has made as much as possible (though some overlap is inevitable), I would like to weigh in a little on this issue.

In this post, I would like to do a short exposition on 1 Tim. 5:17, the main (in fact only real) proof text for the distinction between ruling elders and teaching elders, which is something seen within most Reformed churches. In general, ruling elders rule the church while teaching elders teach, and their duties do not usually overlap or overlap to a certain degree. My contention is that such a distinction is qualitatively unbiblical and is only there functionally; i.e. some elders tend to rule more while others tend to teach more, but in roles and responsibilities, they are the same.

Without further to do, here is 1 Tim. 5:17:

Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

Now, for a exegetical take on this verse, check out Pastor Keller's article here, which my friend Vincent directed me to. I will only be looking at the verse mostly in English for this post.

The verse in question can be seperated into two parts. The first part of the verse seems to show there are some elders are rule well, and leave open the possibility of there being elders who don't. However, the fact of the matter is that all elders are to rule the church. It can be seen in Acts 20 that Paul exhorts ALL the elders in the church in Ephesus to rule well (Acts 20:28-31), and Paul in the pastoral epistles require that all elders to manage and care for the church (1 Tim. 3:4-5 — analogy being drawn between managing the home and the church). Therefore, this statement is not saying that there are elders who do not rule, but rather, as Pastor Keller says of this phrase:

Third person imperatives often are translated in English with the words, "Let him/them..." The ... Bible reader may easily become confused, thinking that this phrase indicates the idea of mere permission. For example, "Let them go" would usually be understood to mean that permission has been granted. The ... reader may not immediately understand the idea of command, which is the usual force of the imperative, in the translation, "Let them." ... A commander in the military would say, "I command them to go.^[1]

Therefore, we have established that all elders are to rule in the church. The elders of the church are thus to be considered worthy of double honor; to be highly esteemed due to the work and responsibilities they bear before God.

The second part of the verse seems to show that there is a distinction between two group of elders: those who rule only, and those who rule and teach, by using the word "especially" to link the two statements. However, is this distinction really present?

First of all, it must be seen that elders are to be able to teach (1 Tim. 2:2). Thus, it can be said that all elders have at least the potential to be 'teaching elders'. In Titus, the emphasis of (any of the) elders being able to teach and refute error is more clearly seen (Titue 1:9). In context with verses 10-16, it can be seen that Paul very clearly does not treat this quality as something which is just a hypothetical possibility; that elders are to rule and able to teach but whether they actually teach or not does not exactly matter. All elders are instructed to silence these heretics and false teachers through teaching and rebuke (Titus 1: 11).

Now, of course, it can be objected that perhaps the situation whereby all elders are both 'ruling and teaching elders' is only in situations as dire as that of Titus, whereby there are many heretics and false teachers about. However, if that were so, this only goes to show that all elders are 'ruling elders' and that all 'ruling elders' must have the potential to be 'ruling and teaching elders' when the situation requires it, a position which is definitely less than the 2.5 office position traditionally taken by some Reformed, especially Presbyterian churches. Maybe this could be called the 2.25 office position. Anyway, let us go back to 1 Tim. 5:17.

Let us look at a few other verses in Scripture to note how the word 'especially' is used:

For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe. — 1 Tim. 4:10

For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party — Titus 1:10

and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority. — 2 Peter 2:10

For the first verse, 1 Tim. 4:10, we can see that the word 'especially' does not give rise to the possibility of there being people who are saved but who do not believe (unless you are a Universalist). We can also see that the word 'especially' used in this manner limits the set of 'all people' to 'those who believe'. In Titus 1:10, the word 'especially' functions in like manner in that the circumcision party specfically shows who the 'insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers' are who are mentioned in the verse. This can be proved in Titus 1:14 where these men are promoting Jewish myths. In 2 Peter 2:10, the word 'especially' function in like manner here, as ALL these ungodly men are previously described in similar manner in 2 Peter 2:1-2.

Now, I am not saying that the word 'especially' is always used in this fashion in the Bible, but that the word can be used in such manner; as a form of specficially narrowing the name or character of the group which is being addressed previously, but not the people involved. However, the fact that the word can be used in such a manner give impetus to the possible rendering of 1 Tim. 5:17 as such:

It is commmanded that all the elders, who are to rule well, be esteemed highly and worthily of double honor, and more so when they fulfil their responsibility diligently in preaching and teaching.

