“Christianity In Five Verses”

“Christianity In Five Verses” – The Sequel to “The Gospel For Those Broken By The Church”

If you liked the first one of Dad Rod's little sermons, this one is better still.  22 minutes.

--Troll--

Hebrews 1:5-14

To be sure, we tackled a large chunk of Hebrews this time.  In addition, there is a clear break with the beginning of a second line of argument at the chapter break.  Remember that these epistles were not written within the pericope system so that these section headings did not exist; these were just letters and in this case probably a sermon.  Still, the subject headings are useful.

The remainder of chapter 1 consists of a number of references both to the OT scripture and to the Gospels.  It can be argued that there are also references to a few of Paul’s letters, this being a ground for much conjecture on Paul’s authorship of Hebrews.  The base of the argument is not only is Jesus much superior to angels, but He is the Messiah, the Son of God, the Creator and the Redeemer.  Once again, notice the verbs in this passage.  They are all in the perfect mood, completed action, either in present perfect or past perfect.  We are in the realm of the indicative.  Notice that there have been absolutely no imperatives in the first chapter.  This is a key point.  When we come to the discussion of perseverance in Christ, all of the imperatives are grounded in the indicatives of this section of the epistle.

In an aside, I would point out that all of the epistles, especially the Pauline epistles, are written this way.  There are no imperatives without first grounding them in the indicative.  What this means is that the Gospel comes first; application flows out of the Gospel.  Said another way, correct doctrine leads to correct practice.  The corollary to this statement is this: if you start from ethics and imperatives, you will never find the Gospel; but if you start from the Gospel indicatives and then move to the imperatives, you will do so with the Christian liberty and freedom from the Law that enables you to actually accomplish some good through Christ.  Christ not only Sanctifies us, but He Sanctifies our Works as well.  This is a large argument to which I will return in later posts on Hebrews.

Let’s look at the passages of the OT referenced in the first chapter of Hebrews.  Several Psalms figure prominently in the discussion.  Starting with Psalms 2:7, we have a direct reference to the Messiah being the Son of God.  But each of these lines is grounded in at least one Psalm.  Psalms 89, 97, 104, 45, 102, 110 and 34 are all cited.  Take a moment to read from the Psalms and then compare them to Hebrews 1:5-14.  In addition to the Psalms, Hebrews takes direct citation not only from the Septuagint, but also from the Prophets.  This weaving back and forth between these portions of OT scripture in an important Evangelistic technique of the Apostles.  Look at the Apostolic example in the book of Acts.  Peter, Steven and Paul all discuss the historical events of the Resurrection and point to their fulfillment of OT scripture and prophesy.  There is a remarkable absence of the telling of their stories.  Isn’t Peter’s story pretty impressive?  And yet he, in particular, lays the groundwork for this Evangelistic technique at Pentecost.

In summary then, we have the author setting out indicatives from historical events and from scripture in a sort of proof of the Divinity of Christ.  He will be moving into a discussion of Salvation next.  Only the Messiah, the Living God, can make Salvation possible.  This is the point of chapter 2, that we will be discussing next week.

—Troll—

On the Language of Faith

It has been shown repeatedly, by such diverse sources as Time Magazine and Modern Reformation, that the people of this country are essentially illiterate when it comes to the Bible.  This Biblical illiteracy extends not just to the facts, historical accounts and doctrines contained in the Bible, but to the vocabulary of the faith.  Words like justification and imputation, words central to the understanding of the Gospel, pass over the heads of people as if they were a foreign language.  How did this happen?  Who is at fault?  Can this be remedied?  What is the solution?

The Institutes of Calvin, an abbreviation for the full title of that book, was written in the sixteenth century.  Today, this book is considered a book for seminary training, but not at all seminaries.  This book is considered too lofty and entrenched in dogma and doctrine to be accessible even for garden variety parish priests and pastors.  It is considered impractical and not relevant to today.  Calvin wrote this book as a primer on Christianity for the layman. It is we who have relegated its usage and status to a top shelf, out of reach tome, to be found only in the library of the more venerable seminary academician.  How did this happen?

