Archive for the ‘The Church’ Category

Five Marks of a Healthy Church: Serving in God’s Work

Posted: April 28, 2012 in The Church
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

80 percent of all churches are stagnant or in decline writes John Hammett. One church closes each day. As a whole, the church is alive but not well. In Acts 2:42-47, Dr. Luke does more than take the pulse, he gives a thorough examination of first local church. The report of Luke the physician is encouraging: Healthy, alive and well. If we follow the example of the first church our churches can be healthy as well. There are five marks of a healthy church:

1. Teaching God’s Word (2:42)

2. Fellowshipping with God’s people (2:42)

3. Worshiping God (2:42)

4. Serving in God’s work (2:44)

5. Evangelizing the unsaved (2:47)

When we observe the first church serving in God’s work, we see first of all that all the new regenerated members served. There was no 80/20 principle. 100 percent were involved in ministry. Church growth experts say it is important for new members to get engaged in ministry within the first six months or most likely they never will. How can our church improve at involving new members?

Next we see that all served in unity. They were together in the work. One of Paul’s favorite illustrations of diversity and unity in the Body of Christ is the human anatomy (Romans 12; 1 Corinthians 12; Ephesians 4). While we are one, we are unique in the body. Luke says twice that the Lord “added” these new converts to the church (2:41 and 47). God added you to your church and you have talents and spiritual gifts that your church absolutely needs to be healthy and function at 100 percent for the glory of God.

These new members not only served and served in unity, but they served each other (2:45). This unselfish service was not forced communism where all property was owned by the government. In Acts 12:12, Mary stilled owned her house.  This was Biblical stewardship that recognizes God as the owner (Psalm 24:1). Mary owned her house but she had dedicated it to the Lord and allowed the church to meet in it for worship.

Finally, all these new converts served with gladness in their local church (2:46, 47). In 2 Corinthians 9:6-7, Paul reminds us “God loves a cheerful giver.”  These believers did not look like they had been baptized in pickle juice.  They served with the fruit of the Spirit joy.

They impacted their community as 2:47 described. Evangelizing the unsaved is not one of the marks of a healthy church but is a result of a healthy church. These believers heard the apostles’ doctrine, they fellowshipped with each other, they worshiped God and they served in the work. But the Lord “added to the church such as should be saved.”

Jesus in John 13:34, 35 gives us a method of evangelism we often overlook but certainly characterized the early church: “A new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another, as I have loved you that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one to another.”

Recovering a Regenerate Church Membership, Part 2

Posted: May 27, 2010 in Pastoral Theology, The Church
Tags: , ,
8

The ideal of a regenerate church membership that both Hammett and Dever expressed was the experience of the first church in Acts 2:37-47. Every member of the church at Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost was a baptized and serving believer.

At salvation, we become members of the Universal Church or the Body of Christ as 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 teaches. Then it becomes the believer’s responsibility to join a local church. Paul in 1 Corinthians is writing to saved church members at the local church at Corinth (1:1-2).

At salvation, our names are recorded in heaven in the Lamb’s Book of Life (Philippians 4:3). Then it becomes the responsibility of the believer to get his/her name on the church roll of a local church. Paul is writing this letter to the Philippians at the local church at Philippi (1:1).

The goal of the local church is to have the same names on its church’s roll as on heaven’s roll. So that When The Roll is Called up Yonder all of you will be there.

The word “Church” is mentioned 114 times in the New Testament and over 90 refer to the local church. It is not enough to be saved and a member of the Body of Christ or the Universal church to succeed in the Christian life. Though both the Universal church and the Local church are taught in the New Testament, the Local church receives the much greater attention.

Marks of a Regenerate Church Membership

1. Converted Church Members

Luke records how the first church members were converted in Acts 2:37-38.

A. These Jews who were attending the feast of Pentecost “heard” (2:37) Peter preach the first Christian sermon. Peter would later write “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which lives and abides forever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower thereof falls away; but the word of the Lord endures forever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you” (1 Peter 1:23-25).

B. These Jews then repented. That is, they changed their mind from rejecting Christ to receiving by faith Christ as Savior.

C. These Jews at the moment of salvation received the gift of the Holy Spirit. Romans 8:9 says this is true of every believer. The Holy Spirit gives the believer the supernatural power to overcome sin in his life as Paul explains in 8:2-4.

Calvin is credited with saying, “If your faith has not changed your life it has not saved your soul.”

Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:18 wrote, “If any man be in Christ he is a new creation or person.” Regeneration gives us new life and new desires.

1) A converted church membership is necessary because the church is congregationally ruled as seen in Acts 15:3, 4, and 22. If all of the membership are not believers, then God’s will cannot properly be discerned. The Scriptures teach that “In the multitude of counselors there is wisdom.” The counselors must be converted for there to be wisdom and safety for the local congregation.

