withallyourmind.net

Pagan Christianity, a new book by Frank Viola and George Barna claims that much of what we experience as church-goers these days has little to do with Christianity and lot to do with pagan practices. Here’s the quick Amazon editorial review:

Have you ever wondered why we Christians do what we do for church every Sunday morning? Why do we “dress up” for church? Why does the pastor preach a sermon each week? Why do we have pews, steeples, choirs, and seminaries? This volume reveals the startling truth: most of what Christians do in present-day churches is not rooted in the New Testament, but in pagan culture and rituals developed long after the death of the apostles. Coauthors Frank Viola and George Barna support their thesis with compelling historical evidence in the first-ever book to document the full story of modern Christian church practices.

Certainly, the modern American church is not without flaws. I’m certain we could improve on the way we do a lot of things. I might say that I have not yet read the book (although I’ve ordered it) so I cannot myself review or comment on anything which the book teaches. I will direct you to a review by New Testament expert, Ben Witherington. He has a five part review of the book, plus, an additional, related post yesterday on whether Christians should meet on Sunday and who should do the teaching. His insights and knowledge are helpful when considering the topic of this book.

A couple of excerpts from the first of his lengthy multi-part review:

Of course the big bad guy in Pagan Christianity is not going to be sin, suffering, the Devil, or any of those things. The big bad guy is going to be what is loosely called the Institutional Church and that other famous whipping boy—‘church tradition’ and oh yes— Greek philosophy. The particular animus is against the Roman Catholic Church for paganizing Christianity. Dan Brown would have liked this book.

One of the worst things that can happen to persons who are anti-institutionalists, and anti-sacramentalists, is that so angry are they about the excesses and bad theology that has sometimes come out of the ‘institutional church’ that they throw the baby right out with the sacramental baptismal waters. I understand this, but it is a colossal over-reaction. Desacralizing worship, the Lord’s Supper, and even persons is not something devout Christians should be about. The last thing the church needs is a more casual, less reverential approach to all these things which removes altogether the recognition that one is entering into the presence of the Holy One when one comes to worship, the One in whose presence we too become sanctified, something that happens through encountering God through prayers, praise, songs, sacraments, and of course the preaching as well.

Mary Jo, an outstanding Christian apologist, has a new post on her website, Confident Christianity, in which she concludes that many Christians do not live as if they truly believe what Christianity teaches, but rather live like one might expect an agnostic to live. Why does Christian behavior not match up with Christian belief? Mary Jo suggests:

One reason for this behavior that I have noticed over the years is not all Christians understand God to be a real being. I do not mean a real idea or a real teaching, but a real being like your parents, spouse, children, or friend. It would be extremely difficult to go to church with your family and then go home and act as though your family does not exist. However, some Christians go to church and then go home and act as if God does not exist. Embarrassingly, some Christians even act as if God does not exist while they are at church. This is such odd behavior for the body of Christ who claim to have the most powerful, intelligent, and loving being dwelling inside of them…

Yet, I see so many defeated Christian lives. In fact, this behavior reminds me of the agnostic view about God; that perhaps there is a being that created everything, but we cannot really know that being. The agnostic view would explain a behavioral pattern of going to church and then going home quite unchanged and indifferent. Christians, on the other hand, do not believe in a nebulous creator that cannot be known. In fact, the New Testament writers affirm the certainty with which believers can know the reality of God…

These authors viewed God as a real being, and Jesus Christ as his real Son. They are essentially saying, “I was there and I saw these things with my own eyes.” No wonder they were able to suffer and die for God, because they had a reasonable understanding that God was real! So I am wondering if we would see a notable difference in the behaviors or attitudes of the body of Christ if all believers could articulate why they believe that God exists (apart from the answer of “the Bible says so”)? At the very least, would Christians be able to better prioritize what is petty from what is important in life if we could grasp hold of the reality of the God who indwells us?

What one believes does impact what one does. If one’s actions are not consistent with what one believes, perhaps one doesn’t really believe it.

This is a subject that has been on my mind for some time. I have not, as of yet, felt comfortable commenting on the meetings which have been ongoing in Lakeland, Florida for the past several weeks. I have been a resident of Lakeland for 5 years now. I work at the Lakeland Regional Medical Center as an emergency physician and have met in the emergency department a number of those who have travelled from across the U.S. and around the world to be a part of the “Lakeland Revival.”