Rather than spend prose here discussing Charles Finney, the First and Second Great Awakenings, John Wesley, Modernism and Postmodernism, let us focus on the logical connection of these people and movements.  At the time of Calvin, the printed word was still a novelty.  The Gutenberg press had been in existence for less than a century, since the mid 1450s.  The Bible had just begun to be propagated in the masses.  The story of the Gutenberg Bible and the printing press makes for a fascinating read.  But one of the results of this technological advance was a sharp increase in the Biblical literacy of the masses.  The Reformation was not possible prior to the fifteenth century because of the low levels of literacy in the masses and the lack of availability of mass produced books.  Understand that by masses in fifteenth century standards, we are still talking about aristocracy and mercantile class citizens.  Nonetheless, the impact of this event was profound.  All of the great theologians of the sixteenth century owe in part their scholarship to this technological achievement.

Because of this increase in Biblical literacy, books like The Institutes could have a more public and wide readership.  Ideas became accessible to the masses.  The theology of the church became open to scrutiny.  No longer were papal abuses able to be hidden from the rest of the church.  When Luther posted his 95 theses, as an invitation to debate within the monastery, he didn’t expect much interest.  To his surprise, when he arrived to debate, the room was packed.  This could not have happened without a population that was Biblically literate and theologically sophisticated, at least enough to have a working theological vocabulary that was represented in the vernacular of the day. 

The sum of the impacts of the next four centuries is that this theological vocabulary had been wiped out of the vernacular of our day.  Philosophy has ironically imploded on its own thoughts.  In an era where words are viewed as unnecessary and inadequate to describe emotions and feelings, even philosophy suffers.  What has really happened is that intellectual slothfulness has resulted in a loss of precision in word usage for describing anything less concrete than a piece of furniture.  As we lose the vocabulary, we lose also the ability to communicate.  The first place to realize this loss will necessarily be the masses.  The halls of academia, whose sacred task is to preserve and advance thought, have become crippled by the generational dilution of their ranks by this less sophisticated populace.

How many generations does it take to lose the language of our faith?  Many have argued that it only took two generations.  The first generation stops trusting in words.  The second generation loses touch with the ideas behind the words, and logically loses interest and leaves the church.  Where is the fault?

The movements that so regularly pass through our churches are a reaction to this loss of Biblical literacy.  We have Happenings and Promise Keepers and Acquire the Fire and who knows what other dozens of movements come…and go.  The shelf life for each of these movements seems to be about a decade.  They are grounded in spirituality and not in historical fact.  They are the result of the ever present Gnostic impulse of our culture’s Greek heritage.  But not being grounded in the historical facts, they wither and blow away in time, as people lose utility from that particular pietistic or spiritual formula.  The ideas that are behind the faith can no longer be articulated.

Jesus’ great church shrinkage seminar in John 6 makes the point that the church was never about absolute numbers.  The church is about getting the message right.  Jesus did not come to feed the masses; He came to fulfill prophesy and save His elect people.  Notice the first third of John 1.  Jesus isn’t the warm fuzzy feeling or the tear laden experience.  Jesus is the Word.  He is the Word made flesh.  The church has failed us by not teaching us the Word, not teaching us the vocabulary, not developing the doctrines that result from these Words.  If you do not know the vocabulary of the faith, the fault, initially, is not yours.  The fault is with your pastors, priests and teachers.  Admonitions to teachers in the Bible are stern, epic and everlasting.  But now that you know that your education is lacking, what are you to do?

When I realized the depth of my ignorance, I started reading.  It was a tough go.  For months, I was looking up words in dictionaries, searches and eventually books, until I could actually read the Bible and a commentary on a particular passage straight through.  I spent more time looking stuff up than I did reading.  This is a foreign language to us now.  It will require work to learn it.  When I starting writing about this stuff a year or more ago, some ideas were still a bit fuzzy.  It takes effort to learn when your teachers, in whom you have entrusted your faith, fail you in such epic proportions.  You must learn to do the legwork yourselves and you must find better teachers.