2) A converted church membership is necessary in order to minister “to one another.” There are over 30 “one another” commands in the New Testament. Only believers can obey these commands.

a) “Love one another” is found 19 times.

b) “Encourage one another” is found 4 times.

c) “Forgive one another” is found 4 times. In Ephesians 4:32, Paul instructed us to forgive one another even as God in Christ has forgiven you. The unconverted has not been forgiven.

e) “Edify one another,” “Provoke one another to good works,” “Accept one another,” “Teach and exhort one another,” “Bear one another’s burdens.” Only believers can obey these commands because we are supernaturally empowered by the indwelling Holy Spirit.

2. Committed Church Members

Luke informs us that these new converts “were baptized.”  New converts being baptized in Acts is a consistent pattern (Acts 8:12, 9:18, 10:47, 16:31-34). We call this mark of a regenerated church membership “Believers Baptism.” In none of these passages were unconverted infants baptized. Most denominations baptize the unconverted giving them a false sense of security. With such strong Scriptural evidence for “Believer’s Baptism” how did the church start allowing the unconverted to be baptized and therefore be members of the local church?

Church historians point back to Roman Emperor Constantine in 312 as the Fall of the Church. After his alleged conversion to Christianity Constantine made Christianity a legal religion. The state started supporting the church and evidentially the church and state were no longer separate.

Every citizen of the state should be baptized to be a member of the church and all infants were baptized. For 1000 years during the Dark Ages church membership was mixed instead of regenerated. Even the Reformers did not correct this problem. It took the Anabaptist and the finally the Baptist to insist on separation of church and state and a converted church membership.

A. Baptism is a believer’s public confession of Christ. In Romans 10:9-10, Paul states that saving faith is followed by a public confession.

B. Baptism is a believer’s commitment to discipleship in a local assembly. Once these new converts in Acts 2 were baptized they immersed themselves into the life of their local church. They were simply obeying Jesus’ great commission found in Matthew 28:19-20. Jesus commanded the church to “Make disciples” by winning sinners to Christ, baptizing them, and teaching them to observe all things He taught.

1) Baptism is a commitment to the church’s “teaching” (2:42).

a) Jesus was called “teacher” 45 times and “rabbi” 14 times.

b) The new convert is now a “disciple” which means “learner.”

c) The new convert’s pastor is a “pastor/teacher.”

d) The Holy Spirit gifts other believers with the gift of teaching (Romans 12:7) such as Sunday School teachers, AWANA, and our Youth Ministries, and Ladies Ministries.

2) Baptism is a commitment to “fellowship” (2:42).

a) Our fellowship is modeled after the Trinity (John 17:24).

b) We fellowship because we are made in the image of God. After God created Adam, God said, “It is not good for man to be alone.”

c) For the first time in Acts 2 the word “fellowship” is used in the New Testament. Now that the Holy Spirit was given, believers can fellowship with one another. This was not true before Pentecost according to the prediction of Jesus in John 7:37-39.

d) The Holy Spirit makes us family (Romans 8:14-17).

e) Fellowship does not take place in a Sunday morning worship service. Vertical worship takes place which is very important. Horizontal fellowship takes place in small groups as these first church members enjoyed in Acts 2:46.

3) Baptism is a commitment to worship (2:42). Worship is when we corporately as a body give to God according to Psalm 29:1-2.

a) We worship in the observation of the Lord’s Supper. Jesus said, “This do in remembrance of me.” Worship is Christ centered not man centered.

b) We worship when preaching is Christ centered (1 Corinthians 2:1-5).

c) We worship when we participate in our church music which is Christ centered (Colossians 3:16).

4) Baptism is a commitment to service (2:44-46). The first church members gave to those in need which enabled the church to have great influence in the community. This is also seen in the next example provided by Luke in 4:32-37. Later, James the pastor of this church at Jerusalem would write James 2:14-18.

5) Baptism is a commitment to evangelism (2:42-47; 4:32-37). Evangelism was the result of a regenerated, committed church membership on the community. The community witnessed lives being changed as a result of a regenerated, committed church membership and were attracted.

The worship service was not a man centered evangelistic service, but evangelism resulted from the church learning, fellowshipping, worshiping God, and giving to others. The church services were not seeker sensitive but produced seeker sensitive believers.

Worship Wars: Worshiping How We Worship instead of Worshiping God

Posted: May 20, 2010 in Church Ministries, Pastoral Theology, The Church
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
0

GBC Sermon Audio – May 19 & 26, 2010

I heard this illustration from two different preachers on the controversy of church music and thought some of you would apprecate it and may want to file it away for preaching on Romans 14 and Christian Liberty. That is what I did. When I heard it the first time, I told the preacher I would give him $10 for that illustration. He graciously gave me the illustration at no charge.

An old farmer went to the city one weekend and attended the big city church. He came home and his wife asked him how it was. ”Well,” said the farmer, “it was good. They did something different, though. They sang praise choruses instead of hymns.”

“Praise choruses?” asked the wife. “What are those?”

“Oh, they’re okay . . . they’re sort of like hymns, only different,” the farmer said.

“Well, what’s the difference?” Asked his wife.

The farmer explained, “Well, it’s like this. If I were to say to you, ‘Martha, the cows are in the corn,’ that would be a hymn.

