【讀經】：以斯帖記第四章。
末底改知道所作的這一切事
我們讀一至二節：「末底改知道所作的這一切事，就撕裂衣服，穿麻衣，蒙灰塵，在城中行走，痛哭哀號。到了朝門前停住腳步，因為穿麻衣的不可進朝門。」
末底改是豫表我們所經歷的這位聖靈。在第三章那裏，末底改不是隨便不跪不拜，他知道他作的是甚麼；他也知道前面的為難是甚麼。第四章一開頭就說：「他知道所作的這一切事（指王准許哈曼所作的)他就撕裂衣服，蒙灰塵，在城中行走，痛哭哀號。」以斯帖能到達第五章的光景，實在是從末底改出來的。從第二章開始，我們就看見末底改如何撫養以斯帖，後來就把她送入王宮，並囑咐她不可叫人知道她的籍貫宗族；而且天天在女院前邊行走，要知道以斯帖平安不平安？並後事如何。這是說到聖靈對於一個蒙恩的人是如何的關心，撫養長大，送入王宮，囑咐教導，天天關心，打聽消息。
後來末底改知道了王准許哈曼謀滅末底改及其同族這件事情之後，他並沒有叫別人痛哭，他乃是自己撕裂衣服，穿麻衣，蒙灰塵，在城中行走，痛哭哀號。直到今天，我們不知道聖靈為神的家怎樣的憂傷？怎樣的難過。
以弗所書四章三十節說：「不要叫神的聖靈擔憂。」可見聖靈為著神的家，為著我們(神的兒女)常常在那裏擔憂。羅馬書八章二十六節說：「我們本不曉得當怎樣禱告，只是聖靈親自用說不出來的歎息替我們禱告。」在創世記六章三節說：「人既屬乎血氣，我的靈就不永遠住在他裏面。」加拉太書五章十七節：「因為情慾和聖靈相爭，聖靈和情慾相爭…。」這就是說到人墮落以後聖靈就和人在那裏相爭。這個救恩是三而一的神所作的。
聖靈這個「心」若不是聖靈自己叫我們裏面懂得一點，即沒有人能懂得。在祂的憐憫中，我們稍稍的經歷一點點。有的時候我們裏面有說不出來的傷痛，但我們不懂得這是甚麼意思？固然有的時候聖靈是叫我們為著我們的罪自己責備自己而傷痛；但有的時候是神的憐憫，要我們懂得祂的「心」。末底改在城中行走，是說到聖靈在神的全地上運行。尤其是到了主快來的時候，聖靈更是加緊迫切的作了這件事。形式上看來，他所愛的人已經作了王后，可是這個王后本身還不知道這件事哪。只有聖靈知道，後來王后以斯帖的宮女和太監來把這件事告訴她，她甚是憂愁，就送衣服給末底改穿，要他脫下麻衣，叫他不要這樣難過，但是，他卻不受。
有的時候，聖靈在我們裏面豈不也是作同樣的工作麼？祂叫我們裏面有一種說不出來的難過，我們就對自己說：「不要這樣難過吧。」若是我們留心，聖靈現在還作這件事。在好幾年前，不知道為甚麼裏面有說不出來的難過？甚至難過到一個地步，以為自己是病了。有一年，我以為我真是病了，所以我真的跑到醫院裏去檢查，大夫說：「沒有甚麼病。」
「告訴」、「看」又「說明」
在以斯帖這卷書中，以斯帖算是站在很重要的地位上。但是，當你讀第四章時，你就要發現，際此大難臨頭之前夕，她卻毫無所知。當她剛被送入王宮，甚麼都不知道的時候，末底改就天天在王宮外邊打聽她的消息。當王的太監想要下手害王時，她也不知道，末底改知道了，就告訴她，然後她就奉末底改的名報告於王。當末底改…穿麻衣…痛哭哀號時，她甚是憂愁，就送衣服給末底改，要他脫下麻衣…他卻不受。於是她就吩咐太監哈他革去見末底改，要知道這是甚麼事？是甚麼緣故？
第七節說：「末底改將自己所遇的事，並哈曼為滅絕猶太人應許捐入王庫的銀數都告訴了她。」這是聖靈對王后所作的事。將自己所遇的事(就是指著哈曼要殺他的事)，直到今天，也是這個樣子。我們(基督徒)沒有一個人說不要聖靈，但到底要不要呢？要不要呢？因為聖靈在我們裏面所作所說的和我們天然的人是合不起來的，所以聖靈來真是要我們的命。故此，聖靈(末底改)和天然的老自己(哈曼)是不共戴天，勢不兩立的。
關於這一位聖靈懂得，祂知道若不藉著王后以斯帖出來，祂就沒有辦法了。這也是奧秘。祂既是三而一的神，按理祂能作嘛。祂也可以作嘛。但，不！祂卻要藉著王后以斯帖作。所以，末底改就將自己所遇的事，並哈曼為滅絕猶大人應許捐入王庫的銀數都告訴了以斯帖。魔鬼常藉著人的舊人(天然也就是自己)，而這個舊人為要滅絕聖靈的作為，就把一萬他連得的銀子(包括金錢、學問、時間、精神、體力一切所有的…)統統都捐上。不過有一點我們必須清楚的，就是：一面說固然是魔鬼作的；但另一面說，如果人不和牠合作，牠也是沒有辦法的。所以，我們不要把責任全數推卸在魔鬼們的身上，因為所有的惡謀、惡事、惡行…都是這惡人與惡魔聯合所產生的惡果。
魔鬼對猶大說：「你賣祂吧！可得三十塊錢。」三弄兩弄他聽了魔鬼的話，就把耶穌賣給他們。可見，猶大（人）如果不和魔鬼聯起來，即使魔鬼有天大的本事也沒有辦法。所以不要把責任全數推在魔鬼身上。甚至我們有的時候在傳說神的話，肉體還會出來。不禱告是肉體，禱告也在那裏發肉體，聲調、態度都是肉體，是不是？我自己也有的時候對自己說：「怎麼還這個樣子？」你看，這裏這個以斯帖就不是這樣，神藉著末底改也沒有對她多說甚麼，實在是個希奇的事，他只作了一點點，她就明白了，他也沒有對她說：第三天你要進去見王，你要怎樣穿朝服，怎樣進王宮的內院，怎樣對殿站立…都沒有講。聖靈在我們身上實在是寶貝的事，這就是主耶穌所說的，等到我往父那裏去以後…父就另外賜給你們一位保惠師。這位保惠師，「就是父因我的名所要差來的聖靈，祂要將一切的事指教你們。」（約十四26)祂要作你們的保惠師，甚麼事情祂都會教導。這裏只有說聖靈(末底改)將自己所遇的事…告訴以斯帖。
到底三而一的神來，就是要叫我們知道祂的事。我們常說要愛耶穌，要愛耶穌，其實我們永遠不會愛，乃是等到三而一的神來了，祂把主耶穌的愛啟示在我們心裏，你會不會愛呢？妳會不會愛呢？這是根本的事。
末底改是豫表聖靈，在以斯帖身上是叫她知道自己所遭遇的事，也叫她知道哈曼的惡謀，又將所抄寫傳遍書珊城要滅絕猶大人的旨意交給哈他革，要給以斯帖看，又要給她說明。因為那個時候，他沒有和以斯帖直接碰頭見面說話的機會。
當時，哈曼的惡謀是個旨意，所以是件大事。這一班撒但、肉體，牠不滅絕猶大人牠就沒有事做。所以，末底改叫哈他革要把那旨意給以斯帖看，又要給他說明聖經上有許多的地方都說到撒但、肉體，真是該讓聖靈指給我們看，聖靈也實在當我們讀聖經的時候就指給我們看，說：「你看，那一個肉體，要了那一個人的命了。你看這一個肉體，要了這一個人的命了。」
參孫是個很好的人嘛。但，就是那個肉體，那個肉體是甚麼呢？那個肉體就是愛一個女人，又愛一個女人。結果連眼睛也被剜去了。起先他向著主還清楚一點，但後來，三弄兩弄就體貼那個肉體了。體貼到眼睛被剜去了，剜去了就看不見了。今天，好多基督徒，得救是得救，但是眼睛被剜去了，因此，在許多屬靈的事上毫無看見。
再說，西底家吧！他裏面知道耶利米是先知；但他屈服在環境之下，又懼怕那些人，弄來弄去，他又不聽耶和華藉著耶利米所說的話了，後來他的眼睛也是被剜去了。
末底改叫哈他革把旨意給以斯帖看，又給她說明。深願我們讀聖經的時候，聖靈來指給我們看，又給我們說明。不錯，有的時候讀聖經就是這樣讀過去就是了，但有的時候聖靈真是在那裏顯明，指給你看，又給你說明，是不是？
根基若毀壞義人還能作什麼？
前幾天讀到詩篇十一篇三節說：「根基若毀壞，義人還能作甚麼呢？」撒但竭力要把這個根基就是三而一的神毀壞。自然牠不能毀滅，牠只能毀壞，牠就叫我們這裏加上一點，那裏減少一點。不說別的，就說這位聖靈吧，我們常說這是靈恩，其實聖靈來不只是個靈恩，聖靈乃是三而一的神啊！
你有爸爸媽媽沒有？有沒有？有爸爸、媽媽，他們都是很親近的人。我們被撫養到今天實在是在他們恩典的手中。我們不能因為爸媽對我好，所以沒有人對我好時，我就認個爸爸，認個媽媽，這是不對的。當教會沒有生氣，沒有活力沒有......時，我們常用這個話說：「我們就來一個聖靈充滿吧！」這是不對的。你若覺得沒有人對待你好，你又看見某某人的爸爸媽媽實在好，你就想，我也要來一個爸爸，來一個媽媽。實在說你這樣來的一個乾爸爸、乾媽媽，他們也不會對你好的。這是三而一的神啊！這是三而一的神啊！這是三而一的神啊！用人的話不得不說：「聖父、聖子、聖靈。」但祂是三而一的神啊！
你不用說，你沒有力量，你沒有聖靈的恩賜，所以你就來一個聖靈吧！這是三而一的神，根基若毀壞，義人還能作甚麼？
聖靈來就是把這三而一的神叫我們認識。一個人認識他的父母，孝敬他的父母，你想這個人好不好？好不好？在還沒有信耶穌以前要求一個忠臣，有一個標準就是：「求忠臣出於孝子之門。」一個人如果是家庭的「孝子」，他也必是國家的「忠臣」。換句話說，一個人如果不是個「孝子」，他也必不是個「忠臣」。所以未信耶穌以前，一個人若待父母不好，你別想他能作你的好臣僕、好朋友、好同事…照樣，一個基督徒對於三而一的神若沒有真實的認識，若沒有讓聖靈在該站的地位上，他就沒有辦法作個好的基督徒；更談不上在神的家中(在教會中)能有真實合乎祂心意的事奉。所以詩篇十一篇三節才那樣說：「根基若毀壞，義人還能作甚麼？」
我記得不大清楚，不過卻是有這麼一件事情，就是論到唐朝時傳入我國之景教(基督教之一派)，當時首先把耶穌傳入中國的那一位傳教士名叫納士多雷安，他是一個很有學問很有才幹的人。按著歷史上的記載：當時耶穌這個名幾乎傳遍了全中國。一時竟有幾百個傳道人，教堂也很普遍。但是，過了不多時，此教派竟完全消滅了，弄得乾乾淨淨，教徒一個也沒有留下。原因沒有別的，就是他所傳的耶穌，在三而一的神身位上、信仰上，有出入，有錯誤。一直到了利瑪竇時，神才再打發他來把耶穌傳入中國。
「定例」與「違例」
那麼以斯帖就說：「我沒有蒙召進去見王已經三十日了。」末底改又對她說：「妳要進去見王。」末底改真是豫表聖靈，就在這麼為難的時候，要進去見王。
我們信了主耶穌，對於神的敬畏是對的。照平常說：王召她，她該去；王不召她，她不該(不敢)去。但是聖靈這裏說了，妳要進去見王。我說不出裏邊所要說的。敬畏是件事情，懂得妳是王后的位分又是一件事情。
她雖作了王后，但她還在定例的裏邊。這個很難說了，你還得守「定例」，但末底改要你「違例」進去見王。難道末底改不知道這個禁令麼？他知道的。他所以說你要「違例」進去見王，乃是因為他知道王的心。雖然哈曼被抬舉高升，但是王的心還是愛他自己的國家啊！所以末底改要她違例去見王。只有聖靈，只有聖靈能帶我們到王面前。
我們實在該讓聖靈帶我們到主的面前，在我們的王面前，在我們的父面前。我們不說話，也不禱告。我這樣說，你不要一定這麼聽啊。也許你就要說，你既要說，你又不叫我們聽，那麼，你說甚麼？就是在主，在神面前，主耶穌說：「你要進你的內屋，關上門，禱告你在暗中的父。」下邊就說那麼一個禱告。關於禱告這件事，很難說，有的人一禱告就嘩啦嘩啦一大堆；正像有的人一見面就說，你好麼？好久不見了，我很想念你阿，你長胖了…像這樣的禱告不算什麼。真實的禱告是裏邊的，是靈裏的。這一個我們也會有感覺才是。有的人你和他坐下來，雖然沒有說多少話，但心靈中卻有一種甜美默然的交通。照樣我們到神面前，跪在祂面前，俯伏在祂面前，雖然沒有多少的話語，但心靈中卻有寶貴滿足深處的響應。
這個姊妹禱告說：「我們小得不能再小了。」小就小吧！我們就是這麼小。這幾天我心裏有一點感覺，到底也不知道怎麼樣？直到昨天晚上，裏邊還有這個感覺，我就跪在主面前說：「主啊！我是這樣感覺，到底你怎麼樣呢？」說不出的禱告，真是等到主在你裏邊說了一句(這個我們都嚐過的)那可是比甚麼都好。今天早晨，我就起來跪在那裏，一面讀讀聖經，一面默默禱告，祂在裏面說了，就是「這個」。一整天滿了「這個」。那麼美！那麼好！那麼踏實！這就是在主面前。
照著常例她不敢進去見王，但聖靈來要催促我們進去見主耶穌，帶我們到這位王的面前。聖靈來就是帶我們親近主，親近王。雖然出了這個禁令了，但聖靈懂得神的心；雖然沒有人知道神的事，但聖靈卻是知道的。這就是林前二章九節所說的：「是眼睛未曾看見，耳朵未曾聽見，人心也未曾想到的。」這是人沒法教導我們的。耳朵聽見是人的教導；眼睛看見是人的觀察；人心想到是人的領會；只有聖靈能把神深奧的事向我們顯明。讀到這些話，說出我們差得遠了！要給神時間，要給神時間，讓祂說話，真是寶貝。
末底改並沒有告訴以斯帖要禁食，乃是以斯帖因著知道末底改在外邊的為難以及事情之嚴重，她覺得要禁食了。聖靈雖沒有那樣說，但以斯帖裏面懂了，她說：「你去告訴所有的猶大人，為我禁食三晝三夜......我和我的宮女，也要這樣禁食。然後我違例進去見王，我若死就死吧！」感謝主！這個最艱難的時間就這樣的過去了，終於來到了第五章，現在我們禱告。
星期三, 10月 22, 2008
星期一, 10月 06, 2008
R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
Joseph Emerson Brown Professor of Christian Theology (1993); President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Education:
B.A., Samford University
M.Div., Ph.D., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Dr. Mohler became the ninth president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in August 1993. Before assuming the office of president, Dr. Mohler served as editor of the Christian Index, the state paper for Georgia Baptists. He also previously served as Assistant to the President at Southern Seminary. A leader among Baptists and American evangelicals, Dr. Mohler is widely respected as a theologian, speaker, and author. Time.com called him the "reigning intellectual of the evangelical movement in the U.S." In addition to his presidential duties, Dr. Mohler hosts a daily radio program for the Salem Radio Network. He also writes a popular commentary and daily blog focusing on moral, cultural, and theological issues. Many of Dr. Mohler’s writings, his radio show, and his sermons and speeches can be accessed through his website http://www.albertmohler.com/.
His writings have been published throughout the United States and Europe. He has contributed to several books including Whatever Happened to Truth, Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment, Here We Stand: A Call From Confessing Evangelicals and The Coming Evangelical Crisis. He served as General Editor of The Gods of the Age or the God of the Ages: Essays by Carl F. H. Henry and served from 1985 to 1993 as Associate Editor of Preaching, a journal for evangelical preachers. He currently serves as Editor-in-Chief of The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology.
The Love of God and the Intent of the Atonement by D.A. Carson
The Love of God and the Intent of the Atonement by D. A. Carson,
research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois.
Here I wish to see if the approaches we have been following with respect to the love of God may shed some light on another area connected with the sovereignty of God – the purpose of the Atonement.
The label “limited atonement” is singularly unfortunate for two reasons. First, it is a defensive, restrictive expression: here is atonement, and then someone wants to limit it. The notion of limiting something as glorious as the Atonement is intrinsically offensive. Second, even when inspected more coolly, “limited atonement” is objectively misleading. Every view of the Atonement “limits” it in some way, save for the view of the unqualified universalist. For example, the Arminian limits the Atonement by regarding it as merely potential for everyone; the Calvinist regards the Atonement as definite and effective (i.e., those for whom Christ died will certainly be saved), but limits this effectiveness to the elect; the Amyraldian limits the Atonement in much the same way as they Arminian, even though the undergirding structures are different.
