One of My Favortie Dispensational Charts

While I cannot say, or at least prefer not to say, that I am a "dispensationalist" (mostly due to its implications in the minds of those who are ignorant of its intended general designation and not a specific kind of dispensationalist they often have in mind), I am dispensational. And one of the reasons that even the most modest student of Theology can and should accept the dispensational concept is reflected in this schematic by the late R.B. Thieme. It can be found at the R.B. Thieme, Jr., Bible Ministries website.

I significantly appreciate the three major distinctions or eras which Thieme presents in his divine outline of human history. It is consistent, not only in regard to dispensational theology but with other schools of theology (with the exception of amillenialists who would combine the christocentric and eschatological periods). Interestingly, this is a point where you may find common ground (at least in its most basic form with these three eras) with many other believers who do not share your overall dispensational approach. Those distinctive periods you can see at the top of the chart:

• Theocentric 
• Christocentric 
• Eschatological
  

Some people bristle at organizational schematics charted this way when it pertains to Biblical doctrines or Biblical themes. Most of those I have encountered prefer more esoterically stated views which do not present such demonstrative boundaries. Others do not like it because dispensational charts began with art forms and schematics which used methods of illustration that have become dated work. That is, the method of charting and illustrating takes one back to another time in history. Hence, some transfer this dated art association onto the theology being reflected, often a prejudice unbeknown to themselves.

While it is true that some of the theology of such charts is imperfect and some wrong, neither the concept of charting and grafting nor the substance of the charting and grafting illustration should be treated as presumptive errors. Sadly, it is treated as methodological error and subsequently or by consequence theological error by many who appeal to being beyond charted enlightenment and prefer, instead, to communicate only in a volume of words. But conversely, should we stop using words because in the past the Bible Teaching with words of some men was imperfect or wrong? How silly on both ends.

Thieme identifies six unique dispensations in the three eras in his divine outline of human history:

• The Age of the Gentiles (pre-Israel and the beginning of the Theocentric era)
• The Age of Israel
• The Age of the Hypostatic Union (which also appears to usher in the greater, Christocentric era)
• The Church Age
• The Tribulation (bringing in the Eschalogical era)
• The Millenium 

The chart is not an exhaustively detailed one on purpose (I believe) which is why some charts from the past have not aged well. Such mechanical illustrations have real limits and are best suited for frame-work or theological bones. The details themselves are more effectively filled in through regular doctrinal instruction. That is to say, in order to narrow our focus to a particular dispensation, the details of that dispensation and how it relates to all other events along with any changes in the protocol for believers can only effectively be understood through the rigors of regular and repetitive teaching. Charts could, at best, crudely contain bits of all the necessary subordinate detailed information and in only having bits of other vital information, misunderstanding can arise the more detail is attempted with the limited medium of charts and/or graphs.

With regard to covenants, Thieme observes a critical distinction in recognizing that the Land Covenant to Israel is unconditional and never rescinded while the Mosaic Covenant of an earthly Kingdom is rescinded and supercede with a New Covenant which is expressed as the Church, the body of Chirst, which has distinct and certain protocols, far unlike that of the Mosaic Covenant. This New Covenant is to the entire world, without genetic or geographic distinction. 

In other words, Israel or the Jews are not "God's people" today, the church is but the Land Covenant, itself, is still in tact though Israel/the Jews are not God's people. This geographic unconditional covenant, of course, is much of what Middle East tension is about today and has been for centuries and why many in the United States believe that support for Israel's right to the geographic boundaries set forth in the Land Covenant is rightfully or justly asserted, protect and preserved.

I am also appreciative of Thieme's presentation of the Hypostatic Union of Christ-our Lord's earthly ministry-as a special dispensation. This is something I believe has been overlooked by many Theologians as a true categorical difference which mediates the Age of Israel and the Church Age. The special properties of our Lord and his ministry convince me that the special elevation as a dispensation by Thieme is valid.

So as these things go, enjoy it one way or the other.

DECORATING GOD'S WORD/SPIRITUAL COMMUNICATION WITH SONG

Primarily, the exposition of God’s Word is accomplished by way of normal verbalization which comes through the ministry of those gifted to teach. We read and hear the Word of God communicated and explained through speech, in script or spoken. This is the broad and substantive means which God has ordained for our spiritual instruction and learning.

