For what if the wife be under subjection to us? it is as a wife, as free, as equal in honor. And the Son also, though He did become obedient to the Father, it was as the Son of God, it was as God. For as the obedience of the Son to the Father is greater than we find in men towards the authors of their being, so also His liberty is greater. Since it will not of course be said that the circumstances of the Son’s relation to the Father are greater and more intimate than among men, and of the Father’s to the Son, less. For if we admire the Son, that He was obedient so as to come even unto death, and the death of the cross, and reckon this the great wonder concerning Him; we ought to admire the Father also, that He begat such a son, not as a slave under command, but as free, yielding obedience and giving counsel. For the counsellor is no slave.

Chrysostom, Homilies on 1Corinthians ( 1Corinthians 11:1-3 )

There is somewhat more of difficulty in what follows. Here the man is placed in an intermediate position between Christ and the woman, so that Christ is not the head of the woman. Yet the same Apostle teaches us elsewhere, (Gal. 3:28,) that in Christ there is neither male nor female. Why then does he make a distinction here, which in that passage he does away with? I answer, that the solution of this depends on the connection in which the passages occur. When he says that there is no difference between the man and the woman, he is treating of Christ’s spiritual kingdom, in which individual distinctions are not regarded, or made any account of; for it has nothing to do with the body, and has nothing to do with the outward relationships of mankind, but has to do solely with the mind—on which account he declares that there is no difference, even between bond and free. In the meantime, however, he does not disturb civil order or honorary distinctions, which cannot be dispensed with in ordinary life. Here, on the other hand, he reasons respecting outward propriety and decorum—which is a part of ecclesiastical polity. Hence, as regards spiritual connection in the sight of God, and inwardly in the conscience, Christ is the head of the man and of the woman without any distinction, because, as to that, there is no regard paid to male or female; but as regards external arrangement and political decorum, the man follows Christ and the woman the man, so that they are not upon the same footing, but, on the contrary, this inequality exists. Should any one ask, what connection marriage has with Christ, I answer, that Paul speaks here of that sacred union of pious persons, of which Christ is the officiating priest, and He in whose name it is consecrated.

Calvin’s Commentary on 1Corinthians 11:3

Makes sense to me.

Makes sense to me.

A very good article about how to use Scripture to assess the state of a church.

 

How important is sound doctrine to my church?

Intolerance is a virtue in Revelation 2-3—no, not intolerance itself, as though God had an undying admiration for the curmudgeonly, but rather principled intolerance toward a few things that, in Jesus’ opinion, it is imperative for believers not to tolerate. Jesus complimented the Ephesians: “you cannot tolerate evil.” (2:2) He chastised Thyatira because “you tolerate the woman Jezebel.” (2:20) Pergamum and Sardis He upbraided for being tolerant. The intolerance that these letters applaud is intolerance toward breakaway sects and deviant doctrine.

Has my church clearly identified doctrines that we will not compromise no matter what the cost? Are there things that we would not do or say even if doing them or saying them would double our attendance, pay off our note, and put me on a speaking circuit? Are we determined never to please men if it comes at the cost of displeasing Christ?

via Pastor to Pastor: How’s Your Church Doing? – ThomRainer.com.

The Church General

Introduction

What is the church? That is what we must determine before we delve into the composition and manifestation of the church. The most basic meaning of the Greek word ekklesia which is translated “church” in the New Testament is “called out.” This was a common term for a congregation or an assembly. It speaks of those who are called out for a specific purpose and was specifically used in this manner when Luke spoke of the Ephesian assembly (which was a tumultuous mob) in Acts 19:32&39 where it is translated “assembly.” With this in mind we can conclude that the church is a group of people called out by God for His own purpose. In fact, Peter presents this fact to us very plainly in 1Pet 2:9 saying, “Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.” (1 Peter 2:9) KJV

The Old Testament Church

Though very little is said about the nation of Israel being part of God’s church, the Bible does plainly present this fact to us. Stephen, speaking of Moses, said, “This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us.” (Acts 7:38) KJV Now, there are those who would wish to deny that this is indeed a reference to Israel as being a part of God’s church. They would like to tell us that this is simply an assembly of people, and that is all that ekklesia is meant to convey to us in this context. The fact remains, however, that the word ekklesia occurs more than 100 times in the New Testament, and only in Acts 19:32&39 is it translated “assembly.” In every other instance it is translated “church” or “churches.” The only time it is used to speak of an assembly other than the Lord’s church is in Acts 19:32&39. The typical usage of ekklesia in the New Testament is in reference to a called out group of people. That is precisely what the nation of Israel was. “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.” (Hos 11:1) KJV Thus, we can be assured that, though it did not function in the same manner as a New Testament church, there was indeed a church in the Old Testament.

