jump to navigation

The Gospel of Salvation – part 1 October 27, 2010

Posted by Henry in Matters of the Faith.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
9 comments

The following write-up is in response to an invitation from my brother in Christ Glasseyedave (from over at “The Gospel According to the Gospel“) to enter into a deeper discourse about the nature of our Gospel. I thought I would present my responses here as well since they demonstrate my belief concerning the Gospel, and which I hope may be of benefit to someone also. Anyone wishing to follow the discourse may also link to it here: Changing the Debate.

Hi Dave,

I welcome your offer for us to enter into deeper discourse concerning matters of the Gospel. I am honoured that you should approach me with respect to entering such a discussion with you and let me say that I do not think you are being arrogant at all. In my view if we cannot break “bread” in this way as brothers in Christ then what is the point? I too get frustrated when I share things whether on my blog or elsewhere and people shy away from it instead of engaging me – if even to say that I am wrong. We can have a civilised discussion even if we disagree but hopefully by having a discussion we can together come to the knowledge of truth. However, let us be patient towards one another and let us look at the issues portion by portion. If we try to eat too much “bread” all at once they we might not be able to swallow.

In your post there are a number of different but interconnected issues so the first issue that I would like us to discuss is on the issue of the Two Covenants. I referred to the two covenants as two different dispensations but you contend that they are not so. But let me warn you though that when I use the term “dispensations” it does not mean that I subscribe to “dispensational theology” as I have not studied this or had it preached to me. I therefore try not to approach the scriptures with bias (particularly from previous learning) but try to allow the letter and the Spirit to reveal to me what they will.

So why do I say that there are necessarily two dispensations on the road to Salvation? Well namely because we have Two Covenants (I do take cognisance of the fact that salvation and fellowship with God also existed before Abraham as per Enoch, Noah etc). Under the Old Covenant though, the Lord purposed to carve out a people for Himself who would be an ensign to the rest of mankind. This people, Israel, were to be the oracles of God and who were to set an example in righteousness for the nations round about them. Of course it would not be wrong to say that this was God’s sovereign will through His Grace. Israel of course were inheritors of God’s divine favour and hence why they were God’s chosen people. Under this Covenant however, Jesus had not yet gone to Calvary, the Holy Spirit had not been sent to “comfort” the church and there was no “regeneration” of the spirit of man (no born again experience). Under the Old Covenant therefore it was the Law (as opposed to the Spirit) that convicted man of sin. Repentance and remission were thus obtained through ritual sacrifices, and of course it was God’s Grace to forgive Israel of their sins through the “mechanisms” of these practices, which were mainly symbolic. These things were a shadow of the New Covenant which God promised in Abraham.

In reference to the New Covenant therefore God promised to make Abraham the father of many nations. This promise we know was fulfilled in Christ when the promise of the Spirit [by faith] came to the Gentiles. Man thus was no longer circumcised in the flesh after the manner of Abraham but rather received the circumcision of the heart. It goes without saying therefore that the righteousness of God which was imputed to Abraham is the same righteousness that we who had been cut off without a hope (the wild olive tree) have been grafted into. The difference however is that the righteousness which was instructed by the Law is now instructed by the Spirit through the redemptive work of Christ on the Cross. Under the Old Covenant Christ was promised and hence the Old pointed the way to the New – under the New Christ was given. What the Old could not accomplish therefore [and this is significant] the New is able to accomplish. I would like to highlight a couple of verses from Hebrews 9 here although the whole chapter is worth reading:

8The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: 9Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that COULD NOT make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; [Emphasis added]

We see from the verse that the Old Covenant with it’s ordinances and sacrifices could not make those who preformed them perfect. Similar in Heb 8:7-13 we learn that if the Old was faultless there would not be any need for the New and the Old which decays is now ready to vanish away.

To sum up therefore, I contend that there has been TWO dispensations on the road to salvation – the first we called the Old Covenant which has now vanished away and the second which we call the New Covenant that was confirmed in the blood of Jesus Christ. If there aren’t two dispensations then we are saying that the Jews can continue to live under the Old Covenant (not recognizing it’s no more) and be saved. I think this is where the “works of the Law” are held as distinctly separate from “salvation of Grace” to say that the works of the Law cannot save you but only the Grace of God, which does not require works.