I do not presume to be anything more than what I am.  I am like the student who tutors on the side.  You get what you pay for.  I am not the better teacher that you need to find.  The purpose of this blog has been to try and bring some of you along with me on this journey to recover our faith.  We need first to understand the vocabulary and next the doctrines that make up our faith.  We need to be consistent and understand how the Bible is consistent.  If you spend 15 or more hours a week watching television, cannot you find at least 5 hours a week to learn something useful?

Our teachers have failed us.  We must learn the faith and then we must reclaim it from those who would lead us all to hell, singing loudly songs without meaning, and preaching words without doctrine.

--Ogre--

Parallel lines

The Gospels tell us stories that seem to repeat.  We all realize that the Synoptics tell many of the same tales from slightly different perspectives.  You have heard Troll tell how the whole book of Revelation is the story of redemptive history told from seven different perspectives, seven being the number of God.  Today, Troll will look at two parallel passages in Luke.  The first passage concerns a debate over who is the greatest disciple.  The second concerns the sending of the disciples out in pairs.  This was the subject of last week’s homily.  Sorry, we are just getting to it today.  Troll was busy eating rocks and water buffalo last week.

Let’s start with Luke 9:46-48.  Notice first of all, that these three verses seem to be just stuck into the narrative randomly.  But this passage echoes throughout the Gospels.  See the same or similar in Matthew 18:1-5, 20:20-28 and Mark 9:33-37, 10:35-45.  What is it about being a child that is so important?  Or, if we follow the latter citations, what is it about being a servant that is so important?

Nothing, that isn’t the point.  We need to let go of our legalistic and pietistic lenses and remember that Jesus is talking about something else entirely.  It is not being innocent like a child or humble like a servant.  Those ideas turn this passage into an imperative.  The issue here is that the disciples are asking the wrong question.  Who is the greatest in the Kingdom of heaven?  The background of that question is in the Jewish political expectations of the messiah.  The disciples still believe that Jesus is going to create His Kingdom on earth right then.  As His lieutenants, they are thinking in terms of the honor and glory attached to being in the vanguard of the messiah.  They are completely off base.

Check out the Luke verse that precedes this.  Jesus foretells his death, for the second time in that chapter.  The apostles just don’t get it.  That is why they ask this question.  That is also why the apostles and disciples don’t understand His answer.  Serve the least among you.  Be as a servant to the least.  Jesus came into the world to be a servant of man.  His whole life, death and resurrection was a Ministry of Reconciliation.  He came to provide all of the components of our external righteousness in Him.  He is prophet, priest and king.  He is the perfect sacrifice that expiates and reconciles us to God, to Himself.  He condescended to us.

The imperative here is the ledger of the Law under the heading of Love your neighbor.  As we know, the Law has two components.  Jesus is answering this question with the implied imperative to follow the second ledger of the Law.  At this point in the redemptive story, the disciples just don’t get it.  The parallel later passage in Luke is 22-24-27.  This time, Jesus tries to help them unlock the code.  This is occurring just after the introduction of the Last Supper.  But still the Apostles do not get it.  It is interesting that Jesus offers the glimpse of Redemptive history in the next verses, telling the Apostles of their thrones of judgment over the twelve tribes.  But this is not his point concerning the greatest.  Again, He reminds them His life was in service to them and all of His elect.

Now let’s back up a bit in the same chapters and look at Jesus sending out first his apostles, and then 70 or 72 disciples, in pairs, to preach the Gospel.  Starting with Luke 9:1-6, Jesus gives instructions to go out and take nothing with them.  This is echoed in Matthew and Mark in similar passages.  In Luke 10:1-12, Jesus expands the mission to 70 or 72 disciples.  The discussion of wiping off sandals and shaking out the garments is an OT reference to judgment from Nehemiah 5:13.  And so we see that there will be judgment upon those who forsake the messengers of God.  The importance of the 70 witnesses may be to represent the number of nations represented in Genesis 10.  But the real issue is the going out in pairs.  This is the prescribe method of giving witness.  (Have you ever noticed that Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons travel in pairs?  They do get that part right.  That is the danger of their apostasy, that they mimic the scripture in some things, while denying it in crucial places.) The issue of witnessing is described in Deuteronomy 17 and 19, although it is in the context of testifying in crimes, similar to the Matthew passage we looked at last week.