There is a secondary means of spiritual communication, however, which can and should be edifying. And though it is not the principal mechanism, it is a Biblical one and that method is through music.

This second category may properly be viewed as an apparatus by which we decorate or dress the Word of God with music or song. Generally, what we communicate in song are explicit quotes from God’s Word or concepts which are compatible with God’s Word, ultimately, both stemming from Scripture. Our objective is to transmit a spiritual truth. This liberty which God has granted - that His Word may be dressed or decorated as such - is a magnificent one but one with great responsibility. So with this I have cardinal principle in mind as well as some accompanying thoughts.

How We Dress Things in Life

In life, we dress many things and we do so to enhance its presentation. For example, something as simple as an end table is given dressing such as placing a doily on its top and then accenting it with a lamp and maybe some kind of decorative side piece. Common sense tells us that shoddy materials and ugly intonations will not enhance the piece rather, paltry items distress, degrade and diminish its substance so we are careful not to use them.

Think of holiday time, particularly the Thanksgiving table. Most people who wish to enjoy the pleasantness of the Thanksgiving spread do so with orchestration in mind as they prepare and outfit the table. It is not uncommon for the banquet to be photographed because of what it represents, bounty, beauty and blessing. And you can be certain that those responsible for what it communicates have harmony, abundance and felicity in mind for their guests. Their objective is to enlarge the beauty of the occasion, not confuse it with elements contrary to the event.

Simple and Elaborate vs. Base and Discordant – When we add dressing to things to embellish its beauty it can range from the simple to the elaborate but always, for the Christian, it is in good taste. It is not the level of sophistication which is in question, that is to say, simple is not bad nor sophistication best, in and of themselves. Sometimes the uncomplicated is called for and sometimes refinement is more appropriate but never are base and discordant called for in dressing things in order to amplify their superior traits.

In the world around us, however,  there are many who wish to pass off simple and elaborate for that which is base and discordant and the two should not be misunderstood. It might be true that something which is base is simple, but not all simple things are base. As well, that which is discordant may be sophisticated but not all things sophisticated are discordant. Do not confuse the two. 

Sadly, in the Christian world there is an increasing naivety, if not genuine sinful resistance to and resentment of, this common sense which even unregenerate men and women can be found to comprehend. Many of those in spiritual darkness still know better than to be fooled by such claims.

Dressing Spiritual Communication

Therefore, when we give heed to Ephesians 5:15-20 (NIV):

18 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, 19 speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, 20 always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

And its counterpart, Colossians 3:15-17 (NIV):

15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. 16 Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts. 17 And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

We cannot ignore the responsibility which accompanies this great liberty given to us by God, this liberty that we may decorate His Word and its subsequent the communication of its principles, to one another, in song. The charge given to us, as we exercise this divine license to dress God’s Word in song, is that it must be treated with - in the least - the kind of prudence that even the world understands which is that ugliness, baseness and discordance is not dressing to augment beauty. But beyond that, there are principles among principles and more, in the Word of God, which should guide us past this common discretion and to a spiritual wisdom when formulating musical attire for spiritual communication.


Simple and elaborate both are acceptable when called for as we express God’s Word in song, but not that which represents debauched culture, depraved dispositions or discordant and disharmonious angst. Come, now.

Do you really need to be told not to bathe the Word of God in sensual music or are you so far gone that you can’t even bring yourself to admit there is such thing as salaciously provocative music? Do the clothes of the belly dancer belong on the body of informed saints (always understanding that the young or new saint is not necessarily informed and we must treat with grace that uniformed period of their journey) as we worship in public? So would the music of the belly dancer be appropriate array for spiritual communication? Do you think the belly dancer accidentally chooses the music she chooses? Should we, then, not be far more deliberate as God’s children when we adorn spiritual communication with song?

As it is often said, this really is a no-brainer.

God’s Election of What? The Decoder Ring to Unlocking Election in Ephesians 1:4-5

The election passage in Ephesians is critical to understanding and formulating an appropriate view of election. As I have prepared this treatment I have done so over weeks and months and was astonished by a few things. My hope is to bring the reader, not necessarily to a point of agreement with me (though this is "a" hope) but to a place of escape from the trap of the common ARC (Augustinian/Reformed/Calvinist) view of this passage which bases its formulation, in part, on failing to ask the appropriate questions and if asked, answering them inappropriately. As well I hope to encourage you to examine and accept the weight of the grammatical/exegetical indicators, if only to cross-examine yourself and/or those who assert the ARC interpretation.

