Home » Posts tagged 'unity'

Tag Archives: unity

Application in the Story of the Rift Between Paul and Barnabas, Starting in Acts 15:35-41

August 23, 2023 / 24 Comments on Application in the Story of the Rift Between Paul and Barnabas, Starting in Acts 15:35-41

Acts 15:35-41: Barnabas and Paul

The Jerusalem and Antioch churches settled a dispute in Acts 15. After that, a rift occurred between long time fellow laborers. Here is the text (verses 35-41):

35 Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.

36 And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do.

37 And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.

38 But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.

39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;

40 And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.

41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.

I have heard at least 3-5 sermons in my lifetime on this passage and listened to many discussions on it. In addition, I’ve read an abundance of commentaries and articles on this story. Men take many, many different positions. They describe it different ways. The most common overall position I could represent with these following comments.

How To Take The Story

First, I don’t now who wrote this, but it mirrors the next three comments:

Either way, Luke does not write this account in such a way that puts Paul in the right and Barnabas in the wrong, or vice versa. They made a mutual decision to split ways because neither could agree with the other. In a way, they both were right. It wouldn’t have been productive for Paul to take Mark when he didn’t trust him, but Barnabas saw the long-term potential in Mark and gave him another chance.

Robertson

Second, here’s A. T. Robertson:

No one can rightly blame Barnabas for giving his cousin John Mark a second chance nor Paul for fearing to risk him again. One’s judgment may go with Paul, but one’s heart goes with Barnabas…Paul and Barnabas parted in anger and both in sorrow. Paul owed more to Barnabas than to any other man. Barnabas was leaving the greatest spirit of the time and of all times.

Gill

Third, I quote John Gill:

thus as soon almost as peace was made in the church, a difference arises among the ministers of the word, who are men of like passions with others; and though it is not easy to say which was to blame most in this contention; perhaps there were faults on both sides, for the best men are not without their failings; yet this affair was overruled by the providence of God, for the spread of his Gospel, and the enlargement of his interest; for when these two great and good men parted from one another, they went to different places, preaching the word of God:

Spurgeon

Fourth, here’s what Spurgeon said and wrote:

There was no help for it but to part. Barnabas went one way with his nephew, and Paul another with Silas. Mark turned out well, and so justified the opinion of Barnabas, but Paul could not foresee that, and is not to be condemned for acting upon the general rule that he who puts his hand to the plough and looks back has proved himself unworthy.

This separation, though painful in its cause, was a most excellent thing. There was no need for two such men to be together, they were each able to lead the way alone, and by their doing so double good was accomplished.

What Not To Do

What no one should do is to read into the text or the story and argue from silence. No one should use this passage to show that he’s right and someone else is wrong. It is a very weak section of a chapter to make strong, dogmatic application. Even with quotes like the four above, some church leaders will read into Acts 15:35-41 application that just isn’t there.

Someone could say, “I’m Paul in this story, and the other guy is Barnabas.” Well, how do you get to be Paul? It reminds me of playing with my brother as a child. I say, “You are him, and I’ll be this guy,” choosing the favorite for myself. “Hey, let’s play these characters and I’ll be David and you get to be Saul. How’s that sound?”

The story of the divisive contention between two godly men says essentially the following to me. This kind of division occurs between even two godly men, based upon differing opinions. God does not come down on one side or the other in the story. I could explain both men as wrong, or one or the other wrong, just using speculation.

Something to Learn

When a sad split occurs, one that we really, really wish wasn’t happening, this story with Paul and Barnabas says to us, “It even happened to Paul and Barnabas.” It isn’t an example for division, an affirmation of fighting and severing a relationship. God doesn’t leave out of His Word these types of events. Almost anyone reading here know these kinds of incidents occur.

Later Paul and John Mark

Rather than depend on speculation, which is not rightly dividing or practicing scripture, the Bible gives non-speculative truth concerning the rest of the story. A quite well-known fact, the rest of the New Testament says many good things about John Mark. He wrote the gospel of Mark, which some call the gospel of Peter, even as the Apostle Peter was close to him (1 Peter 5:13).

The Apostle Paul also later speaks of John Mark well, working closely with Paul during his Roman imprisonment (Colossians 4:10, Philemon 1:23-24). ,When the Apostle Paul is at the very end of his life, he writes 2 Timothy. In that final state with his execution imminent, he says about John Mark in 2 Timothy 4:11: “Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.” In his final hours, of the few things he could request and of all people, he wanted John Mark.

Later Paul and Barnabas

The events of Acts 15 and the split between Paul and Barnabas occurred around 49-50 AD. Paul wouldn’t have written 1 Corinthians until a few years after that at least, so at least 53, if not 55. When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, he wasn’t traveling with Barnabas anymore. Yet, in 1 Corinthians 9:6 Paul writes the church at Corinth: “Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?”

The Apostle Paul wrote for the continued financial support for the missionary work of Barnabas. He treated Barnabas as an equal to him in the work of the Lord, not something lesser. Pay Barnabas. He had the right to forbear working. Muzzle not that ox that treads out the corn (1 Cor 9:9). For sure, Paul wasn’t laboring toward the discontinuation of support of Barnabas, arguing to the church at Corinth that Barnabas should not receive money from churches. Just the opposite. He uses his name in the argument after the rift between them.

