Two Approaches to Reality, One of Which Is True: Either Construing or Constructing Reality
Let’s say that I’m on vacation to Turkey. I want to look at Asia Minor and the geographical locations of the Apostle Paul’s churches there. In addition I’m interested in Istanbul and the history of the Eastern Roman Empire. While touring, I’m grabbed, a gunny sack pulled over my head, and thrown into the back of a dark cargo van. The next thing I’m sitting on a metal chair in a crumbling urban brick building with a camera pointed at my face.
Moslem terrorists rip the sack off my head and through very bright light I see several swarthy, angry men each with AK-47s. One of them puts a crumpled paper in my hand with English text, that says I must admit confess that as an American spy I reject the Republican form of government and pledge my allegiance to Allah.
I look up from the script my interrogators gave me and tell them that I can’t read this, because it isn’t true. One of them punches the side of my head with the butt of his rifle and I see a flash of bright lights. I shake out the cobwebs and everything looks blurry. As my brain starts to clear again, I feel a stream of blood down the side of my head. As everything starts to clear, I look at the script and reassess whether I might go ahead and read it.
What’s on the piece of paper isn’t true, even if the audience believes it. The kidnappers constructed a reality. It isn’t true. I don’t believe it. I reject it. Someone else wrote it. Saying it or writing it more doesn’t make it any more true. What they’ve constructed is not reality. The language on the paper means to construct a new reality.
Maybe you’ve heard that perception is reality. A person can create his own reality based on his perception, one which might not be true. A person with perceptions will call it reality, when it isn’t. This is a reality again of his own construction, perhaps based on his misconstruing his own reality. Perception is reality, is not reality. He could perceive reality, but his perception does not make it reality. Very often it is not. Even though it isn’t reality, he forms language to construct a reality as he perceives it.
Construct or Construe
A popular postmodern notion today is that people construct their own realities. Reality is what people want it to be. Therefore, they reject objective reality and/or objective meaning.
For the sake of discussion, I am saying that construing reality is describing reality as it is, as it really is. Constructing reality describes reality as we want it to be. God alone constructs reality outside of our own perception. At most, we construe it. If we truly construe reality, then we describe it as it is. If we don’t like the reality God constructed, out of rebellion against him we might construct our own reality. It still isn’t reality though.
Postmoderns say men constructed the patriarchy, that is, the patriarchy is a social construct. They constructed the patriarchy using language. They say language is powerful. Language constructs reality. Language also changes reality, so using language they construct a new reality, an egalitarian one. Construction of a new, different reality starts with deconstruction of the old. Then using language, they construct a new one.
The patriarchy is reality. People’s job is to construe reality. People might not like the patriarchy but that does not change the reality of patriarchy. Since God constructs reality, reality is objective and, therefore, meaning is objective. Our life only has meaning if it describes reality as it really is. Someone construes reality only when he describes it or understands it as it really is.
Is patriarchy construing reality or constructing reality? It construes reality. It construes what God constructed. Why do people then construct reality? Objective reality, what we should call “the truth,” contradicts people’s lusts. They then construct a reality that conforms to their lust and call it their own reality. Also, they call it their truth. They use language to construct their own reality. This is why language becomes so important in secular institutions. They reject God, leaving themselves to construct their own reality.
The Idolatry of Using Language to Construct a New Reality
In the beginning, God constructed reality out of language. John 1:1-3 read:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
The Word made all things. With Him was not anything made that was made. God alone did this or does this. When a man constructs his own reality using language, it is a form of idolatry that proceeds from pride and lust. Therefore, he worships and serves the creature rather than the Creator (cf. Romans 1:25).
Rejecting reality, that is, not describing it as it really is, also rejects God. It is a more subtle and significant way to eliminate God or to dethrone Him. God created everything for pleasure. Man deconstructs reality and constructs his own reality for his own pleasure.
Scripture reveals the reality God constructed, using language. God spoke the world into existence. He upholds all things by the Word of His power. God’s Words construct reality.
Those God created are responsible to construe reality based upon scripture. No one is neutral. When they don’t receive what God said, they will construct a new reality with their own language in defiance of God.
More to Come
Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte by Richard Whately & Skepticism
Have you ever read Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte by ? (view the book online for free here or here; a version you can cut and paste into a document so you can listen to it is here), or get a physical copy:
David Hume, the famous skeptic, employed a variety of skeptical arguments against the Bible, the Lord Jesus Christ, and against the possibility of miracles and the rationality of believing in them in Section 10, “Of Miracles,” of Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Whately, an Anglican who believed in the Bible, in miracles, and in Christ and His resurrection, turned Hume’s skeptical arguments against themselves. Whately’s “satiric Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Bonaparte (1819), … show[ed] that the same methods used to cast doubt on [Biblical] miracles would also leave the existence of Napoleon open to question.” Whately’s book is a short and humerous demonstration that Hume’s hyper-skepticism would not only “prove” that Christ did not do any miracles or rise from the dead, but that Napoleon, who was still alive at the time, did not exist or engage in the Napoleonic wars. Hume’s argument against miracles is still extremely influential–indeed, as the teaching sessions mentioned in my last Friday’s post indicated, the main argument today against the resurrection of Christ is not a specific alternative theory such as the stolen-body, hallucination, or swoon theory, but the argument that miracles are impossible, so, therefore, Christ did not rise–Hume’s argument lives on, although it does not deserve to do so, as the critiques of Hume’s argument on my website demonstrate. For these reasons, the quick and fun read Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte is well worth a read. (As a side note, the spelling “Buonaparte” by the author, instead of Bonaparte, is deliberate–the British “used the foreign sounding ‘Buonaparte’ to undermine his legitimacy as a French ruler. … On St Helena, when the British refused to acknowledge the defeated Emperor’s imperial rights, they insisted everyone call him ‘General Buonaparte.'”
Contemporary Significance
Part of the contemporary significance of Richard Whately’s Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte relates to how we evaluate historical data. We should avoid both the undue skepticism of David Hume and also undue credulity. Whatever God revealed in His Word can, and must, be accepted without question. But outside of Scripture, when evaluating historical arguments, we should employ Biblical principles such as the following:
Have the best arguments both for and against the matter in question been carefully examined?