So, what is the difference between Luke 9 and 10 and this passage in Luke 22?  Now, the instruction is changed.  What has happened?  First, we are in a very different moment in redemptive history.  Jesus is no longer training his disciples to have faith in Him to provide.  He is warning them, on Maundy Thursday, that the big event is looming.  Be prepared.  Things are about to get very bad for all of you.

Another interpretation is that Jesus is saying that it is time to be armed spiritually.  Take up arms figuratively to defend the faith.  Since he tells Peter to put down his sword a few minutes later, this more spiritual interpretation may be appropriate.

Whichever, it is clear that the time for training is over.  The time for preparation is upon us.  The Great Commission is coming.  It is upon us now.

--Troll--

The Christian Shaolin Master

One of my former martial arts instructors envisioned tying Christian theology to the movements and skills of these eastern arts.  It was sort of like being in an old Chinese movie about the Shaolin Temple monks, only it was set in Europe in the Middle Ages.  One of his favorite Bible passages was the following.

Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it.

The theological violence he did to this verse was equivalent to the physical violence in the gym.  He used this verse as an imperative.  We must train to win.  Only the winners get the prize.  Life in general, and martial arts in particular, were about being that one who receives the prize.  A decade later, let me try to unravel this verse a bit and set it back into its proper context.

1 Corinthians 9 is a tough passage for Paul.  He is letting loose on Corinth after some unflattering accusations concerning his Apostleship.  After throwing down the gauntlet that anyone with more knowledge of Christ should take up his mantle, Paul discusses the essence of his mission.  In verses 24-27, Paul uses a metaphor of athletics.  Corinth held biennial Isthmian games that were in competition with the more renown Olympic Games held every four years.  Therefore, the Corinthians were well versed in the athletic metaphor.  In fact, it is possible that Paul was in Corinth during one of these games around 50 A.D.  The use of this metaphor, therefore, was topical and apt by Paul.

Therefore, what is the prize?  In the games, the prize was a wreath placed around the head like a crown.  It was made of living branches or vines.  It was perishable.  To Paul, his crown was the people that he brought to Christ.  These now saved lives are imperishable; the Salvation that Paul offered via the Gospel was imperishable.  Paul is not undercutting the work of the Holy Spirit in this passage.  Rather, Paul is pointing out the goal of the missionary or preacher, the salvation of the elect.

Who receives the prize?  At first glance, only one will receive the prize.  However, that is not a very useful Gospel message.  Opening this verse up to the underlying tale of redemption to which Paul is referring in this metaphor, only One did receive the prize, and His name was Jesus.  But He imputed this victory to His elect, those who understand the race and the training that is required to participate.  The victory of the One is then shared with all who understand the work ethic and training required to participate.  This actually dovetails nicely with the whole thrust of James.  The works of the athlete do not guarantee victory, but are the required lifestyle of anyone who takes the games seriously enough to compete.  The Victory is guaranteed by faith in the One who won the race.

When viewed in this manner, and putting it back into chapter 9 with the other metaphors, we can view this last paragraph of chapter 9 as Paul exhorting the Corinthians to good works through their faith in the One winner of the race.  His own personal victory, Paul views as being as a result of his labors in getting as many people as he can to participate earnestly in the race.  He is a Jew to Jews, a Gentile to Gentiles, a man who meets the people where they are.  But Paul’s identity is always in terms of his Apostleship to the One who actually won the race.

Finally, my old Christian Shaolin master viewed this passage as a Law passage, as an imperative.  He did so without grounding it in the indicatives.  Rather than placing the emphasis on the training and then in receiving the glory through the One who won, he placed the glory only in winning.  While it is appropriate to give all of the Glory to God, it should be remembered that through Christ’s work, all believers are winners as well.  This passage is about Christian living, not about individual salvation.  Paul may take pride in the people who he brings to the Gospel, but ultimately, Paul understands to Whom the Glory of the Victory belongs.  The prize is eternal.  The race has already been won.  Today, we have faith in the Victor, while we emulate His example to the best of our ability.  In this way, we are given all the honor, rights and privileges of the Victor as a gift through His Mercy and Grace.