So to make it simple I am going to examine the passage with the needed questions and tackle them one at a time. I hope this will help with the ease of reading, even for the most basic student of the Word of God, though it will get very specific or technical at one point, most of it is easily followed.

The questions which need asked and answered (answers which the text provides) are your decoder ring for a proper examination of the text.

1. What was being chosen by God?

2. When was the choice made by God?

3. Where and when is the human elected by God?

4. Can Yoda and sentence structure (sentence diagram) show us anything? Yes!

5. Who are the “us” to whom Paul refers that God chose.

6. How does the panoramic context of “in him/Christ” inform us?

Here is Ephesians 1:4-5

4For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—

*This treatment will be with verse 4.

1. First, ask yourself, what was being chosen by God?

This cannot be any more critical to comprehending this passage.  Was God choosing those who would be in Christ or that in Christ we would be holy and blameless?

Many students of Scripture have been trained to run over this portion with the kind of speed which does not permit asking this vital question and making appropriate observations because they have been taught to look at it one way. It is so important to note what is and is not there, in the text.

Dr. Thomas Constable in his Notes on Ephesians (2012 Edition) makes this classic error. He is no exegetical novice, but I am afraid as a committed Calvinist of some sort, he was led about too easily by its doctrine in approaching this passage. Here is what he states about the passage (bold mine):

God has ordained that all the elect should be under Christ's authority. Some interpreters have concluded that God chose Jesus and that all who believe in Him become elect by their faith.29 However this verse states that God chose "us" to be in Christ.

Right now I am about to blow the doors off of what Dr. Constable said, at the very end. He stated, “God chose us to be in Christ”. No, that is not what the passage says. That is an incorrect grammatical rendering of the passage and one, I suspect, is based on Calvinist instinct and not paying close attention to what is and is not there.

It states:

 4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless

Look where the "to be" is. It is not where Dr. Constable puts it. God chose us to be holy and blameless, it does not say he chose us to be in Christ, that we would be in Christ or who would be in Christ. 

It is true that “in Christ” is where we are made holy and blameless and it is true that God chose “in Christ” as where we would be made holy and blameless, but it does not say “God chose us to be in Christ” nor “God chose who would be in Christ” or even that God determined "we would be in Christ". Now clearly some of us are "in Christ", many before us and many after us, but none of that is in the text and we are dealing with what the text contains and says, not what we wish to make it mean or put in it in order to make it fit our theology.

It is very important that you stay with me because when we get to the sentence structure you will understand that the phrase, “he chose us” has as its object “to be holy and blameless” and not “in Christ” or even “to be in Christ”. Neither of those are grammatically correct. I will give you a crude example of how you may view this and then we can move onward.

Ex: I have a Sunday school room and before arriving that Sunday I take with me enough candy for every single person who can possibly show up in that room. It then may be said by those who arrived and received candy that day, “He chose us, in the class, before the class ever began, to receive candy”.  I made the choice that whosoever (sound familiar?) came to the class, they would received the candy. The “us” is not predetermined. What was chosen before hand was that those “in the class” would receive candy.  They became the "us" and refer to themselves as the "us", not because I chose who the us would be, individually and before hand, but because I chose that "in the class" they would receive candy. They or us are determined by whether or not they came "in the class".

Now how they "came in the class" is another discussion altogether. That is to say, I am not suggesting that the analogy go any further. Coming to be "in Christ" does indeed involve divine drawing but this drawing and enlightenment in no way suggests or requires the view that God chooses who will and will not be "in Christ".

*The choice God made was that “in Christ” (that is anyone who comes to be “in Christ”) would be made holy and blameless. In other words, this is a reference to the plan of salvation for all mankind made by the Godhead.

2. Secondly, we must consider when was the choice was made that the case would be that "in Christ" we would be made "holy and blameless"?

The passage is rather clear, God made the choice “before the foundation of the world”  that “in Christ” we would be made “holy and blameless” (again, the plan of salvation, as you can see).