Is the argument logical?
Are there conflicts of interest in those promoting the argument?
Does the argument produce extraordinary evidence for its extraordinary claims?
Does the argument require me to think more highly of myself than I ought to think?
Is looking into the argument redeeming the time?
Are Biblical patterns of authority followed by those spreading the argument?
(principles are reproduced from my website here, and are also discussed here.)
A failure to properly employ consistent criteria to the evaluation of evidence undermines the case for Scripture. For example, Assyrian records provide as strong a confirmation as one could expect for Hezekiah’s miraculous deliverance from the hand of Assyria by Jehovah’s slaying 185,000 Assyrian soldiers (2 Kings 19). However, Assyrian annals are extremely biased ancient propaganda. Those today who claim that any source showing bias (say, against former President Trump, or against conservative Republicans–of which there are many) should be automatically rejected out of hand would have to deny, if they were consistent, that Assyrian records provide a glorious confirmation of the Biblical miracle. Likewise, Matthew records that the guards at Christ’s tomb claimed that the Lord’s body was stolen as they slept (Matthew 28). Matthew, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, intends the reader to be able to see through this biased and false argument to recognize the fact that non-Christians were making it actually provides confirmation for the resurrection of Christ. (If you do not see how it confirms the resurrection, think about it for a while.)
Many claims made today, whether that the population of the USA would catastrophically decline as tens of millions would die from the COVID vaccine, that Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams had her election win in Georgia stolen by Republicans, that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump had his 2020 election win in Georgia stolen by Democrats, that 9/11 was perpetrated by US intelligence agencies, that Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election, that the miracle cure for cancer has been discovered but is being suppressed by Big Pharma, and many other such claims are rarely advanced by those who follow the Biblical principles listed above for evaluating information. Furthermore, the (dubious) method of argumentation for such claims, if applied to the very strong archaeological evidence for the Bible, would very frequently undermine it, or, indeed, frequently undermine the possibility of any historical investigation at all and destroy the field of historical research.
In conclusion, I would encourage you to read Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte, and, as you read it, think about what Scripture teaches about how one evaluates historical information.
–TDR
-The Amazon link above is an affiliate link. Please visit here to learn about how one can donate to charity at no additional cost when purchasing products at Amazon and here to learn how to save on Internet purchases in general.
A Hot Thing Today in Evangelical Hermeneutics Is Now To See Social Justice All Over the Minor Prophets
Was God angry with Israel for its lack of social justice? No doubt God was angry with Israel and through His prophets He warned them. The Bible, including the Minor Prophets, doesn’t mention “social justice.” It mentions just “justice.” Those who point out social justice in the Minor Prophets, or “The Prophets” as the Hebrews referred to it, say that God punished Israel for its social injustice. What they most often don’t say is that social justice itself is injustice according to its definition:
Social justice refers to a fair and equitable division of resources, opportunities, and privileges in society. Originally a religious concept, it has come to be conceptualized more loosely as the just organization of social institutions that deliver access to economic benefits.
Many different factors change the economic and social outcome of individuals. Scripture and, therefore, God doesn’t guarantee equality of resources or privileges. God doesn’t ensure equal opportunity. Bringing social justice into the Minor Prophets alters the meaning of justice, reads something corrupt into scripture.
When I say, “justice,” I’m speaking of the Hebrew word mishpot, found 421 times in the Old Testament. Translators translate mishpot both “justice” and “judgment.”
Evangelical social justice warriors use a prophet like Amos, where in 5:7 he says,
Ye who turn judgment to wormwood, and leave off righteousness in the earth.
“Righteousness” (tsidaqa) in the second half relates to “judgment” (mishpot) in the first half. A warning occurs later in verse 15:
Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment in the gate: it may be that the LORD God of hosts will be gracious unto the remnant of Joseph.
“Establish judgment” (mishpot) and the “LORD God of hosts will be gracious.” Same chapter, verse 25, was a common refrain from civil rights leaders, used according to what became called “liberation theology,” which spiritualizes these Old Testament passages with a form of amillennialism.
But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.
Social justice advocates now use these verses in a wide ranging manner, that is hardly justice. The “judgment,” that is mishpot, is the judgment of God. How does God judge what occurs? Israel doesn’t follow God’s laws, which are His righteousness. Israel falls short of the glory of God.
Micah is another prophet who confronts the same theme as Amos in such verses like 3:9:
Hear this, I pray you, ye heads of the house of Jacob, and princes of the house of Israel, that abhor judgment, and pervert all equity.
“Equity” at the very end isn’t a contemporary understanding. The Hebrew word means “straight, right, level, or pleasing,” as in pleasing to God. Israel was making crooked what was straight. That’s injustice.
When some people get away with lawbreaking because they’re rich, that is injustice. It’s not judging like God does. When that occurs, the straight becomes crooked. It’s also allowing people to get away with such activity.
Today the social justice warriors are championed by the rich, who get off the hook for their injustice. They cover for criminal evidence on a laptop of the President’s son. They tear up public property in Seattle and Portland without arrest. Illegals flow across the border. A homeless man urinates on the street without justice. Yet, all of this is “social justice.”
A verse in Micah equal in fame to Amos 5:25 is Micah 6:8:
He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
People “do justly” or they don’t. In other words, they characteristically do what pleases God or they don’t. Justice relates to God. Doing justice means no one gets away with unrighteousness, which is what God says it is. If he does break God’s law, he repents. When a boy dresses like a girl or a girl dresses like a boy, that’s not mishpot. Abortion violates mishpot too. I can keep going a long time with such examples of the transgression of God’s law.
Calling the contents of the preaching of the Minor Prophets “social justice” perverts the point and meaning of the Minor Prophets. It sounds like impressive exegesis to a woke audience. It panders to that group. However, it corrupts justice. It makes the straight crooked in contradiction to Micah 3:9. It promotes redistribution of wealth, taking from those who earned it and giving it to those who didn’t, a form of thievery. This corresponds to a now famous statement by President Obama when he ran for reelection in 2012, speaking of small business owners, “You didn’t build it.”
