I am grateful for the kind and appreciative comments I have received, concerning the contents of this Ecclesiocentricity blog site. Folks from near and far, both of the clergy and the laity, have been educated and influenced through these posts—and, for this, I am thankful to God, and give Him all the glory.
Some people have expressed initial concern about what they perceived to be areas of disagreement about some of the blog entries. But, when these things have actually been discussed and talked-about, it was clear that there was no real substantial difference between our positions after all.
With this in mind, I will lay-out some of the basic tenets of Ecclesiocentricity; and let us all glory in God’s goodness, in that we all agree on them.
1) That Jesus Christ is our only hope—the only redemptive Mediator between God and man.
2) That the church is important to God. He values it as the highest object of His love. God established the church first; and it is His only permanent society.
3) That the church has priority over the other good, God-given institutions, (namely, the family and the state)—and that the church is to serve them, by bringing Christ’s virtue into their realms.
4) That there are clear boundaries for these three institutions, (church, state, and family)—and that these borders are not to be trespassed. None of these three entities are to be “united,” organically.
5) That an example of “4” above would be education. This is a family’s prerogative. No church (or state) court has authority to dictate how education is to be done. No system: public, private, or homeschool, is to be set up as absolute.
6) That the Lord’s Day is important, and that the church’s officers are to call the people of God to worship, in corporate covenant community, on that day.
7) That discipleship begins in the church, and is to be taken everywhere else—wherever believers live and work.
8) That the church officers are to bring to the people of God His “ordinances,” or means of grace, viz. preaching, the sacraments, and discipline. These cannot be administered, except through the church.
There are certainly many other areas of agreement—but this is a good start.
Let us all learn to make our life-decisions, not on the basis of emotion, fear, or man-pleasing—but on the God-honoring ground of faith and love, as we all mature more and more into the image of Christ.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Saving Children from God
Sometimes professing Christians make decisions, that would make it appear that they are seeking to protect their children from God. For instance, when one withholds a child from the church’s preaching and teaching ministry—for fear that it conflicts with one’s own positions—this is an example, in my opinion, of “saving children from God.”
Having said this, I do not deny that much of what is passed off as “clergy” in the world today, is not worthy of the name, nor of the high office and privileges (that pertain to it). Parents must be careful about their choice of a church family.
But, too often, parents believe that they themselves are stronger than God’s true ministers (and elders), and that they are less likely to cause their children grief, abuse, and trouble than the church officers (would). But this position, though understandable, is highly unwise. What guarantee is there, that a parent will be more noble toward their children, than God’s legitimate church officers would be?
Given the state of the world (and much of the church) today, it is perfectly comprehensible why parents would be leery of everyone—family, neighbor, friend, clergy, police, teacher, et. al. But it is not prudent to imagine oneself to be better than others. In the final analysis, we are all required to trust God, or to go through life “playing God”—with absolutely no hopes of being able to do the job.
Believers are wisest, when they give their children to God. And there is no way to do this outside of the vital ministry of the local church. To withhold a child from the church, is to practically guarantee his or her failure and apostasy.
Having said this, I do not deny that much of what is passed off as “clergy” in the world today, is not worthy of the name, nor of the high office and privileges (that pertain to it). Parents must be careful about their choice of a church family.
But, too often, parents believe that they themselves are stronger than God’s true ministers (and elders), and that they are less likely to cause their children grief, abuse, and trouble than the church officers (would). But this position, though understandable, is highly unwise. What guarantee is there, that a parent will be more noble toward their children, than God’s legitimate church officers would be?
Given the state of the world (and much of the church) today, it is perfectly comprehensible why parents would be leery of everyone—family, neighbor, friend, clergy, police, teacher, et. al. But it is not prudent to imagine oneself to be better than others. In the final analysis, we are all required to trust God, or to go through life “playing God”—with absolutely no hopes of being able to do the job.
Believers are wisest, when they give their children to God. And there is no way to do this outside of the vital ministry of the local church. To withhold a child from the church, is to practically guarantee his or her failure and apostasy.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Women's Head Coverings in church
In 1 Corinthians 11, we read of women covering their heads, in church. They did this to disguise the fact that they were women. In the era before the completion of the canon of Scripture, prophecy was yet forthcoming, to be codified (finally) in what would later become the completed New Testament.
Women were to be silent in the church (1 Cor. 14:35b)—in the sense that they were not to be “praying and prophesying,” a technical term used in 1 Corinthians, for tongues and interpretation of (tongues).
If a woman absolutely felt compelled to “pray or prophesy,” (viz. pray in tongues in church, [or interpret tongues])—then she was to do so with her head covered.
This was to be done, “Because of the angels,” (1 Cor. 11:10). Many good interpreters of this verse understand the “angels” not to be celestial beings, but the pastors (and perhaps also ruling elders) in the churches.
At any rate, the requirement for head coverings of women “praying or prophesying” ended, when the canon of Scripture was closed.
For a fuller account of this 1 Cor. 11 passage, go to: http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/bh/bh054.htm This is the best handling of this text that I have ever come across.
Women were to be silent in the church (1 Cor. 14:35b)—in the sense that they were not to be “praying and prophesying,” a technical term used in 1 Corinthians, for tongues and interpretation of (tongues).
If a woman absolutely felt compelled to “pray or prophesy,” (viz. pray in tongues in church, [or interpret tongues])—then she was to do so with her head covered.
This was to be done, “Because of the angels,” (1 Cor. 11:10). Many good interpreters of this verse understand the “angels” not to be celestial beings, but the pastors (and perhaps also ruling elders) in the churches.
At any rate, the requirement for head coverings of women “praying or prophesying” ended, when the canon of Scripture was closed.