Whatever the rift in Acts 15 between Paul and Barnabas, it wasn’t there in 1 Corinthians 9:6. He advocated for Barnabas as a missionary and for his receiving support as one. That didn’t mean they still didn’t have a difference between each other. Men have differences. I’ve never met a man that did not have at least one difference with another man. Some men think they’re always right in every single difference. Everyone needs to submit to them. They’re pretty close to stop listening to anyone else.

Judging Situations

I know my heart, that I’m sincere when I look at situations to judge them. In addition, I’ve prayed and maybe even fasted. Everyone else has got to be wrong. And then later I find out that I’m not always right. This is why the Apostle Paul could write in Romans 7:19:

For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

Paul gets it wrong. Everyone gets it wrong. It’s even a law, a principle. He writes about that in Romans 7:21:

I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

When Paul would do good, a principle resides in him, like gravity, that opposes his doing good. Always that law functions in his body parts when he would do good. This is why everyone needs mediation, something Paul certainly understood by the time (60-62AD) he wrote Philemon.

Acts 15:35-41 is a wonderful group of verses in the Bible. Everyone can learn from them. At the same time, anyone could speculate about them too, and then go ahead and use them for personal reasons.

Paul Stands Against Peter and the Subject of Authority (Part Three)

July 19, 2023 / 4 Comments on Paul Stands Against Peter and the Subject of Authority (Part Three)

Part One Part Two

Authority of Scripture

To obey God and His Word, one must first believe in His authority and the authority of His Word. I believe in God’s authority and the authority of His Word. True New Testament churches submit to the Bible as their final authority. God and His Word also function through a hierarchy of authority. He uses men. In the first century, God spoke and ruled through apostolic authority. Peter and Paul were uniquely God’s instruments.

The Pharisees and Sadducees opposed the authority of Jesus. Jesus also attacked their faux authority. The Pharisaical view of circumcision and eating with Gentiles arose from their traditions, not from God’s Word. Jesus said, They “teach for doctrines the commandments of men” (Mark 7:7). Their teaching was devoid of God’s authority.

In spite of their insubordination to scripture, Jesus did not debunk the office of the Pharisees, just the opposite in Matthew 23:2: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.” According to Jesus, the Pharisees still sat in Moses’ seat. They held the office. They lost authority, however, by not obeying the Word of God, including that written by Moses.

In Galatians, the gang of false teachers, who traveled to Antioch from Jerusalem and said they associated with James, borrowed from the Pharisee’s tradition. These men mixed certain rituals and traditions with a true gospel to concoct their false one. The Apostle Paul writes against them in Galatians 2. They had no authority, either scriptural or ecclesiological, to overturn the doctrine and practice of the Jerusalem and Antioch churches. They looked out for themselves, not for God’s will or pleasure.

Pastoral Authority

God gives pastoral authority. Pastors need it for fulfilling the important God-ordained task of overseeing a church. God instructs members to obey pastors, assuming in scriptural and even non-scriptural matters. Pastors shouldn’t expect obedience to something unscriptural. Someone in a church may view a practice of the church to be unscriptural.

Our church did fundraising for our school. A church member challenged a method we used. He thought it was unscriptural. Our principal didn’t think so. I wasn’t sure. We dropped the method and lost money. It was the right thing to do.

When a pastor says, “I want everyone there at 9am,” that is a non-scriptural matter, but he has authority in it. 9am then means 9am. A member should take that seriously. If he wants everyone there at 9am, everyone should put their selves under that authority, the idea of “submit.” This unifies a body, all the body parts working together. Defying the authority as a pattern fits the definition of factious, even for not showing up on time.

Some of what I’m addressing relates to a pastor dealing with a pattern of disobedience. He wants to help someone. To do so, he comforts, exhorts, instructs, intreats, warns, and admonishes, the approach depending on the person and his response.

To deal with a matter well, a pastor must listen. He must hear a matter before he answers it (Proverbs 18:13). And even then, he wants to edify, correct, strengthen, and restore. Jesus said, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth,” praying to God the Father. The goal is to rely on God’s Word.

Forum for Challenge

Proving Everything

Depending on the Word of God does not mean depending on an opinion about the Word of God. “A pastor thinks this, so it is true.” It might be. I hope it is. However, scripture also says (1 Thess 5:21-22):

21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

Paul also wrote in 1 Corinthians 14:31-32:

31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

The spirits of the prophets were subject to the prophets. A forum for challenge exists in a church. The Bible is the final authority.

Helping People Change

Room to Grow

Certain times I led toward a change of position in our church. Just because I took a new position, I knew that didn’t mean that everyone would believe it. It might take time for everyone to come along. Unity also matters in those occasions. Our church had taken a different position for awhile. I wanted everyone to change, but I didn’t require everyone to change. The bottom line during those times was not causing “divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine” (Romans 16:17).

Opinions and what Paul calls doubtful disputations (Rom 14:1) necessitate sorting. Not everyone applies scripture exactly the same. Sanctification occurs and tweaks viewpoints. Every disagreement is not a threat to or defiance of authority. It’s not rebellion. When it takes even pastors years to change on something, they can’t turn around and expect someone else to change in days or hours.