To the ARC student, election is claimed to be God choosing who would (and would not for hyper-Calvinists) be saved and decreeing it so, at this point. It is an unchangeable and eternal fixture in their mind. So being interested in investigating this claim I did the appropriate Greek digging in which I assumed that the exegesis would back this up. You see, in the Greek there are verb tenses like in the English, past, present and future but there is also the aorist and what is called the perfect tense (a special kind of past tense, a really important kind).

The perfect tense is a verb tense which refers to an action taken in the past with permanent and unalterable results and we are to view this action, along with its results, as permanent or final. Sounds a lot like Calvinism’s view of election where God made, once and for all time,  a list of whom he would save, in eternity past.

Only one small problem.

εξελεξατο – (verb – 3rd person singular aorist middle indicative) is the word translated chosen. It comes from two Greek words, ek or  ex, which means from or out of and legō which means “to say or speak” or as here, “to call”. Together they mean, “to call out of or out from”.

But what stands out and stands against claims that “in eternity past God chose who would  be saved” is the tense of this verb which is aorist as opposed to what would be expected here, the perfect tense. But the perfect tense is not used to refer to this alleged eternity past choice as to who would be saved, this once and for all not to be repeated choice, rather it is the little ole' aorist, indicative.

The aorist indicative, in and of itself, is used in a consummative way here. It is considered somewhat timeless apart from a specific use,  its emphasis is not on so much on time but on the nature of the action in relationship to its participants and its immediate or subsequent action. Here it has in view the entire process of the Divine Triumvirate of contemplating, deciding and bringing into existence the plan of God for humanity, namely that “in Christ” would be - and is - the means by which the Godhead chose or elected (and subsequently accomplished) to justify, sanctify and glorify mankind. Christ is the focus here.

Now one might complain that this is an argument from silence but it is not, at all. It is a scientific argument. That is, based on the consistent use of the perfect tense in the Greek reserved for such occasions, we find it missing. What we should expect to find, we do not.

While this is not a show-stopper, it does not bode well for the ARC student, even while granting that verb tenses in the Greek can, at times, have what appear to be both unusual and contradictory uses. However, here, as the Calvinist insists that election is about God choosing who would (and would not for hyper-Calvinists) be saved, we must expect to find the perfect tense to under gird this assertion and we do not. The Calvinist is at a distinct disadvantage, here.

3. Thirdly, ask yourself, where does the election of God for the individual human occur, that is in what location is it made?  

I want you to take a look at the expression “in him” in the passage, “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless”.

Keep in mind what I am emphasizing here:

The choice by God made in eternity past was not “who would be in him” but that "in him" we would be made “holy and blameless”, which has been well established. However, we are not made "holy and blameless" until we are in Christ. Hence two points in time of occurrence or action are in view. 

1. Eternity past when God chose that it was "in Christ" humans would be made holy and blameless.

2. Present time when humans believe in Christ, thus come to be "in Christ" and are then made holy and blameless in which they become part of the "God chose us in Christ...to be holy and blameless".

“In him” is a prepositional phrase. Prepositions generally give us either location or direction, now and then both. Here, ἐν αὐτῷ (in him-Christ) gives us the location of where God make us “holy and blameless”, therefore it gives us the time or "the when" as well.

So, even though God made the choice that it was "in Christ" humans would be made "holy and blameless" (thus becoming the "us" or "we") in eternity past, we must ask ourselves when is this choice made toward us, personally? We can do this by asking a question or two and do so while remembering that we must abide by the grammar and its consequences/implications which were chosen by God in inspiring Holy Writ.

Question: “If a person is outside of Christ, did God choose for that person to be holy and blameless?”

No. Obviously not.What God chose is for them to be condemned outside of Christ but as well, that if they will "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" they will then be "in Christ" where God has made clear he has chosen to make them "holy and blameless".

Only “in Christ” (the location of where we must be in order to be made “holy and blameless”) is where God's election for us, personally, occurs and where God makes someone “holy and blameless”.

Question: Then if this is the case, why are people saying God chose specific people to be holy and blameless who are outside of Christ? Doesn’t that contradict what the grammar demands?

Yes, but that doesn’t matter to some. They have a theology to support.

Think very carefully about where you are made “holy and blameless” and where this choice for you by God occurs? It occurs “in Christ”.   