If, on the other hand, I were to say to you, “Martha, Martha, Martha, Oh Martha, Martha, Martha, the cows, the big cows, the brown cows, the black cows , the white cows, the COWS, the COWS, COWS, COWS, are the corn, corn, corn, they’re in the coooooorrrrrnnnn.” Then, I repeated it three times, that would be a praise chorus.

Wouldn’t you know it, that farmer’s little chuch had a visitor from the big city church that same Sunday. He went home to his wife and she asked him how it went.

He said, “Oh, it was okay,except they don’t sing choruses–they sing hymns.”

She asked, “What’s a hymn?”

He said, “Well, it’s like a chorus, only different?”

She said, “What do you mean?”

He explained, “Well, if I said to you, Martha, the cows are in the corn–but say it like this:

Oh Martha, dear, Martha hear the words of my mouth, Turn thou thy whole wondrous ear to this glorious truth;

For the way of the animals who can explain; there in their heads is no shadow of sense, Hearkenest they in God’s sun or his rain, Unless from the mild corn they are fenced;

Yea those cows in glad, rebellious delight, Have loosed their shackles, their warm pens eschew, Yea goaded by minions of darkness and night, They all my sweet corn are now destined to chew.

Martha, look to that bright day when earth is reborn, And I shall not see those cows in my corn.

That would be a hymn!

Today when you discuss worship you have to address “Worship Warfare.” Albert Mohler does in He is not Silent: “The subject of worship is now one of the most controversial issues in the local congregation” (page 23). The only part of his statement that I disagree with is the one word “now.” Worship warfare has been raging for centuries. It took Benjamin Keath (1640-1704) twenty years to persuade his Baptist congregation to sing hymns and not just Psalms. Even after twenty years, some of his members left and started another church so they could sing just Psalms.

Just Google books about “worship wars” and see how hot this topic is.

In our series on The Church we have studied pictures of the Church which showed us who we are as the Church which affects what we practice.

1. Pictures of the Church:

The Church is the Body of Christ who worships our Head so that He has the preeminence. The Church is Temple of the Holy Spirit. We worship the only true God as the temple. The Church is the Bride of Christ who adores her Bridegroom. We are the Priesthood who exercises our priestly function of the sacrifice of praise. The Church is the Flock of God who with David worships The Lord our Shepherd.

2. Practices of the Church (Acts 2:42-47)

Not all would agree that Acts 2:42-47 is the text for the model of church practices. Rick Warren states that the Great Commandment (Matthew 22:37-40) plus the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20) make a Great Church (The Purpose Driven Church, 102-103). The first local church described by Luke for us in Acts 2:42-47 shows us what a church looks like that obeys both the great commandment and the great commission. So there is no real contradiction.

A. Teaching: “They continued stedfastly in the apostle’s doctrine.” Teaching and preaching of God’s Word are first mentioned for emphasis. The first Christian ministry performed after the founding of the Church on the Day of Pentecost was preaching (Peter’s sermon). This was a statement.

B. Fellowship: “They continued stedfastly in … fellowship….all that believed were together, and had all things common….breaking bread.” Fellowship is not simply contact with another believer over a cup of coffee. Fellowship is more like discipleship. Robert Anderson mentions a church that disciplined a church member and forbad the other members from having any contact with that member. If a member saw the disciplined member in the grocery store that member was to turn and walk away. This church was confusing contact with fellowship (The Effective Pastor, Chicago: Moody, 1985, 332). Biblical fellowship is a deep involvement in another believer’s life in order to help him spiritually as the Philippians did with Paul at Thessalonica (Philippians 4:15-16).

C. Worship: “Fear came upon every soul….praising God.” John Hammett describes these two aspects of worship as reverent awe and joyful praise (Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches, 249). Traditional churches have to be careful not to go to seed on reverent awe and contemporary churches must be “take care that they not obscure God’s holiness. One of the earliest studies of Willow Creek found that 70 percent of the sermons emphasized God’s love, while only 7 percent dealt with God’s holiness….  Traditionalists need to guard against the opposite danger, that of joyless worship that does not actively engage worshipers in praise, but leaves them to sit in silence” (Hammett, 249).

D. Service: “and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.” This is the outgrowth of worship. In Heaven, the result of our worshiping God and the Lamb will be that His “servants shall serve him” (Revelation 22:3).

E. Evangelism: “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” This is another by-product of worship.

Today there are “Worship Wars.”

1. War between contemporary music and traditional music. This is the battle between those who want reverence and others who want relevance in the worship service according to Ed Stetzer.

2. War between seeker sensitive or evangelism and glorifying God and edification of believers. On this point I must take sides with glorifying God and edification of believers and use Ephesians 4:11-12 as my bases. Evangelism, as we saw in Acts 2:42-47, will be the fruit.

3. War between experience oriented worship and God centered worship. David clearly advocated God centered worship in 1 Chronicles 16:29.

4. War between the regulative principle of worship (include in worship only what Scripture endorses) and the normative principle (include whatever is not prohibited in Scripture). Most churches use both principles to varying degrees. We must be regulative in regard to the pattern seen in Acts 2:42-47. But normative with parts of our worship not directly addressed in Scripture such as announcements, length and order of service,  sound equipment, technology, padded pews, and please don’t forget the nursery. Mark Driscoll shows both the strengths and weaknesses of both principles.