Harmful Approaches

Through many years, I have listened to numbers of various positions of pastors. We almost never agree on everything. Nevertheless, pastors will talk with great confidence and authority when they state their positions. Pastors might treat an issue like they’re Teddy Roosevelt after just climbing San Juan Hill. They’re raising the flag at the top of Mount Suribachi at Iwo Jima. Bluster and bravado or a stern countenance don’t equate with authority.

I may hear a man mock my position in his preaching, sometimes setting up straw man arguments. I might smile at the audaciousness of it, but mockery is not especially convincing. Calling people a liar definitely doesn’t persuade. Neither does characterizing the difference in an extreme or insulting manner.

Sometimes someone says God gave him peace. He may add, “I prayed about it.” Or, “I fasted over it.” If you disagree, somehow you oppose answers to prayer and the practice of fasting. A man expresses a feeling of peace. Scripture nowhere uses a feeling as a harbinger of truth.

Pastors can find many various means to provoke change. Someone might notice a modulation in the tone of voice. Cheeriness is missing. It isn’t friendly now. The eyelids are half mast. A pastor can send a message in the spirit of mean girl syndrome. Someone in is now out. If a person was a fish, he can’t swim in the small pond anymore. He’s relegated to the smaller adjacent puddle until he apprehends the message sent.

Longsuffering and Patience

“God is longsuffering toward usward” (2 Peter 3:9). “Charity suffereth long” (1 Corinthians 13:4). I think of the fellowservant in Jesus’ story in Matthew 18:29, who cried, “Have patience with me!” I don’t see a biblical pattern of cutting off people with a different position, cancelling them with little to no due process.

A kind of political cancellation and making phone calls, applying social and economic pressure, is not the method of pastoral authority. People will have difficulty seeing Jesus in an environment of possible expectation of punishment. Scriptural conviction can motivate loving service that will please the Lord.

God gives and uses authority. Romans 13:1 says, “For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” At the same time, “My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation” (James 3:1). Especially church leaders should know that the final judgment of Jesus Christ, that’s what matters. “Ye masters,” forbear “threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven” (Eph 6:9).

Everyone of us will give an account to God (Romans 14:10). And God says, “destroy not him for whom Christ died” (Romans 14:15). Christ didn’t give authority to take His place as Lord or destroy the people He died for.

More to Come

John MacArthur and Evangelical Agnosticism About or Over the Biblical Doctrine of Separation, pt. 3

May 29, 2023 / 5 Comments on John MacArthur and Evangelical Agnosticism About or Over the Biblical Doctrine of Separation, pt. 3

Part One Part Two

Answering the Question of Separation

In a Q and A at Master’s Seminary, John MacArthur answered a student’s question in chapel about the practice of separation. I included the transcript of the question and answer in part one and made some overall analysis. In part two I compared MacArthur’s answer to one about separation shortly thereafter by Rick Warren. The Master’s Seminary student asked about “partnership in ministry,” having it with those who agree on the essentials without agreement on non-essentials.

MacArthur started his answer by saying that he should try to work with whoever the Lord allowed in the Kingdom. His argument is that people working together in the kingdom under Christ should figure out how to work together now. Scripture says nothing like that about working together in the kingdom. Several passages speak to this issue.

Separation from Believers in the Bible

The doctrine of separation requires separation from professing believers. Several places in the New Testament teach this and especially in what John MacArthur addresses to the question. In 1 Timothy 6:3-5 the Apostle Paul writes under inspiration of God:

If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness. . . . from such withdraw thyself.

This is a command for regenerated, immersed church members to withdraw themselves from those who teach different than what your church believes and practices, assuming this is orthodox doctrine.

Speaking of separating from brothers in Christ, the Apostle Paul writes in 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15:

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. . . . And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him,, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

Paul says that if a brother walks disorderly and not after the tradition received from the apostle, withdraw yourself from him. If he is not obeying whatever is in 2 Thessalonians, which includes eschatology and other doctrines, note that man and have no company with him.

Wrong Answers

Alienation from People in the Kingdom?

The above are verses that deal directly with the question asked of MacArthur. The young man even asks for scripture to answer the question. MacArthur does not do that. Instead, he goes anecdotal and alludes to a passage out of context. Why doesn’t MacArthur give him a scriptural answer? I think there could be many different reasons, but in the end, it’s just that he gave an unscriptural answer. “Do not separate” is in essence his answer.

The Apostle Paul doesn’t say, “I don’t want to alienate people who are in the kingdom.” Separation is a means of restoration. Shame is a tool toward repentance. Separation also practices holiness, such as “be holy as I am holy” (1 Pet 1:15-16). Does the truth alienate people in the kingdom? Separation is a biblical means for preserving the truth, guarding or keeping the truth. It’s not the first option, but when someone doesn’t teach the words of Jesus Christ, consent to His words, scripture says, withdraw thyself.

Not separating will only bring more false doctrine and practice. Scripture doesn’t say, “If you want to get rid of false doctrine and practice, write another book about it.” Writing a book might help, but scripture doesn’t teach that as a method. Separation is not easy to do. I never found child discipline easy. It’s easier to let people get away with what they say and do.

You Wouldn’t Send Someone to Another Church?

MacArthur makes the following argument:

I as a pastor; I would never say to a lay person, “Well your theology is bad; you need to go to another church.” So why would I say that to a Bible teacher or a pastor?