--Ogre--

Hand in the Cookie Jar

Yep, I was caught.  This morning, I was overheard asking a person if they might find time to tell their story to me.  I must say, this will be a great opportunity to appeal to the Word once again.  But before I do, I want to put this in perspective.

After reading all of these blogs I write about sparing me your story, I suppose I should explain myself.  The first point to make is that the context of the request was not a moment of evangelism.  The two people involved in the conversation are both clearly Christians already, and I am happy to call him my brother in Christ.  The context of the discussion is the end of a Bible study on 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, on which I blogged yesterday.  One of the two key doctrines from that passage is the doctrine of separation.  My brother has an interesting tale to tell concerning his own life and that doctrine, that passage of scripture.  The manner in which he worked through his dilemma, knowing both that his separation was over doctrine and that he was in the minority, may help me with my current concerns over doctrine and theology in my local church.  I’m sure I’ll get a little of the feelings involved, but he will probably focus on the issues.  It will be a great listen.

Also this morning, I heard the ever present, and grating on my nerves, suggestion that we should live the Gospel and be an example to non-Christians as a form of evangelism.  As we can see from the preceding paragraph, telling your story can be of some value, some of the time, to some audiences.  Most of the time, to most audiences, most value is obtained from talking about the Gospel.  The key difference is that the story I hope to hear is heavily grounded in scripture.  The story is about scripture and doctrine.  While my brother’s experience will play a central role in the story, the theme of the story will be a doctrinal discussion that led to separation.  These types of examples were common in Puritan communities.  They developed a set of stories, sort of like case law, to discuss particular doctrinal issues that would arise in practical application.  Their thinking was that law, no matter how specific, could not account for every conceivable situation in life.  Therefore, they discussed, worked through and recorded all of these events, creating a journal of applications, each story an example of doctrine in practice.

Coming back to the example, I’ve often wondered what living the Gospel looks like.  Let me get this right, if we just live our lives, loving our neighbors, everyone will think we are wonderful and want to live like us.  That sounds like the Mormons.  They are great neighbors, very trustworthy, reliable, nice people.  They have lousy theology.  But how would you know that by just observing their lives?  

Also, haven’t we discussed how the purpose of the law is to point out our sin?  The law is designed to demonstrate our fallen nature.  We may try and achieve some measure of success at living the “good” life.  I’m not sure I’ll ever perfect it.  If you examine my life, I’m sure you can find all sorts of reasons that I fail at obeying the law.   

But wait!  We are supposed to be living the Gospel.  What does that look like?  The Gospel is news.  It is completed action.  It is history.  It was done by someone else.  How do we live the news?  Am I to walk up the nearest hill dragging a large wooden pole and let my neighbor stab me?  Is that right?  The thing is that you can’t live the Gospel.  The Gospel is in the indicative.  You can try to live the imperatives.  Imperatives require action.  Imperatives are always grounded in indicatives.   

The amazing thing is that the same set of imperatives can be grounded in many different indicatives.  In other words, do Christians have a monopoly on sound ethics?  Clearly not.  Therefore, Christian living, the imperatives, shed no particular light on the Gospel.  The Gospel has to be proclaimed.  The Gospel requires notification, communication, words.  Yes, young people who don’t believe in words any longer, words and ideas are necessary.  People do not die for warm and fuzzy feelings.  People want to have a very clear and well articulated idea of what is at stake before they are going to put their own neck on the line.  I’m not going to die for any moral stake.  I’ll die over the indicatives.  The Gospel is worth my life.  Is the Gospel worth your life?

So, start with the Gospel.  Save your story until someone asks for it.  Even then, ground your story in the indicatives, and make sure that the person who asks remembers the indicatives more than the parts about you.

--Ogre--

The Heretics: Charles Finney

This article originally appeared in Modern Reformation in 1995.  It is a detailed overview of Finney's theology and what is wrong with it.  Finney remains one of the most influential people in American Evangelicalism.  This is one of the main reasons that a Modern Reformation is needed.  Enjoy.