The prophets preach repentance too. Amos 5:4 says, “Seek ye me, and ye shall live.” 5:6, “Seek the LORD, and ye shall live.” 5:9, “Seek him that maketh the seven stars and Orion.” 5:14, “Seek good, and not evil, that ye may live: and so the LORD, the God of hosts, shall be with you, as ye have spoken.” The road to justice starts with personal repentance, seeking the LORD and, therefore, His ways.
Perhaps the greatest abuse of justice is idolatry, elevating man’s lust above God. False worship. Rather than loving God, loving your self. None of this is mishpot. This isn’t justice. This isn’t seeking after God.
Could There Be Practical Reasons Why Some Evangelists See More or Better Results than Others? Pt. 3
Every time I begin to consider the problems in this country and then the world, I go back to the gospel. Whatever path you ponder, it comes back to necessary conversion. Someone can make moves that might postpone the inevitable, but the actual solution is the gospel. Everything else is “peace, peace, when there is no peace.”
Last Monday I wrote two reasons and Wednesday a third on why some evangelists see more or better results than others. Here’s a fourth.
4. A Difference in Diligent Work
Scripture emphasizes work in evangelism, diligence, as if it would make a difference in the salvation in men’s souls. Jesus said in John 9:4: “I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.” Even Jesus saw the need for urgency in getting something done sooner than later. This was an example from which the lyrics to a song come (here verse 2):
Work, for the night is coming: Work through the sunny noon; Fill brightest hours with labor: Rest comes sure and soon. Give every flying minute Something to keep in store; Work, for the night is coming, When man works no more.
The Apostle Paul also talked about the diligence to his work. He explains in what I call his “how-to book for the ministry” in 1 Thessalonians 2:9: “For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God.” You read there, “our labour and travail: for labouring night and day.” Paul connected this to his success.
Even as I wrote about Paul, I thought about Philip the evangelist, when he evangelized the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. This is one of the most well-known, famous evangelism stories in all of scripture. Here are the last two verses in the chapter:
39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.
Almost anyone else would have gone back to his lazy-boy and had an iced tea. He put in his 1.5 hours of evangelism for the week, time to head home. Not Philip. After the Ethiopian eunuch was saved, a great evangelistic moment in history, Philip “preached in all the cities” from Azotus to Caesarea.
What I’m describing is related at least to love. The 1.5 hour person is the one who is the legalist. Don’t get me wrong. I do think that having a habit, temperance of a fashion, putting it on the schedule, is and can be good. It’s not enough when it’s love. It isn’t laboring for the night cometh when no man can work. It isn’t labor and travail, laboring night and day. It isn’t preaching in all the cities. Everyone has other things to do. I agree things need to be done.
Every little bit helps. I’m happy when someone at least does evangelize. I’m writing about how some see more than others and in a legitimate way, true evangelism. Diligent labor is another difference.
Objections to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ: Are there answers?
The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is at the core of the Christian faith. Without the resurrection, the gospel is not “good news,” but absurd deceit. As 1 Corinthians 15 explains:
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. … 12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. 20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
What are the Major Objections to Christ’s Resurrection?
How would you respond to someone who denies the resurrection of Christ, making one or more of the following arguments:
1.) “The disciples stole Christ’s body.”
2.) “Christ did not die, but only swooned/passed out on the cross and appeared to be dead. Then He came out of the grave after the cool tomb revived Him, and so appeared to have risen from the dead, when in fact He never died.”
3.) “The post-resurrection appearances of Christ were just hallucinations or visions.”
4.) “Christ did not rise from the dead because it is a miracle. ANY explanation is more likely than a miracle, because David Hume has proven miracles are impossible when he wrote:
A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined.… Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature.… [I]t is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed, in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle; nor can such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle rendered credible, but by an opposite proof, which is superior. (David Hume, Of Miracles)
A version of argument number four came up in my PATAS debate with the president of the Philippines ATheist/Agnosticism, and Secularism organization in the Philippines (also on Rumble here).
The atheist argued that aliens stole the body of Christ and made it look like Christ really rose from the dead. His point was that anything is more likely than a miracle–making David Hume’s argument above, albeit in a less sophisticated and even more problematic way than Hume made it. (We posted about the PATAS debate on the blog here, while Shabir Ally also attacked the gospel accounts as discussed here.)
How would you answer these objections?
In my series on how to teach an evangelistic Bible study, we discuss these objections in the class sessions starting with 4.8, the eighth study on how to teach Bible study #4, on the gospel–the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. So if you would like answers, please click here to check out the teaching sessions starting with section 4.8. Written material dealing with the resurrection can also be found here.
Could There Be Practical Reasons Why Some Evangelists See More or Better Results than Others? Pt. 2
In the parables of the lost coin, lost sheep, and lost son in Luke 15, we see that God seeks for the lost and heaven rejoices even when one soul repents unto salvation. It says heaven rejoices at the repentance of the lost soul, not when a believer evangelizes the lost soul. Does Jesus tell us this and then not provide any way to experience anything more than faithful evangelism without conversions? Is there any way to increase numbers of conversions through evangelism? God seeks. Do you?
One whole Old Testament book puts the emphasis on going as that relates to increased conversions: Jonah. God loves the Gentiles too. He wants them saved.
If you are somewhere difficult with hard, thorny, or rocky soil, you will see less conversions than where good soil exists (cf. Mt 13). All things being the same, one person might see more conversions than someone else. I can’t remove giftedness from the conception of greater results. God does gift some in a unique way to evangelism. I’m not writing that in this series as something you can do, because the Holy Spirit divides severally as He wills, not as you will. If you could do it, you might allot yourself that gift. I’m writing here about factors within your control. You can see more conversions, and I gave two distinctions in part one of the believer who does see more: (1) A Difference in Love, and (2) A Difference in Spirit-Filled Boldness. Are there more?
3. A Difference in Knowledge
Evangelism requires spiritual combat with the sword of the Lord (Eph 6:17). Scripture is the spiritual weapon, not a carnal one, that pulls down the strongholds in people’s minds that keep them from conversion (2 Cor 10:3-5). Knowledge is also a requirement for salvation, which can be under or over valued. Head knowledge doesn’t save, but knowledge is required. Scripture reveals an intellectual aspect of faith. Jesus is Jesus. Belief is belief. You’ve got to get the points of the gospel right. Wrong thinking gets in the way of salvation.