It is true that someone can have a bad theology and stay in the church. Even Jezebel was given “space to repent” in Revelation 2:21 at the church at Thyatira. Paul gives instruction in Romans 16:17:

Now I beseech you, brethren,, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Churches shouldn’t just allow false doctrine. At some point separation also must occur. Paul explains. In 1 Corinthians 1:10, Paul wrote:

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Church members are required to speak the same thing, be perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment. That isn’t happening when church members believe a different doctrine. When “a Bible teacher or a pastor” teaches bad theology, should John MacArthur consider that the same as a particular church member believing something different?

Separation Must Occur to Obey God’s Word

If a church member starts spreading false doctrine, the Romans 16:17 applies to that. According to 1 Corinthians 1:10, everyone in a church must have the same mind and judgment. Unity is not based on toleration of bad doctrine and bad behavior. This, however, is the way evangelicalism rolls. Is there any wonder so much false doctrine and practice exists?

I’m not going to go further with the MacArthur answer. His answer is bad. It should not be followed by anyone.

I could say there are a number of reasons why MacArthur takes the wrong position about separation. Maybe he thinks it’s right. That’s hard to believe. In the end, he missed. The young man wanted to hear what scripture taught. He didn’t hear it.

Essentials and Non Essentials?

The young man brought up essentials and non-essentials. His idea was, separate over essentials. Don’t separate over non-essentials. He was looking for the way to judge between these two categories. He wasn’t given it. Scripture doesn’t teach this arbitrary, subjective criteria for judging.

Sure, certain doctrines and practices are more consequential than others. Certain doctrines relate more closely to the gospel than others. I almost always think of two examples. Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire, which was a wrong recipe at the altar of incense. Ananias and Sapphira kept back part of an offering, and said they gave it all. Are those essentials or non-essentials? God wants respected everything that He said.

Separation isn’t easy. It still must be done. It will be done, because God will do it. He will separate. It’s an attribute of His nature.

John MacArthur and Evangelical Agnosticism About or Over the Biblical Doctrine of Separation

May 16, 2023 / Leave a comment

I write on ecclesiastical separation here because the Bible teaches separation in every book and in some, much more than others. Since separation is inherent in God’s attribute of holiness, I see it as a major doctrine. I also believe it is one of the marks of a true church. For this reason, several years ago now Pillarandground Publishing produced A Pure Church: A Biblical Theology of Perfect Preservation, which exegetes key passages on the doctrine. I have found that evangelicals ignore the doctrine of separation despite its prevalence in God’s Word.

Agnosticism about separation is more than not knowing about it. It is staying ignorant on the scriptural teaching of separation. Evangelicals in general do not talk about separation at all. They act like it doesn’t exist as a doctrine of scripture.

John MacArthur Talks About Separation

Seminary Student Asks about Unity and Separation

In a recent Q and A in a Master’s Seminary chapel, John MacArthur answered a question about separation. Here is the question (at 32:18 in the video, goes to 39:07):

My question specifically is on church unity. I’m interested in partnership in ministry. I was wondering from your example specifically with pastors who would agree on the essentials but not necessarily on important doctrines that aren’t essential. What are some biblical passages or references or biblical principles that have helped you navigate that issue in your ministry well?

Alienating People in the Kingdom?

MacArthur answered:

Well, I think the simple one — that’s a good question — the simple one, is, is the person a true believer? And if the person is a true believer, then the Lord allowed him into the kingdom. And if you’re in the Kingdom, I have to figure out a way to work with you. I mean that’s, that is the simple answer.

I don’t want to alienate people who are in the Kingdom, so if they’re, if you’re a heretic, you deny the Trinity or the deity of Christ or you have some heresy of some kind, or your life is, ya know, got some stains of sin and all that, I don’t want to cooperate with somebody like that.

But I basically am bound. I am already one in Christ with everybody else who’s in the Kingdom. He that is joined to the Lord as one Spirit. We’re all one, so we have to figure out how can I minister with, how can I minister to the people of God. It’s, um, I as a pastor; I would never say to a lay person, “Well your theology is bad; you need to go to another church.” So why would I say that to a Bible teacher or a pastor?

Yoking Together

MacArthur continued:

Years ago I decided I wasn’t going to preach only to the people who already believe everything I believe. What’s the point? So, um, I was criticized, because you know I would be at a conference with someone who believed differently about certain things. I mean, they gave me trouble when I started going to Ligonier conferences over baby baptism and covenant theology and all that. Um, but but again, if they’re going to give me a platform, I’ll take it.

And you know RC actually allowed me to have a debate with him on infant baptism, and it’s available. You can listen to it, and I told him: “You shouldn’t do that RC. You have no chance. There’s not, you can’t find a verse in the Bible about infant baptism. So he said, ‘No I think it’ll be great.’ I said, ‘okay I’m gonna go first because I don’t, I don’t want to have to use the Bible to answer a non-biblical argument.”

So I think what is most important is that you establish your own fidelity to the degree that people don’t question your associations. I mean if I if I’m at Ligonier nobody thinks I abandoned what I believe. If I went over to Jack Hayford’s church and did a pastor’s Conference of Foursquare and Charismatics, nobody felt that I had abandoned my non-charismatic view I’ve got too much in print on that. Um, so if there’s not, and he wanted me to speak on the authority of scripture because he thought that was the weakest part of the ministry of these hundreds of pastors.