This is especially so given the use of the word 'especially' (3 times) in the epistle of 1 Tim, where in 1 Tim. 5:8, the word could be possibly interpreted that way also (The families at that time tend to live together; few nuclear families), and we have already seen the way the word is used the other two times.

Anyway, to finish off this study, let us look up the Greek a bit to see what we can discover. The Greek word translated 'especially' here in 1 Tim. 5:17 is μαλιστα (malista). If occurs some 12 times in the GNT (Greek New Testament), of which the usage which have been suggested could be applied to all of them. This usage is in fact made even more plausible since other Greek words which have been translated 'especially' could be used instead. For example, the word 'especially' is also used in 1 Cor. 14:1, but the Greek word here is μαλλον (mallon) instead, which is used some 78 times in the GNT and has a much closer meaning and usage to how we use the word 'especially' in normal, daily English.

In conclusion, it can be seen that the Scriptures in general do not differentiate a lot between the 'classes' of 'ruling elders' and 'teaching elders', with elders being commanded by God to BOTH rule and teach. 1 Tim. 5:17 have been shown not to support the idea of seperate classes of elders, and in fact reinforced the notion of elders both having the roles and resonsibilites of ruling and teaching in the church. Therefore, I subscribe to the π-1 position as the position that conforms most to the text of Scripture.

P.S.: Look at the previous posts on Sola Scriptura, Creeds, Confessions and Traditions before commenting. Please argue from Scripture and not from the creeds or whatever documents you can bring up [or worse still: Pragmatism].

P.P.S.: I am NOT picking a fight over this issue. If you hold contrary opinions, you are most welcome to discuss them here, but I do not regard this a serious issue to draw blood over. Therefore, I am willing to acquiesce to contrary opinons as long as you don't insist I must hold on to the same view as you.

---

References:

[1] Brian R. Keller, Exegetical Brief: 1 Timothy 5:17—Did All πρεσβυτεροι Proclaim God's Word? (http://wlsessays.net/authors/K/KellerProclaim/KellerProclaim.pdf)

Sola Scriptura, Creeds, Confessions and Tradition

Through the ages of time, it is the practice of almost all Evangelical churches to teach and catechize their children in the faith, as one generation passes the Faith down to the other. Due to the importance of doctrine, and the fact that the creeds and confessions clearly demarcate the Faith and doctrinal distinctives of the particualr church/ denomination, they were and still are emphasized as being of importance for the health of the church. Over time, such creeds and confessions, and even the lithurgy, become traditions in the church, as evidence of how church ought to be 'done'. Furthremore, due to their effectiveness, heresy by and large was kept away from the church, and thus the original intent of the creeds and confessions slowly was forgotten, or at least only remembered in an abstract sense. When controversy finally hits the church, or when contact with other Christians or non-Christians challenges the 'status quo', the tendency to fall back on the creeds and confessions or other traditions is very high. It is to this phenomenon that we now turn to.

First of all, I would like to mention that there is nothing wrong in turning to the creeds and confessions. However, we must realize that they were written to express the truths which at least the framers believe are found within the pages of Scripture. Therefore, when settling doctrinal controversy, turning to the creeds and confessions should be an aid and not an authority. The creeds and confessions quote Scripture to substantiate their points, and we should use Scripture also to substantiate our points. Of course, whether any particular point in any creed or confession can be substantiated by the verses quoted is besides the point here. For the time being, it is conceded that the creeds and confessions are in fact absolutely 100% biblical. Even then, does that mean that they are our final authority, that we just quote them as per Scripture? This is the very present danger that conservatives need to seriously take note of.

If Sola Scriptura is correct, which I have shown it is, and we know that this principle was recovered in the great 16^th century Protestant Reformation and enshrined in the various creeds and confessions that we hold so dear, shouldn't we be consistent and uphold that even in our churches? Even if any particular creed or confession is 100% biblically and absolutely true, should we not treat it as having secondary authority, inasmuch as conforms to the Word of God, which have primary authority? What then must we make of the phenomenon that elevates creeds and confessions, holy as they are biblical, to a status approaching the Word of God, other than 'idolatria de confessio' — the idolatry of creeds? Granted, they have been very useful, and will continue to be useful in its proposed function, but that does not give anyone a right to place them on par with Scripture in any meaningful fashion. While defending the faith or even discussing doctrine, Scripture should therefore be used as our primary authority, NOT the creeds or confessions or any 'book of church order' etc (they can be used as secondary authority though). Any doctrinal instruction that therefore goes only to the creeds and confession, instead of using that as secondary sources, thus goes against the very grain of Sola Scriptura and is in fact a violation of the Reformed creeds which they teach from.