The New Testament Church

What about New Testament days? How do we see the church in the New Testament? First of all, the local church is certainly seen in the New Testament. The church is there with her leaders, discipline, and ordinances. At the same time the church is also seen as a larger body that is composed of all who know Jesus. It is this manifestation of the church that we want to consider.

When Jesus first mentions the church, He made a special promise to the church that actually demonstrates to us that the church is more than a local body alone. Jesus said: “upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Mt 16:18) KJV Why say that this applies to more than the local church? Because many local churches have died. This promise must pertain to some form of church other than the local church. Local church only proponents may say that this applies to the church in general. To do so, however, is to concede that there is some form of church beyond the local church. There is a church that shall never die, according to the promise of Jesus. What church is it?

The apostle Paul was one who understood the church to be general in nature and manifesting itself in local assemblies. It was he who told us “by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” (1 Cor 12:13) KJV Entrance into the body of Christ comes by the baptism with the Holy Spirit (See Gal 3:26-29). The question then arises, into what body is one baptized? Historically, Baptists have required water baptism for local church membership. I think that is the right thing to do. If this is so, into what one body is the believer baptized into when baptized with the Holy Spirit?

Paul’s language again shows us the general nature of the church when he said “God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.” (1 Cor 12:28) KJV Having just told the Corinthian church that their local assembly was the body of Christ, he proceeds to tell them about the gifts that are given to the church. The first gift mentioned was apostles. Were the apostles given to the Corinthian church, or the church general which is composed of Holy Spirit baptized believers?

There’s hardly another passage in which the church general can be seen more clearly than the following: “He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.” (Eph 2:14-22) KJV Paul states that the Jew and the Gentile have been made one. By the cross the Jews and Gentiles are reconciled into one body. There is not Gentile church or Jewish church. There is only the Christian church. There is no longer Israel as the only chosen of God. Gentiles are fellow heirs with believing Israel. We are of the same household as the believing Jew. Together the believing Jew and the believing Gentile are built into God’s holy temple. God dwells in this church. One thing that local church only advocates miss is the fact that the body of Christ is present in this passage, but water baptism is not. Neither will it serve any purpose to insist that it is implied. What is expressly stated is that the cross is what brings people into this one body. The body here is a body composed of the redeemed.

The church as the body of the redeemed is seen again in Paul’s writings to the church at Ephesus. “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.” (Eph 5:25-33) KJV How does the church become the church? By the cross of Christ. This same Paul said, “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” (Acts 20:28) KJV For whom did Jesus die? He died for the church. Who is the church? Those who have been redeemed: the ones purchased by the blood of Christ. Local church only advocates must notice that water baptism, as important as it is, is never mentioned in these two texts. What is mentioned is redemption through the cross of Christ. The church general is composed of blood bought Christians.

Finally, the having seen the church as the bride of Christ, we must ask the question of the composition of the bride of Christ. Who is in the bride?

The Bride of Christ Composed of All Saints, Both Old Testament And New Testament Saints

First of all, we must go to the Revelation to see the bride of Christ. “I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.” (Rev 19:6-8) KJV Many of those who advocate the local church only (Landmark Baptist, Baptist-Bride) position state that the white robes come from the righteous deeds of the saints. In other words, the ones who are in the bride of Christ are the saints who live up to a certain standard of righteousness and holiness. This standard has never been fully defined, to my knowledge. It is supposed to begin with water baptism into the local church, however.

Does the Scripture uphold this view of the robes of righteousness being righteous works? It is this writer’s contention that the Scriptures do not support that position. Isaiah rejoiced in God’s grace saying, “I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.” (Isa 61:10) KJV Isaiah ascribed the garments of salvation and the robe of righteousness as being a gratuitous gift from God, not as something done by the saint. Jesus alludes to this in one of His parables: “When the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen.” (Mt 22:11-14) KJV In Jesus’ day it was common for great men to invite many people to celebrate when family members were married. We are told by some scholars that often the host would freely provide garments for his guests. It was a great show of disrespect to one’s host to not wear the provided garments. Jesus is telling us that we cannot partake of the joy of His kingdom if we do not accept the garments that He gives us. What is the wedding garment, or the fine linen in which the bride shall be clothed in the day of her marriage to the Lamb? It is the robe of righteousness. It is the imputed righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 3:19-28;5:1-3). Thus it is that the bride who has prepared herself and to whom it has been given to be arrayed in fine linen clean and white is none other than all those who have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb of God. The bride of Christ is composed of those who are justified by faith in Jesus.