It may be less prejudicial, therefore, to distinguish general atonement and definite atonement, rather than unlimited atonement and limited atonement. The Arminian (and the Amyraldian, whom I shall lump together for the sake of this discussion) holds that the Atonement is general, i.e., sufficient for all, available to all, on condition of faith; the Calvinist holds that the Atonement is definite, i.e., intended by God to be effective for the elect.
At least part of the argument in favor of definite atonement runs as follows. Let us grant, for the sake of argument, the truth of election. [Footnote 1: If someone denies unconditional election, as an informed Arminian (but not an Amyraldian) would, most Calvinists would want to start further back.] That is one point where this discussion intersects with what was said in the third chapter about God’s sovereignty and his electing love. In that case the question may be framed in this way: When God sent his Son to the cross, did he think of the effect of the cross with respect to his elect differently from the way he thought of the effect of the cross with respect to all others? If one answers negatively, it is very difficult to see that one is really holding to a doctrine of election at all; if one answers positively, then one has veered toward some notion of definite atonement. The definiteness of the Atonement turns rather more on God’s intent in Christ’s cross work than in the mere extent of its significance.
But the issue is not merely one of logic dependent on election. Those who defend definite atonement cite texts. Jesus will save his people from their sins (Matt. 1:21) – not everyone. Christ gave himself “for us,” i.e., for us the people of the new covenant (Tit. 2:14), “to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.” Moreover, in his death Christ did not merely make adequate provision for the elect, but he actually achieved the desired result (Rom. 5:6-10; Eph. 2:15-16). The Son of Man came to give his life a ransom “for many” (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; cf. Isa. 53:10-12). Christ “loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph. 5:25).
The Arminian, however, responds that there are simply too many texts on the other side of the issue. God so loved the world that he gave his Son (John 3:16). Clever exegetical devices that make “the world” a label for referring to the elect are not very convincing. Christ Jesus is the propitiation “for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). And much more of the same.
So how shall we forge ahead? The arguments marshaled on both sides are of course more numerous and more sophisticated than I have indicated in this thumbnail sketch. But recall for a moment the outline I provided in the first chapter on the various ways the Bible speaks about the love of God: (1) God’s intra-Trinitarian love, (2) God’s love displayed in his providential care, (3) God’s yearning warning and invitation to all human beings as he invites and commands them to repent and believe, (4) God’s special love towards the elect, and (5) God’s conditional love toward his covenant people as he speaks in the language of discipline. I indicated that if you absolutize any one of these ways in which the Bible speaks of the love of God, you will generate a false system that squeezes out other important things the Bible says, thus finally distorting your vision of God.
In this case, if we adopt the fourth of these ways of talking about God’s love (viz. God’s particular and effective love toward the elect), and insist that this is the only way the Bible speaks of the love of God, then definite atonement is exonerated, but at the cost of other texts that do not easily fit into this mold and at the expense of being unable to say that there is any sense in which God displays a loving, yearning, salvific stance toward the whole world. Further, there could then be no sense in which the Atonement is sufficient for all without exception. Alternatively, if you put all your theological eggs into the third basket and think of God’s love exclusively in terms of open invitation to all human beings, one has excluded not only definite atonement as a theological construct, but also a string of passages that, read most naturally, mean that Jesus Christ did die in some special way for his own people and that God with perfect knowledge of the elect saw Christ’s death with respect to the elect in a different way then he saw Christ’s death with respect to everyone else.
Surely it is best not to introduce disjunctions where God himself has not introduced them. Of one holds that the Atonement is sufficient for all and effective for the elect, then both sets of texts and concerns are accommodated. As far as I can see, a text such as 1 John 2:2 states something about the potential breadth of the Atonement. As I understand the historical context, the proto-gnostic opponents John was facing though of themselves as an ontological elite who enjoyed the inside track with God because of the special insight they had received. [Footnote 2: I have defended this as the background, at some length, in my forthcoming commentary on the Johannine Epistles in the New International Greek Testament Commentary (NIGTC).] But when Jesus Christ died, John rejoins, it was not for the sake of, say, the Jews only or, now, of some group, gnostic or otherwise, that sets itself up as intrinsically superior. Far from it. It was not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world. The context, then, understands this to mean something like “potentially for all without distinction” rather than “effectively for all without exception” – for in the latter case all without exception must surely be saved, and John does not suppose that that will take place. This is in line, then, with passages that speak of God’s love in the third sense listed above. But it is difficult to see why that should rule out the fourth sense in the other passages.
In recent years I have tried to read both primary and secondary sources on the doctrine of the Atonement from Calvin on. [Footnote 3: One of the latest treatments is G. Michael Thomas, The extent of the Atonement: A Dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus (1536-1675), Paternoster Biblical and Theological Monographs (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997).] One of my most forceful impressions is that the categories of the debate gradually shift with time so as to force disjunction where a slightly different bit of question-framing would allow synthesis. Correcting this, I suggest, is one of the useful things we may accomplish from an adequate study of the love of God in holy Scripture. For God is a person. Surely it is unsurprising if the love that characterizes him as a person is manifest in a variety of ways toward other persons. But it is always love, for all that.
I argue, then, that both Arminians and Calvinists should rightly affirm that Christ died for all, in the sense that Christ’s death was sufficient for all and that Scripture portrays God as inviting, commanding, and desiring the salvation of all, out of love (in the third sense developed in the first chapter). Further, all Christians ought also to confess that, in a slightly different sense, Christ Jesus, in the intent of God, died effectively for the elect alone, in line with the way the Bible speaks of God’s special selecting love for the elect (in the fourth sense developed in the first chapter).