Now, it is to be said that many Protestant and Reformed churches do not in fact elevates their creeds and confessions even on par with Scripture, but practically some of them at least seem to do so. Since Scripture should be our final authority, and not the creeds and confessions, clinging on to the creeds and confessions while ignoring biblical evidence to the contary would definitely be one practical example of the idolatry of creeds. We must always keep in mind the fact that the creeds and confessions were written by Man. Though they are filled with the Spirit, that doesn't mean that whatever they wrote are definitely 100% correct or that they have all the answers to all the possible questions of the faith. The Lutheran, Reformed and Presbyterians, together with the Angelican and Methodists affirm the practice of Infant Baptism, while the Baptists deny it, and all of these groups have their own statements of faith proping up their beliefs which they all believe is correct according to Scripture. Definitely, both groups cannot be correct; one group must be wrong and the other correct. Within the groups affirming Infant Baptism, there is a difference between the Anglican understanding as compared to the Reformed and Presbyterian understanding, and the same logic applies. Thus, it can be seen that creeds and confessions may not be totally correct, and to suppose they do is practically elevating them above what they were written for. All creeds and confessions must therefore always be held and examined in the light of Scripture to see whether what they say conforms to the Word of God. The Reformation motto Reformata et semper reformanda — 'Reformed and always reforming', should always be our call as children of the Reformation. Somehow, the conservative churches tend towards Reformata, non reformanda — 'Reformed, not reforming', where we just look back at the glorious days of the Reformation and thus live in the past.

This of course holds true also for the practice and lithurgy of the church. We should not just say that we are doing this because things have always been done a particular way, which is dead traditionalism. Rather, we should first know why things are done in a particular way; whether they are biblical or just a temporal or cultural application of a biblical principle. If biblical, they should NOT be changed. If they are just temporal or cultural applications of a biblical principal, we should see whether the times warrant a change in how we apply this principal. Of course, if the practice/ lithurgy is extra-biblical, we are free to alter it within Scriptural boundaries or remove it altogether (especially if they impinge on the regulative principle of worship).

With this, it is my hope that we conservatives recover for ourselves the essence of Sola Scriptura and apply them consistently. May we not follow the Roman church into elevation of our traditions (councils, creeds, confession, lithurgy etc.) on par or even above Scripture, whether in word or in deed. May we be willing to examine our own traditions, and not elevate the creeds and confessions of the church to such a high standing that they practically obscure the Scriptures.

Sola Scriptura, Creeds, Confessions and Tradition: The importance of Creeds and Confession

In conservative churches, especially Reformed churches, Creeds and Confessions play an important role in the life of the church. This has been the case since the days of the early church through the various church councils and synods, and the Confession of faith and Apologies of the faith written by people such as Justin Martyr. This continued on into the Middle Ages and onto the the Reformation whereby the Christian churches define and defend the Faith and various other denominational distinctives through the use of various Creeds and Confessions, which helped in keeping heretics out, and in uniting the body of believers in the common biblical truths they adhere to.

Creeds and Confessions have been historically seen as important, due to their nature of demarcating the boundaries of the faith which are used to seperate believers from unbelievers, and Christians of one doctrinal persuasion from those of another. For the former case, creeds and confessions become necessary since heretics often twist the words of Scripture to mean what it does not mean. As obedience to her Lord, the leaders of the Church need to protect the flock from the teachings of these wolves (Acts 20:29-31; 1 Tim. 6:3-4; Tit. 1:11, 13) and thus the creeds and confession were needed. An example of such a case where just 'citing the Bible' was insufficient is Arianism, where the eternal sonship of deity of Christ was denied by Arius and his followers. This teaching is implicitly derived from Scripture where for example it talked about Jesus being the Alpha and Omega, but the exact words nor phrases teaching it could not be found in the Bible, and the heretics exploit that in an attempt to destroy the Faith. Only the council of Nicea and the adoption of its creed (slightly different from the famous Nicene Creed), followed by years of struggle before it was fully implemented, remove that toxin from most of the visible Church.