True Worship

John 4 is the worship chapter. Jesus pursues and converts a non-worshiper into a “true worshiper” (4:23). From this chapter we learn that true worship

1. Is Directed to God the Father (John 4:21-24). Jesus informs the Samaritan woman that worship is not limited to a time and place. Worship is a lifestyle according to Hebrews 13:15-16 that should take place “continually.” We don’t just worship one hour from 11:00 to 12:00 Sunday mornings. We worship every waking hour. We either worship God or ourselves and our pleasures and possessions. We either worship God or comment idolatry.

2. Is Directed to the Father through the Son (John 4:26). The Samaritan woman went from seeing Jesus as “a Jew” to “sir” to “a prophet” to “Christ.” Even Jesus said, “No man comes to the Father but by me.”

3. Is Directed to the Father through the Son in the Spirit (John 4:24).

A. “In Spirit” (The Spirit empowers the human spirit). The Samaritans worshiped in the spirit but not in truth. They associated with pagans and worshiped enthusiastically but shallowly. The Samaritans rejected all of the Old Testament but the Pentateuch. Jesus said to the Samaritan, “You know not what you worship” (4:22).

B. “In Truth” (The Spirit enables us to understand God’s Word). The Jews on the other hand worshiped in truth but not in spirit. The religious Jews believed all of the Old Testament was God’s Word but their heart was not into worship. Jesus said to the religious but unsaved Jews, “this people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.” They were straight as shot gun barrel and just as empty.

The divine method was demonstrated with Jesus and the Samaritan woman. He gave her the truth in 4:26 and she enthusiastically responded in 4:28. If our worship is Word driven we will both worship in spirit and in truth. We will like Daniel, after reading the Word of God in Jeremiah 25:11-12, and fall to our knees in prayer (Daniel 9:1-3). We will experience what Ezra enjoyed when he expositorally preached the Word in Nehemiah 8 and the people wept as they heard God’s word.

God centered worship is the solution to our “worship wars.” Worshiping God and not worshiping how we worship God is the remedy. Neither is a cease fire in our blended service acceptable in our worship wars. It is not enough to stop fighting the other side but only worship when “our songs” are sung. We need to come to church and worship God not how we worship. Come and pour out our praise to Him “in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” (that sounds like variety of styles to me) and not focus on ourselves and our tastes only.

Recovering a Regenerate Church Membership, Part 1

Posted: April 10, 2010 in Pastoral Theology, The Church
Tags: , , , , , ,
9

John Hammett asks this painful question for most of our churches to confront: “How can regenerate church membership become a reality in a church with a membership of six hundred but an average attendance of two hundred, and where half of the four hundred absentees have been absent so long that only a few senior citizens even know who they are?”

Hammett, who is a professor of systematic theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, devotes two chapters to the dilemma of an unregenerate church membership in his book, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology.

As the opening example shows, while local churches believe in a regenerate church membership on paper as seen in their doctrinal statement, church constitution, and church covenant, in practice most churches do not take seriously ensuring a membership of born again believers.

Hammett substantiates his claim by a report from his denomination: “The largest Baptist denomination in the United States, the Southern Baptist Convention, reported a total of 43,465 churches in their convention as of 2004, with a total of 16,267,494 members. But of those more than sixteen million members, only 6,024,289, or 37 percent, were on average present for the Sunday morning worship service in those churches. Certainly every church has members who are sick or traveling every weekend, but most of the more than ten million absent members are physically well and in town but choose not to gather with God’s people and remain absent for years at a time. Yet they remain members in good standing at most Baptist churches. Only God knows their hearts, but they are not living like regenerate believers.”

Hammett goes on to further indict the church with another reason the church has a low number of regenerated church members: “Moreover, the conduct of Baptist church members outside the church attendance is also alarming. Reports find almost no difference in the rate of divorce among Baptists and the culture as a whole. Many Baptists are enmeshed in alcoholism, addiction to pornography, spousal and child abuse, adultery, and virtually every other evil the world offers. One can live a life with no visible difference from the surrounding nonregenerate world and be a member in good standing of a Baptist church. Beyond coming forward at a church service and being baptized at some point in one’s life, there are no requirements for ongoing membership in most Baptist churches. Maintaining one’s membership in the Rotary or Kiwanis Club is more demanding; they require members to pay dues” (John S. Hammett. Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005, 109, 110, 116).

Mark Dever expresses a kindred concern when he writes: “Sadly, it is not uncommon to find a big gap between the number of people officially on the membership rolls and the number who regularly attend. Imagine a church of three thousand members with only six hundred regularly attending. I fear that many evangelical pastors today might be more proud of their so-called membership than distressed by the large number of members not attending. According to one recent study, the typical Southern Baptist church has 233 members with only 70 attending on Sunday morning. And is our giving any better? What congregations have budgets that equal—let alone exceed—10 percent of the combined annual incomes of their members? Physical limitations can prevent attendance and financial burdens can prevent giving. But otherwise one wonders if churches are making idols out of numbers. Numerical figures can be idolized just as easily as carved figures—perhaps more easily. Yet God will assess our lives and weigh our work, I think, rather that count our numbers” (Mark Dever. What is a Healthy Church?  Wheaton: Crossway, 2007, 96).