Pastorally, there are many important implications. I mention only two.
(1) This approach, I content, must surely come as a relief to young preachers in the Reformed tradition who hunger to preach the Gospel effectively but who do not know how far they can go in saying things such as “God loves you” to unbelievers. When I have preached or lectured in Reformed circles, I have often been asked the question, “Do you feel free to tell unbelievers that God loves them?” No doubt the question is put to me because I still do a fair bit of evangelism, and people want models. Historically, Reformed theology at its best has never been slow in evangelism. Ask George Whitefield, for instance, or virtually all the main lights in the Southern Baptist Convention until the end of the last century. From what I have already said, it is obvious that I have no hesitation in answering this question from young Reformed preachers affirmatively: Of course I tell the unconverted that God loves them.
Not for a moment am I suggesting that when one preaches evangelistically, one ought to retreat to passages of the third type (above), holding back on the fourth type until after a person is converted. There is something sleazy about that sort of approach. Certainly it is possible to preach evangelistically when dealing with a passage that explicitly teaches election. Spurgeon did this sort of thing regularly. But I am saying that, provided there is an honest commitment to preaching the whole counsel of God, preachers in the Reformed tradition should not hesitate for an instant to declare the love of God for a lost world, for lost individuals. The Bible’s ways of speaking about the love of God are comprehensive enough not only to permit this but to mandate it. [Footnote 4: Cf. somewhat similar reflections by Hywel R. Jones, “Is God Love?” in Banner of Truth Magazine 412 (January 1998), 10-16.]
(2) At the same time, to preserve the notion of particular redemption proves pastorally important for many reasons. If Christ died for all people with exactly the same intent, as measured on any axis, then it is surely impossible to avoid the conclusion that the ultimate distinguishing mark between those who are saved and those who are not is their own will. That is surely ground for boasting. This argument does not charge the Arminian with no understanding of grace. After all, the Arminian believes that the cross is the ground of the Christian’s acceptance before God; the choice to believe is not in any sense the ground. Still, this view of grace surely requires the conclusion that the ultimate distinction between the believer and the unbeliever lies, finally, in the human beings themselves. That entails an understanding of grace quite different, and in my view far more limited, than the view that traces the ultimate distinction back to the purposes of God, including his purposes in the cross. The pastoral implications are many and obvious.
D. A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2000), 73-79.
research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois.
Here I wish to see if the approaches we have been following with respect to the love of God may shed some light on another area connected with the sovereignty of God – the purpose of the Atonement.
The label “limited atonement” is singularly unfortunate for two reasons. First, it is a defensive, restrictive expression: here is atonement, and then someone wants to limit it. The notion of limiting something as glorious as the Atonement is intrinsically offensive. Second, even when inspected more coolly, “limited atonement” is objectively misleading. Every view of the Atonement “limits” it in some way, save for the view of the unqualified universalist. For example, the Arminian limits the Atonement by regarding it as merely potential for everyone; the Calvinist regards the Atonement as definite and effective (i.e., those for whom Christ died will certainly be saved), but limits this effectiveness to the elect; the Amyraldian limits the Atonement in much the same way as they Arminian, even though the undergirding structures are different.
It may be less prejudicial, therefore, to distinguish general atonement and definite atonement, rather than unlimited atonement and limited atonement. The Arminian (and the Amyraldian, whom I shall lump together for the sake of this discussion) holds that the Atonement is general, i.e., sufficient for all, available to all, on condition of faith; the Calvinist holds that the Atonement is definite, i.e., intended by God to be effective for the elect.
At least part of the argument in favor of definite atonement runs as follows. Let us grant, for the sake of argument, the truth of election. [Footnote 1: If someone denies unconditional election, as an informed Arminian (but not an Amyraldian) would, most Calvinists would want to start further back.] That is one point where this discussion intersects with what was said in the third chapter about God’s sovereignty and his electing love. In that case the question may be framed in this way: When God sent his Son to the cross, did he think of the effect of the cross with respect to his elect differently from the way he thought of the effect of the cross with respect to all others? If one answers negatively, it is very difficult to see that one is really holding to a doctrine of election at all; if one answers positively, then one has veered toward some notion of definite atonement. The definiteness of the Atonement turns rather more on God’s intent in Christ’s cross work than in the mere extent of its significance.
But the issue is not merely one of logic dependent on election. Those who defend definite atonement cite texts. Jesus will save his people from their sins (Matt. 1:21) – not everyone. Christ gave himself “for us,” i.e., for us the people of the new covenant (Tit. 2:14), “to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.” Moreover, in his death Christ did not merely make adequate provision for the elect, but he actually achieved the desired result (Rom. 5:6-10; Eph. 2:15-16). The Son of Man came to give his life a ransom “for many” (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; cf. Isa. 53:10-12). Christ “loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph. 5:25).
The Arminian, however, responds that there are simply too many texts on the other side of the issue. God so loved the world that he gave his Son (John 3:16). Clever exegetical devices that make “the world” a label for referring to the elect are not very convincing. Christ Jesus is the propitiation “for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). And much more of the same.
So how shall we forge ahead? The arguments marshaled on both sides are of course more numerous and more sophisticated than I have indicated in this thumbnail sketch. But recall for a moment the outline I provided in the first chapter on the various ways the Bible speaks about the love of God: (1) God’s intra-Trinitarian love, (2) God’s love displayed in his providential care, (3) God’s yearning warning and invitation to all human beings as he invites and commands them to repent and believe, (4) God’s special love towards the elect, and (5) God’s conditional love toward his covenant people as he speaks in the language of discipline. I indicated that if you absolutize any one of these ways in which the Bible speaks of the love of God, you will generate a false system that squeezes out other important things the Bible says, thus finally distorting your vision of God.
In this case, if we adopt the fourth of these ways of talking about God’s love (viz. God’s particular and effective love toward the elect), and insist that this is the only way the Bible speaks of the love of God, then definite atonement is exonerated, but at the cost of other texts that do not easily fit into this mold and at the expense of being unable to say that there is any sense in which God displays a loving, yearning, salvific stance toward the whole world. Further, there could then be no sense in which the Atonement is sufficient for all without exception. Alternatively, if you put all your theological eggs into the third basket and think of God’s love exclusively in terms of open invitation to all human beings, one has excluded not only definite atonement as a theological construct, but also a string of passages that, read most naturally, mean that Jesus Christ did die in some special way for his own people and that God with perfect knowledge of the elect saw Christ’s death with respect to the elect in a different way then he saw Christ’s death with respect to everyone else.
Surely it is best not to introduce disjunctions where God himself has not introduced them. Of one holds that the Atonement is sufficient for all and effective for the elect, then both sets of texts and concerns are accommodated. As far as I can see, a text such as 1 John 2:2 states something about the potential breadth of the Atonement. As I understand the historical context, the proto-gnostic opponents John was facing though of themselves as an ontological elite who enjoyed the inside track with God because of the special insight they had received. [Footnote 2: I have defended this as the background, at some length, in my forthcoming commentary on the Johannine Epistles in the New International Greek Testament Commentary (NIGTC).] But when Jesus Christ died, John rejoins, it was not for the sake of, say, the Jews only or, now, of some group, gnostic or otherwise, that sets itself up as intrinsically superior. Far from it. It was not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world. The context, then, understands this to mean something like “potentially for all without distinction” rather than “effectively for all without exception” – for in the latter case all without exception must surely be saved, and John does not suppose that that will take place. This is in line, then, with passages that speak of God’s love in the third sense listed above. But it is difficult to see why that should rule out the fourth sense in the other passages.
In recent years I have tried to read both primary and secondary sources on the doctrine of the Atonement from Calvin on. [Footnote 3: One of the latest treatments is G. Michael Thomas, The extent of the Atonement: A Dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus (1536-1675), Paternoster Biblical and Theological Monographs (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997).] One of my most forceful impressions is that the categories of the debate gradually shift with time so as to force disjunction where a slightly different bit of question-framing would allow synthesis. Correcting this, I suggest, is one of the useful things we may accomplish from an adequate study of the love of God in holy Scripture. For God is a person. Surely it is unsurprising if the love that characterizes him as a person is manifest in a variety of ways toward other persons. But it is always love, for all that.
I argue, then, that both Arminians and Calvinists should rightly affirm that Christ died for all, in the sense that Christ’s death was sufficient for all and that Scripture portrays God as inviting, commanding, and desiring the salvation of all, out of love (in the third sense developed in the first chapter). Further, all Christians ought also to confess that, in a slightly different sense, Christ Jesus, in the intent of God, died effectively for the elect alone, in line with the way the Bible speaks of God’s special selecting love for the elect (in the fourth sense developed in the first chapter).
Pastorally, there are many important implications. I mention only two.
(1) This approach, I content, must surely come as a relief to young preachers in the Reformed tradition who hunger to preach the Gospel effectively but who do not know how far they can go in saying things such as “God loves you” to unbelievers. When I have preached or lectured in Reformed circles, I have often been asked the question, “Do you feel free to tell unbelievers that God loves them?” No doubt the question is put to me because I still do a fair bit of evangelism, and people want models. Historically, Reformed theology at its best has never been slow in evangelism. Ask George Whitefield, for instance, or virtually all the main lights in the Southern Baptist Convention until the end of the last century. From what I have already said, it is obvious that I have no hesitation in answering this question from young Reformed preachers affirmatively: Of course I tell the unconverted that God loves them.
Not for a moment am I suggesting that when one preaches evangelistically, one ought to retreat to passages of the third type (above), holding back on the fourth type until after a person is converted. There is something sleazy about that sort of approach. Certainly it is possible to preach evangelistically when dealing with a passage that explicitly teaches election. Spurgeon did this sort of thing regularly. But I am saying that, provided there is an honest commitment to preaching the whole counsel of God, preachers in the Reformed tradition should not hesitate for an instant to declare the love of God for a lost world, for lost individuals. The Bible’s ways of speaking about the love of God are comprehensive enough not only to permit this but to mandate it. [Footnote 4: Cf. somewhat similar reflections by Hywel R. Jones, “Is God Love?” in Banner of Truth Magazine 412 (January 1998), 10-16.]
(2) At the same time, to preserve the notion of particular redemption proves pastorally important for many reasons. If Christ died for all people with exactly the same intent, as measured on any axis, then it is surely impossible to avoid the conclusion that the ultimate distinguishing mark between those who are saved and those who are not is their own will. That is surely ground for boasting. This argument does not charge the Arminian with no understanding of grace. After all, the Arminian believes that the cross is the ground of the Christian’s acceptance before God; the choice to believe is not in any sense the ground. Still, this view of grace surely requires the conclusion that the ultimate distinction between the believer and the unbeliever lies, finally, in the human beings themselves. That entails an understanding of grace quite different, and in my view far more limited, than the view that traces the ultimate distinction back to the purposes of God, including his purposes in the cross. The pastoral implications are many and obvious.
D. A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2000), 73-79.
Donald A. Carson
Donald A. Carson is research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. He has been at Trinity since 1978.
Dr. Carson came to Trinity from the faculty of Northwest Baptist Theological Seminary in Vancouver, British Columbia, where he served for two years as academic dean. He also taught at Northwest Baptist Theological College, Richmond College, and Central Baptist Seminary in Toronto. He has served as assistant pastor and pastor and has done itinerant ministry in Canada and the United Kingdom.