The Church as a Non-Profit Organisation October 6, 2010

Posted by Henry in Matters of the Faith.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
3 comments

My good friend Glasseyedave, over at “The Gospel According to the Gospel” suggested that I put out a complimentary post to the topic “Should Pastors be Salaried”, to address whether churches should be non-profit organisations and subjected to government rules. In my view these two subjects naturally go hand in hand and this will become clearer later. However the best starting point to looking at this subject is from the position of the early church as well as to take a cursory glance at its evolution.

 When Christ started the church He most certainly did not create so much as an “organisation” but rather established a “social movement”, which in essence constituted a “community” of believers. Whilst individual members of this informal community were subjected to the laws of the state there was no organisation as such which needed to be regulated. People met in each other’s homes or in the open to worship and shared what they had with one another and the pastors (who were the elders) certainly did not draw a salary. The modern church in contrast is characteristic of formal structures that are clearly defined and distinct from each other. Perhaps Emperor Constantine has a lot to answer for here since it was he who first came up with the idea to organise Christianity so it could be more effectively managed, due to its perceived threat to the state. As a result the modern church has inherited a system from the Roman church whereby churches meet as a group of people in a building and with namely one pastor (or priest) presiding as the head. It was Constantine who built the first church buildings (or temples) in Constantinople and elsewhere in 324 A.D (see here for an Historical account). With the advent of church buildings, the priestly class was raised up in order to minister over the affairs of these churches. This resulted in the division between priest and laity and it was during this period that the idea of salaried pastors began. Constantine initially sponsored the building of churches but over time the congregations were required to give contributions in order to sustain the ministry of the priest (or pastor) and the maintenance of the church. Giving was thus seen as tantamount to religious piety and this construct allowed for forms of giving such as the “tithe” to be reinstituted. The system that was instituted in churches therefore was pretty much like the Levitical system of the Old Testament (see here for an historical account on the salaried pastor)

 The reformation movement, which arguably began when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses on the Wittenberg Door, went some way into addressing some of the heretical practices that had seeped into the church as a result of the influences of Constantine, but this did not go far enough. Today the modern church has still not shaken off the shackles of the Roman church and most of its practices in terms of how we “do church” are still intact. However, if we should return to the example of the early church there is clearly no need for the church to operate as a formal organisation, which owns or meets in a specific building. Perhaps however the practices of the established churches are entrenched and therefore somewhat hard to shake and this could be why this model of church is still used. What then is the motivation of newly formed churches today to establish themselves as non-profit organisations, subject to the rules and regulations of national governments?

 I will submit that one of the primary motives for churches today to register themselves as charities/non-profit organisations is because of MONEY. By centralising ministerial activities from a church building this of course necessitates fundraising activities both to sustain the officiating priests/pastors and to maintain the building. There are therefore certain financial advantages for having such a venture registered as a non-profit organisation. In the UK for instance, if charities raise more than £5,000 per annum they are legally required to register as a charity with the Charity Commission (the body which oversees charities). It is evident however that most churches that meet in a rented building or own their own building cannot sustain themselves on a paltry £5,000p.a. because this will not meet the operational costs which includes the salary of the pastor and the maintenance costs. Most churches therefore would need to raise far in excess of £5,000 in order to meet these costs so therefore the way to go about it without falling foul of the law is to register as a charity. The benefit of registering as a non-profit making organisation is that the church would therefore not be subject to income or corporation taxes. Another motive is that when donations are made by the church members/attendees they may give under the Gift Aid scheme. This means that the church can claim back 28p in the £1.00, for every £1.00 of donation given, from the Tax Office (HMRC) which helps to swell the funds of the church. Money is therefore the main reason why churches come under the regulatory framework of governmental bodies.

 I do not believe that the current status quo is what Christ intended for His church though! In my view however, the church is the body of Christ and as such is (should be) regulated by Jesus Christ and He alone since He is the only Head. The church in essence is the Kingdom of God – a spiritual Kingdom – and therefore is not of this world (John 18:36).  As such the Kingdom of God is not (should not be) subject to temporal authority. In God’s Kingdom Christ is King and His commandments are the laws, which govern the operations of His Kingdom – laws not written on tablets of stones but upon the hearts of every believer (2 Cor 3:3). We are in this position today though because of the love of money and also because we have left the true path to follow the heretical path instituted by the Roman church under Constantine.