You will do better at evangelism when you know more Bible and you know more how to use the Bible you know. This doesn’t mean evangelism is winning a debate, but you’ve got to know what to say. When you deal with a particular false religion, it helps that person for you to pinpoint with the sword the falsities of it.
When I got to Utah a year ago, I read four books on LDS. I’m reading another now. I’ve read several good and appropriate articles. I toured the LDS history museum and paid attention. I wrote two tracts on LDS. I didn’t stay with the same approach I used the first time. I changed. I listened. I learned. I’m still learning. I’m growing as an evangelist to LDS. I can tell what the strongholds are and I deal with them using the best verses or passages in the Bible that are appropriate to each stronghold. What I’ve done helps me. I would or will see more LDS converted because of this.
I also know the Bible. I’m trying to improve my Bible knowledge for evangelism. Before I debated a Church of Christ preacher many years ago on eternal security, I read the entire Bible looking for everything in the Bible on eternal security to prepare for that debate, marking up a brand new Bible for that purpose. I understand and am practiced at talking to people about a number of varied false doctrines that are prevalent in the world, which keep them from salvation.
Whenever you struggle with a problem in evangelism, go back and study. I grew more from this than any other reason why I have grown. I put myself in stressful situations that were tough, knowing that trial would strengthen me. Avoiding them won’t help. It’s like avoiding a barbell when you want to gain muscle.
Many professing Christians get into a rut in their evangelism, because they don’t work at it. They learned a few things years ago and they do it again and again with little improvement. Perhaps a majority of professing believers in the United States think this is fine. They know four Romans Road verses. They repeat those and take every single person down the same path. This is wrong. In the long run, you will do more harm than good when you approach the lost this way. I’m not saying don’t know those verses in Romans. Sure, know those. But those are far from enough to do what God wants you to do.
I’ve said that all of these points interrelate to one another. Men don’t grow in their evangelism, because they lack the love for God and others to do so. Some of them will use excuses. They don’t know enough. Others are smarter. Meanwhile they get much better at all of their hobbies. Why? They really love those. This also relates to boldness. You won’t be as bold when you don’t know enough to know what to say to someone. Boldness relates to preaching something you know. When you don’t know it, you can’t be bold. Being filled with the Spirit parallels with letting the Words of Christ dwell in you richly. A Spirit controlled person speaks the Word of God with boldness, which is a person filled with the Word of God.
To Be Continued
Could There Be Practical Reasons Why Some Evangelists See More or Better Results than Others?
When I say, “evangelist,” for purposes of this discussion, I mean men preaching the gospel, perhaps in missionary status but also men preaching in their own churches. Over my thirty plus years in full time preaching, I have won many to Christ, saw them baptized into the church, and then discipled. I did this without a smidgin of pragmatism or gimmicks. It was pure preaching, dependence on the gospel.
On the other hand, I saw men who rarely saw results. They still do not see very many results. They go years, even decades without discipling one person. Some see many. Some see very few to none. Could there be practical reasons why this occurs? I believe so. I want to enumerate reasons not necessarily in order.
1. A Difference in Love
Some men are faithful to do evangelism. They do it all the time. These men have knocked on many doors. They do what God wants in that way. In one sense, you could say that they are loving God in that they are keeping His commandments on evangelism.
At the end of Jude, Jude talks about having compassion, making a difference. Jesus very often in the gospels is said to looking at the people with compassion, connecting His success to that attribute. Paul mentioned how much he cared again and again.
I’ve noticed that men treat people like they are objects of their preaching. They very often go about the task like they are putting in the time, and the sheer time-spent counts as loving faithfulness.
It’s important to be faithful. It is very good to persevere. I’m thankful for those who will do this. However, you’ve got to love the people for whom you are reaching. This includes wanting them to be saved, not just limiting yourself to accomplishing the task. People know when you care about them. They can tell when you are going through the motions with them.
Some love people enough that they take record of those with whom they’ve talked. They remember their names. These unique individuals will pray for those they evangelize. They go back and visit them.
Have you ever had someone talk to you, and it seemed like it was an exercise in hearing their own voice? I know a few pastors this way. You exist for them to preach to. You’re there for them to supply their pearls of wisdom. When you talk to them, you’re not sure if they are listening. When they talk, it is not personable. It sounds like a speech written off of a script. They don’t make a connection in a relationship because they don’t show that they care.
Compassion makes a difference in the results of evangelism. I know some reading here think they love people. They’ve convinced themselves. They rarely see anyone come to Christ, baptized, join the church, and made disciples. Perhaps you should consider that you don’t care enough. That’s the reason why.
Both of the churches I started, what I’m writing made a huge difference. Those people knew that I loved them. They still do. Some missionaries act in many ways as pure place setters because they lack the love they need to see more occur than they already do.
2. A Difference in Spirit-Filled Boldness
Many men are easily turned away. A person shows resistance and they move on. This is related to number one. They can’t get through those situations because maybe they don’t care enough. They don’t love enough. They give up on the person very quickly.
Sometimes men will dance around what needs to be said. They don’t get to the crucial point toward salvation, the particular stronghold, because they don’t want to say it. They are either too fearful or they don’t want to look bad. Both of those are similar but slightly different.
The Apostle Paul in Ephesians 6 and Colossians 4 asks the churches to pray for his boldness. That is an important evangelism prayer. When the Holy Spirit fills someone, Acts 4 says that they preach the Word of God with boldness. This is a significant manifestation of Holy Spirit filling.
Having or not having boldness might mean speaking or not speaking. Some don’t get to the evangelism because they don’t have boldness. They don’t have boldness because they are not filled with the Spirit, that is, controlled with the Spirit. They also might not be praying for boldness. Boldness relates to results someone will see.
Many, many times I have gone out with someone else evangelizing. He talks and he’s done with a person. He doesn’t get to the gospel. I pick up the conversation where he left off and I get through the whole gospel and with great conviction on the person. Boldness is the difference in these situations.
When I write this, I’m as far away as 1-2-3 pray-with-me as a person can get. This is not manipulation. I’m writing about practical, biblical differences that result in someone seeing more or less results. I’m not guaranteeing results, but there are scriptural reasons some will see more than others, even why someone will never see any results and he should check his heart because of it.