Dr. Carson received the Bachelor of Science in chemistry from McGill University, the Master of Divinity from Central Baptist Seminary in Toronto, and the Doctor of Philosophy in New Testament from Cambridge University.
Dr. Carson's areas of expertise include biblical theology, the historical Jesus, postmodernism, pluralism, Greek grammar, Johannine theology, Pauline theology, and questions of suffering and evil. He is a member of the Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical Research, the Society of Biblical Literature, the Evangelical Theological Society, the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies, and the Institute for Biblical Research.
Dr. Carson has written or edited more than fifty books, including The Sermon on the Mount (Baker 1978), Exegetical Fallacies (Baker 1984), Matthew (Zondervan 1984), From Triumphalism to Maturity (Baker 1984), Showing the Spirit (Baker 1987), How Long, O Lord? Reflections on Suffering and Evil (Baker 1990), The Gospel According to John (Eerdmans 1991), A Call to Spiritual Reformation (Baker 1992), New Testament Commentary Survey, 6th ed. (Baker 2006) and Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church (Zondervan, 2005). His book, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Zondervan 1996), won the 1997 Evangelical Christian Publishers Association Gold Medallion Award in the category "theology and doctrine." He coauthored An Introduction to the New Testament (Zondervan 1991) and other works. His edited works include It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture (Cambridge University Press 1988) and Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics (Sheffield Academic Press 1993). Dr. Carson occasionally writes and edits with faculty colleague John Woodbridge; together they wrote the novel Letters Along the Way (Crossway 1993) and edited Scripture and Truth (Baker 1992) and God and Culture (Eerdmans 1993).
Dr. Carson was founding chair of the GRAMCORD Institute, a research and educational institution designed to develop and promote computer-related tools for research into the Bible, focusing especially on the original languages. Dr. Carson is an active guest lecturer in academic and church settings around the world.
Dr. Carson and his wife, Joy, reside in Libertyville, Illinois. They have two children. In his spare time, Dr. Carson enjoys reading, hiking, and woodworking.
Together for What? By Mark Dever
College freshman Bob becomes convinced of the doctrine of election and has a burning desire to convince everyone else. He’s in the early "cage stage" of Calvinism.
Imagine his conversations with his friends, in his campus fellowship, in his church.
Everything becomes an illustration of God’s sovereignty. It’s all he wants to talk about. And if you disagree with Bob, watch out!
The question for you and me is, when we teach others the truth, do we do it with condescending pride and arrogance—we know something they don’t? Or do we teach with the humility of one beggar sharing his bread with another?
Compromise is bad. Cooperation is good. But how do you tell the difference? What are the primary doctrinal positions for which we need to contend, and what are the secondary doctrinal positions about which we can disagree with charity and love?
I’d like to consider how we can encourage each other to hold the truth with humility by setting out six questions:
Do we follow commands to purify or to unite?
What are some common fights Christians have?
What’s the specific purpose for cooperating?
What must Christians agree upon? (Essentials)
What may Christians disagree about? (Non-essentials)
How can Christians disagree well?
1. DO WE FOLLOW COMMANDS TO PURIFY OR TO UNITE?
First, do we follow commands to purify or to unite?
The Basic Problem
I trust most Christians recognize the problem confronting us: We live in a fallen world, where the truth will not always find a home. What’s true is not necessarily the same as what’s popular.
As D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones said, "There have been periods in history when the preservation of the very life of the Church depended upon the capacity and readiness of certain great leaders to differentiate truth from error and boldly to hold fast to the good and to reject the false. But our generation does not like anything of the kind. It is against any clear and precise demarcation of truth and error" (ital mine; from Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Maintaining the Evangelical Faith Today (1952), 4-5).
We shouldn’t be surprised at times such as ours, when people oppose distinguishing truth from error. In Paul’s last letter, he warns, "the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths" (2 Tim. 4:3-4).
Was Paul simply paranoid—overly focused on ideas of truth? I don’t think so. The Lord Jesus teaches us to be on our guard. It was he who taught, "False christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect—if that were possible. So be on your guard" (Mark 13:22-23).
How do we be on our guard? We must admit that we all tend to be either too inclusive (thus slighting God’s call to purity and undervaluing his truth) or too exclusive (thus slighting the width of God’s love and the amazing examples of his work).
Do you see how this happens? By pitting God’s Word against itself; by playing off one aspect of God’s character against another—say, his holiness against his love—we actually confuse ourselves and harm others. What we should do, instead, is grow in our knowledge of God’s Word and our own hearts. Then we will be more attuned to his truth as he has revealed it—both his call for holiness and for love.
Truth and humility shouldn’t be enemies. The fact is, they’re great friends, and truly growing in one should lead to growth in the other.
Too often, however, we find ourselves becoming a caricature of our tendencies. We either become a unity person or a purity person.
The Unity People
The unity people love Bible chapters like John 17. They perceive clearly that our unity with one another testifies to our unity with God in Christ, and that our love for one another shows God’s love for us (as Jesus taught in John 13:34-35). They love the love passages in the Bible:
"Make my joy complete by being like-minded" (Phil. 2:2);
"agree with each other in the Lord" (Phil. 4:2);
"all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought" (1 Cor. 1:10);
"My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love" (Col. 2:2).
There have been many unity movements among professing Christians in the last few decades. There is old-line liberal ecumenism—"let’s bring all the denominations together." There are the parachurch ministries which rally people from different churches to share the gospel—from Billy Graham to Campus Crusade. There is the charismatic movement, which has helped to create fellowship across old church divides. More recently there has been what we could call Great Traditionalism, which relies on an "oldest-common-denominator." You see this in the current fad among some evangelicals to use methods and objects associated with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy as aids to piety.
The popular T-shirts among the unity crowd say things like "Doctrine divides" or "Love unites" or "Mission unites." It was from this camp that one bishop came who, not too long ago, said, "Heresy is better than schism." These doctrinal minimalists want "No creed but Christ; no law but love."
The Purity People
The opposite of the unity people are the purity people. They want purity of doctrine and purity of life. They want purity in our churches, in our Christian colleges, and in our seminaries.
These people take the Bible’s command to separate seriously. They know 2 John well: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house [church] or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work" (vv. 10-11).
Or John’s warning from his first letter: "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (4:1).
And then there is Paul’s warnings: "keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us" (2 Thes. 3:6).
And "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? . . . ‘Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord’" (2 Cor. 6:14, 17).
Add to these all the passages on church discipline (e.g. 1 Cor 5.) as well as Jude’s command, "contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3).
The folks contending for the faith are the Fundamentalists and conservative Mennonites among us. These brothers and sisters will contend more quickly than they cooperate.
If you’re tempted to quote Jesus in Matthew 7:1 to such contenders—"Do not judge, or you too will be judged"—you should look a little further down the same page at verse 15 of the same chapter, where Jesus taught "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves" (7:15). And, of course, it’s Jesus in Matthew 18 who commands the church to eject unrepentant sinners from its fellowship!
The purity people seem to have a prophetic ministry of correction, just like the Puritans are stereotyped as having. Maybe their shoes were too tight. That made them grouchy. Their approach to everything can feel like, "Shoot first; ask questions later."
As we consider the unity people and the purity people together, the question we want to ask ourselves is, how do we take the best of both? The biblical desire for unity and cooperation as well as the biblical desire for truth and holiness?
2. WHAT ARE SOME COMMON FIGHTS CHRISTIANS HAVE?
For now, let’s consider another question: what are some common fights among Christians?
There are just so many to chose from! Should we pray for the dead? Is the Protestant Reformation over? Should we support city-wide evangelistic meetings that send the reported converts to the nearest church? Does the Fourth Commandment concerning the the Sabbath still apply today? Should we use hymns or choruses? Organs or guitars? Does God elect those that he foresees will believe, or does he simply elect? Are the supernatural gifts still active today? Is prophecy still happening today? Should churches accept repenting Christians who denied Christ in times of persecution back into their fellowship? Should churches be led by elders, a single pastor, a city-wide bishop? What does baptism do? Who should be baptized? Who should baptize? How should they baptize? Must baptism precede church membership? Is the Bible the church’s sole authority? Is it sufficient? Is it inerrant? Are there gender roles in the Bible that we are supposed to follow today? Are women supposed to be elders in a church? What’s an appropriate salary for a Christian minister? Should Christians tithe to their local churches? Should children be present throughout the whole morning service? Should Christians send their children to Christian schools or public schools; or should they homeschool them? Should ministers wear clothes that distinguish him from church members? Should church gatherings include performed music? Should churches hire non-Christian musicians to play for our public services? Should we believe before we belong, or belong before we believe? Is helping the poor a necessary part of evangelism?
Suppose you’re in the midst of such a disagreement with other leaders or members in your church. What should you do? I would move on to the next question, question number 3.
3. WHAT’S THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE FOR COOPERATING?
Purpose Matters
What’s the specific purpose for which you are considering cooperating with other Christians? The kind of cooperation we are aiming at determines how much agreement is necessary. I can be friends with someone whom I wouldn’t marry. I can buy something from an individual I wouldn’t hire. I can pray with someone whose church I wouldn’t join. I can read a book by someone with whom I disagree. I can believe that someone would do a good job at some things, but not at others.
When it comes to religious questions, we must consider what the purpose is of a proposed agreement. For the purpose of salvation? For the purpose of belonging to the same church? For the purpose of attending the same conference or working together on the same project? What is the circumstance, the need, the purpose of cooperation?
Circumstances May Matter
Along these lines, Christians have found that the circumstances of the occasion matter. If you live in an area where Christians are persecuted, there is more motivation to cooperate. The number of Christians may well be small and fellowship hard to find. Christians in these circumstances may find far more encouragement in sharing and using the gifts of thirty people than in six or seven each establishing their own separate assemblies. Circumstances like these have led many Christians to work with people of other denominations more than they would have back in the United States. In other words, Baptists and Presbyterians are more likely to meet regularly together in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia than in Raleigh, North Carolina!
As Christians in America become more and more of a "cognitive minority"—a group which thinks differently than the majority culture—we, too, may find ourselves becoming more aware of our commonalities with other Christians than previous generations of American Christians have been.
Still, different kinds of cooperation require different levels of agreement. The requirements for church membership are more comprehensive than the requirements for planning an evangelistic outreach. The level of agreement needed between fellow church planters is greater than what’s needed for initiating college student fellowships together. We can recognize other people as Christians, in other words, even though we might not think it wise to plant a church with them.
Conferences and one-time events can be pulled off with even less agreement, and Bible translations with perhaps even less. (I can imagine that Bible translators are able to agree in matters of translation even when they don’t agree on the content of the gospel.) And, of course, Christians can practice co-belligerency with non-Christians on some public issues involving law and moral standards.
Creeds & Confessions
Throughout church history, Christians have composed written creeds like the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed in order to state clearly what beliefs they hold in common. Confessions like the Westminster Confession or the New Hampshire Confession do the same. So, too, with the statements of faith of individual churches and parachurch ministries. All such creeds, confessions, and statements express the basic level of agreement necessary for pursuing a common goal.
4. WHAT MUST CHRISTIANS AGREE UPON?
So here’s the million dollar question: what must Christians agree upon?
This is a dangerous question, and we must proceed very carefully. We don’t want to be like the teenager who asks, "How far can I go with my girlfriend?" which is to say, "What can I get away with?" In our case, we are not asking, "What’s the least that I need to believe and still be considered a Christian?" True Christians will find themselves growing in the desire to pursue God’s truth over every matter in which he has revealed himself in his Word.