I am probably as qualified as any to speak on the subject. First, I trusted Christ as a teenager in a Pentecostal church and served as a Pentecostal pastor for 14 years. Second, I live in Lakeland. Third, I have a number of friends and acquaintances from around the country who have come to Lakeland for the meetings. I’ve talked with them and some have stayed in my home. Finally, I’ve attended the meetings myself.

I’m actually quite troubled by the “Lakeland Revival,” as it has come to be known around the world. This “move of the Spirit” has been compared to past “revivals” such as the Toronto Blessing and the Brownsville Revival. First, I’ll state where I think some critics of the “revival” have erred.

1. Todd Bentley, of Fresh Fire Ministries, the leader of the revival is not your stereotypical preacher. He exhibits large amounts of tattoos and piercings, dresses like a biker and has a troubled background. None of that in itself discredits what is taking placed in Lakeland. These things might make one approach with a little more skepticism, but has no direct bearing on whether these meetings are of God or not.

2. I do not think that Bentley’s antics are demonically motivated. He is not under the power of Satan. Furthermore, the people that attend these meetings (at least the one’s I know) are sincere Christians who love God with all their heart and are truly hungry for God’s active presence in their lives and ministries. They are not subject to demonic influences, as some have suggested.

So, what’s wrong with the “Lakeland Revival?”

1. The Revival is extremely focused on the experiential and seems mostly unconcerned with the fundamentals of the Christian faith. There is not an emphasis on doctrinal correctness. The night I attended, the first thing I heard when I walked in the doors, was the worship leader mis(quoting) scripture: “The Scripture says that God dances in heaven over one sinner who repents!” While the main point of that statement is true (God is happy when one repents), the quote immediately made me question the commitment to doctrinal accuracy. Now, I’m not against enjoying the presence of God. I enjoyed the extended time of singing and praise. The problem is that “spirit” seems emphasized to the detriment of “truth.”

2. The tactics of Bentley are unscriptural and plain weird. For some examples of what goes on, see this youtube video. On that video he boasts of following God’s leading to kick people in the face, to punch them in the stomach (knocking their teeth out) and body slamming them in order to produce healing. The night I attended I watched him (under God’s direction) approach a gentleman and knee him in the stomach, knocking him to the ground. These antics do not in any way resemble anything I see in the ministry of Jesus or in the Acts of the Apostles. Does this mean all this is demonic? No. There is a third category - human lunacy and goofiness.

Perhaps, my greatest grievance with all of this is its impact on non-Christians. As one who is interested in the Christian apologetic enterprise, I am concerned that this complicates the task. The already signficant barriers to some accepting the faith have been multiplied by such foolishness. While Bentley prophesies of the coming worldwide move of God, “revivals” such as this in Lakeland, present a caricature of true Christianity easily dismissed by unbelievers. Much damage is ultimately done to the cause of the Gospel. The Gospel is offensive enough to many. We need not add additional offense unnecessarily.

The supposed large number of healings also concerns me. I’ve been in hundreds of services where the sick have been prayed for and in a number of dedicated “healing services.” Most of the healings are of the kind that are unconfirmable (except upon the testimony of the “healed”). I have yet to see a physically crippled individual with obvious physical deformities (or mental) healed despite the large number of healings which purportedly takes place. Let me clearly state: I am not a cessationist. I see no reason to believe that God has stopped working miracles in our day. On the other hand, I see nothing which makes me think such meetings as the Lakeland Revival are similar to that which took place in the New Testament. I must also state that it is possible, even probable, that some are healed in such meetings. That does not place God’s stamp of approval on the meetings themselves, however. It might be that God heals some folks in spite of, and not because of, the antics of those involved. I am quite concerned that non-Christians see through this facade of “healing” and are turned off to the Gospel of Christ. This becomes a hindrance to true revival and evangelism, rather than promoting it.

Additionally, the time and expenses that are invested (I won’t quite say “wasted”) by those who fly in from all over the world could be much better spent elsewhere. A great deal of time was spent prophesying about the coming revival all over the world (and how God told Bentley he was a big part in it) in the meeting I attended. As a former Pentecostal, I’ve heard these prophecies since my first week as a Christian. We need to spend less time looking for a new move of the Spirit and more time preaching, teaching, and doing what we already know from the Bible.