Obviously the two, love and boldness, relate with one another. Love is fruit of the Spirit. When the Holy Spirit fills someone, he speaks with boldness. When I preach boldly, the Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of God.
To Be Continued
Charles Spurgeon: My Conversion Testimony
Have you ever read the conversion testimony of the famous Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon?
It is a blessing to read. Here it is:
I sometimes think I might have been in darkness and despair until now had it not been for the goodness of God in sending a snowstorm, one Sunday morning, while I was going to a certain place of worship. When I could go no further, I turned down a side street, and came to a little Primitive Methodist Chapel. In that chapel there may have been a dozen or fifteen people. I had heard of the Primitive Methodists, how they sang so loudly that they made people’s heads ache; but that did not matter to me. I wanted to know how I might be saved, and if they could tell me that, I did not care how much they made my head ache. The minister did not come that morning; he was snowed up, I suppose. At last, a very thin-looking man, a shoemaker, of tailor, or something of that sort, went up into the pulpit to preach. Now, it is well that preachers should be instructed; but this man was really stupid. He was obliged to stick to his text, for the simple reason that he had little else to say. The text was,—
“Look unto Me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth” [Isaiah 45:22]
He did not even pronounce the words rightly, but that did not matter. There was, I thought, a glimpse of hope for me in that text. The preacher began thus:—“My dear friends, this is a very simple text indeed. It says, ‘Look’. Now lookin’ don’t take a deal of pains. It ain’t liftin’ your foot or your finger; it is just, ‘Look.’ Well, a man needn’t go to College to learn to look. You may be the biggest fool, and yet you can look. A man needn’t be worth a thousand a year to be able to look. Anyone can look; even a child can look. But then the text says, ‘Look unto Me.’ Ay!” said he, in broad Essex, “many on ye are lookin’ to yourselves, but it’s no use lookin’ there. You’ll never find any comfort in yourselves. Some look to God the Father. No, look to Him by-and-by. Jesus Christ says, ‘Look unto Me’. Some on ye say, ‘We must wait for the Spirit’s workin’.’ You have no business with that just now. Look to Christ. The text says. ‘Look unto Me.’ ”
Then the good man followed up his text in this way:—“Look unto Me; I am sweatin’ great drops of blood. Look unto Me; I am hangin’ on the cross. Look unto Me; I am dead and buried. Look unto Me; I rise again. Look unto Me; I ascend to Heaven. Look unto Me; I am sittin’ at the Father’s right hand. O poor sinner, look unto Me! look unto Me!”
When he had gone to about that length, and managed to spin out ten minutes or so, he was at the end of his tether. Then he looked at me under the gallery, and I daresay, with so few present, he knew me to be a stranger. Just fixing his eyes on me, as if he knew all my heart, he said, “Young man, you look very miserable.” Well, I did; but I had not been accustomed to have remarks made from the pulpit on my personal appearance before. However, it was a good blow, struck right home. He continued, “and you always will be miserable—miserable in life, and miserable in death,—if you don’t obey my text; but if you obey now, this moment, you will be saved.” Then, lifting up his hands, he shouted, as only a Primitive Methodist could do, “Young man, look to Jesus Christ. Look! Look! Look! You have nothin’ to do but to look and live.” I saw at once the way of salvation. I know not what else he said,—I did not take much notice of it,—I was so possessed with that one thought. Like as when the brazen serpent was lifted up, the people only looked and were healed, so it was with me. I had been waiting to do fifty things, but when I heard that word, “Look!” what a charming word it seemed to me! Oh! I looked until I could almost have looked my eyes away. There and then the cloud was gone, the darkness had rolled away, and that moment I saw the sun; and I could have risen that instant, and sung with the most enthusiastic of them, of the precious blood of Christ, and the simple faith which looks alone to Him. Oh, that somebody had told me this before, “Trust Christ, and you shall be saved.” Yet it was, no doubt, all wisely ordered, and now I can say,—
“E’er since by faith I saw the stream
Thy flowing wounds supply,
Redeeming love has been my theme,
And shall be till I die.”
I do from my soul confess that I never was satisfied till I came to Christ; when I was yet a child, I had far more wretchedness than ever I have now; I will even add, more weariness, more care, more heart-ache, than I know at this day. I may be singular in this confession, but I make it, and know it to be the truth. Since that dear hour when my soul cast itself on Jesus, I have found solid joy and peace; but before that, all those supposed gaieties of early youth, all the imagined ease and joy of boyhood, were but vanity and vexation of spirit to me. That happy day, when I found the Saviour, and learned to cling to His dear feet, was a day never to be forgotten by me. An obscure child, unknown, unheard of, I listened to the Word of God; and that precious text led me to the cross of Christ. I can testify that the joy of that day was utterly indescribable. I could have leaped, I could have danced; there was no expression, however fanatical, which would have been out of keeping with the joy of my spirit at that hour. Many days of Christian experience have passed since then, but there has never been one which has had the full exhilaration, the sparkling delight which that first day had. I thought I could have sprung from the seat on which I sat, and have called out with the wildest of those Methodist brethren who were present, “I am forgiven! I am forgiven! A monument of grace! A sinner saved by blood!” My spirit saw its chains broken to pieces, I felt that I was an emancipated soul, an heir of Heaven, a forgiven one, accepted in Christ Jesus, plucked out of the miry clay and out of the horrible pit, with my feet set upon a rock, and my goings established. I thought I could dance all the way home. I could understand what John Bunyan meant, when he declared he wanted to tell the crows on the ploughed land all about his conversion. He was too full to hold, he felt he must tell somebody. (C. H. Spurgeon, C. H. Spurgeon’s Autobiography, Compiled from His Diary, Letters, and Records, by His Wife and His Private Secretary, 1834–1854, vol. 1 [Cincinatti; Chicago; St. Louis: Curts & Jennings, 1898], 105–108.