Lines He Can’t Cross

Furthermore, MacArthur said,

So again I just think you have to make judgments, but you always want to be gracious and loving and unifying and helpful to others who are in the Kingdom. Now there’s a line at which you can’t cross because someone is blatantly disobedient to scripture that would be, you won’t see me on a panoply of speakers that includes women because that is a total violation of scripture when you have men and women preachers. I can’t do that because I, uh, you know your reputation at that point becomes very muddy. So, um, you know that would be, there would be, other aspects of that too.

Um, somebody who’s so tapped into the culture, that, um, they’re viewed as, um, a problem outside tolerable convictions, I wouldn’t be a part of that. I wouldn’t speak on the same place as Bill Hybels or Joel Osteen. I don’t know about him. I don’t know if he’s a Christian or not, but even if I did, nobody would think I had compromised, because they would know by reputation that I’m going to be faithful to the truth, and they would say, “Why did he have MacArthur?”

An Example

MacArthur finished:

So if you establish your fidelity to scripture it puts you in a position where you can be in a lot of places. If you compromise along the way then, and people are questioning you. I had that conversation with James McDonald one day. It was not a happy one, but I said you just betrayed all the people who have been listening to you for years, but what you did you basically, said to them, “I’m not who you think I am.”

You don’t live long enough to fix that. You don’t get to go back to square one. You don’t hit a reset button. You didn’t like that but it was true so you you get one life at and one shot at this and you don’t want to try to hit a reset button down the road, so it, you have to be very diligent in maintaining your integrity.

Analysis of the Answer

Incoherence

That was pretty much verbatim what MacArthur answered to that question. It was a question about unity and really about separation. Every question about separation or unity is also about the other, unity or separation. The young male seminary student wanted MacArthur to give scriptural support. He did allude to scripture, but he in no way gave a scriptural answer. The answer really sounded like MacArthur had no clue on what the Bible taught about separation.

The only guidance from scripture I heard was the allusion to, a loose paraphrase of, the short sentence in 1 Corinthians 6:17, which says, “But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.” I don’t think that’s a good verse to use. It’s in the context of sexual sin, and Paul is saying that fornicators are bringing God into the activity. Since they are one with God, joined unto Him, their sin associates Him with whatever the sin is or worse. Should John MacArthur bring God to the Charismatic strange fire location? This is a separation passage that shows that we should keep God out of situations. We bring Him when we go.

When MacArthur was done answering, I can’t think that the young man knew what he said. It was incoherent and contradictory as an answer. If I was to interpret it, it was something like, play it by ear with little to no objective standard. Evangelicals cannot, will not, and do not answer questions on separation. The instinct is, don’t separate. Stay together. Look to keep working together, even with doctrinal differences. If MacArthur’s answer was an answer, I don’t think it could stand as legitimate because it was so meandering.

Excuses

I know what MacArthur believes. He’s public on it. That doesn’t give him a pass to associate with and work with whoever He wants. By doing so, He is accommodating someone else’s false teaching. Even if it doesn’t have anything to do with MacArthur, it does have something to do with the one with whom he fellowships. That’s the message of 2 Thessalonians 3:14, “And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.” That is a command to separate from a professing believer. MacArthur doesn’t mention it.

MacArthur excuses not separating by saying there is no point to preaching to people who believe just like you do. Where he preaches the most, his church, believes just like he does. Everyone should preach to people who don’t believe like them. They should do it in evangelism and in doing spiritual warfare with professing Christians. Discipleship requires this. This is entirely different than fellowship with a disobedient brother or yoking together with unbelievers for a common work, like Billy Graham did in his crusades.

Strange Fire

Not long ago, MacArthur said that Charismatics offered strange fire to the Lord. That means they are false worshipers, who imagine a false god. In this answer, MacArthur says, you can go and work with Jack Hayford, the Charismatic, as long as people know who you are. You can speak on a specific topic that Hayford wants and give Hayford authentication while you’re at it. God seeks for true worshipers. That offense to God isn’t enough for MacArthur.

Why is infant sprinkling a lesser deal than women preachers? How much less obvious is infant sprinkling than women preachers? MacArthur says, women preachers, that’s “blatantly disobedient.” He can’t cross that line. Yet, he can cross the line of infant sprinkling. Is it because that’s not blatantly disobedient? Where did infant sprinkling come from? I’m using that as an example. I would be scratching my head if I were a woman preacher.

Not About You

From his answer, John MacArthur sounds like separating is about you, about how well you’ll do in life. In his case, it’s about him. If he associates with someone, will it taint him in some way, so that he will lose effectiveness or opportunity as a servant of God? Separation is not mainly about you. It is first and foremost about God.

Does what God says about separation apply to John MacArthur? God teaches on it. In part two, I’m going to come back and take scripture and apply it to John MacArthur’s terrible answer about unity and separation.