For a fuller account of this 1 Cor. 11 passage, go to: http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/bh/bh054.htm This is the best handling of this text that I have ever come across.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Sunday as "Family Day"?
Over lunch with a fellow minister, he stated that there is a movement afoot today that wishes to conceive of Sunday as "Family Day," (viz. as a special day for families to do things together, as a family). This pastor rightly bemoaned the fact that this perspective loses sight of the reality of Sunday as The Lord's Day.
My minister friend is exactly right. God never suspended His day, so that it may be used for any other purposes.
Still, let us look at this issue in a little bit more detail. *Where* is the problem with the "Sunday-as-Family-Day"-approach? The error presents itself when the Sabbath worship of God is spurned, in favor of doing something together, as a family, at home (or wherever), *instead* of attending to God's ordinances, in His church. One may *properly* conceive of Sunday as a "Family Day," if one looks to the church family first; and then at the nuclear family second. As Thomas Watson says, it is sin to sit at home and read your bible, while the word is being broken in church.
The great irony of all this, is that those who best love their families are careful to give God His due, especially on Sunday. When this is done, the family prospers and flourishes, (at least in the long run). When families are robbed of God, it doesn't much matter what else you give them, (time, or otherwise)--you've deprived them of their life source.
Does someone want a "Family Day"? Fine. You've got six days to choose from. But don't pretend you're doing your family any favors by depriving them of Christ, His church, His ordinances, or His Sabbath Day.
My minister friend is exactly right. God never suspended His day, so that it may be used for any other purposes.
Still, let us look at this issue in a little bit more detail. *Where* is the problem with the "Sunday-as-Family-Day"-approach? The error presents itself when the Sabbath worship of God is spurned, in favor of doing something together, as a family, at home (or wherever), *instead* of attending to God's ordinances, in His church. One may *properly* conceive of Sunday as a "Family Day," if one looks to the church family first; and then at the nuclear family second. As Thomas Watson says, it is sin to sit at home and read your bible, while the word is being broken in church.
The great irony of all this, is that those who best love their families are careful to give God His due, especially on Sunday. When this is done, the family prospers and flourishes, (at least in the long run). When families are robbed of God, it doesn't much matter what else you give them, (time, or otherwise)--you've deprived them of their life source.
Does someone want a "Family Day"? Fine. You've got six days to choose from. But don't pretend you're doing your family any favors by depriving them of Christ, His church, His ordinances, or His Sabbath Day.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
The church's mediatorial work
Jesus Christ is the one and only Mediator between a holy God, and sinful man. Here are the words of 1 Tim. 2:5: “For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.”
No individual Christian has access to God in and through anyone other than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.
Because of this, there is now, in the New Covenant church era, no such thing as mediatorial priests (who, by their actions, can expunge sin). This role has forever been assumed by the incarnate and risen Christ.
There *is* a continuing priesthood on earth, however. But it is one made up of all the redeemed, and it is to offer—not sacrifices for sin (which would never avail)—but sacrifices of praise, (cf. Heb. 13:15). This is the basis of the Reformation ideal of the “Priesthood of all believers.”
So, in light of all this, is there *any* mediatorial role or function for any body of humans on earth, since the resurrection of Jesus? For instance, does the husband have a mediatorial function for his wife, in terms of her relationship with God? The answer to this question is, “No.” (This, by the way, is why all individuals admitted to communicant status in the church are to take their own vows.)
How about the church? Does it have any “mediatorial” role at all, in the lives of believers? The answer to this question is, “Yes.” God has deigned (condescended) to delegate and disperse on earth His means of grace through His ministers and elders (and deacons) in the church. This is why He gives these people to His body—so as to build them up in their holy faith, (cf. Eph. 4:11 ff.).
This is why they (alone) are to preach the word to the faithful flock, why they (alone) are to administer the sacraments, and why they (alone) are to handle church discipline. The church officers’ mediatorial work is not redemptive, but it is very much ministerial.
It is not ordinarily possible for any human being to be saved aside from this ministerial assistance—in that this is the way the Redeemer has chosen to distribute His enabling and persevering graces and blessings.
No individual Christian has access to God in and through anyone other than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.
Because of this, there is now, in the New Covenant church era, no such thing as mediatorial priests (who, by their actions, can expunge sin). This role has forever been assumed by the incarnate and risen Christ.
There *is* a continuing priesthood on earth, however. But it is one made up of all the redeemed, and it is to offer—not sacrifices for sin (which would never avail)—but sacrifices of praise, (cf. Heb. 13:15). This is the basis of the Reformation ideal of the “Priesthood of all believers.”
So, in light of all this, is there *any* mediatorial role or function for any body of humans on earth, since the resurrection of Jesus? For instance, does the husband have a mediatorial function for his wife, in terms of her relationship with God? The answer to this question is, “No.” (This, by the way, is why all individuals admitted to communicant status in the church are to take their own vows.)
How about the church? Does it have any “mediatorial” role at all, in the lives of believers? The answer to this question is, “Yes.” God has deigned (condescended) to delegate and disperse on earth His means of grace through His ministers and elders (and deacons) in the church. This is why He gives these people to His body—so as to build them up in their holy faith, (cf. Eph. 4:11 ff.).
This is why they (alone) are to preach the word to the faithful flock, why they (alone) are to administer the sacraments, and why they (alone) are to handle church discipline. The church officers’ mediatorial work is not redemptive, but it is very much ministerial.
It is not ordinarily possible for any human being to be saved aside from this ministerial assistance—in that this is the way the Redeemer has chosen to distribute His enabling and persevering graces and blessings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