So how, then does this immediately inform us? It informs us that until you are “in Christ” no choice has been made for you, personally, (εξελεξατο) to be made “holy and blameless”. It does not say, “outside of Christ” you were elected to be made “holy and blameless” and when you get finally get “in Christ” you will receive this specific and personal election which God predetermined that you would enter. None of that is anywhere in the passage.  Rather that, only when you are “in Christ” has a choice been made for you and so it requires you to be “in Christ”, first, before the choice of election occurs and from which you are made “holy and blameless”.

4. Can Yoda and sentence structure (sentence diagram) show us anything? 

Sentence structure is important, bringing with it the grammatical consequences of verbs, nouns, direct objects and so on. Yoda, from Star Wars, is popular for restructuring sentences without compromising the grammatical integrity (sometimes) known as OVS (Object, Verb, Subject)  instead of the very common SVO (Subject, Verb Object). And there are many variations of this, of course but here is the most basic and obvious.

Ex: SVO, I love you

       OVS, You, love I.

The meaning is not compromised while the word order is changed and this will help you understand the sentence structure you are about to encounter and why it should be understood, as it is.

(Original NIV)

4a For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.

(Word Order Changed with Grammatical Integrity the Same)

4b. For he chose us, to be holy and blameless in his sight, in Christ, before the foundation of the world

           

What choice was made? Clearly the choice does not articulate “who” would be in Christ, rather the choice was that “in Christ” is where one becomes holy and blameless (justified).

But let me illustrate this with this portion of Ephesians diagrammed so you may know what the object of “he chose us” is. That is, we may know the objective of the choice, whether it was “who would be in Christ” (not even in the passage) or that he chose us “to be holy and blameless” in Christ through diagramming the sentence.

Below is my diagram of the passage in English (but based on the Greek) and two Greek sentence diagrams which you can find online. What you will discover is that the object of εξελεξατο (he chose) ημας (us) is not “who would be in Christ” or “to be in Christ” but ειναι (to be) ημας (us/we) αγιους (holy) και (and)  αμωμους (blameless), "to be holy and blameless".

This is the sentence structure plain and simple.

 

Mine Above

http://rdtwot.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/my-diagram.png  (Above)

http://rdtwot.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/leedy-greek-diagram.png  (Above)

 

God, according to this, did not choose us “to be in Christ” nor did he choose “who would be in Christ”, none of the sentence or its properties supports this. It only supports, “He chose us…to be holy and blameless”.

Question: So where does the prepositional phrase come in? Just as we already covered, it gives us the location of where God chose to make us holy and blameless and where it occurs, for us, personally. And the sentence diagram shows us this, it is a prepositional phrase, not an object of the verb.

5. Who are the “us” to whom Paul refers? This will help, as well, in examining and determining the object(s) of God’s choice. Is the “us” everyone who has believed up to the point of Paul's writing the letter, all who will believe, or this unspecified but exclusive group God allegedly has chosen to save.

I am far more inclined that Paul has in view those “in Christ” without emphasis on quantity since he knows that the "us" will enlarge each time someone is brought into the body of Christ.

First, because of what has already been covered. That this passage is about the plan of God with respect to salvation and not individuals being elected and secondly, as I will cover in a moment, the rest of the passage which speaks about all we have “in him” or “in Christ”. He is speaking to believers. While it is potentially true for anyone, it remains untrue for them until they are “in him” or “in Christ”, hence the “us” Paul speaks of are believers.

But to the assertion the “us” refers to the secret elect as Calvinists define it. If you hold to this view, your biggest problem is with very beginning of the passage where Paul begins in Ephesians 1:3:

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.

Those outside of Christ, whether they be the elect you believe God chose to save but are not  yet save (or anyone else) these people are are still outside of Christ and Paul is speaking only to those who are “in Christ” since no one outside of Christ has been blessed with “every spiritual blessing”. You are forced to change the meaning of the pronoun "us" from those "in Christ" which has already been so definitely established in this passage, to (and magically only in verse 4) now include a group "outside of Christ" but elect and who will eventually be saved. Do you see just what Calvinisms is forcing upon who the "us" are?

But to the panorama and your final consideration.

6. “In Christ or “in him” the panoramic context of Ephesians itself arrests the foreign ARC (Augustinaian/Reformed/Calvinist) interpretation.

You must consider the following. It should impact you, if nothing else, by way of context.

^1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.