In the following posts, I would like to address this critical health issue in most of our churches.

What is Replacement Theology?

Posted: March 26, 2010 in The Church
Tags: , , , , , ,
33

Replacement theology states that the church has replaced Israel and is the new Israel to the point of saying that the two terms in the New Testament are synonymous. Arnold Fruchtenbaum attributes this view to William E. Cox in his Amillennialism Today on pages 46-47.

Fruchtenbaum presents a powerful refutation to the claim that the terms Israel and the church are interchangeable in the New Testament when he states that the word Israel is used seventy-three times in the New Testament in Issues in Dispensationalism on page 118 and then proceeds to list all seventy-three references in the New Testament. When you read the seventy-three references to Israel, it is obvious that the two terms are not interchangeable. The overwhelming majority of the seventy-three listings refer to ethnic Israel.

Then Fruchtenbaum states that of the seventy-three references, replacement theologians only use one passage to equate Israel with the church. That one passage out of seventy-three that is Galatians 6:16: “And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.” There are two other passages that replacement theologians use but they are not unanimous in believing that these passages equate Israel with the church. The other two passages are Romans 9:6 and 11:26. Some replacement theologians think these two passages speak of national, ethnic Israel and not the church or spiritual Israel.

In Galatians, Paul is defending the doctrine of justification by faith alone against the Judaizers who were persuading Gentile believers to put themselves under the law to earn salvation. So clearly in Galatians 6:15, Paul declares that salvation is not through Jewish circumcision but the power of God who makes those trust Christ a “new creature.” “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.” In Galatians 2:7-9, Paul identified two groups: Jews and Gentiles or the circumcision and the uncircumcision. The Jews and Gentiles in the two groups who responded to the gospel preached by Peter and Paul are now in Christ.

In Galatians 6:16, Paul pronounces God’s blessings on these two groups: “And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” Paul refers to “them” and “the Israel of God.” Here is where the debate begins between replacement theologians and dispensational theologians. Is Paul referring to two different groups within the church or is he stating that both groups are the same? The question is, “Who is the Israel of God?” If you are a replacement theologian your answer is the church. If you are a dispensational theologian, your answer is Jewish believers in the church.

Fruchtenbaum mentions an important work on Galatians 6:16 by S. Lewis Johnson in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost. The name of the chapter is “Paul and ‘The Israel of God.’” In this chapter, Johnson rejects the view that “the Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 can be the church for three reasons.

Three reasons for rejecting “the Israel of God” is the church.

The first reason is grammatical.

To interpret the  “kai” [English “and”] as “even” so that “them” and “the Israel of God” are the same is use the secondary meaning of kai and not the primary meaning which is “and.”

This is to use the explicative or appositional kai. Johnson provides a principle for this case: “It is necessary to begin this part of the discussion with a reminder of a basic, but often neglected, hermeneutical principle. It is this: in the absence of compelling exegetical and theological considerations, we should avoid the rarer grammatical usages when the common ones make good sense” (page 187). The reason the common usage of kai is not used by Replacement theologians is because it does not fit their amillennial system.

Fruchtenbaum mentions another impressive reason given by Johnson rejecting on grammatical grounds the view that “the Israel of God” is the church. “If Paul’s intention was to identify the “them” as being “the Israel of God,” then the best way of showing this was to eliminate the kai altogether” (Issues in Dispensationalism, page 123).

The second reason is exegetical.

“From the standpoint of biblical usage this view stands condemned. There is no instance in biblical literature of the term Israel being used in the sense of the church” (Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, page189). Romans 9:6 does not refer to “they that are of Israel” as being the church and for that reason not all replacement theologians use Romans 9:6 in their argument.

The third reason is theological.

“There is no historical evidence that the term Israel was identified with the church before A.D 160. Further, at that date there was no characterization of the church as ‘the Israel of God.’ In other words, for more than a century after Paul there was no evidence of the identification” (Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, page191).

Three reasons for believing “the Israel of God” is the believing Jewish remnant within the church.

The first reason is grammatical.

The common use of the kai is the continuative or conjunctive and is the primary meaning which should be used. Charles Ryrie speaks of the emphatic use of kai as in Mark 16:7 and Acts 1:14 which also draw a distinction between groups. Kai is used over 9000 times as simple conjunction or “and.”

The second reason is exegetical.

“Exegetically the view is sound, since ‘Israel’ has its uniform Pauline ethnic sense. And further, the apostle achieves a very striking climatic conclusion. Drawing near the end of his ‘battle-epistle’ with its harsh and forceful attack on the Judaists and its omission of the customary words of thanksgiving, Paul tempers his language with a special blessing for those faithful believing Israelites who, understanding the grace of God and its exclusion of any human works as the ground of redemption” (Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, page192).

The third reason is theological.