The Apostles Teaching
To begin with, Christian fellowship can only be shared with those who share the Christian faith, that is, that body of teaching which articulates what Christians believe. In Acts 2:42, Luke describes the fellowship between the first Christians by saying, "They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship…" Notice that Luke says they shared the apostles’ teaching before it says they shared fellowship.
Doctrinal choices that destroy and damn are called "heresies." The word "heresies" comes from the Greek word for "choice," and though we today are accustomed to using the word "choice" in a positive context, the apostle Peter showed how it can be used in just the opposite: "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false prophets among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves" (2 Peter 2:1). A doctrinal heresy or choice is a departure from the accepted rule of faith. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, is the right teaching of the Word of God.
As we’re looking to cooperate with other believers, we want to make sure we share the apostles’ teaching, not destructive heresies.
There is no agreed upon list of which errors should be called heretical, and it’s probably not useful to refer to all errors as "heresy." Doing so just ratchets up the emotional heat without adding light to a conversation. Not all errors are the same. In fact, it’s dangerous to treat all errors as the same. A misunderstanding of church membership is less important than a misunderstanding of the person of Jesus Christ! Some errors must be corrected; others can be endured for a lifetime.
Determining which errors can be borne with and which require separation requires us to understand the significance of the doctrine in which the disagreements occur, and even of the days in which a particular doctrine is in dispute. Just like some organs are more important than others, so some doctrines are more central than others. Our understanding of Christ’s work on the cross is more important than our view of the Sabbath, just like our heart is more important than our appendix. A human can survive the removal of his wisdom tooth or his appendix, but not his heart!
How To Learn
How do we learn what we must agree on? Let me suggest three ways: through the Bible, through our church, and through our conscience.
We learn the truth fundamentally, supremely, finally, and mostly through the Bible. This is God’s Word written. Study your Bible. Get to know God’s Word well. Always be growing in your understanding and your love for it. Read Psalm 119 in your quiet times for a month in order to meditate and grow in your appreciation for the great gift to us of God’s Word.
But God does not intend us to be earthly orphans, self-taught, self-regulating, self-centered. God has called us to belong to local churches that teach the Bible accurately and that are full of people whose lives show the fruit of his Spirit. Good teaching should bear good fruit. The elders in our churches should be able to teach us God’s Word, which means we should submit ourselves to them and their teaching. When teachers teach as they should, Christians together in a church will have a clear grasp on the gospel that saved them. (Paul assumes in Galatians 1:8-9 that this would be the case.) Ultimately, then, it is the duty of the local church to define what we must agree upon to be a Christian, and to be a member of that congregation.
We learn also through our consciences. Each of us has a conscience. By the Fall, the conscience was radically harmed, but this important aspect of God’s moral image has not been eliminated from our character. We all have an inherent sense of right and wrong. But that sense is inherent, not inerrant. Many people today treat their internal moral sense as their own unique god within, but the conscience must be corrected, trained, and taught, and it is our duty to do that according to the Scripture.
Clarity and Agreement
How can you tell if a doctrine is important and worth seeking agreement upon? Here are several tests for answering this question:
How clear is the doctrine in Scripture?
How clear do others think it is in Scripture (especially those you respect and trust as teachers of the Word)?
How near is the doctrine (or its implications) to the gospel itself?
What would be the practical and doctrinal effects of allowing disagreement in this area?
The people of God have always recognized that both summarizing and teaching the heart of the truth is important. So God gave his people a summary of his law in the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20). Moses in Deuteronomy 6 provided another summary on how they were to teach their children. And Christians from the earliest times have used the summaries provided by catechisms to prepare individuals for baptism—which is how the Apostles’ Creed was originally used. The church father Vincent of Lerins said in the fifth century that we should believe what has been believed always, everywhere, by all.
Right News, Right Views
One of the best words for Christian is "evangelical." An "evangelical" is one who is defined by certain specific news. "Good news" is what evangel means. Jesus says in the Gospel of John that the correct belief or views about his identity is necessary for someone to have eternal life; otherwise they will die in their sins (John 8:24).
Likewise, Paul tells us exactly what Christians should stand for—what is of first importance:
Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance; that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve (1 Cor. 15:1-4).
Do you feel uncomfortable prioritizing some truths over others? Apparently, Paul wasn’t.
Are you clear in your understanding that you must believe certain things in order to be a Christian? Paul was clear: "if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom. 10:9).
Paul specifically urged the Romans to keep to the teaching they had already received (see Rom. 16:17). The Galatians, too: "even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" (Gal. 1:8; cf. Eph. 4:14).
He referred to "the truths of the faith" (1 Tim. 4:6) and encouraged Timothy to "devote himself to teaching" (1 Tim 4:13).
Paul warns that "if anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing" (1 Tim. 6:3-4). This is why heresies can be so destructive, because knowing and believing the truth is necessary to our salvation (see 2 Peter 2:1).
In fact, the apostle John taught that "We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood" (1 John 4:6). John also says,
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ, as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house [meaning, I think, the local church] or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work (2 John 7-11).
Jude refers to godless men "who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our own Sovereign and Lord" (Jude 4).
In the letter of Jesus to the church at Pergamum, Jesus called those who held to a particular teaching—the teaching of the Nicolaitans—to repent (Rev. 2:15).
Do you see how often godlessness and falsehood go together? We Christians are those whose understandings and whose lives are shaped by the Good News of Jesus Christ! That’s why Paul writes to the Corinthian church: "you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat" (1 Cor. 5:11).
Peter quotes Leviticus to remind Christians that "just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: ‘Be holy, because I am holy’" (1 Peter 1:15-16).
Throughout the Bible God declares that his people must not worship false gods or live lives devoted to them. John concludes his first epistle by writing, "Dear children, keep yourselves from idols" (1 John 5:21). The idols he is talking about, I think, are the false gods of a christ who is not God incarnate, or a christ who tolerates immorality or a lack of love.
We are justified by faith alone, but a justifying faith produces Christians who look more and more like the God they worship.
Believe that God Is One
So what must Christians agree upon? I would say that Christians must agree upon God, the Bible, and the Gospel.
First, we must believe that God is one. He is triune—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He is uncreated, self-existing. He is morally perfect. He is characterized by holy love. He is our sovereign Creator and Judge. He is the one we are called to believe in (Num. 14:11). As the LORD says to his people in Isaiah,
"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior" (Isa. 43:10-11).
We also read in Acts 16 that the Philippian jailer’s family rejoiced "because they had come to believe in God" (Acts 16:34).
And we read in Hebrews 11:6 that "without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists…"
This essential belief in God is the sincere acknowledgement of a fact. But it’s also more than that. James tells us, "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder" (James 2:19). A saving belief in God transforms us increasingly into a reflection of his character. So John writes, "love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love" (1 John 4:7-8).
Believe that the Bible Is God’s Truth
Second, we must believe that the Bible is how we know the truth about God. The Scriptures are God’s revelation of himself and, therefore, have authority in our lives and teaching. The verse right before the one just quoted says this: "We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood" (1 John 4:6).
John’s words seem to match what Jesus taught in John 10:4—that the sheep know the voice of the Good Shepherd. They recognize his voice and follow it.
Likewise, Paul commanded the Thessalonian Christians to follow his instructions and to ostracize those who did not (2 Thess. 3:6, cf. 14-15).
Believe in the Gospel
Third, we must believe the gospel. The Good News is that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God incarnate (see 1 John). Without understanding this, we could not uphold the truth of God’s triune nature. The Trinity and the incarnation support each other. One cannot be attacked without attacking the other. As Paul said, "in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" (Col. 2:9).
But the gospel includes not only Christ’s incarnation, it also includes his substitutionary death on the cross, his bodily resurrection, and his return in power and great glory.
Again, remember Paul’s summary of what Christianity is in 1 Corinthians. The Corinthians had been dividing over all kinds of wrong things, which Paul spent fourteen chapters addressing. But now he turns finally to what they should contend for!
Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance; that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve (1 Cor. 15:1-4).
Do you see the facts here associated with the gospel? Christ has died for our sins. Christ was buried. Christ was raised. There it is! And make no mistake: clarity on the centrality of the cross will promote fellowship theologically (as the relative importance of doctrines is clarified) and experientially (as humility is encouraged in our character).
As we lift up the cross, the gospel appears. It contains the News of a Holy God. It contains the News of man made in God’s own image, yet tragically fallen into terrible rebellion against God and under God’s judgment (cf. Gen. 3; Rom. 3:23; 1 John 1:8-10; 5:12). It contains the News of Christ, the Son of God, who suffered for us and in whom we are to believe for eternal life (John 3:16, 18; 12:44; 17:20; 20:31; Acts 15:11; 16:31; Rom . 3:22; 10:9; Gal. 3:22; Phil. 1:29; Col. 2:9; 1 Thes. 4:14; 1 John 2:22-23; 3:23; 4:2-3, 15; 5:1, 5, 10). And it contains the News that we can be forgiven by God and reconciled to him through the gift of repenting and believing. Our repentance, moreover, will show itself in loving commitment to each other in the fellowship of the local church (Matt. 16; 18; Mark 1:15; Rom. 16:26; Heb. 10:25, 1 John 3:23; 4:19-21; 5:3, 13).
And the faith which alone justifies is faith in this God (Num. 14:11). It is trusting in his deliverance (Ps. 78:22). He has acted so that we may believe in him (Isa. 43:10). So Jesus’ first words in Mark’s gospel conclude with this call: "Repent and believe the good news!" (Mark 1:15).
John also wrote, "God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16; cf. 3:18; 11:26; 19:35; 20:31; Acts 16:31, 34; Rom. 3:22; 4:24; 10:9-10, 14; 16:26; 1 Cor. 1:21; Gal. 3:7, 22; Phil. 1:29; 1 Tim, 1:16; Heb. 10:39; 11:6; 1 Peter 1:21; 1 John 2:24).
We are justified only by trusting in this Jesus. Someone who doesn’t believe this gospel isn’t a Christian. Even people who call themselves "Christians," "church members," or "evangelicals" are not truly Christians if they don’t believe this gospel! Calling yourself something doesn’t make you one.
God, the Bible, the Gospel. You cannot have true Christian fellowship with someone who disagrees with you on these matters.
5. WHAT MAY CHRISTIANS DISAGREE ABOUT?
What then may Christians disagree about?
Again, I want to be very careful about this. I’m not giving you permission to not care about things that God has revealed in His Word. Nor am I trying to teach you how little you must believe and how much you can cooperate.
The answer to the question of what Christians may disagree about is best determined by the Bible and with the agreement of a Bible-preaching church.
Practical Matters
Christians can certainly have disagreements about practical matters. And some of these disagreements will, of practical necessity, cause local divisions. You cannot do something in two different ways. If this group of people are convinced that something should be done this way, and that group of people is convinced it should be done in another way, and it can’t be done both ways, then the simple answer may be to work separately, but with love and cooperation.
So in Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas came to opposite conclusions about the way of wisdom in their work. Paul thought that they couldn’t work with John Mark; Barnabas thought they should. Instead of fighting about it, they "parted company" (Acts 15:39). We have no reason to think that either stopped believing the other brother was a Christian; it’s just that they knew they couldn’t continue working together because of this practical disagreement.
True or False
As we think specifically of gatherings that claim to be a "church," we may categorize them as either "true" or "false." By this I don’t mean that a "true church" never says anything false, or that a "false church" never says anything true. Rather, I mean that a "true church" preaches the true gospel, and is following Christ’s commands to baptize and celebrate the Lord’s Supper (including the practice of church discipline). A "false church," on the other hand, is one which has forsaken the preaching of the true gospel.