More to Come

When “One” Doesn’t Mean “One”: The Church, One Body

January 30, 2022 / 1 Comment on When “One” Doesn’t Mean “One”: The Church, One Body

Institutions declare, “One team.” Whole nations announce to themselves and to other nations, “We are one.” You’ve got, “one office,” to promote productivity for the work place. To express the unity of a city, there’s “One Atlanta.” Not surprisingly, you see “One Philadelphia” too.A single team isn’t saying, “We’re numerically one team.” No. The people on the team or the leadership of the team attribute unity or oneness to it. Speaking of the nations of the world at the World Cup, “We are one,” means a desired unity of all the nations. Even an office wants unity, because a unified office gets more work done together. It’s normal for cities to say they are one through all the racial, ethnic, religious, etc. diversity. I could find almost every major American city to possess some initiative toward “One Miami” and the like.When we pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, we say, “One nation, under God, indivisible.” The Pledge of Allegiance recognizes at least a desire for unity in a nation. That pledge isn’t saying that other nations aren’t nations except the United States. It also isn’t saying there is one mystical nation, maybe even a single invisible nation to which everyone in the world belongs.

Scriptural “One” For Unity

Before all the examples above used “one” for unity and not for one in number, the Bible did it. God did it before any of the above did it. Do not assume that “one” means numeric one. Many people know this usage of “one” because the Bible used it first.

Scripture uses “one” for unity quite a few times, so readers should expect it. No one should think, “Wow, that says ‘one’ there, so it must mean numerical one.” Since numerical one doesn’t make sense, the same person concludes, “It must be something mystical and universal.” It isn’t. “One” can and does mean “unified one.”

Romans 15:6 says:

That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul writes to the church at Rome. He says, “ye,” plural, speaking of the individual believers in the church. Is there only one numeric mind and one numeric mouth in that church? Of course not. This is an example of a type of usage of “one,” fitting of the title of this post, “When ‘One’ Doesn’t Mean ‘One’.”

Scripture uses “one mind” to communicate a biblical kind of unity, a group of people all thinking the same, having the same beliefs.

2 Corinthians 13:11, “Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.” Philippians 1:27, “Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel.” Philippians 2:2, “Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.” 1 Peter 3:8, “Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous.”

Do you see that this is a common usage? There are others. “One voice” is used this way:

Acts 19:34, “But when they knew that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.”

One Body

No more is this kind of “one” used than it is for “one body,” speaking of a unified church. The church is the body of Christ, and “one body” speaks of a unified church, a unified body of Christ, a local one. The New Testament uses “body” as a metaphor for the church to show both the diversity and the unity of a church. Here are the usages:

Romans 12:4-5, “For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office. So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.” 1 Corinthians 10:17, “For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.” 1 Corinthians 12:12-13, “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For 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 Corinthians 12:20, “But now are they many members, yet but one body.” Ephesians 2:16, “And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.” Ephesians 4:4, “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling.” Colossians 3:15, “And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.”

A body has many members, that is, body parts, but it is still one body. God wants a unified church, a unified body. This is not all believers. The kind of unity found in a physical body, which is the comparison, isn’t even found among all believers. Some might say, “There is a spiritual unity,” but that is not the unity taught and admonished in the New Testament. The spiritual is certainly part of the unity, but it is far more than that.

1 Corinthians 12:12-13 explains the metaphor or analogy of the human body. A body is one, that is, it is all together in one cohesive unity. The parts are all attached and work in symmetry. It’s one like that. It’s not several pieces sitting different places in different locations. It is all in exactly the same place at the same time, but interconnected in a way for more than that. All the body parts fit together into one body.

Every body part, each member of the body, enters the body through baptism — “by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.” Water baptism unifies someone to a church. The Lord’s Table, represented by the words, “have been all made to drink into one Spirit,” unifies the church even as 1 Corinthians 10:17 talks about many being one bread and one body. This is the “communion of the body of Christ” in the previous verse, 10:16. The two ordinances of the church, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, are important components or instruments for the unity of a church and to display the unity of the church. A mystical, universal invisible church does not baptize or practice the Lord’s Table. When the members came together (cf. 1 Cor 11:20-33), they partook together of the Lord’s Table as one body.

The list of “ones” in Ephesians 4:4-6, one body, one Spirit, One Lord, one faith, etc., all relate to verse 3, “endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” There is obviously numerically one Spirit, one Lord, and one faith, but each of those are the basis of the oneness of a church. Through the “one body” language, Ephesians 4:4 reveals the unity of the church in the most fundamental way. Division would bring two bodies when there is only one.

In Romans 12:4-5, Paul uses the plural “we” to include himself in one body. Again, this is not numerical one. All body parts are part of one body, indicating unity. This is true of every true church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul could say “we” even when writing to the church at Rome, because what applied to that church also applied to his.

Besides those listed in the blockquote above, the one other usage of “one body” distinguishes slightly from the other examples. The Apostle Paul asks in 1 Corinthians 6:16, “What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.” This is only slightly different, but it is also illustrative. Even when a man joins a woman, a harlot, outside of marriage, the two become one, so instead of two bodies, they are one. They are obviously still two separate people, but the act itself brings a unique unity, which is important to consider. Paul is letting that be a warning.

The teaching of “one body” in the New Testament does not say there is only one numeric body of Christ in the entire world. There is no universal, mystical body taught in the New Testament. In its usages, it shows that even though a body has many members, it is still one, that is, unified. The Lord wants unified churches with Him as the Head of each.

My Vaccine, Etc. Take

January 2, 2022 / 18 Comments on My Vaccine, Etc. Take

This is my take on the Covid-19 vaccine, etc.