What Paul presents in Galatians 6:16 is consistent with his teaching in Romans 9 and 11 that there are two groups in the church: Gentiles and ethnic Jews. In Romans 9, Paul describes Israel’s past (not the church). In Romans 10, Paul presents Israel’s present (not the church 10:1). In Romans 11, Paul predicts Israel’s future (11:25-26). God is not through with Israel.

Both views are presented at Treasuring Christ and the Replacement view defended.

Week 3: The NEW Bible Institute on Ephesians, Part 2 “The Church”

Posted: October 10, 2009 in Ephesians Class, Sermons, The Church
Tags: , , , ,
0

1. There is Positional Unity in the Church (Ephesians 2:11-13).

2. There is Positional Unity in the Church because of the Reconciling Death of Christ (Ephesians 2:14-18). Two reconciliations took place at the cross.

A. The first was the reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles.

The death of Christ is repeated throughout verses 13-16: “by the blood of Christ” (v. 13), “having abolished in is flesh the enmity” (v. 15), and “by the cross” (v. 16).

The death of Christ broke down “the middle wall of partition” that separated Jews and Gentiles in Old Testament. Is this the literal wall in the temple court referred to earlier? It can’t be the literal wall because that wall was not literally destroyed until A.D. 70. How then was this barrier figuratively destroyed? When the law was rendered inoperative “abolished” by Christ’s death.  The Law that was given specifically to Israel to make Israel unique had caused hostility between Jews and Gentiles as seen in the “circumcision” holding in contempt the “uncircumcision” as seen in verse 11. Since the death of Christ we “are not under the law but under grace” (Romans 6:14). The civic and ceremonial requirements including dietary laws that separated Jews and Gentiles in the Old Testament are abolished and also the hostility created by them. The difficulty of overcoming this barrier is seen in Peter’s reluctance to eat pork at God’s command in Acts 10:9-15. Now you can eat country ham biscuits from Bojangles guilt free.

Christ took these two hostile groups and created “one new man” in verse 15. This “one new man” is new in time (since the day of Pentecost) and quality (no racial distinctions) entity. Paul has already identified this new entity as “the church” 1:22 and Christ’s “body” in 1:23.

B. The second reconciliation between God and sinners.

In verse 16, Paul writes, “and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross.” There was not only “enmity” between Jews and Gentiles (v. 15) but there was “enmity” between God and sinners (v. 16). Because of the death of Christ we can be right with God and each other in Christ.

Paul for the third time refers to the Trinity in 2:18. Because of the reconciliation of Christ at the cross, the Spirit makes former enemies “one” who both now have equal access to God the Father.

Jesus tells us how this practically works. If you have offended someone, “Leave there your gift before the altar, and go your way; first be reconciled to your brother” (Matthew 5:24). Or if someone has offended you “go and tell him his fault between you and him alone; if he shall hear you, you have gained your brother” (Matthew 18:15).

Also from these two reconciliations, we learn that we not only have a relationship with Jesus but His church. Some people today say they love Jesus but not the church. How can they love Jesus and not love what He loves. Paul informs us later in Ephesians 5:25 that “Christ loved the church and gave himself for it.” If you think the church is too old fogie and institutional, then get in there and help fix it and stop complaining about what Jesus died for.

3. There are Pictures of our Positional Unity in the Church (Ephesians 2:19-22).

A. Believers are One Nation (Ephesians 2:19a).

This includes believing Jews and Gentiles. Paul is not saying that the Church has replaced Israel and is the New Israel or he could have easily repeated “Israel” as he did in 2:11. Paul is simply saying that today there is no chosen nation as in the Old Testament and therefore no second class citizens.  Peter said a similar truth in 1 Peter 2:9: “You are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, and holy nation.” In stark contrast to the Old Testament, not just Jews are chosen, not just Jews are priests, and not just Israel is the nation with access to God. This picture should promote unity in the church. Jesus died for all nationalities and commissioned us to take the gospel to all nationalities.

Therefore all nationalities should be welcomed and accepted in our churches. This is what makes the church Missional. Missional church researcher Ed Stetzer warns against being missional in wanting to reach your local culture but not being Missions in wanting to reach those not in your culture. Some Missional churches are focused on the local not the global. Some Missions churches are only concerned with cultures an ocean away. The remedy is for the church to be “glocal” as Bob Roberts says in Transformation: How Glocal Churches Transform Lives nd the World. Driscoll, in Vintage Church, gives a good introduction to the Missional movement in chapter nine, “What is a Missional Church?” He strikes a balance: “It is unfortunate that foreign missions is not part of the vision of many missional churches….It is also unfortunate the local community is lacking from the vision of many missions churches….Subsequently, their youth spends ten days building a house in Mexico rather doing repairs on the run-down apartment building across the street” (page 242).

B. Believers are a family (Ephesians 2:19b).

God is our Father and we have brothers and sisters in Christ on earth and in Heaven (3:14-15). You have seen the license tag: The family that prays together stays together. The same can be true for God’s Family.

C. Believers are one Building (Ephesians 2:20-22).

In the Old Testament, God dwelt in buildings (The Tabernacle and the Temple) until He was driven out by sin. Today, God doesn’t dwell in material buildings, but in His body which is also depicted as a Building of God which is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (2:20).