I have gone on longer than usual and there is much more I could say. I thought I should say something since I am close to action and have personally attended the meeting. Stand to Reason has recently posted several blog posts (here, here, and here) on their website regarding this “revival.” They are insightful and helpful, offering more legitimate criticism of the Lakeland Revival. Greg Koukl also spent time discussing this issue on his most recent radio show. Koukl also has an article adressing the Toronto Blessing called New Movement of the Spirit - So What?, which is applicable and offers wisdom when considering such meetings as the Lakeland Revival.

Today, I conclude this series on the relationship of the believer and the Law of Moses.

Previously, I have stressed the discontinuity between the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ. It is instructive, however, to note that there is continuity between them. Many commandments found in the Mosaic Law are taken up and included in the Law of Christ. This might be expected since God’s holiness and righteousness do not change. God’s moral character would be manifest in all formulations of His law. It is therefore not surprising that God’s moral commands found within the Law of Moses are repeated for the New Testament believer.

It is also not surprising that love is at the center of both formulations. As Jesus summarized the Mosaic Law with the love of God and the love of one’s neighbor, so Paul encouraged Christians to “bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” While there is some disagreement over whether there are specific commandments within the Law of Christ, the emphasis is clearly on the direction and enablement of the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit who produces fruit in the believer’s life.

In conclusion, we have seen that the Law, although good and holy, does not serve as a direct source of guidance for the conduct of the Christian. New Testament believers are not under its condemning force. This does not mean that the Law is of no use to the Christian. In fact, Douglas Moo provides three ways in which the Law is profitable.

First, although the Law it itself is not binding on the Christian, individual commandments within that Law might be if they are “reapplied” by the New Testament writers. For example, the Law of Christ subsumes nine of the Ten Commandments (excluding the Sabbath), making us responsible for those nine. The Christian, however, is bound only to that part of the Mosaic Law which is explicitly taken up by and incorporated into the Law of Christ - only that which is repeated in New Testament teaching. (This is counter to those who might hold that we are bound to obey whatever parts of the Mosaic Law which are not explicitly denounced in the Law of Christ.)

Second, the Mosaic Law “fills out” or explains certain basic concepts found in both Testaments (Moo uses an example concerning laws of personal injury in the Old Covenant). Principles might be found therein that are profitable for the believer in this time after Christ has come. Baylis states that “Paul is not opposed to using the Law for instruction. It was from his pen that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 flowed, affirming that all Scripture… is to be used for teaching.” The Mosaic Law was certainly not a means of attaining justification, but did serve as an insight into God’s view of life.

Finally, the Law serves as a “prophetic witness” to the fulfillment of God’s plan in Christ. As such, it is beneficial to the believer.

(Recommended Reading: Five Views on Law and Gospel, from which many quotes in this series was taken.)

In this post, I continue to look at the relationship betwen the believer and the Mosaic Law.

Paul, in Galatians 3-4, argues that the believer is no longer “under the law.” In this context, Paul notes that the Law occupied a particular position in God’s salvation history – it was for the nation of Israel before the coming of Christ. At that time, they were subject to the Mosaic Law. However, God’s promise of salvation was given prior to the Law (to Abraham) and continues after the law has reached fulfillment. The New Testament believer is no longer directly under the power and authority of the Law. For Christ has abolished…

… in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

Jesus has…

… canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us.

Other New Testament writers also confirm these conclusions. John’s Gospel clearly presents the discontinuity between the Law and the Gospel throughout. John 1:17 states:

For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

The author of Hebrews maintains that the Law was “only a shadow of the good things that are coming” and incapable of perfecting those who are under it. He contrasts the Old Covenant with the New Covenant and holds that the Old is faulty and obsolete. Christ’s fulfillment of the Mosaic Law abolishes it as a binding rule of conduct for the believer.

This does not necessarily lead to an antinomian approach to the Gospel. As I have already suggested, the Christian is bound to a law, not the Mosaic Law, but the Law of Christ. We are still obliged to obey God’s law. The eternal law of God is found in both the Mosaic Law (which also contained commandments temporally limited to a particular circumstance) as well as in the Law of Christ. In 1 Corinthians 9:21, Paul said of himself that he was not…

… outside the law of God but under the law of Christ.