In 2020-21 Brother Ross has written everything on vaccines and conspiracies on his day on Fridays. I wish they weren’t controversial, but I knew they would be and I know they are. I allowed all of them. I’m fine with the position he takes. He’s never explained, but I think I know why he wants to write on this subject so much. I’ve supported him. So, I haven’t written on the subject. I don’t want to write on it. But I’m going to write about it now. I think I should.

I understand why people won’t take the vaccine. There are several reasons for it in no necessary order. As I write these, I’m not looking up anything in research. These are off the top of my head. Each of these, I believe, is a reason.

One, the vaccine isn’t like anything else produced. It’s a new technology. How can we be sure about this particular technology?

Two, the vaccine was rushed through without the usual testing.

Three, the government has been lying from the start. When I say, government, I want you to understand that I don’t mean all of the government, mainly the unelected bureaucracy with cooperation of the media. All things have not been the same as it relates to the government, but the swamp is large.

The government wasn’t honest about China. It wasn’t honest about masks. It wasn’t a pandemic. The fear of a “pandemic” helped botch the 2020 election and made it easier to cheat. With total respect for those who died and those who knew people who died, people died at a lesser rate by definition than a true pandemic. Yet it was called a pandemic. The media has pushed the lies of the government. The government still lies on a daily basis.

The government used the pandemic to shut down and threaten churches. It’s still doing it in countries less free and without a Constitution like ours. The vaccine has been a political hard ball. It’s tossed all over the place to cause political damage in a dishonest way. When people were dying in the last administration, fast balls thrown at the head every minute at the President. Now when it’s spreading like wildfire and this President makes multiple errors, the media is silent. He wears the mask like a chin strap in public, coughs all over people, coughs into his hand, breaks every one of his own rules.

By the way, if you can’t understand why people don’t trust their government and in a big way, then please read Victor David Hansen’s recent column at American Greatness, entitled, “The Truths We Dared Not Speak in 2021.” This government is a clown car, trying to force people to put something in their body that they don’t want, except it’s not a fun clown car but one that is weaving all over the road with two wheels hanging over a cliff. Think about a clown and then think of President Biden and then Jen Psaki. It’s not a difficult reach. Put her hair on his head. It’s difficult to parody, (1) because it is its own parody without changing anything, and (2) it’s a nervous laugh because they are dangerous.

Four, the vaccine has the worst side effects I’ve ever seen. I admit that I haven’t taken many prescription drugs in my lifetime, but these are some weird reactions.

Five, President Biden opposed the vaccine until he became president and now he wants everyone vaccinated. He is willing to mandate it for anyone that he can.

Six, people are getting fired for not getting the vaccine. People are having their positions threatened. Some see themselves as marked people because they aren’t cooperating.

Seven, the vaccine sets a pattern of government control that reminds people of passages in Revelation where the Antichrist takes over. It isn’t the Antichrist and it isn’t the mark of the beast, but the Antichrist won’t allow those to buy or sell without the mark, and the present government has pushed a vaccine passport. When I was in San Francisco, held over there trying to get to a funeral, a coffee shop asked to see my vaccination card or I couldn’t get a coffee there.

This government locked everything down and would monetary fine those who broke their arbitrary, non-representative rules, and then the main executives of the rules broke them themselves with total hypocrisy. They also allowed leftist protestors to break them without interdiction or discouragement. Now they let people illegally into the country, who are breaking their Covid rules. They don’t really care about stopping the disease, not with the conviction of someone who really believed it was serious.

Eight, I’ve thought that a health crisis would be the basis for breaking down the boundaries and distinctions between governments. It was Rahm Emmanuel, Chief of Staff for President Obama, who said, “Don’t let a crisis go to waste.” Some seem to revel in the crisis. It creates great situations to pass a biggest spending bill for all of history.

Nine, the government says the vaccination works and then requires masks and social distancing as if the vaccination doesn’t work.

Ten, Israel does a study saying natural immunity is better than a vaccination and our government gives no equal favor to natural immunity. It is essentially silent on natural immunity. This itself is a sort of lie.

Eleven, politicians by nature make money from Pharmaceutical lobbyists, which seem to be involved. The more vaccinations, the more money to corrupt lobbyists. The cost is spread over everyone who pays taxes. What a boon! The give-away system itself is corrupt. This is a form of corporatism.

Twelve, cheap drugs that could help Covid patients aren’t allowed those drugs. They are safe, legal, and inexpensive, so why aren’t they allowed? Why are they being attacked in the media? Many testify to being helped by them and yet in many cases, the medical community doesn’t have them when they are needed. These are the same people saying to get a vaccine.

Thirteen, the wrong people are putting unreasonable pressure on people to take the vaccine.

Fourteen, other ideas besides the vaccine are not easily accessible. When someone has a criticism, it’s being censored in social media and on the mainstream media. Why is that?

Fifteen, more people look to the government for help, adding just a little bit or even a lot more dependency on big government.

Sixteen, just one more booster, no one more, just a second, you’ll just need one more.

Seventeen, this works at 95%, sorry to tell you now it’s at just 25% efficacy. They really didn’t know how long the efficacy would last. It looks like they’re trying the vaccine out on us.

Eighteen, people aren’t sure if aborted baby materials weren’t used in experimentation to create the vaccine.

I’m going to stop at eighteen. I could write thirty or more. What I wanted you to know was that I understand your concerns. If you didn’t get the vaccine, you’ve got reasons. I think especially cumulatively, people see what I’m writing. They know it. Even if they trust the vaccine, they don’t want to support this.