The order, “the apostles and prophets,” means these men on whose teaching the church was founded were New Testament apostles and New Testament Prophets. If the church is in the Old Testament and has replaced the Israel in the New Testament, the order would have been the “prophets and apostles” or Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles. Paul repeats this same order in 3:5. The new truth about the mystery of the church was unknown to Old Testament prophets and therefore was revealed to New Testament apostles and New Testament prophets. Paul repeats this order in 4: 11. When Christ ascended back to heaven to be head of the Church, He gave gifts and gifted men to build up this new entity which included “apostles; and some prophets” i.e., New Testament apostles and New Testament prophets.

In Revelation 21:3, John in describing the future eternal home of God’s people in the New Jerusalem in which will be “his people and God himself shall be with them.” John uses the plural for people (Gk. laoi) because the “peoples of God” will be distinct in eternity. This is made clear later when John states that on the 12 gates are written “the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel” (Revelation 21:12). In eternity Israel will be distinct as one people of God. But in Revelation 21:14, John writes that on the foundations of the New Jerusalem will be written “the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” This corresponds to Paul’s teaching in Ephesians 2:20 that the apostles’ teachings make up the foundation of the church who is the new people of God.

There are huge ramifications if the church is in the Old Testament and is interchangeable with Israel. The covenants God made with Israel in the Old Testament concerning a land, king, and blessing have to be spiritually fulfilled by the church today and not literally by Israel in a future Millennium. This destroys a consistent historical/grammatical hermeneutic. All theologians use a historical/grammatical hermeneutic for the first coming prophecies of Christ which were literally fulfilled, but Covenant theologicans flip flop and use an allegorical hermeneutic for the second coming of Christ. Ephesians 2:11-3:13 teach that the Church is a new people of God that is distinct from Israel now and forever.

John MacArthur made this connection between Israel and hermeneutics in his controversial lecture, “Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinists Is a Premillennialist” at his Shepherd’s Conference at Grace Community Church on March 7, 2007.

What made MacArthur’s lecture controversial were the Reformed amillennarians present and several well-known amillennarians who were invited to speak at the conference by MacArthur.

When live-blogger Tim Challies posted his initial report about MacArthur’s lecture the blogosphere went nuts with e-mails: “Did you hear what MacArthur said about Calvinism?” “Did you hear what MacArthur said about amillennialism?” “Did you hear what he said about Calvin?” Here are some of MacArthur’s comments about Israel and literal hermeneutics.

“Now all that leads us to this: if you get Israel right you will get eschatology right. If you don’t get Israel right you will never get eschatology right. Never. And you’ll migrate from one view to another just depending on the last book you read or the last lecture you heard . . . . If you get eschatology right it’s because you get Israel right. You get Israel right when you get the Old Testament covenants and promises right. You get the Old Testament covenants and promises right when you get the interpretation of Scripture right. You get interpretation of Scripture right when you’re faithful to a legitimate hermeneutic and God’s integrity is upheld. Get your hermeneutics right, you’ll get the Old Testament promises right. Get promises right, you’ll get Israel right. Get Israel right, you’ll get eschatology right. The Bible calls God the God of Israel over 200 times. The God of Israel. There are over 2,000 references to Israel in Scripture, not one of them means anything but Israel. Not one of them, including Romans 9:6 and Galatians 6:16 which is the only two passages that amillennialists go to trying to convince us that that cancels out the other 2,000. There is no difficulty in interpreting those as simply meaning Jews who were believers; the Israel of God. Israel always means Israel, never means anything but Israel. Seventy three New Testament uses of Israel always mean Israel.”

The final post for Week 3 is “God’s Call to The Ministry Verses God’s Call to Ministry”: Eph 3:1-13.

Week 3: The NEW Bible Institute on Ephesians, Part 1 “The Church”

Posted: October 9, 2009 in Ephesians Class, Sermons, The Church
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

Week 3 Assignment: Read pages 65-98 in MacArthur and Eph 2:11-3:21 and comment on the three posts.

This week we begin studying the blessed and controversial doctrine of the Church or the Body of Christ (the third major doctrine of the theological section in Ephesians). This doctrine is most hotly debated between Covenant Theologians and Classic Dispensationalists.

What drives these opponents into opposite corners is their differing views of the church and Israel: “Are Israel and the Church the one people of God or are they the two peoples of God?”

Amillennialist’s View

Replacement theology states that the church has replaced Israel in this age and is the New Israel to the point of saying that the two terms in the New Testament are interchangeable according to William E. Cox in his Amillennialism Today on pages 46-47.

Premillennialist’s View

Arnold Fruchtenbaum presents a powerful refutation to the claim that terms Israel and the church are interchangeable in the New Testament when he states that the word Israel is used seventy-three times in the New Testament in Issues in Dispensationalism on page 118 and then proceeds to list all seventy-three references in the New Testament. When you read the seventy-three references to Israel, it is obvious that the two terms are not interchangeable. All of the seventy-three listings refer to ethnic Israel.