The Legacy of Charles Finney

--Troll--

Paul, Tell me your story…part 3

The post that just won’t die.  The question today is not about Paul.  The question is about telling my story.  Why not tell my story?  In order to start to answer this question, let me tell you Troll’s story; it is much more interesting.

Once upon a time, stories about trolls always start this way, there was a troll that lived under a bridge.  You would think that he’d get an apartment or something from all of the cash he’s made from blogging, but this was once upon a time, and that implies that it was long ago, before blogging, before the internet, but not before roast mutton sandwiches with a thin slice of tomato.  Troll was minding his own business, collecting tolls and eating things, when an ogre came to his bridge.  The Ogre started to tell him a story about why Troll shouldn’t try to eat him.  For one thing, there was some doubt as to which would do the eating.  Secondly, Ogre was feeling nauseous that day, having gotten hold of some rather rancid pork, and he just wasn’t up to fighting.  Troll had not had that experience with pork, in fact, pigs and hogs were more like appetizers to him, hardly worth chewing.  There was just no way that Troll was going to be able to have the same experience eating pork that Ogre had.  So, Troll was getting ready for a good old fashioned melee.  Ogre was determined to deter Troll, because not only was he nauseous, but had a ham bone stuck between his teeth, and it was giving him a headache.  Finally, Ogre decided to tell Troll that he could have eternal life in Jesus.  Now, Trolls live particularly long lives, longer than most empires last in fact.  But Troll was intrigued with this Jesus fellow.  Ogre talked for a long time and Troll began to understand about justification and imputation.  He learned about sin and reconciliation.  Ogre was very elegant and thoughtful in his presentation…for an Ogre.  Troll realized, not quite of his own choosing, that there was truth in the Words that Ogre spoke.  Later that week, on Thursday, a bit after 7 in the evening, Troll was Baptized, right there, under the bridge, by a passing bishop with whom he bargained for the sacrament.  Now, a few decades later, Troll insists on telling the Gospel to any who chance upon his bridge.  It is a steep price for travelers to pay, listening to Troll talk, but it is far better than being eaten.

Let’s analyze this story, shall we?  Is there anything particularly profound about Ogre’s story?  Troll wasn’t impressed.  It didn’t seem likely that Ogre’s experience, while impressive to Ogre, was going to be shared by Troll.  In much the same way, our own experiences are not likely to be duplicated by those to whom we witness.  Every person is unique.  The sharing of experiences and feelings recruits the listener to share the experience and feeling.  What if they can’t have that feeling?  What if they have the feeling, or something that sounds like it might be the experience, but that feeling is gone by next Tuesday?  What sort of argument is an experience or a feeling?

The Gospel is external to us.  It is historical fact.  I know that some will argue that it is easier to defend a personal experience than a fact.  True.  But what does a personal experience of yours prove to me?  Nothing.  Facts might prove something.  Facts require a bit of work, yes.  You have to know the facts.  You have to have build a system of facts that is logical and can stand up to argument.  You have to learn how to build an argument and defend an argument.  My goodness, that’s starting to sound like work!  Yes, it is.

Let me show you something amazing.  Acts 2.  Peter appeals to scripture.  He appeals to fulfilled prophesy.  He testifies to the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  This is Peter!  Name a person, just one, whose personal testimony you think just might be fairly persuasive.  Is Peter pretty close to the top of that list?  Sorry, then.  Peter thinks talking about fulfilled prophesy and the resurrection is more important by far.  That is the proper example.  That is the testimony that is Worthy of Christ.  Yes, it is the harder road.  Yes, there just might be an amazing conversion experience at the end of it.  But when the warm fuzzies fade away, there will be a sound structure built from scripture and historical facts left in the listener.