Regular or Irregular
Churches that preach the same true gospel we may classify as regular (according to the rule/Scripture) or irregular.
For example, it is my and my church’s understanding that the Bible teaches that baptism is only for believers. Any church who preaches the same gospel as we do but who practices infant baptism we would call true but irregular churches (my Presbyterian brethren, of course, would return the compliment).
But the point is, if we call them true churches, we can fellowship with them in the gospel, even if we wouldn’t agree with them on everything. We must have unity in the gospel to recognize each other as Christians.
Disputable Matters
But it’s clear from the New Testament that there are a number of other issues that true Christians differ about. For instance, the question of eating meat sacrificed to idols was a burning issue in many of the churches. But Paul was not overly concerned about Christians disagreeing with each other over this issue because they were not maintaining that a certain conclusion was necessary for salvation. They could work together so long as they wouldn’t be distracted by their disagreement. His sage advice? "Whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God" (Rom. 14:22).
Paul also faced questions in the church about Christians regarding some days being more holy than others (see Rom. 14:6). But he called this issue a "disputable matter" (Rom. 14:1).
What are our disputable matters today? They are many. Questions about the particular practices of church membership are disputable.
Or consider the question of what the millennium is in Revelation 20. Some Christians would say we need to agree on this in order to have a church together. What do you think? Let’s run this through the tests I suggested earlier:
Test 1: How clear is it in Scripture? It’s mentioned in the two verses in Revelation 20 and nowhere else. And evangelical, Bible-believing commentaries are not in agreement about what John was referring to.
Test 2: How clear do others think it is in Scripture (especially those you respect and trust as teachers of the Word)? Again, I find a variety.
Test 3: How near is it (or its implications) to the gospel itself? I think it is unrelated. As long as we agree that Christ is returning, what he does during the Millennium seems to be of little significance to me right now.
Finally, test 4: What would be the doctrinal or practical effects of allowing disagreement in this area? We have not found any effects in our church—other than providing opportunities to practice charity toward each other. For that matter, the elders in my church disagree on this matter, and I cannot perceive any unfaithfulness or practical problems flowing out of these differences.
Non-Essential ≠ Unimportant
Now don’t misunderstand me. Non-essential does not mean unimportant. It may sometimes; but at other times, what at first seems non-essential may prove to be important.
For instance, the question about prayers for the dead may at first seem non-essential. But as you come to recognize that this particular practice undermines justification by faith alone, you begin to see how important the topic is. Praying for the dead assumes that any decision they made in this life does not stand. It says we can directly affect the eternal states of others, when Scripture is clear that our eternal state is determined only by our faith in Christ alone.
6. HOW CAN CHRISTIANS DISAGREE WELL?
Finally, how can Christians disagree well?
Perhaps you have heard this helpful statement that came out of the German reformation: "In essentials unity, in non-essentials diversity, in all things, charity (or love)." We must agree on the essentials in order to have unity, which we’ve discussed. And we allow for diversity in non-essentials, which we’ve also discussed. But how do we achieve that daunting command to love in all this?
Roger Nicole has suggested that we answer these two questions:
What do I owe the person who differs from me?What can I learn from the person who differs from me?
Let’s think about these questions for a moment.
What Do I Owe?
What do I owe the person who differs from me? First, I owe love. We should speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15).
Second, I owe respect. Do to others as you would have them do to you (Matt. 7:12). When you are in a disagreement, make it evident that you care about the person you’re disagreeing with as a person, more than care about winning an argument. Listen carefully to what they’re saying. Clarify anything you haven’t understood. Always go for what people mean, even beyond what they’ve said. One of my theology professors always wrote out the pros and cons of the differing views.
The principle here is that you want to represent the opposite perspective as well as you can, so that the proponents feel satisfied with your presentation. After all, debates tend to harden proponents in their own ideas.
In all of this, consider what goals you share. Can you see what your friend is aiming at in what he’s saying? One way I try to explore differences is to use what I call a "decision tree." I try to begin where we both agree, and then trace out the point at which we diverge and ask why he made one decision while I made the other. Your goal should always be to avoid alienating people, but instead to encourage them. That will usually get farther in persuading them anyway!
What Can I Learn?
The second question to ask yourself in learning to disagree well is, "What can I learn from the person who differs from me?"
After all, perhaps it’s the case that I am wrong. Certainly I can learn something of my own assertiveness, and the temptations I face in discussion. Are we more interested in winning a discussion and safeguarding our reputation, or in discovering truth and leading it to triumph?
A couple of years ago I was reading a biography of John Wesley and I ran across this brief account:
It was customary for the itinerant and local preachers to take breakfast together, on Sunday mornings, at City Road. On one occasion, when Wesley was present, a young man rose and found fault with one of his seniors. The Scotch blood of Thomas Rankin was roused, and he sharply rebuked the juvenile for his impertinence; but, in turn, was as sharply rebuked himself. Wesley instantly replied: ‘I will thank the youngest man among you to tell me of any fault you see in me; in doing so, I shall consider him my best friend.’" (L. Tyerman, Life and Times of Wesley (Harper & Bros; 1872), III.567.)
Now that takes humility! And without humility, we can’t learn. We can’t learn the truth about ourselves or the truth about the Bible. According to the ancient Greeks, the opposite of a friend was not an enemy, but a flatterer. Our pride is our greatest enemy in all this.
Welcome correction as a good enemy of your pride. And appreciate the way in which those who differ with you can sometimes help to fill out or better balance the picture you’re presenting. It can be good to have Christian friends that disagree with us on some things—it gives us the opportunity to learn and to exercise our love.
CONCLUSION
How can we summarize everything we’ve considered? Handle Scripture carefully and in context. Know the Bible well. Love God by loving his Word. Meditate on Psalm 119. As Paul told Timothy, "the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. 2:24-25).
Put it all in perspective. If you’re a Christian, you’re an heir of heaven! God has called you to be a messenger of his gospel more than any other message. And what is your witness? Do people think of you as argumentative or quarrelsome? We want to be known more by what we are for than by what we’re against. And we always want to be for the gospel, and for being reformed by the Word of God.
In essentials unity, in non-essentials diversity, in all things love.
Mark Dever is the pastor of the Capitol Hill Baptist Church and one of the principles of Together for the Gospel.
March/April 2008, © 9Marks
Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format, provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 1,000 physical copies. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by 9Marks.
Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: ©9Marks. Website: www.9Marks.org. Email: info@9marks.org. Toll Free: (888) 543-1030.
Imagine his conversations with his friends, in his campus fellowship, in his church.
Everything becomes an illustration of God’s sovereignty. It’s all he wants to talk about. And if you disagree with Bob, watch out!
The question for you and me is, when we teach others the truth, do we do it with condescending pride and arrogance—we know something they don’t? Or do we teach with the humility of one beggar sharing his bread with another?
Compromise is bad. Cooperation is good. But how do you tell the difference? What are the primary doctrinal positions for which we need to contend, and what are the secondary doctrinal positions about which we can disagree with charity and love?
I’d like to consider how we can encourage each other to hold the truth with humility by setting out six questions:
Do we follow commands to purify or to unite?
What are some common fights Christians have?
What’s the specific purpose for cooperating?
What must Christians agree upon? (Essentials)
What may Christians disagree about? (Non-essentials)
How can Christians disagree well?
1. DO WE FOLLOW COMMANDS TO PURIFY OR TO UNITE?
First, do we follow commands to purify or to unite?
The Basic Problem
I trust most Christians recognize the problem confronting us: We live in a fallen world, where the truth will not always find a home. What’s true is not necessarily the same as what’s popular.
As D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones said, "There have been periods in history when the preservation of the very life of the Church depended upon the capacity and readiness of certain great leaders to differentiate truth from error and boldly to hold fast to the good and to reject the false. But our generation does not like anything of the kind. It is against any clear and precise demarcation of truth and error" (ital mine; from Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Maintaining the Evangelical Faith Today (1952), 4-5).
We shouldn’t be surprised at times such as ours, when people oppose distinguishing truth from error. In Paul’s last letter, he warns, "the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths" (2 Tim. 4:3-4).
Was Paul simply paranoid—overly focused on ideas of truth? I don’t think so. The Lord Jesus teaches us to be on our guard. It was he who taught, "False christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect—if that were possible. So be on your guard" (Mark 13:22-23).
How do we be on our guard? We must admit that we all tend to be either too inclusive (thus slighting God’s call to purity and undervaluing his truth) or too exclusive (thus slighting the width of God’s love and the amazing examples of his work).
Do you see how this happens? By pitting God’s Word against itself; by playing off one aspect of God’s character against another—say, his holiness against his love—we actually confuse ourselves and harm others. What we should do, instead, is grow in our knowledge of God’s Word and our own hearts. Then we will be more attuned to his truth as he has revealed it—both his call for holiness and for love.
Truth and humility shouldn’t be enemies. The fact is, they’re great friends, and truly growing in one should lead to growth in the other.
Too often, however, we find ourselves becoming a caricature of our tendencies. We either become a unity person or a purity person.
The Unity People
The unity people love Bible chapters like John 17. They perceive clearly that our unity with one another testifies to our unity with God in Christ, and that our love for one another shows God’s love for us (as Jesus taught in John 13:34-35). They love the love passages in the Bible:
"Make my joy complete by being like-minded" (Phil. 2:2);
"agree with each other in the Lord" (Phil. 4:2);
"all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought" (1 Cor. 1:10);
"My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love" (Col. 2:2).
There have been many unity movements among professing Christians in the last few decades. There is old-line liberal ecumenism—"let’s bring all the denominations together." There are the parachurch ministries which rally people from different churches to share the gospel—from Billy Graham to Campus Crusade. There is the charismatic movement, which has helped to create fellowship across old church divides. More recently there has been what we could call Great Traditionalism, which relies on an "oldest-common-denominator." You see this in the current fad among some evangelicals to use methods and objects associated with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy as aids to piety.
The popular T-shirts among the unity crowd say things like "Doctrine divides" or "Love unites" or "Mission unites." It was from this camp that one bishop came who, not too long ago, said, "Heresy is better than schism." These doctrinal minimalists want "No creed but Christ; no law but love."
The Purity People
The opposite of the unity people are the purity people. They want purity of doctrine and purity of life. They want purity in our churches, in our Christian colleges, and in our seminaries.
These people take the Bible’s command to separate seriously. They know 2 John well: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house [church] or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work" (vv. 10-11).
Or John’s warning from his first letter: "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (4:1).
And then there is Paul’s warnings: "keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us" (2 Thes. 3:6).
And "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? . . . ‘Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord’" (2 Cor. 6:14, 17).
Add to these all the passages on church discipline (e.g. 1 Cor 5.) as well as Jude’s command, "contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3).
The folks contending for the faith are the Fundamentalists and conservative Mennonites among us. These brothers and sisters will contend more quickly than they cooperate.
If you’re tempted to quote Jesus in Matthew 7:1 to such contenders—"Do not judge, or you too will be judged"—you should look a little further down the same page at verse 15 of the same chapter, where Jesus taught "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves" (7:15). And, of course, it’s Jesus in Matthew 18 who commands the church to eject unrepentant sinners from its fellowship!
The purity people seem to have a prophetic ministry of correction, just like the Puritans are stereotyped as having. Maybe their shoes were too tight. That made them grouchy. Their approach to everything can feel like, "Shoot first; ask questions later."