(Those outside of Christ have this? Really? The "us" are those in Christ, it can only be that,  which demands the exclusion of this yet saved but allegedly elect body of those still outside of Christ. It makes no reasonable sense any other way. In other words it simply cannot include some "outside of Christ" yet, allegedly elected to salvation group because they are not "in Christ.)

^1:4For he chose us (in him)…to be holy and blameless

(And so Paul continues to speak to the "us" which we just understood cannot be those outside of Christ, which includes the  yet saved but allegedly specially elected to salvation group that ARCers assert the Bible teaches.)

^1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood

(Who has redemption? Paul is talking to those who have it, not those who do not including this alleged yet believing special elect. But more importantly the "we" are the "us", those "in Christ".)

^1:9 he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ,

(In Christ is where the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure is found, and who again, is “in Christ" and understands the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure? Right, believers are the ones not some unspecified secret society of special elected yet not saved people.)

^1:13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,

(When were you included “in Christ”? When are you “chosen”? Ah yes, when you heard the message and believed, not before but afterward.)

^2:6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,

Remember the “us” to whom Paul is speaking? Are you now going to insist the “us” includes this yet saved but secretly limited number of people elected or chosen to be saved along with those already saved or are you going to yield to the obvious, that God, through Paul, is talking only about those “in Christ”? That is,  unless you really believe this elect yet unsaved group have been raised up with Christ and seated with him in heavenly realms. Maybe you do but if so you have reached the level of absurdity and gross hersey.

You cannot have it both ways. The “us” are believers in Christ only, not potential ones, though when they get “in Christ” they will get this too. So in Ephesians 1:4 where Paul says:

4For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.

The context and repeated use can only refer to believers or those “in Christ”. So for ARCers who assert the "us" refers to the yet saved elect, who are still outside of Christ, this means this passage cannot apply to them as we have seen, repeatedly, the "us" refers only to those "in Christ" in this panoramic context.  This deconstructs the ARCer interpretation with a final blow.

Conclusion: In Him/In Christ

Paul repeatedly uses this expression in Ephesians and it is key to understanding what he is talking about.  It is all about what occurs “in Christ”. Paul writes the entire context about what we receive “in Christ”. Hence, it is rightfully and robustly theologically, contextually and exegetically argued that election is not a choice the Godhead made in eternity past as to who would and would not be saved, rather the choice which was made was about what humanity would receive “in Christ” which begins with our salvation and its accompanied “holiness and blamelessness” but spreads out further to the many spiritual assets and privileges Paul covers as being gained “in Christ”. So when you become “in Christ”, which is when you get saved, that is the time you become the “elect” because you have received (and will continue to receive) what God elected you to have “in Christ”. Here is your decoder ring.

How to Teach Your Children about God and His Word

The entire chapter of Deuteronomy 11 is worth concentration for an extended period but pertinent to the title is this section which reveals that God is indeed the God of practicality and reality. How is it we are to transfer to our children the seriousness of God and His Word? Of all the ways many Christians attempt to influence their children within the church, here is a prescription from God which challenges all of our ecclesiastical youth oriented dog and pony shows:

¹⁹ Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up... ²¹ so that your days and the days of your children may be many in the land the Lord swore to give your ancestors, as many as the days that the heavens are above the earth.

God is not prescribing magic, cleverness or zippity-zappity soul patch bohemian Jesus coolness, God is prescribing a way of life. Maybe in all your business to get your children into the hands of other people to convince them God is true, you have failed to do the very thing you should be doing most. But maybe that is because you really aren't all that interested in talking about God all the time because you don't have him on your mind enough to talk about God's Word or God Himself when you sit at home or when you walk along the road (or drive your car) because you are always preoccupied with other things.

You want to teach your children about God and His Word? Do this, first and foremost because if you are not doing this then all the effort of people, other than you-the parent-, is undone by your apathy and fortuitous example.

THE #1 MEANS THROUGH WHICH DOCTRINALl ERROR ENTERS THE CHURCH? ORTHODOXY (OR ORTHODOX FALSE TEACHERS)!

You should not be greatly surprised to learn that orthodox biblical doctrine (orthodox refers to the accepted norm) is the primary means through which doctrinal error enters the body of Christ. In this day and age, however, it is probably news to some and a needed reminder to many.

In Peter’s second letter he makes a statement of fact identifying this. He writes (2 Peter 2:1b NIV):

They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.