With regards to the latter case, creeds and confessions are used to put forward the doctrinal distinctives of a group of Christians (i.e. believers only baptism versus infant baptism) which the group thinks is the most biblical. This is due to the fact that some issues in Scripture are not as clear cut as the essentials of the Christian faith are, and thus a certain degree of differences of opinions would emerge. Definitely, both groups strive to be biblical, and their convictions would thus be put forward in their particular creed or confession that they wrote up and/or believe in, as both sides strive to be biblical in their doctrines and convictions.

During the Reformation, the Protestant churches broke away from the apostate Roman Catholic church, in a move that causes much conflict in Europe. As the Roman church embraced heresy in the form of transubstantiation and salvation by faith and works, not forgetting the infamous indulgences and purgatory, God raised up His prophets and preachers who thundered forth the Word of God and broke the power of the Roman church over His people. The conflict was fought mainly on the doctrinal area since both claimed to be faithful to Christ, and it is in this climate that many of the famous Protestant creeds and confessions were written. Creeds and confessions like the Ausberg Confession, the Heiderberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, the 39 Articles of the Church of England and the Second Helvitic Confession were written. The Westminster Confession, Shorter and Larger Catechism, the Canons of the Synod of Dordt, the second London Baptist Confession of faith soon followed. All of these were written to combat heresy and to lay out the doctrines of which the godly framers in prayer believe to be the Truth found within the pages of Scripture.

Of course, sadly, this godly heritage has been neglected by most Evangelicals today, to their detriment, in the spirit of anti-intellectualism which has caused a disaster within the churches, as churches are forced to either allow heretics in which destroy them, or to re-invent the wheel which creates a lot of heartaches in those who have to endure the destructiveness of heresies within the church before they are finally purged. The importance of creeds and confessions thus cannot be denigrated.

That said, I would now like to go on to the main topic, which move towards the other extreme and to which we shall look at now.

[to be continued]

Sola Scriptura, Creeds, Confessions and Tradition: Before it starts

I have decided to start with this topic, since it is the easiest to do.

With regards to the discussion in this post, I see that there is something which needs to be taken care of within the conservative circles in Evangelical Christianity. Whereas I had strived to present a Scriptural defense of Sola Scriptura in a series of posts which are then compiled into an article ealier, such a series was mainly written for most 'evanjellyfishes' who for whatever reason either reject the principle of Sola Scriptura or those do not know anything much about it, and thus are ill-prepared to fight the spiritual battle against our foes. Also, it is useful as apologetic material against the rank liberals (of which I have employed then against a Theosophist), and also to be used on the 'all-too-humble' people in the postmodern emerging church movement, which I however have not have the time to do so yet.

Since joining a conservative church last year, I have been concerned over certain issues. Contary to what others may think, I despise conflict. I do not purposefully go around criticizing others and playing the role of the Inquisitor. However, when push comes to shove, I will not shirk from taking up the pen of faith to defend the Truth of our Lord Jesus Christ.

For me, this issue on Sola Scriptura, Creeds, Confessions and Tradition is forced. I was trying to avoid conflict at 'home' if I can. However, this may well stir up a storm, as I do know some of the people who read my blog, but I'll be praying that it won't hapen. May we be willing to examine our beliefs in light of Scripture, and not be hasty in passing judgment on our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

With that, let us start this short series.

[to be continued]

Some questions for the Emerging Church

Here is an interesting post, and here are my 5 questions for those in the Emerging Church movement:

1) Do you believe that words can be used to potray a definite fixed objective meaning, and that there is only one correct meaning of a particular phrase in a particular context in the Bible, and that this does not change over time?

2) If a concept, doctrine or practice is not approved of within the Bible, can it even be considered as being remotely Christian if held or done in the name of Christ and using Christian terminology?

3) Do the ends justify the means in obeying any of God's commands and decrees?

4) Which is better in the eyes of God: Being open to all points of views because we are only human and thus do not know anything, or being confident and bold in our proclaimation of only one interpretation of God's absolute and unchanging truth?

5) What is the doctrine of seperation, and if you agree with it, how should it be applied? If you don't agree with it, why not?