We also see the bride of Christ portrayed in the book of the Revelation as the city New Jerusalem. “There came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife. And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God.” (Rev 21:9-10) KJV One statement especially about this city leads this writer to believe that all of the redeemed of all ages will be a part of the bride of Christ. That statement is as follows: “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.”

There was once an occasion when Jesus called his followers apart for one simple purpose: rest.

God declared the Sabbath holy, still calls us to rest.

Thus it is that, after a busy week both on and off line, that I’m taking a week off.

I’m having to deal with the fact that I’m middle aged. That neither disturbs nor worries me. It does mean that the pace that I kept in the past is not one that I can keep now.

ScottL, one of my online friends who comments here, once warned me about burnout. That was two or three years ago. I now understand the reality of it and have to adjust my lifestyle to that. I must rest this week, if possible.

I shall study, preach, teach, and fulfill whatever God sends my way in the ministry. I shall rest from being on this blog. I shall stay home as much as possible and enjoy my front porch while the children play with their puppy.

I shall rejoice in the goodness of God to me and my family.

See y’all later.

Thus, the denial of a historical Adam means that we would have to tell the Bible’s story in a very different way than the church has told it for centuries as the Bible has been read, taught, preached, and believed. If there is no historical Adam, then the Bible’s metanarrative is not Creation-Fall-Redemption-New Creation, but something very different.

…

If we do not know how the story of the Gospel begins, then we do not know what that story means. Make no mistake: a false start to the story produces a false grasp of the Gospel.

via AlbertMohler.com – Adam and Eve: Clarifying Again What Is at Stake.

Related articles

• ADAM & EVE: Controversy heats up, by R. Albert Mohler (pastoralmusings.com)
• Randy Alcorn on The Reliability of Scripture (pastoralmusings.com)

It seems that the Fundamentalist Baptist Fellowship International has before them a resolution on sexual abuse.

It is getting some interesting comments on Sharper Iron, with several of them being against it for various reasons.

There is also a blog that supports it, and a FaceBook page for supporters of it.  A “recovering fundamentalist” has an interesting take on the resolution.

These are good words.  In the end, the FBFI is not a legislative body, and these folks are still Independent Baptists.  The resolution has no teeth, as the FBFI can enforce nothing.  I also think that there is a sense in which it is too little, too late; especially when Chuck Phelps is slated to speak at the FBFI meeting.  This seems to be an attempt to save face.

The greatest resolution regarding abuse in the church is the resolution of a church and its leadership to follow Jesus with all of their hearts.  I think you know how the rest would work out…

Related articles

• The “Non-Networked” Network’s Resolution (iamarecoveringfundamentalist.wordpress.com)
• Schaap Responds to The 20/20 Coverage of Sexual Abuse And Coverups in IFB-dom. (pastoralmusings.com)

Cover of Revival

What the church of today needs is revival.

Sometimes folk will say that the world is simply too wicked for revival, and the church is to compromised for revival.

A sinless church wouldn’t need revival, would it?

We don’t need to clean ourselves up for revival.

We don’t need to be faithful to have revival.

Those things are good things, no doubt.

They are not required for revival.

Habakkuk’s prayer for revival shows that what is necessary for revival is a weak, sinful, needy group of people ( aren’t most saints in that condition?)  and God’s mercy.

“A prayer of Habakkuk the prophet upon Shigionoth. O LORD, I have heard thy speech, and was afraid: O LORD, revive thy work in the midst of the years, In the midst of the years make known; In wrath remember mercy.” (Habakkuk 3:1–2)  KJV

“A prayer of Habakkuk the prophet, according to Shigionoth. O LORD, I have heard the report of you, and your work, O LORD, do I fear. In the midst of the years revive it; in the midst of the years make it known; in wrath remember mercy. ” (Habakkuk 3:1–2)  ESV

Revival doesn’t come to people who have earned it, or who deserve it.  Revival comes to people who deserve wrath.  Revival is graciously and mercifully given by God.

Let us pray for it.