The word for secret, here, is (παρεισάγω) pareisagó which means to place something along side of something else (in order to hide it). Get the picture? It is behind the façade of orthodoxy that false teaching is introduced. The erring Teacher depends on orthodoxy in order to introduce his (or her, unfortunately to the many in the body of Christ asleep at the wheel who have embraced the ordination of women or women acting enrolls reserved for those ordained so they are not ordained they are, in fact, exercising those roles) parasitic philosophy. Often, the very ideas contained in the false teacher's novel but poisonous doctrine-which become absorbed and accepted without rigorous vetting-are later used by some to attempt to overthrow the very orthodoxy they claim to have believed when they made entry into the mainstream.

In Peter’s letter he describes these pseudodidaskalos (false teachers) as both heretics and apostates. An apostate is someone who once held to orthodox views but later, moved from those views and now espouses something contrary to orthodoxy. A heretic, on the other hand, is much broader and definition since it may include to somebody who at least on paper with their lips says they agree with orthodox fundamentals.

The word for heresies (αἵρεσις) refers to a mix of opinion and truth. That is, instead of Bible Teachers being bound by the text and disciplining their teaching so that they are not reading into the text, a foreign meaning, the heretic does just this and makes up sensational teachings based on reading a meaning into a text which, as Peter describes it, are “cleverly devised stories". So a heretic can continue to hold to orthodox views but introduce erring doctrines which corrupt the edifice of remaining doctrine and generally, at some point, will approach (usually in their ignorance but often simply in their arrogance) even their orthodox views, but not always. So what you have, in essence, is an orthodox heretic.

And this is one of the most critical points here. Within Christianity, but most specifically Protestant, Evangelical and Fundamental Christianity, the battle cry in defense of Teachers who have introduced teaching that has sorely injured God’s children is that “they are orthodox”. Well friend, Peter is trying to tell you something and you ought to listen. Someone uttering agreement with orthodoxy or even elaborating on it effectively at times does not immune them from teaching heresy nor does it warrant your deliberate ignorance and unwillingness to see their error for what it is. Peter tells us, it is through orthodoxy that these other teachings enter! If someone says they are orthodox my response is, "great, but now I am going to vet your teachings and if it contains error or heresy, sorry, but I will call it what it is" and you ought do so as well, reader.

Many people are afraid of the word heretic  because of its misuse. But it is a biblical word. Be not afraid, believer, and use it effectively. But to the main concern here.

If you take a look at Benny Hinn’s website and read his statement of belief you will find that he is orthodox. He agrees with all the main doctrines which identify a person as a Christian in doctrine. Yet, Benny Hinn has introduced many erring concepts, in fact, some even challenging the very orthodoxy he claims to believe.

But take someone which others might claim is less egregious. John Piper calls himself a Reformed Baptist and not only has he made clear that he believes basic orthodoxy but he has defended some of its tenets. Yet, in his book Future Grace, Piper introduced a heresy which taught that our justification was not final the moment we receive Christ but depended upon our fidelity until death. This is heresy to the Protestant, Evangelical and Fundamentalist.

As well, Piper’s book, Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist, is based on a heretical premise. Piper declares quite clearly the following (bold mine):

“I found in myself an overwhelming longing to be happy, a tremendously powerful impulse to seek pleasure, yet at every point of moral decision I said to myself that this impulse should have no influence ... Then I was converted to Christian Hedonism. In a matter of weeks I came to see that it is unbiblical and arrogant to try to worship God for any other reason than the pleasure to be had in Him” (Desiring God, Introduction).

Notice what Piper heretically asserts, “that it is unbiblical and arrogant to try to worship God for any other reason that the pleasure to be had in Him”. This is not merely a statement without implications. It attacks the very nature of our relationship with God. In fact, it mocks the large and detailed biblical landscape which covers many facts of our walk with God and all of its properties. In another day and time, John Piper would have been made to either recant this assertion or rightly be labeled as heretic, regardless of his claims toward orthodoxy because again, simply being orthodox does not exempt one from being a heretic.

This is not a particularly sophisticated piece and it need not be. Rather, it is a reminder that many, today, are being pushed forward as accepted Teachers based on a faulty threshold which is orthodoxy. Simply because one claims to hold to orthodoxy does not exempt him from being identified as a heretic.