Note that Spurgeon was not told to come to the front of a church building and repeat a sinner’s prayer, or told to ask Christ to come into his heart–those methodologies did not yet exist, as Dr. Paul Chitwood demonstrates in his history of the sinner’s prayer. Spurgeon was directed to embrace Christ directly by repentant faith–the right thing sinners should be counseled to do today, and which, enabled by the Holy Spirit through the power of Scripture, will lead to multitudes of true conversions.
Note as well that in Isaiah 45:22 the word translated “Look” commonly means “turn.” One turns from his sin to look to Christ alone for salvation–repentance is implicit in saving faith.
Spurgeon directed people to embrace Christ directly by faith, rather than telling them that if they sincerely repeated the words of a prayer they would be saved, throughout his ministry. Here are some examples of the evangelistic counsel he gave to seeking sinners, from his book Around the Wicket Gate (cited from here):
When the Lord lifts His dear Son before a sinner, that sinner should take Him without hesitation. If you take Him, you have Him, and none can take Him from you. Out with your hand, man, and take Him at once! When inquirers accept the Bible as literally true and see that Jesus is really given to all who trust Him, all the difficulty about understanding the way of salvation vanishes like the morning’s frost at the rising of the sun.
Two inquiring ones came to me in my vestry. They had been hearing the Gospel from me for only a short time, but they had been deeply impressed by it. They expressed their regret that they were about to move far away, but they added their gratitude that they had heard me at all. I was cheered by their kind thanks, but felt anxious that a more effectual work should be brought about in them. Therefore I asked them, “Have you indeed believed in the Lord Jesus Christ? Are you saved?” One of them replied, “I have been trying hard to believe.” This statement I have often heard, but I will never let it go by me unchallenged. “No,” I said, “that will not do. Did you ever tell your father that you tried to believe him?” After I had dwelt a while upon the matter, they admitted that such language would have been an insult to their father.
I then set the Gospel very plainly before them in as simple language as I could, and begged them to believe Jesus, who is more worthy of faith than the best of fathers. One of them replied, “I cannot realize it: I cannot realize that I am saved.” Then I went on to say, “God bears testimony to His Son, that whosoever trusts in His Son is saved. Will you make Him a liar now, or will you believe His Word?” While I thus spoke, one of them started as if astonished. She startled us all as she cried, “O sir, I see it all; I am saved! Bless Jesus. He has shown me the way, and He has saved me! I see it all.” The esteemed sister who had brought these young friends to me knelt down with them while, with all our hearts, we blessed and magnified the Lord for a soul brought into light. One of the two sisters, however, could not see the Gospel as the other had, though I feel sure she will do so soon.
Did it not seem strange that, both hearing the same words, one should remain in the gloom? The change which comes over the heart when the understanding grasps the Gospel is often reflected in the face and shines like the light of heaven. Such newly enlightened souls often exclaim, “It is so plain; why is it I have not seen it before this? I understand all I have read in the Bible now, though I could not make it out before. It has all come in a minute, and now I see what I never understood before.”
The fact is, the truth was always plain, but they were looking for signs and wonders, and therefore did not see what was there for them. Old men often look for their spectacles when they are on their foreheads. It is commonly observed that we fail to see that which is straight before us. Christ Jesus is before our faces. We have only to look to Him and live, but we make all manner of bewilderment of it, and so manufacture a maze out of that which is straight as an arrow.
The little incident about the two sisters reminds me of another. A much-esteemed friend came to me one Sunday morning after service to shake hands with me. She said, “I was fifty years old on the same day as yourself. I am like you in that one thing, sir, but I am the very reverse of you in better things.” I remarked, “Then you must be a very good woman, for in many things I wish I also could be the reverse of what I am.” “No, no,” she said, “I did not mean anything of that sort. I am not right at all.” “What!” I cried, “Are you not a believer in the Lord Jesus?” “Well,” she said, with much emotion, “I, I will try to be.” I laid hold of her hand and said, “My dear soul, you are not going to tell me that you will try to believe my Lord Jesus! I cannot have such talk from you. It means blank unbelief. What has He done that you should talk of Him in that way? Would you tell me that you would try to believe me? I know that you would not treat me so rudely. You think me a true man, and so you believe me at once. Surely you cannot do less with my Lord Jesus.”
Then with tears she exclaimed, “Oh, sir, do pray for me!” To this I replied, “I do not feel that I can do anything of the kind. What can I ask the Lord Jesus to do for one who will not trust Him? I see nothing to pray about. If you will believe Him, you shall be saved. If you will not believe Him, I cannot ask Him to invent a new way to gratify your unbelief.” Then she said again, “I will try to believe.” But I told her solemnly I would have none of her trying; for the message from the Lord did not mention trying, but said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:31). I pressed upon her the great truth, that “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life” (John 3:36); and its terrible reverse: “He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18).
I urged her to full faith in the once crucified but now ascended Lord, and the Holy Spirit there and then enabled her to trust. She most tenderly said, “Oh sir, I have been looking to my feelings, and this has been my mistake! Now I trust my soul with Jesus, and I am saved.” She found immediate peace through believing. There is no other way.
There are numbers of resources that can help churches follow the Biblical evangelistic methodology of Spurgeon today, rather than the corrupt “1-2-3, pray after me, 4-5-6, hope it sticks” salesmanship of people like Jack Hyles. May the number of Baptist churches who counsel the lost Biblically increase greatly for God’s glory and for the multiplication of true conversions.
–TDR
A Tip to Cure Insomnia, Getting Sleep on a Sleepless Night
Many people today use chemical sleep aids because they can’t sleep at night. It might be that they have a bad hip or shoulder or knee, some painful body joint, perhaps osteoarthritis pain. I feel your pain on physical pain. I have that too, not to the degree that I can’t sleep at night, but I have one bad hip that hurts. It doesn’t keep me awake.
I don’t know if you have insomnia. Many do. They take a sleeping pill or some supplement to help them sleep. I know many people who do that. I read about melatonin and relaxium that are not a sleeping pill. Doctors will say that once you take sleeping pills, you will keep taking them. You have to have them then. Maybe you’re there already.
In general, through my life I’ve never had a problem sleeping. As some might describe, I have slept like a baby. For the last couple of years, that changed. My sleepless nights come because of my mind. I’m thinking about something and I can’t stop thinking about it and that keeps me awake. Maybe you relate to that description. You can’t sleep because your mind won’t shut down and so you lay there and you can’t sleep.