As we consider the unity people and the purity people together, the question we want to ask ourselves is, how do we take the best of both? The biblical desire for unity and cooperation as well as the biblical desire for truth and holiness?
2. WHAT ARE SOME COMMON FIGHTS CHRISTIANS HAVE?
For now, let’s consider another question: what are some common fights among Christians?
There are just so many to chose from! Should we pray for the dead? Is the Protestant Reformation over? Should we support city-wide evangelistic meetings that send the reported converts to the nearest church? Does the Fourth Commandment concerning the the Sabbath still apply today? Should we use hymns or choruses? Organs or guitars? Does God elect those that he foresees will believe, or does he simply elect? Are the supernatural gifts still active today? Is prophecy still happening today? Should churches accept repenting Christians who denied Christ in times of persecution back into their fellowship? Should churches be led by elders, a single pastor, a city-wide bishop? What does baptism do? Who should be baptized? Who should baptize? How should they baptize? Must baptism precede church membership? Is the Bible the church’s sole authority? Is it sufficient? Is it inerrant? Are there gender roles in the Bible that we are supposed to follow today? Are women supposed to be elders in a church? What’s an appropriate salary for a Christian minister? Should Christians tithe to their local churches? Should children be present throughout the whole morning service? Should Christians send their children to Christian schools or public schools; or should they homeschool them? Should ministers wear clothes that distinguish him from church members? Should church gatherings include performed music? Should churches hire non-Christian musicians to play for our public services? Should we believe before we belong, or belong before we believe? Is helping the poor a necessary part of evangelism?
Suppose you’re in the midst of such a disagreement with other leaders or members in your church. What should you do? I would move on to the next question, question number 3.
3. WHAT’S THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE FOR COOPERATING?
Purpose Matters
What’s the specific purpose for which you are considering cooperating with other Christians? The kind of cooperation we are aiming at determines how much agreement is necessary. I can be friends with someone whom I wouldn’t marry. I can buy something from an individual I wouldn’t hire. I can pray with someone whose church I wouldn’t join. I can read a book by someone with whom I disagree. I can believe that someone would do a good job at some things, but not at others.
When it comes to religious questions, we must consider what the purpose is of a proposed agreement. For the purpose of salvation? For the purpose of belonging to the same church? For the purpose of attending the same conference or working together on the same project? What is the circumstance, the need, the purpose of cooperation?
Circumstances May Matter
Along these lines, Christians have found that the circumstances of the occasion matter. If you live in an area where Christians are persecuted, there is more motivation to cooperate. The number of Christians may well be small and fellowship hard to find. Christians in these circumstances may find far more encouragement in sharing and using the gifts of thirty people than in six or seven each establishing their own separate assemblies. Circumstances like these have led many Christians to work with people of other denominations more than they would have back in the United States. In other words, Baptists and Presbyterians are more likely to meet regularly together in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia than in Raleigh, North Carolina!
As Christians in America become more and more of a "cognitive minority"—a group which thinks differently than the majority culture—we, too, may find ourselves becoming more aware of our commonalities with other Christians than previous generations of American Christians have been.
Still, different kinds of cooperation require different levels of agreement. The requirements for church membership are more comprehensive than the requirements for planning an evangelistic outreach. The level of agreement needed between fellow church planters is greater than what’s needed for initiating college student fellowships together. We can recognize other people as Christians, in other words, even though we might not think it wise to plant a church with them.
Conferences and one-time events can be pulled off with even less agreement, and Bible translations with perhaps even less. (I can imagine that Bible translators are able to agree in matters of translation even when they don’t agree on the content of the gospel.) And, of course, Christians can practice co-belligerency with non-Christians on some public issues involving law and moral standards.
Creeds & Confessions
Throughout church history, Christians have composed written creeds like the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed in order to state clearly what beliefs they hold in common. Confessions like the Westminster Confession or the New Hampshire Confession do the same. So, too, with the statements of faith of individual churches and parachurch ministries. All such creeds, confessions, and statements express the basic level of agreement necessary for pursuing a common goal.
4. WHAT MUST CHRISTIANS AGREE UPON?
So here’s the million dollar question: what must Christians agree upon?
This is a dangerous question, and we must proceed very carefully. We don’t want to be like the teenager who asks, "How far can I go with my girlfriend?" which is to say, "What can I get away with?" In our case, we are not asking, "What’s the least that I need to believe and still be considered a Christian?" True Christians will find themselves growing in the desire to pursue God’s truth over every matter in which he has revealed himself in his Word.
The Apostles Teaching
To begin with, Christian fellowship can only be shared with those who share the Christian faith, that is, that body of teaching which articulates what Christians believe. In Acts 2:42, Luke describes the fellowship between the first Christians by saying, "They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship…" Notice that Luke says they shared the apostles’ teaching before it says they shared fellowship.
Doctrinal choices that destroy and damn are called "heresies." The word "heresies" comes from the Greek word for "choice," and though we today are accustomed to using the word "choice" in a positive context, the apostle Peter showed how it can be used in just the opposite: "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false prophets among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves" (2 Peter 2:1). A doctrinal heresy or choice is a departure from the accepted rule of faith. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, is the right teaching of the Word of God.
As we’re looking to cooperate with other believers, we want to make sure we share the apostles’ teaching, not destructive heresies.
There is no agreed upon list of which errors should be called heretical, and it’s probably not useful to refer to all errors as "heresy." Doing so just ratchets up the emotional heat without adding light to a conversation. Not all errors are the same. In fact, it’s dangerous to treat all errors as the same. A misunderstanding of church membership is less important than a misunderstanding of the person of Jesus Christ! Some errors must be corrected; others can be endured for a lifetime.
Determining which errors can be borne with and which require separation requires us to understand the significance of the doctrine in which the disagreements occur, and even of the days in which a particular doctrine is in dispute. Just like some organs are more important than others, so some doctrines are more central than others. Our understanding of Christ’s work on the cross is more important than our view of the Sabbath, just like our heart is more important than our appendix. A human can survive the removal of his wisdom tooth or his appendix, but not his heart!
How To Learn
How do we learn what we must agree on? Let me suggest three ways: through the Bible, through our church, and through our conscience.
We learn the truth fundamentally, supremely, finally, and mostly through the Bible. This is God’s Word written. Study your Bible. Get to know God’s Word well. Always be growing in your understanding and your love for it. Read Psalm 119 in your quiet times for a month in order to meditate and grow in your appreciation for the great gift to us of God’s Word.
But God does not intend us to be earthly orphans, self-taught, self-regulating, self-centered. God has called us to belong to local churches that teach the Bible accurately and that are full of people whose lives show the fruit of his Spirit. Good teaching should bear good fruit. The elders in our churches should be able to teach us God’s Word, which means we should submit ourselves to them and their teaching. When teachers teach as they should, Christians together in a church will have a clear grasp on the gospel that saved them. (Paul assumes in Galatians 1:8-9 that this would be the case.) Ultimately, then, it is the duty of the local church to define what we must agree upon to be a Christian, and to be a member of that congregation.
We learn also through our consciences. Each of us has a conscience. By the Fall, the conscience was radically harmed, but this important aspect of God’s moral image has not been eliminated from our character. We all have an inherent sense of right and wrong. But that sense is inherent, not inerrant. Many people today treat their internal moral sense as their own unique god within, but the conscience must be corrected, trained, and taught, and it is our duty to do that according to the Scripture.
Clarity and Agreement
How can you tell if a doctrine is important and worth seeking agreement upon? Here are several tests for answering this question:
How clear is the doctrine in Scripture?
How clear do others think it is in Scripture (especially those you respect and trust as teachers of the Word)?
How near is the doctrine (or its implications) to the gospel itself?
What would be the practical and doctrinal effects of allowing disagreement in this area?
The people of God have always recognized that both summarizing and teaching the heart of the truth is important. So God gave his people a summary of his law in the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20). Moses in Deuteronomy 6 provided another summary on how they were to teach their children. And Christians from the earliest times have used the summaries provided by catechisms to prepare individuals for baptism—which is how the Apostles’ Creed was originally used. The church father Vincent of Lerins said in the fifth century that we should believe what has been believed always, everywhere, by all.
Right News, Right Views
One of the best words for Christian is "evangelical." An "evangelical" is one who is defined by certain specific news. "Good news" is what evangel means. Jesus says in the Gospel of John that the correct belief or views about his identity is necessary for someone to have eternal life; otherwise they will die in their sins (John 8:24).
Likewise, Paul tells us exactly what Christians should stand for—what is of first importance:
Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance; that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve (1 Cor. 15:1-4).
Do you feel uncomfortable prioritizing some truths over others? Apparently, Paul wasn’t.
Are you clear in your understanding that you must believe certain things in order to be a Christian? Paul was clear: "if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom. 10:9).
Paul specifically urged the Romans to keep to the teaching they had already received (see Rom. 16:17). The Galatians, too: "even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" (Gal. 1:8; cf. Eph. 4:14).
He referred to "the truths of the faith" (1 Tim. 4:6) and encouraged Timothy to "devote himself to teaching" (1 Tim 4:13).
Paul warns that "if anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing" (1 Tim. 6:3-4). This is why heresies can be so destructive, because knowing and believing the truth is necessary to our salvation (see 2 Peter 2:1).
In fact, the apostle John taught that "We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood" (1 John 4:6). John also says,
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ, as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house [meaning, I think, the local church] or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work (2 John 7-11).
Jude refers to godless men "who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our own Sovereign and Lord" (Jude 4).
In the letter of Jesus to the church at Pergamum, Jesus called those who held to a particular teaching—the teaching of the Nicolaitans—to repent (Rev. 2:15).
Do you see how often godlessness and falsehood go together? We Christians are those whose understandings and whose lives are shaped by the Good News of Jesus Christ! That’s why Paul writes to the Corinthian church: "you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat" (1 Cor. 5:11).
Peter quotes Leviticus to remind Christians that "just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: ‘Be holy, because I am holy’" (1 Peter 1:15-16).
Throughout the Bible God declares that his people must not worship false gods or live lives devoted to them. John concludes his first epistle by writing, "Dear children, keep yourselves from idols" (1 John 5:21). The idols he is talking about, I think, are the false gods of a christ who is not God incarnate, or a christ who tolerates immorality or a lack of love.
We are justified by faith alone, but a justifying faith produces Christians who look more and more like the God they worship.
Believe that God Is One
So what must Christians agree upon? I would say that Christians must agree upon God, the Bible, and the Gospel.
First, we must believe that God is one. He is triune—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He is uncreated, self-existing. He is morally perfect. He is characterized by holy love. He is our sovereign Creator and Judge. He is the one we are called to believe in (Num. 14:11). As the LORD says to his people in Isaiah,
"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior" (Isa. 43:10-11).
We also read in Acts 16 that the Philippian jailer’s family rejoiced "because they had come to believe in God" (Acts 16:34).
And we read in Hebrews 11:6 that "without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists…"
This essential belief in God is the sincere acknowledgement of a fact. But it’s also more than that. James tells us, "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder" (James 2:19). A saving belief in God transforms us increasingly into a reflection of his character. So John writes, "love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love" (1 John 4:7-8).
Believe that the Bible Is God’s Truth
Second, we must believe that the Bible is how we know the truth about God. The Scriptures are God’s revelation of himself and, therefore, have authority in our lives and teaching. The verse right before the one just quoted says this: "We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood" (1 John 4:6).