For completeness, let me lay out one more negative thought of personal experience, just a little thicker.  Oh, the arrogance!  You have the story of the greatest life ever lived on earth at your disposal, and you think that your life has greater significance?!  Really?  You think that because you are so special, talking about yourself is actually going to move someone to read about some other guy that neither of you has met.  You would have a friend build a relationship with someone based upon your experience with that someone without your friend having any significant knowledge of that person.  Please!  I want you to tell me that you would marry a person without learning anything about them based solely on how you feel about them.  Yes, I know, it is done.  What are the odds of those relationships lasting a long time.  What if you marry someone that you’ve known a long time, someone who is becoming your best friend?  What are the odds of those relationships lasting a long time.

The example of the Apostles is my point.  Lay out your argument.  Use scripture.  Use facts.  Appeal to Christian evidences.  Tell the Gospel.  Leave the pronoun “I” out of it.  If it is the Greatest Story Ever Told, then tell it.  You may not have time to tell it all in one encounter.  It may not be your encounter that the person remembers later.  The Holy Spirit does NOT witness about you.  The Holy Spirit witnesses about Christ.  Tell the Gospel.  It is the best argument you have going.

--Ogre--

Paul, tell me your story…part 2

It is not often that I’ll write something and then find the need to expound on my rather lengthy prose so shortly thereafter.  This is such a moment.  Only a week ago, I asked not to be burdened with your story, but rather that we should all defer to The Story as revealed in the Bible.  Once again, the example of Paul has been raised up as a defense of using our testimonies rather than scripture and Christian evidences for Evangelism and Apologetics.  I shall try again with Paul to demonstrate that Paul does nothing of the sort.  The confusion lies in the distinction of Paul’s unique position in redemptive history as the Apostle to the Gentiles from our own lives.

Paul wrote twelve letters that are included in the Canon.  If Paul wrote Hebrews, then this only helps my argument, but let’s say that he didn’t for my purpose here.  In nine of the epistles, Paul begins by claiming that he is an Apostle of Christ Jesus; in one other, he refers to himself as an apostle in the body of the letter.  Therefore, the cornerstone of this debate is the defining of the word Apostle.  

According to the Bible, an Apostle is one in authority.  Matthew 10 is the great passage where Jesus commissions the first twelve apostles for ministry within the Royal family, the Jews.  He also differentiates between apostles and disciples in Matthew 10:24-25.  In Mark 3:14-15, Jesus says that apostles preach and have the authority to cast out demons.  Luke 9 gives us a similar commission of the apostles.  This remains the mission statement of the Apostles until after the resurrection when Christ assigns a new mission for the twelve.  Matthew 28:19-20, Mark 16:15-18, and Luke 24:48 proclaim the new plan also known as the Great Commission: you are witnesses, so spread the Gospel.

It is clear that after the Resurrection and Pentecost, the mission of the apostles has changed.  Acts 4:33 talks about the apostles giving their testimony of the resurrection.  Once Peter begins to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles, the direction of the whole mission of the apostles and the church shifts again.  Paul’s reinterpretation of Old Testament scripture and prophets is presented to the Counsel of Jerusalem, in light of the work of the Holy Spirit through both Peter and Paul.  The Jerusalem Counsel confirms the work of Peter and Paul among the Gentiles.

How does Paul lay claim to the title of Apostle?  The key lines are Acts 4:33 and Acts 9:15-16.  The apostles witness to the resurrection.  In order to give testimony to an event, a person must be an eyewitness in order to have credibility.  It is this area that Paul’s testimony is germane.  Because Paul is the only person after Pentecost who actually gives eyewitness testimony to the resurrection, his testimony is vitally important.  Paul is a hostile witness.  As a member of the Pharisees, and particularly to the more militant branch, Paul’s credentials as being hostile to Christians is well earned.  He has motive and opportunity to continue on the course he had been living.  He had no worldly incentive to change his path.  This is the instrument that Christ selects to be His final witness to His resurrection until the Last Day.  Paul’s suffering is foretold .  It is part and parcel to his testimony.  The calling of Paul is wrapped up into two parts: Paul did witness the Resurrected Jesus, and Paul will be taught the meaning of suffering.  But the key item is his eyewitness account.