Covenant Premillennialist’s View

Mark Driscoll takes a mediating position. “The church is not Israel. Israel is an ethnicity, a nation, and a religious system. The church is none of these. When the Bible—Old and New Testaments—uses the term Israel, it always means a group of Jewish people, not the ‘ransomed people of God from every tribe and language and people and nation’ (Rev. 5:9), which is the church.”  I totally agree. Driscoll goes on to refute Reformed theologians’ Replacement theology and also older, dispensationalist who believe in two different peoples of God which in Driscoll’s opinion “blur the distinction between Israel and church. But that negates the statements of God breaking down the dividing wall to form one new humanity” (Eph. 2:11-16).

Basically Driscoll’s view is Covenant Premillennialism which states there “is one people of God.” So today Israel and the church are one people of God. But in the future millennium “the Old Testament prophecies of a national restoration of Israel (Ezek. 36:22-38; Acts 1:5-7) will be fulfilled by racially Jewish Christians in the millennium” (Vintage Church, p. 58). This is where I part company with Driscol. In the millennium the Israel and the church will be distinct as they are today. I hope to show from Ephesians 2:11-22, that Paul is talking about a new humanity which is the church which is not Israel now and forever.

Here is the general outline of Ephesians which is the context for our text in Ephesians 2:11-22.

1. Ephesians 1-3-Theological Unity (In this first division are three major doctrines)

   A. Trinity (1:3-14)

    B. Salvation (2:1-10)

    C. Church (2:11-3:12)

 2. Ephesians 4-6-Practical Unity

   A. “Therefore Walk” in Unity (4:1-16)

   B. “Therefore Walk” not as the Unsaved (4:17-32)

   C. “Therefore Walk” in Love (5:1-6)

   D. “Therefore Walk” in the Light (5:7-14)

   E. “Therefore Walk” in Wisdom (5:15-6:9)

Paul has already stated in Galatians 3:28 that positionally all people in the Body of Christ are united or are spiritually equal: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” The problem is in our local churches, however, we are not practically nor relationally united. Our practice does not match our position.

1. There is Positional Unity in the Church (Ephesians 2:11-13).

Paul sets this new section off with “wherefore” (v. 13) and connects it with the previous section on salvation in 2:1-10. The individuals saved by grace through faith in 2:1-10 are not left alone. They are united together in Christ. This stresses the point that believers need one another in the church to move forward in their Christian walk.

A. Paul begins by elaborating on the past disunity in the Old Testament between the races (Jews and Gentiles).

Again, there is a contrast between 2:1-10 (sinners in general were “dead”) and more specifically, Gentiles in 2:11-13 were “far off” that is, in essence, second class citizens in the Old Testament with not the same access to God as the Jews enjoyed.

1. In the past, Gentiles were “uncircumcised” which was a term of derision as spoken by David with reference to Goliath (1 Samuel 17:26).

2. In the past, Gentiles were “without the Messiah” or without national hope for the Messiah was Jewish (Romans 9:4-5).

3. In the past, Gentiles were without citizenship in Israel. Individually Gentiles had to become Jewish proselytes.

4. In the past, Gentiles were without “the covenants.” As Jeremiah 31:31 says, God made the covenants with “the house of Israel.” Israel was promised a Land, King, and Blessing. Gentiles will receive blessings from the covenants (Genesis 12:1-3) but were not the recipients.

5. In the past, Gentiles were without “hope.” Gentiles lacked hope in general as stated in 1 Thessalonians 4:13.

6. In the past, Gentiles were “without God” or the one true God (Deuteronomy 6:4). The English words “without God” come from one Greek word [atheoi] from which we get our English word atheist.  Paul is saying that because the Old Testament Gentiles did not believe in Israel’s God they might as well be atheists. I know this thought is a blow to the pluralism of post-modernists.

The true Old Testament religion was racial but not racist, because God had chosen one nation. He chose one nation, however, to be a light to the Gentiles (Isaiah 42:6; 49:6). God gave 613 laws to Israel to make Israel different and blessed of God so the Gentiles would enquire as to their uniqueness and prosperity. This mission approach to the nations is illustrated by the Queen of Sheba in 1 Kings 10. She came to Israel to see the wisdom and wealth of Israel’s king and nation and Solomon spoke to her of the Lord his God (10:9).

B. Because of the drastic change brought about by the death of Christ (2:13) now Paul can rejoice in the present unity Jews and Gentiles have in Christ.

Before the Gentiles were “afar off.” This was illustrated in the Gentile Court of the Temple in Jerusalem. The 4 ½ foot wall in the Jerusalem temple precinct that separated the court of the Gentles from the court of the Jews had an inscription in Greek and Latin prohibiting the entrance of a Gentile under the threat of the death penalty. The warning read: “No Gentile may enter within the barricade …. Anyone who is caught doing so will have himself to blame for his ensuing death.”

“But now” the Gentile believer has equal access to God through “the blood of Christ.” There is no racial difference. Gentile believers no longer have to drink out of separate water fountains, ride in the back of the bus, or use different restrooms.

We will continue our exposition of Ephesians 2 in our next post for week three: Part 2 “The Church.”