Since the Mosaic Law was a special formulation of God’s will for a specific people for a specific time in a specific place, one should not reasonably expect that it is still in force for the Church. The believer is now subject to God’s will in another form - the Law of Christ. This Law of Christ is not a code or series of commandments and prohibitions, but is composed of the teachings of Christ and the apostles and the directing influence of the Holy Spirit. When New Testament writers encourage believers to follow God’s commands, they are not referring to the Law of Moses, but rather to those commands found in the Law of Christ. There has been a shift in the salvation history of the world in which the Mosaic Covenant no longer occupies center position.

Next, I conclude.

Now that the purpose of the Law has been addressed in previous posts, let me now turn to the question at hand, “What is the relationship of the Law to the New Testament believer?”

Briefly, the New Testament teaches that the entire Mosaic Law has found fulfillment in Jesus Christ and has been replaced by a new law, the “Law of Christ.” Jesus stated in Matthew 5:17, “I have come… to fulfill [the Law and the Prophets].” The entire Old Testament, including the Law, anticipated the coming of Christ. Christ accomplished that to which the Law looked forward.

I might insert here that although the believer is no longer under obligation to the Mosaic Law, this does not mean that he is without law. Instead, the Law has been replaced with the “Law of Christ.” A.T. Lincoln argues that Matthew saw that:

… the whole law pointed forward to Jesus’ teaching and ministry, ultimately culminating in His death and Resurrection, and lives on only in so far as it has been transformed through its fulfillment by Jesus.

Paul, like Matthew, claimed that “Christ is the end of the law.” The Mosaic Law anticipated Christ, and now that Christ has come the law has reached its culmination, finding its goal and completion in Him. This “Law of Christ” to which Christians are bound does not consist in the principles of the Mosaic Law, but consists in those principles exemplified and taught by Jesus Christ. The Law of Christ is centered on love and motivated by the Spirit. Romans 8:2-4 shows that the time of the Law of Moses has ended, and the believer is no longer subject to it as a rule of life:

For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Next, more on the relationship of the believer and the Law.

Before turning to the actual relationship of the Christian to the Mosaic Law, I would like to take one last look at the purpose of the Law in this, the fifth post in this series.

We have already seen that the first, and most straightforward, purpose of the Law was to serve as a constitution for the nation of Israel. A second purpose of the Law, clearly stated in Scripture, is the revelation of sin, particularly to the nation of Israel (but by extrapolation to all people). Paul stated:

The law was added so that the trespass might increase [and] … through the law comes knowledge of sin.

Not only was sin given definition by the Law, but men realized that they were sinful and incapable of obeying the Law, thus being imprisoned under sin. Galatians 3:22 states:

The Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin.

Douglas Moo comments:

The law is like an unfulfilled and unfulfillable “IOU” standing against sinful human beings.

A. T. Lincoln agrees that the purpose of the Law was…

… to make sin and transgression evident.

One must continue to bear in mind that these purposes of the Law should be confined to the people and time to which it was given, the nation of Israel before Christ. D. R. De Lacy summarizes:

The law presents us with the ethical standards of the holy God. As such, its goodness is unquestionable, but its effect is simply to demonstrate the existence of our sin, to condemn us as a result, and also to provoke our sin. Because of the weakness of the flesh, it can have no other effect on us when we read its righteous demands.

Next, how does the believer relate to the Law?

In my last post in this series, I made two main points:

1. The primary purpose of the Law was to serve as a constitution to the newly formed nation of Israel.
2. The Law must be viewed as a unified whole. There is no scriptural basis for breaking it down into civil, ceremonial, and moral divisions.

Let me first say a little more concerning point #2 above. According to Douglas Moo:

Jews in Jesus’ and Paul’s day certainly did not divide up the law into categories; on the contrary, there was a strong insistence that the law was a unity and could not be obeyed in parts.

Those who attempt such a division usually argue that it is the moral part of the law which Christians remain under obligation to obey. Paul disagrees that one can choose which parts of the law one wishes to obey, arguing in Galatians 5:3 that “I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.” James, likewise, asserts that “whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it” (James 2:10). A. T. Lincoln argues:

In all of his discussion and terminology Paul treats the Law of Moses as a total package and makes no distinction between moral and ceremonial elements within it.