I wear a fitbit that my wife got me. For you that like wearing no watch or a more significant watch, the classic look, you might cringe at the sight of a man with a fitbit. I understand. Nevertheless, I like looking at the stats from my fitbit on my phone: how many steps, the number of calories burned that day, my resting heart rate, mileage, zone minutes for peak aerobic, and my sleep score. Fitbit gives me a sleep score. If you wear one, you know what I’m talking about. 90 plus is excellent, the upper 70s and 80s it says is good, and below that is fair. To me, a fair night sleep is a bad one. Even with a moderately good night sleep, you’re not getting much deep sleep, the kind that refreshes you and keeps you with physical energy during the day.
If your mind, your rapid thinking, the brain not shutting down, keeps you awake, that’s why you can’t sleep, I wrote this post for you. I found something.
As you read this, perhaps you suggest, pray or quote verses. Praying and quoting verses do not shut down wakeful thoughts for me. Don’t get me wrong. Like Peter, James, and John I could fall asleep praying. When I pray at night, I do fall asleep praying. When I’m thinking about scripture, I fall asleep thinking about scripture. Prayer and thinking about scripture though are not what put me to sleep. They just didn’t keep me awake. I need something different than those to put me asleep when my brain won’t stop rerunning the wakeful thoughts.
For me, words don’t stop my mind from working on things that keep me awake. Prayer involves words mainly, so does scripture obviously. Words can’t stop the thought patterns that won’t let me sleep. So what do I do?
To get to sleep, I must replace the thoughts that keep me awake with other thoughts. Scripture talks about replacing thoughts or imaginations. You know that. You’ve got Philippians 4:8 and Romans 12:2: think on these things and be transformed by the renewing of your mind. The only way for me to replace thoughts is to think about something else that won’t keep me awake. How do I do that?
Two nights ago I couldn’t sleep the whole night. I rested. My sleep score was fair. It was in the upper sixties on the fitbit. I have a pretty low resting heart rate for my age. My body was resting. I didn’t feel too tired all day, but that kind of sleep does leave me sluggish in certain ways. Two of those in a row would start to debilitate. A string of 3 or 4 would cause harm.
I was very tired when I went to bed last night, because of the bad sleep the night before. I prayed and then I was going to read (right now the biography of Brigham Young by John G. Turner), but I was too tired to read. That was good news for me. I couldn’t stay awake reading because I was too tired. I turned off my bed lamp, rolled onto my good hip and shoulder and began the process to sleep. My mind began to work and work. If steam could come out of my ears from my brain, it would have been happening. What did I do?
Most nights, my wife and I take a walk for about thirty minutes. It’s about 3500-4000 steps on my fitbit. We talk. Sometimes we walk silently. We hold hands. It’s good exercise, but it’s mainly social, I would say. We take the same path so many times that I have that path memorized.
It was midnight last night and I was still awake. I decided to take the walk with my wife in my mind. What was powerful was that it was not words. It was imagination and mental activity. I blocked wakeful thoughts with pictures. My mind could easily take the whole walk in my mind and then start it over again. I did that. When the negative, sleepless thoughts started trying to enter my brain, I focused on the pictures, the imagination of that walk. It worked. The next thing I knew, it was morning. I had fallen asleep. The thoughts did not keep me awake.
As is usual, this procedure I used has a name: thought-blocking. Yes, someone thought of this already and I didn’t know it. I haven’t tried what others have said. I used what I wrote about here, and it worked.
If you can’t sleep for some reason, you know the power of sleeplessness. When you get up and you didn’t sleep, that changes your day. If you do that all the time, it changes your life. I haven’t had much of a problem not sleeping, so this is new to me in many ways. I think this is going to work, so I shared it with you.
Debunking of Nine Marks Dual Church View: Both Universal and Local Churches, Part Three
Nowhere does scripture make a connection between an earthly church and then a final heavenly church. Neoplatonic Christianity or professing Christianity invented this idea, one borrowed by Jonathan Leeman in his article, The Church: Universal and Local, for the 9 Marks parachurch organization. A believer in a salvific way has a citizenship in heaven and has a seat in heaven in the sense that God reserved it for him, which is like someone seated in Congress without physically being there. Because He saved me and keeps saving me, Jesus anchors me in the heavenly holy of holies. The seating of me and the anchoring of me there does not mean I am there in the present. It is a blessed guarantee of my salvation.
Universal church ecclesiology uses neoplatonic language. It says the true church is all believers, the apparent “universal church,” which manifests itself in a visible church, the local one. It finds reality in the ideal or the mystical. Leeman says the universal church becomes local by gathering. A church is a gathering. A gathering doesn’t become a gathering by gathering. The not-gathered thing is not a gathering. This is also how all of the New Testament reads. It’s not called a gathering or an assembly when it doesn’t assemble. It isn’t an assembly then. The only reason why Leeman talks about the church as universal comes from neoplatonism.
Jonathan Leeman writes a unique ecclesiology. The dual church view isn’t unique, but his attempt to keep an attachment to the literal meaning of ekklesia, “assembly.” 9 Marks and he see the damage of the typical universal church teaching, that becomes easily untethered from the biblical practice of the church, which is only local. The typical universal church teaching creates free agents without accountability, living how they want yet continuing to call themselves Christians.
The attempt to keep congruity between assembly and universal church keeps Leeman in the mainstream of evangelicalism, which loves its universal church. It keeps alive a multitude of boards, conventions, associations, colleges, universities, and other parachurch organizations. Someone can live and work in that parachurch world as if it is Christian ministry without anything like it in the Bible. It is unhelpful, but mainly untrue. Whatever kingdom-like quality Leeman wants to attribute to the church, the mixture of the universal undermines the authority that the kingdom of Jesus Christ possesses.
As one might expect, Leeman’s system of interpretation effects his outcome. He fails to mention, however, his system — amillennialism. That system must see a universal church, which is a synonym with the kingdom. It erases a line between soteriology and ecclesiology. It results in reading his conclusions into scripture.