John’s words seem to match what Jesus taught in John 10:4—that the sheep know the voice of the Good Shepherd. They recognize his voice and follow it.
Likewise, Paul commanded the Thessalonian Christians to follow his instructions and to ostracize those who did not (2 Thess. 3:6, cf. 14-15).
Believe in the Gospel
Third, we must believe the gospel. The Good News is that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God incarnate (see 1 John). Without understanding this, we could not uphold the truth of God’s triune nature. The Trinity and the incarnation support each other. One cannot be attacked without attacking the other. As Paul said, "in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" (Col. 2:9).
But the gospel includes not only Christ’s incarnation, it also includes his substitutionary death on the cross, his bodily resurrection, and his return in power and great glory.
Again, remember Paul’s summary of what Christianity is in 1 Corinthians. The Corinthians had been dividing over all kinds of wrong things, which Paul spent fourteen chapters addressing. But now he turns finally to what they should contend for!
Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance; that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve (1 Cor. 15:1-4).
Do you see the facts here associated with the gospel? Christ has died for our sins. Christ was buried. Christ was raised. There it is! And make no mistake: clarity on the centrality of the cross will promote fellowship theologically (as the relative importance of doctrines is clarified) and experientially (as humility is encouraged in our character).
As we lift up the cross, the gospel appears. It contains the News of a Holy God. It contains the News of man made in God’s own image, yet tragically fallen into terrible rebellion against God and under God’s judgment (cf. Gen. 3; Rom. 3:23; 1 John 1:8-10; 5:12). It contains the News of Christ, the Son of God, who suffered for us and in whom we are to believe for eternal life (John 3:16, 18; 12:44; 17:20; 20:31; Acts 15:11; 16:31; Rom . 3:22; 10:9; Gal. 3:22; Phil. 1:29; Col. 2:9; 1 Thes. 4:14; 1 John 2:22-23; 3:23; 4:2-3, 15; 5:1, 5, 10). And it contains the News that we can be forgiven by God and reconciled to him through the gift of repenting and believing. Our repentance, moreover, will show itself in loving commitment to each other in the fellowship of the local church (Matt. 16; 18; Mark 1:15; Rom. 16:26; Heb. 10:25, 1 John 3:23; 4:19-21; 5:3, 13).
And the faith which alone justifies is faith in this God (Num. 14:11). It is trusting in his deliverance (Ps. 78:22). He has acted so that we may believe in him (Isa. 43:10). So Jesus’ first words in Mark’s gospel conclude with this call: "Repent and believe the good news!" (Mark 1:15).
John also wrote, "God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16; cf. 3:18; 11:26; 19:35; 20:31; Acts 16:31, 34; Rom. 3:22; 4:24; 10:9-10, 14; 16:26; 1 Cor. 1:21; Gal. 3:7, 22; Phil. 1:29; 1 Tim, 1:16; Heb. 10:39; 11:6; 1 Peter 1:21; 1 John 2:24).
We are justified only by trusting in this Jesus. Someone who doesn’t believe this gospel isn’t a Christian. Even people who call themselves "Christians," "church members," or "evangelicals" are not truly Christians if they don’t believe this gospel! Calling yourself something doesn’t make you one.
God, the Bible, the Gospel. You cannot have true Christian fellowship with someone who disagrees with you on these matters.
5. WHAT MAY CHRISTIANS DISAGREE ABOUT?
What then may Christians disagree about?
Again, I want to be very careful about this. I’m not giving you permission to not care about things that God has revealed in His Word. Nor am I trying to teach you how little you must believe and how much you can cooperate.
The answer to the question of what Christians may disagree about is best determined by the Bible and with the agreement of a Bible-preaching church.
Practical Matters
Christians can certainly have disagreements about practical matters. And some of these disagreements will, of practical necessity, cause local divisions. You cannot do something in two different ways. If this group of people are convinced that something should be done this way, and that group of people is convinced it should be done in another way, and it can’t be done both ways, then the simple answer may be to work separately, but with love and cooperation.
So in Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas came to opposite conclusions about the way of wisdom in their work. Paul thought that they couldn’t work with John Mark; Barnabas thought they should. Instead of fighting about it, they "parted company" (Acts 15:39). We have no reason to think that either stopped believing the other brother was a Christian; it’s just that they knew they couldn’t continue working together because of this practical disagreement.
True or False
As we think specifically of gatherings that claim to be a "church," we may categorize them as either "true" or "false." By this I don’t mean that a "true church" never says anything false, or that a "false church" never says anything true. Rather, I mean that a "true church" preaches the true gospel, and is following Christ’s commands to baptize and celebrate the Lord’s Supper (including the practice of church discipline). A "false church," on the other hand, is one which has forsaken the preaching of the true gospel.
Regular or Irregular
Churches that preach the same true gospel we may classify as regular (according to the rule/Scripture) or irregular.
For example, it is my and my church’s understanding that the Bible teaches that baptism is only for believers. Any church who preaches the same gospel as we do but who practices infant baptism we would call true but irregular churches (my Presbyterian brethren, of course, would return the compliment).
But the point is, if we call them true churches, we can fellowship with them in the gospel, even if we wouldn’t agree with them on everything. We must have unity in the gospel to recognize each other as Christians.
Disputable Matters
But it’s clear from the New Testament that there are a number of other issues that true Christians differ about. For instance, the question of eating meat sacrificed to idols was a burning issue in many of the churches. But Paul was not overly concerned about Christians disagreeing with each other over this issue because they were not maintaining that a certain conclusion was necessary for salvation. They could work together so long as they wouldn’t be distracted by their disagreement. His sage advice? "Whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God" (Rom. 14:22).
Paul also faced questions in the church about Christians regarding some days being more holy than others (see Rom. 14:6). But he called this issue a "disputable matter" (Rom. 14:1).
What are our disputable matters today? They are many. Questions about the particular practices of church membership are disputable.
Or consider the question of what the millennium is in Revelation 20. Some Christians would say we need to agree on this in order to have a church together. What do you think? Let’s run this through the tests I suggested earlier:
Test 1: How clear is it in Scripture? It’s mentioned in the two verses in Revelation 20 and nowhere else. And evangelical, Bible-believing commentaries are not in agreement about what John was referring to.
Test 2: How clear do others think it is in Scripture (especially those you respect and trust as teachers of the Word)? Again, I find a variety.
Test 3: How near is it (or its implications) to the gospel itself? I think it is unrelated. As long as we agree that Christ is returning, what he does during the Millennium seems to be of little significance to me right now.
Finally, test 4: What would be the doctrinal or practical effects of allowing disagreement in this area? We have not found any effects in our church—other than providing opportunities to practice charity toward each other. For that matter, the elders in my church disagree on this matter, and I cannot perceive any unfaithfulness or practical problems flowing out of these differences.
Non-Essential ≠ Unimportant
Now don’t misunderstand me. Non-essential does not mean unimportant. It may sometimes; but at other times, what at first seems non-essential may prove to be important.
For instance, the question about prayers for the dead may at first seem non-essential. But as you come to recognize that this particular practice undermines justification by faith alone, you begin to see how important the topic is. Praying for the dead assumes that any decision they made in this life does not stand. It says we can directly affect the eternal states of others, when Scripture is clear that our eternal state is determined only by our faith in Christ alone.
6. HOW CAN CHRISTIANS DISAGREE WELL?
Finally, how can Christians disagree well?
Perhaps you have heard this helpful statement that came out of the German reformation: "In essentials unity, in non-essentials diversity, in all things, charity (or love)." We must agree on the essentials in order to have unity, which we’ve discussed. And we allow for diversity in non-essentials, which we’ve also discussed. But how do we achieve that daunting command to love in all this?
Roger Nicole has suggested that we answer these two questions:
What do I owe the person who differs from me?What can I learn from the person who differs from me?
Let’s think about these questions for a moment.
What Do I Owe?
What do I owe the person who differs from me? First, I owe love. We should speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15).
Second, I owe respect. Do to others as you would have them do to you (Matt. 7:12). When you are in a disagreement, make it evident that you care about the person you’re disagreeing with as a person, more than care about winning an argument. Listen carefully to what they’re saying. Clarify anything you haven’t understood. Always go for what people mean, even beyond what they’ve said. One of my theology professors always wrote out the pros and cons of the differing views.
The principle here is that you want to represent the opposite perspective as well as you can, so that the proponents feel satisfied with your presentation. After all, debates tend to harden proponents in their own ideas.
In all of this, consider what goals you share. Can you see what your friend is aiming at in what he’s saying? One way I try to explore differences is to use what I call a "decision tree." I try to begin where we both agree, and then trace out the point at which we diverge and ask why he made one decision while I made the other. Your goal should always be to avoid alienating people, but instead to encourage them. That will usually get farther in persuading them anyway!
What Can I Learn?
The second question to ask yourself in learning to disagree well is, "What can I learn from the person who differs from me?"
After all, perhaps it’s the case that I am wrong. Certainly I can learn something of my own assertiveness, and the temptations I face in discussion. Are we more interested in winning a discussion and safeguarding our reputation, or in discovering truth and leading it to triumph?
A couple of years ago I was reading a biography of John Wesley and I ran across this brief account:
It was customary for the itinerant and local preachers to take breakfast together, on Sunday mornings, at City Road. On one occasion, when Wesley was present, a young man rose and found fault with one of his seniors. The Scotch blood of Thomas Rankin was roused, and he sharply rebuked the juvenile for his impertinence; but, in turn, was as sharply rebuked himself. Wesley instantly replied: ‘I will thank the youngest man among you to tell me of any fault you see in me; in doing so, I shall consider him my best friend.’" (L. Tyerman, Life and Times of Wesley (Harper & Bros; 1872), III.567.)
Now that takes humility! And without humility, we can’t learn. We can’t learn the truth about ourselves or the truth about the Bible. According to the ancient Greeks, the opposite of a friend was not an enemy, but a flatterer. Our pride is our greatest enemy in all this.
Welcome correction as a good enemy of your pride. And appreciate the way in which those who differ with you can sometimes help to fill out or better balance the picture you’re presenting. It can be good to have Christian friends that disagree with us on some things—it gives us the opportunity to learn and to exercise our love.
CONCLUSION
How can we summarize everything we’ve considered? Handle Scripture carefully and in context. Know the Bible well. Love God by loving his Word. Meditate on Psalm 119. As Paul told Timothy, "the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. 2:24-25).
Put it all in perspective. If you’re a Christian, you’re an heir of heaven! God has called you to be a messenger of his gospel more than any other message. And what is your witness? Do people think of you as argumentative or quarrelsome? We want to be known more by what we are for than by what we’re against. And we always want to be for the gospel, and for being reformed by the Word of God.
In essentials unity, in non-essentials diversity, in all things love.
Mark Dever is the pastor of the Capitol Hill Baptist Church and one of the principles of Together for the Gospel.
March/April 2008, © 9Marks
Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format, provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 1,000 physical copies. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by 9Marks.
Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: ©9Marks. Website: www.9Marks.org. Email: info@9marks.org. Toll Free: (888) 543-1030.
星期三, 10月 01, 2008
silver shovel
The silver shovel is kept on the southwestern corner of the altar. The shovel is used for the removal of ashes left on the altar, the first task performed by the priests each morning at the break of dawn.
copper laver
The copper laver and stand, which stands in the Temple courtyard between the sanctuary and the outer altar, is the first of the Temple vessels to greet the priests each morning. There the priests wash their hands and feet before proceeding to attend to the daily tamid offering.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