A second, related, point should also be considered at this time. What is the relationship of the Ten Commandments to the New Testament believer? Are Christians obligated to follow them? Are they the basis of the believer’s morality? It has been my experience that the average person on the street thinks that they do serve this purpose. It is also true that many Christians view them in this manner. However, once again, this view is without strong scriptural support. The Ten Commandments should be viewed within the context of the giving of a constitution for the nation of Israel. They were not given to the church.

In fact, they do not all deal with moral issues, specifically this is the case for the commandment concerning Sabbath-keeping. There is no reason to believe that the moral commandments contained within the Law are eternally binding in their original form. This should not be misunderstood as saying that we are free from God’s moral law. It is simply to say that the Ten Commandments were given to a specific people at a specific time for a specific purpose. Since God’s moral character does not change, one should expect, and indeed does find, the moral principles contained in the Decalogue reiterated by Christ in the New Testament.

Next, I turn to a second purpose of the Law.

In my last post, I discussed how theoretically one could be saved by complete obedience to the Law, yet this was never the purpose for which God intended the Law. Today, I turn to the purpose of the Law.

What then is the purpose of the Mosaic Law? As previously noted, the most straightforward and basic purpose of the Law was to provide a constitution for the newly formed nation of Israel. Baylis notes that “expecting to find only spiritual things” in the Law leads confusion. Not only does the Law contain moral commandments, but also such things as building codes and public health laws.

This is not to say that there are not more spiritual purposes for God’s giving of the Law. For examlple, the Law serves to reveal God’s character. Leviticus 11:45 states, “I am the Lord who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy.” Not only does the Law reveal God’s character, but also reveals an obligation to conform to that character.

At this point, it might be helpful to consider an oft-heard, but little supported, claim that the Mosaic Law can be divided into three distinct categories: moral, ceremonial, and civil. Willem A. VanGemeren argues for such a position while defending a non-theonomic reformed view of the relationship of Law and Gospel. This division is quite important if one is to argue that the Mosaic Law is still binding for the New Testament believer, as some scholars do. In doing so, it is possible to argue that only the moral, or moral and civil , law is currently authoritative for the Christian. This equivocation on the meaning of law in different contexts, however, is difficult to justify. This tripartite division is nowhere explicitly taught in Scripture. This is not to say that certain laws cannot be classified as pertaining to ceremony, civil activity, or moral behavior. However, the biblical writers uniformly treat the Law as a unified whole.

Next, more on the pupose of the Mosaic Law.

In my last post, I began an examination of the relationship of the Christian and the Mosaic Law. I finished, yesterday, with an emphasis on the discontinuity between the Law and the believer. Christ’s work has changed the way a New Testament believer approaches the Law.

Is the Law, then, to be regarded with disdain and seen as a vile thing? No, not at all. There is no doubting that the Law is good. The important question is, Good for what? The Law’s worth must be judged with regard to its purpose. It is clear that the Law was never intended to be, nor could it be, a means by which one might obtain salvation.

Douglas Moo calls the Law a hypothetical covenant of works. By this he means that, in theory, it would be possible to obtain salvation if one were to keep all the commandments of the law. Leviticus 18:5 states, “Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them.” However, in practice, this is impossible, and the Law was never intended for this purpose by God. Sinful humanity could never achieve such perfection.

So, am I asserting a contradiction? The dual assertions that God did not give the law to bring about the salvation of His people and that one can be saved by full obedience to the law are not contradictory. The Law is not a legalistic document and does not advocate a method of salvation other than faith. God, knowing the inability of man to keep the law, did not give the law for that purpose. Acts 13:39 states that…

… by him [Christ] everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses.

Galatians states…

… if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law… (and) if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing.

In the Old Testament, as well as in the New, the only means to obtain righteousness was by faith in God. In Romans 4, Paul supports this principle by arguing that the promise of righteousness was given even before the Law was given. Therefore righteousness does not depend on keeping the Law but on grace through faith in the promises of God. God’s means of salvation has always been the same – faith in Him.

Next, the purpose of the Law.