Obviously not all error is heretical. That is, someone may have exegetical misunderstandings which produce error but this does not come from a mix of opinion and truth, rather a flawed attempt at proper exegesis. So, not all error is of the heretical kind but the kind of error that is running rampant and its proponents are being shielded from rightly being labeled heretics, is the kind of error that is aggressively being tolerated in the name of a misunderstanding of when and how to identify heresy and label its proponents heretics. Sadly it is being practiced by some rather significant Teachers who are modeling a form of categorical ignorance which is inviting injury to many.

1 Peter 2:12: Good Manners, They’re Biblical

I have heard the claim that “good manners” are not taught in the Bible. Obviously that is an extreme statement but lesser forms of this are often used by Christians who would assert that while each culture has its set of norms and standard (and some quite sophisticated in their cultural development) there is no compunction in Scripture which requires us to adopt such cultural forms, thereby releasing us, in our liberty, to live in a manner that is dictated by our conscience through God’s Spirit and His Word. It sounds quite idealistic, quite independent and bold, something some associate with spirituality (come boldly to the throne of grace). But this kind of ignorance really ought not to be common among believers.

The fact is good manners are Biblical. And further one will find that where people have as successfully become both believers and matured, that community elevates its culture.They move from low culture to high culture. They move from low expression to refined expression.But why?

One reason is the directive from God through the hand of Peter who writes in his first letter, (1 Peter 2:12 NASV):

Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation.

The word for excellent is καλήν (kalēn). Other translations are beautiful, honorable and ideal. The concept is not simply moral excellence, though this is quite in view, rather in every area of our lives we are to set the bar far and above pedestrian expectations and seek to elevate all dimensions of our lives so that in very way, shape and form the view from others about us is a people who are regulated by a conscience that is being prescribed to by a source far superior than human, but that of the Divine.

And this is where manners come from within Christian communities. It is the thorough application of this imperative, that we live excellently, beautifully and ideally before others. We escort the weaker because we wish to live excellently and honorably. We give our seats to display deference or respect. We deport ourselves to demonstrate that others may trust us and depend on a clear system of consistent behavior.

Snobbery is not the basis for good manners and a sophisticated social structure which seeks to display all of the virtues of Christian values such as thoughtfulness, patience, goodness, kindness, respect and honor and so on. These may attract people for the wrong reason and sometimes become hijacked by such, but their origins are internal.

Do not hesitate with good manners, they are not snobbery, they are Christian. Good manners display καλήν living, something for which we should always strive.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "THEOLOGICAL TENSION"

Ever heard the claim by theologians of theological tension? If you have not encountered this as a student of the Word, at some point, you will.

Essentially theological tension refers to two or more ideas/concepts in the Scriptures which appear to function in conflict with one another. The most well-known alleged conflict in theological circles is that of divine sovereignty/human volition. For many teachers the only end of these two teachings is theological tension. That is, according to their definition of both truths (the existence of divine sovereignty and human volition) there is an unsolvable theological tension at work that does not enable us to explain their dual existence which entails, to them, the appearance of certain conflicts or contradictions. Yet, they will clearly state that the one cannot contradict the other so instead of saying what they know they may not say (that there is a contradictory teaching in the Scriptures) they have made up a term which allows them, in effect, to go around the obstacle.

Yes, basically to avoid having to admit they cannot answer the issue(s) or are unwilling to admit they believe in a contradiction, they simply create an escape route. And it is a convenient one indeed. I tried it a few times and it leads to nowhere. And in truth, it reflects something much worse, specifically a man or woman who is unwilling to audit themselves and their views or do further study on a matter.

The truth is, there is no such thing as theological tension as has been described here and certainly there is no place of theological contradictions with which we must put up. The problem stems from the understanding of the Teacher, not the declarations of Scripture. One should consider two main steps when encountering theological territories where there is potential claim of theological tension:

1. Avoid following those in this area who make such assertions because they are leading you to empty space.

2. More pertinently, do not attempt to take a position on any matter until you have resolved what doctrinal/conceptual conflicts exist in your mind.

Really, it is not that difficult. Maybe what is more difficult is being willing to admit you simply do not have the answer at the moment. No doubt for those who wish to portray the image of being the smartest person in the room this option is dreadful at best but you'll get over it and be the better for it.

Show me a man or woman that believes theological tension is a legitimate explanation and I will show you a man or woman who cannot provide you a proper explanation.