A Kingdom Argument
Leeman uses a doctrine of the kingdom to argue for a universal church. Some truth exists within the framework of his argument. As a representative of His church, Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom in Matthew 16:18-19. That does not mean the church is the kingdom, which emerges from amillennialism, an eschatology of Roman Catholicism and Capital Hill Baptist Church, Mark Dever, and 9 Marks. The church and the kingdom interrelate like the church and the family of God do.
Leeman says the church provides the way to say who citizens of the kingdom are. He compares church membership to the means of possessing the passport into the kingdom. To know who they are, Leeman postulates baptism and the Lord’s Supper as the means. He says these are covenant signs of the new covenant, so they express the entrance requirements into the kingdom. Nothing in the Bible says this. It is nifty inventiveness to attempt to prove a point, while having nothing to do so. It’s another way of my saying that it’s a stretch by Leeman.
The article further argues the kingdom/church concept with the language of “binding” and “loosing” in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18. Churches are doing kingdom work. They are not the kingdom. They represent the kingdom on earth. God gives the church — churches — heavenly authority to judge who is in and who is out. I’m sure that Leeman knows that doesn’t mean that the church kicks people out of heaven or out of the kingdom.
Jesus characterizes the extent of the judgment of the church in Matthew 18:17, “Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” The church regards a person as heathen. He may not be heathen. The man under church discipline in 1 Corinthians 5 proved himself to be a kingdom citizen, even though the church loosed him. The Lord Jesus Christ gives to the church, which is visible and local, the earthly judgment of heavenly or kingdom citizenship.
It’s true that someone, who isn’t baptized, doesn’t take of the Lord’s Table, won’t join a church, doesn’t submit to church leadership, and won’t gather with a church, the church should judge as not saved. Christ gave that judgment to the church. This doesn’t mean the church is the kingdom. It’s been given the authority of the kingdom. The King of the kingdom is Christ and the Head of the church is Christ.
The Bible offers a distinct soteriology and a distinct ecclesiology. They are distinct doctrines. However, they also relate to one another. Church membership requires salvation. However, it also requires baptism. Baptism isn’t salvation. It isn’t a “putting away of the filth of the flesh” (1 Pet 3:21). According to the New Testament, a church can have unbelievers in it, a mixed multitude, and will very often have unsaved church members, who should examine themselves whether they be in the faith (2 Cor 13:5). Most reading here know that church membership is not the same as salvation.
Terminology like church, temple, and body relate to the church. Words like kingdom, family, and saint relate to salvation. You can be in the kingdom, family, and a saint without baptism. To be in the church, temple, and body, you must be baptized. Scripture shows some relationship between terms of the church and of salvation. However, Leeman takes this further than what scripture teaches in order to vindicate his false universal church teaching.
Historical Argument
Leeman attempts to justify the universal church with a historical argument, using the patristics and the Protestant Reformers. He portrays a pendulum swing between an emphasis on the local church then the universal church and then back to the local church, meanwhile both churches existing with his dual church view. He writes the following:
Yet among Baptist groups the risk now would be to shift the weight of the body entirely onto the other foot, where Christians would give all their attention to the local church and little to the universal. Certain strains of Baptist churches, such as the Landmarkists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, would in fact argue that only the local church exists. They would also refuse to share the Lord’s Supper with anyone who was not a member of their own church. Gratefully, such strains were rare.
He charges Baptists with overemphasis on the local church, especially those he calls and others label, “Landmarkists.” He attacks closed communion, unwillingness to share the Lord’s Supper with someone not a member of his church. I would contend that the Landmarkists brought ecclesiology back to scripture and communion back to its “communion of the Lord’s body,” which is local only. Christ gave communion to His church, which is local only.
The Landmarkers rose out of the Southern Baptist Convention, when Protestants shared their pulpits and partook in their communion. Baptists distinguish themselves as separatists. They separate from false doctrine such as infant sprinkling. Further, Southern Baptists allowed modernism or liberalism into the churches and rejected church perpetuity in their seminaries, leading to ecumenism. Landmarkers brought the Convention back to scripture and historic Baptist doctrines.
Leeman uses a kind of smear tactic, because his knowing what readers may have heard about Landmarkism. It’s like calling someone “flat earth” or “election denier.” It’s a rhetorical tactic. It doesn’t make a true historical or biblical point. He assumes people will think Landmarkism is bad, so they’ll associate local only ecclesiology then as bad too.
I agree that men through history believed in a local church, a universal church, in only a local church, and in both a local and a universal church. You can find all of those ecclesiological positions through history. However, we know a church is local. Where is the universal church in scripture and did it develop through history? Did it arise from neoplatonism?
Forced Universal with It “Showing Up”
Leeman says the universal church shows up in churches, which are local. He says that happens when churches cooperate with another in common service or labor for the Lord. Yes, churches all have the same Head if they are true churches. That doesn’t make a universal church. It is a generic church. It is an institutional understanding of church. Each true church has Christ as its head. This is not the discovery of or a doctrine of a universal church.
Churches either fellowship based upon the same doctrine and practice or they separate from one another. When they fellowship, that isn’t a universal church concept. That is just fellowship between two churches, like existed between the Jerusalem church and the Antioch church.
The universal concept of church seems to require churches cooperating. It leads to diminishment and corruption of true doctrine. If there is to be “no schism in the body” (1 Cor 12:25), and the body is universal, then no church should separate from one another. However, “the body” in 1 Corinthians 12 is defined as local in v. 27, when Paul says, “Ye are the body of Christ,” speaking of the church at Corinth. If it was universal, Paul would have written, “We are the body of Christ.” He doesn’t. Schisms exist between bodies. They are not to exist in the body.
The unity that Jesus prayed for in John 17 (v. 22) is found in separate churches that fellowship one with another based upon the truth (John 17:17). Unity is required in individual churches (Eph 4), not between separate churches. Separate churches attempt to have unity like Jerusalem and Antioch tried in Acts 15. True unity requires separation.
Evangelicals like Leeman do not teach biblical separation. They don’t write on it. They talk about church discipline, but they don’t teach on separation from other churches. Their false universal church teaching fuels this, which will mean apostasy for their churches and their movement. Every New Testament epistle teaches the doctrine of separation, which depends on a right view of the nature of the church.
Recent Comments