Can we then draw a parallel between Paul’s defense of his apostleship in several of his epistles and the idea of our own testimony?  The answer to this question is obvious to me.  Can anyone of us actually give an eyewitness account to the resurrected Christ?  Until such a time, our own testimony is unnecessary and irrelevant.  We are not Apostles.  Christ is sitting at the Right Hand of God until He comes again in Glory to judge the living and the dead.  When he comes back, that’s called the Last Day, the end of this era.  It is a great and terrible day.  Until that time, we do not witness to his resurrection except from scripture that gives the accounts of the actual witnesses, the Apostles.  Our testimony is the scripture.

And so, once again, spare me your story, and I’ll spare you mine.  Instead, let’s get busy with telling the Greatest Story ever told, the Gospel.  The Word and the Spirit through the Word are where all of the power resides in this world.

--Ogre--

Paul, Tell me your Story.

One of my beloved and respected teachers made a comment about Paul that struck me as being at odds with my ideas about evangelism.  If you know Ogre, you know that I never take anything from any teacher as Gospel unless it dovetails with my understanding of Scripture.  This is not mean as disrespect or arrogance, although both may be perceived, but rather as an inquisitive student who pushes the envelope of any and all he encounters.  That’s why I’m the Ogre.

Paul is known as the Apostle to the Gentiles.  What is also true is that he spent the majority of his ministry visiting and writing churches that were predominantly made up of Jewish converts.  It was well known that Paul was not of the original twelve.  The use of the label “Apostle” on Paul was not received with the same sort of validation of authenticity as it was when referencing Peter or John.  Therefore, Paul often began his Epistles with a defense of his calling as an Apostle.

It has been said that this was an example of Paul telling his story to spread the Gospel.  This is the statement that I will be arguing against.  Starting with Romans, the first Pauline Epistle, Paul discusses his credentials as an Apostle for about one paragraph, then he dives into doctrine.  Paul, in his discussions of doctrine, ALWAYS grounds his arguments in scripture.  The Old Testament is cited by Paul either by direct quote or paraphrase over 70 times in the book of Romans.  Once Paul has finished defending his credentials, which he unfortunately has to do, Paul’s arguments are ALWAYS grounded in scripture, NOT in his experience.  This is an important distinction.

Jesus quoted scripture.  Jesus acted in accordance with what the Old Testament prophets, His prophets, stated would be the actions of the messiah.  Jesus grounded His earthly ministry in Scripture.  Paul always does the same.  He always grounds his arguments in Scripture.

Paul’s letters are a part of scripture.  All of the epistles are Apostolic utterances that have been included in the Canon.  Therefore, Paul's defense of his Apostleship is germane today for his validation as an author of scripture.  Once he has established his Apostolic credentials, his arguments for the Gospel are always about Jesus and His fulfillment of scripture.  He does NOT use his experience as an argument for the Gospel.

What example, then, can we take from the Bible in general, and Paul in particular, for our own evangelistic style?  Peter in his Pentecost sermon in Acts 2 reasons and argues from Scripture.  He doesn’t tell his story.  Granted, many listening know who he is, but his arguments are from Scripture.  Paul argues for the Gospel from Scripture and gives the Christian Evidences, the most important of which is the resurrection.  As a witness to the resurrected Christ, this one portion of Paul’s testimony is relevant.  All of the Apostles have the same portion of their testimony, and it is relevant.  We have these accounts recorded for us in the Bible.  They are the testimonies that are relevant. 

My testimony, as exciting and earth moving as it is to me, is not relevant.  My faith never has converted anyone, nor will it.  My testimony is about as useful as a soaking wet bath towel.  It is the Holy Spirit that converts the elect.  The Holy Spirit works to confirm the Gospel.  Why waste time and space with discussions of my own fascinating and non-reproducible story of conversion when the real Christian evidences are at my disposal.  They are timeless, topical, useful, effective, Scriptural, well documented and appropriate.  Plus, the Holy Spirit doesn’t lift up me or my experience.  The Holy Spirit lifts up the Gospel.

So, please.  Spare me your testimony and I’ll spare you mine.  Evangelism means to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not the story of Ogre, not even the story of Paul.

--Ogre--