With this list of eighteen, if you want to get the vaccine, you should be at liberty to get it. I don’t agree with writing that calls it genocide and a death shot. Good people support getting the vaccine. I got the vaccine and a booster. My parents got the vaccine and the booster. I didn’t push the vaccine at all, but if someone asked me, I told them why I got it. No pressure.

I had my reasons for getting the vaccination, that I believe are legitimate reasons for getting it. I’m not ashamed for getting it. It wasn’t so that I could travel, like someone lied. I didn’t need it to travel. I don’t think people should be shamed for getting the vaccination. It’s a liberty issue. Because it is a liberty issue, I believe Brother Thomas can write about it with liberty. It’s obviously not a liberty issue for some. You should think about the principles in his conspiracy series. He cares about scripture more than most people I know.

I thought the reward outweighed the risk. I thought the vaccination was a risk. Not getting the vaccination, I believed, was a greater risk. To me, getting it was a greater reward. It should not be causing division in churches. For sure, it should not be a church discipline issue. I know several unaffiliated Baptist churches where a majority of the people received the vaccination.

When I list of the worst things happening in 2021, I think those on the list should be taken into consideration. With my eighteen reasons people could legitimately use for not getting vaccinated, that doesn’t mean I think the vaccination issue gets into the top five or even the top ten. That doesn’t mean the vaccination issue and others like it aren’t important at all. I’ve never written that. I did not make that point at all. However, if you don’t think my top five were important or even true, be my guest for making the case that there are bigger issues than the five I wrote. Feel free to argue the vaccination into the top five. Do not rehash what has already been written under other posts.

****************

You can comment, but I’ll shut it down if I think it’s uncivil. On this post, I have the right to delete any comment without giving you a reason.

A False Kind of “Unity” Sought by a Typical Evangelical

March 8, 2021 / 2 Comments on A False Kind of “Unity” Sought by a Typical Evangelical

In the area in which I am evangelizing and starting a church, there are several congregations from the Calvary Chapel movement, which started around here in 1977 in the Rogue Valley. The first and biggest of these has its own radio station, which I listen to very often when I get in the car to go somewhere or do something. Listening the past few weeks, based on what I’m hearing, there’s at least a concern for unity in the church, because it is a constant theme from the two main teachers, a father and his son.

The son was talking about unity in the church and the trouble seemed to focus on a political divide in the church between Democrats and Republicans. I imagine it. There are two factions in the church, the young and Woke and then the older and conservative, which right now would be clashing more than ever. There is a wide chasm between these two and probably some anger. This ravine is so wide that the two can’t come together. A question should arise: how are they in the same church in the first place with such diversity of belief and practice? But they are. Now there’s the attempt to procure this unity with teaching. What would that teaching be?

Unity in scripture is the same belief and practice. Unity isn’t putting up with differences in doctrine. Some evangelical churches today have redefined biblical diversity. Diversity is when you have different genders, ethnicities, gifts, abilities, and socio-economic levels. They work together, but the togetherness is the doctrine and practice based on the truth of scripture. The new and counterfeit diversity is a diversity in doctrine and practice, so the unity is something also different. Evangelicals often celebrate the diversity of doctrine in a church and conflate it to a welcome diversity taught in scripture. In fact it’s just disunity being tolerated.

The unity of the Bible is what Jesus prayed for in John 17, which is the same unity as Jesus had with God the Father. This is perfect unity based on the truth. They don’t agree to disagree. That’s also reflected in every single passage on unity in the Bible, which are many. None of those passages differ and none of them teach what evangelicals say unity is. They are disunified with the unity passages.

If I were to offer one verse that provides the biblical teaching, I would provide 1 Corinthians 1:10:

Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.

I’m not going to break it down. It’s self-explanatory. It’s almost redundant in its emphasis on what unity really is and in contradiction to how it is being perverted.

Why is unity defined so much in scripture? One, God wants it. Two, it’s going to be attacked and perverted. And it is.

So what is the perverted view that I heard on the radio, an attempt to conform two such divergent groups into one? He said that the one faction needed to see the other faction as its enemy. The Bible commands, love thy enemies. He said that when you treat an enemy with love, then the next thing you know, he won’t be an enemy any more. Then that person will be your neighbor. Then you just love your neighbor. He didn’t prove any of this assertion, but is it right? Or what’s wrong with it?

How does someone love his enemy? He doesn’t murder him, steal from him, and bear false witness against him. As much as possible he lives peaceably with him. He preaches the gospel to him.

Loving your enemies is not overlooking their false beliefs and practices. It is confronting them and rebuking them and finally separating from them. You can’t fellowship with false beliefs and practices. You can only reprove them (Ephesians 5:11). You don’t become friends or neighbors of an enemy by accepting his false belief and practice. You can’t keep enemies in a church. They have to become friends and that comes by alignment with the truth. If they are enemies because of doctrine and practice, which is what this evangelical leader is talking about, the false doctrine and belief must change.

What is being taught is that the false doctrine and practice must be tolerated. This is loving the enemy. “It’s okay fellow church member that you hold to false doctrine and practice.” This is disobedience to scripture, it isn’t unity, and it isn’t love. Toleration of sin isn’t unity. For much of evangelicalism, keeping together a coalition is more important than pleasing God.