What is your Goal in Life? April 13, 2010

Posted by Henry in Matters of the Faith.
Tags: , , , , ,
2 comments

Today we have a lot of pastors and teachers who “preach” motivational speak in church encouraging people to find out what God’s will for their life is. They further encourage church folk to establish their goals and to write them down on a piece of paper and work towards achieving them. These goals usually relate to career objectives, finances, business, marriage and family etc. So then, if you are reading this and you are one of those people who follow such practices of writing down your goals and set a course to achieving them, which goal do you put at the top of your list? Is it to “reign in life” and live the “abundant life” as defined by Word of Faith-ers? Is it to make your first million by the age of 30? Is it to pay off your mortgage or own a six-bedroom house? Is it to rise to the top of your field or profession? Is it to attain a first class degree or one with Summa Cum Laude?  Is it to get married and have a family in five years? Now I am not saying there is anything wrong in wanting some of these things but are any of these your primary goal?

 Perhaps you have never given much thought to this question or you find it a bit too challenging to answer or you have perhaps already decided on one of the examples mentioned above but here is what the Apostle Paul had to say in Eph 4:11-13:

 11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

 Our goal as Christians and as believers in the Gospel of Christ is to “come into the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” Our primary objective should be to “attain to the whole measure of the fulness of Christ”. Why? 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power (Col 2:9-10) Paul again makes it clear here that it is in Jesus that the fullness of the Godhead dwells and in Him are we made complete. Indeed one or more of the aforementioned goals may give us a sense of self-actualization and personal pride but all of this is worthless if we do not have Christ at the heart of our lives because it is in Him that we are made complete.

Do the Jews need Jesus Christ for Salvation? April 3, 2010

Posted by Henry in Teaching Things They Ought Not.
Tags: , , , , ,
26 comments

There are some ministers today, even very “high profile” personalities like John Hagee who teach that the Jews do not need to believe in Jesus (or come to faith in Christ) to ensure their salvation. But is this view biblically correct? The implication of this position is that the gospel was given to non-Jews only but what do the scriptures teach? Paul writing in Romans 1 says:

 Rom 1:16

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

 Paul made it clear here that the gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek (or Gentile). It is clear then that the gospel of salvation came to the Jew first as well as everyone else. To demonstrate this we may note from scripture that when Jesus called the Twelve Disciples and sent them out to preach the message of the Kingdom, He sent them to the Israelites only (Matt 10:5-7). Why was it necessary then that the gospel be given to the Jew first? We know from the Old Testament that God had made a covenant with Israel and this covenant is referred to as the Law, which was given unto Moses. This Law was to be observed in the Promised Land which God gave the Israelites under the covenant. However, the Children of Israel repeatedly broke God’s commandments and statutes and even went after other gods to worship them. The Lord therefore said He would make a new covenant with this people and we learn of this through the prophet Jeremiah in Jer 31:31-34:

 31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.  (see also Heb 8:7-12)

The new covenant that Jeremiah spoke of therefore is the same covenant that was fulfilled in the gospel through Christ’s death and resurrection. This is the new covenant that was made with Israel hence the reason the gospel came unto the Jew first. To substantiate this fact we may look at Heb 9:15:

 14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament (covenant), that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament(covenant), they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. 18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, 20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. 21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. (Emphasis mine!)

The new covenant which we as Christians partake of today is the new covenant that was promised and given to the Israelites. However the Jews in the main rejected it and the word of God came instead unto the Gentiles and we see this in Acts 13:46:

44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. 45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. 46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. 47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

Having examined the foregoing scriptures the question which needs to be asked is how can a minister of the new covenant claim that the Jews do not need to come to Jesus Christ for Salvation? By teaching such heresy these ministers are helping the Jews to continue to reject a covenant that was given to the Jew first and then the Gentiles. Indeed the scriptures, Acts 4:12, tells us that salvation is found in no other but Jesus Christ. Jesus put it this way:

  I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

 May we repent of such heresies and may God forgive us and have mercy upon us and help us to return to the truth of His Word. Amen