The New World Order

In re: John 3:16, I have a couple comments.

Jhn 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Consider firstly our context: John 3 opens with Nicodemus coming to Christ at night, so as not to be seen with this “heretic”. He seeks to compliment him in a fishing sort of way. “We know you come from God, because there is no way you can be doing these miracles if He were not with you”. In other words, “Are you claiming to be the Messiah that will usher in the Kingdom of God for Jerusalem, or not?”

It appears that Nicodemus is just another Jewish racist. Yes, racist - believing his race was superior to all other races. The Jews were waiting for a kingly earthly Messiah that would vindicate Israel against all her oppressive enemies, namely the other pagan (Gentile) nations.

Jesus first response is very telling. He tells Nicodemus that he is not to trust in his ethnicity, for it does not matter what nation you have been born into. Being a Jew was not going to save you, nor give you "Kingdom of God privileges" – which the Pharisees were fully expecting; after all they were the Holy of Holies.

No, rather you must be born again. Not a popular message; and Nicodemus quickly seeks to be contentious with Jesus’ words. “You can’t crawl back in your mother’s womb!” Jesus further clarifies. (This by the way does teach the Doctrine of Election because you can’t see the Kingdom unless you first are regenerate – see no one seeks the Kingdom nor the righteousness found therein prior to regeneration.)

Jesus is talking about a spiritual birth, regeneration, but Nicodemus is confused, because of his presuppositions – to be born a Jew is to see and enter the Kingdom of God. But Christ seeks to tell him of heavenly things. He is to be lifted up and seen by all so that they may have eternal life.

Who? – enter the text.

Consider secondly that the word “Cosmos” can have multiple meanings: While it certainly can mean the Created Universe (Mt 13:35), it can also mean the Gentile world (Rom 11:12, 15) and even I think in this context a little broader both Jew and Gentile – or “the Nations”.

It seems to fit well. Nicodemus is rebuked, being taught that Christ came for the world. This is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant:

Gen 22:18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

Gen 26:4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Reading “the Nations” in the place of Cosmos it reads:

Jhn 3:16-17 For God so loved the Nations, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the Nations to condemn the Nations; but that the Nations through him might be saved.

That’s how I would best understand this passage, given its context. This is also how I would understand passages like - Jhn 1:29; 4:42; 2Cr 5:18-21; 1Jhn 2:2; 4:10, 14

Thanks for the opportunity to put my thoughts into words.

Seein' things

Recently a good friend of mine was inquiring about a particular situation he was proposing, as a means of working out a principle regarding images of Christ. He asked, “If a man was around Christ and wanted to draw Him, could he? Or what if people asked the Apostles what Jesus looked like, because… I don’t know… they thought they saw Him, etc”

Upon further discussion with Tammy and meditation, I think God has an answer for us regarding that Jesus looks like. He looks like:

Ch 1. The Message of God and The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the cosmos
Ch 2. The Temple destroyed and rebuilt in 3 days
Ch 3. The only begotten Son of God lifted up for the cosmos to see and be redeemed
Ch 4. Living Water that quenches all thirst
Ch 5. He whom the Scriptures testify of
Ch 6. The Bread of Life which came down from Heaven, and gives life forever
Ch 7. He that is sent with the doctrine of the One who has sent Him
Ch 8. The Light of the cosmos, that those who follow Him shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life
Ch 9. He who heals on the Sabbath and is worshipped
Ch 10. The Good Shepherd who lays down His life for His sheep and He who is one with the Father
Ch 11. The Resurrection and the Life who brings the dead to life, and He who weeps
Ch 12. He who draws all men to Himself by being lifted up from the Earth
Ch 13. He who washes the feet of His disciples so that they be made clean
Ch 14. The Way, Truth and Life; the Only Way to the Father and He who sends the Comforter
Ch 15. The Vine that gives the branches fruit, and without whom the branches can do nothing and He who chooses His friends and lays His life down for them
Ch 16. He who has overcome the world and in whom is peace
Ch 17. He who prays for His own whom the Father has given Him
Ch 18. He who’s Kingdom was not of this world, for had it been, His servants would have fought for Him, and He who is King of the Jew and Gentile
Ch 19. He who was the only one who could and did “finish it”
Ch 20. He who defeated death, who came out of the tomb, He who meets with His disciples on the first day of the week, and He who bears holes in His hands and feet, so that the doubting would proclaim, “My LORD, and My God!”
Ch 21. He who gave to His Church gifts to feed His sheep, and tend to His flock
Ch 22. And He who did many other things that if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written

*sigh.. and this only being one or two themes from the many found in each chapter of the Gospel of John. There are months of meditations wrapped up in just that list alone.

What an awesome image; better than a million polaroids of Christ!

God, give me a sign. Oh, a road sign, but I wanted...

Phil 3:16ff “Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.”

Prov 22:28 “Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.”

Pro 23:10 “Remove not the old landmark; and enter not into the fields of the fatherless:”

Eph 4:11-16 “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we [henceforth] be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [and] cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, [even] Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.”

When the Apostle Paul says that we are to walk by the same rule that has already been attained unto, what does he mean? The Greek word for "Attained" is Phthano, and means “to come before, precede, anticipate” as well as “to come to, or arrive at”. The illustration Paul gives is a runner, pressing toward the finish line. And this is to draw for us a picture of one who is going through the Christian life, and being encouraged in it by looking to the end of all things, the prize - Christ, and His benefits.

Great illustration, as it should be, after all it is an inspired illustration. But notice Paul interjects a couple of points between the pressing and the Resurrection, which is the finish line. The points mean to be godly instruction to those who are running. Where we have made it in our race, maintain the same rules.

Imagine yourself 10 years ago, 5 years ago, 1 year ago. In your personal sanctification the LORD has delivered you from all kinds of sins. By grace some of them were gone in days, and you simply no longer took interest in them. Others have been purged out over years by grace and knowledge. And some we still seek to shackle ourselves unto, using grace as an excuse to be “in bondage”. The same rule applies to Truth. Some of us were once Flaming-Arminian-Charismatic-“God told me so”-Idolatrous-Baptists. Since then we’ve become Flaming-Arminian-Charismatic-“God told me so”-Idolatrous-Baptist–Presbyterians or -Reformed. But the point is we would like to believe that the LORD has brought us to greater knowledge in His Truth.

So now imagine if we were to stand here, look to the past, and intentionally go back to some error we once held unwittingly, or go back to those sins that we once abandoned with so little effort out of zeal for our Savior! What rebellion! What hypocrisy! What blasphemy! It would be as unnatural as a runner just stopping, and going backwards, or worse - just making up a new path. Does this sound like a diligent Christian walk?

The LORD would have us to walk according to where He has already brought us. Paul would encourage us to walk according to the faithful attainments God has delivered unto us.


But Paul would not have us to believe that this is simply a private race, as opposed to what other leaders in the Visible Church are teaching. “My religion is private”, “Just me and God”. I am very familiar with this line of thinking growing up in Roman Catholicism. Nor would he have us to believe that it is okay to have factions and splits in the Body. How can a handicapped runner run? (I don’t see para-church wheelchairs in the text)

Paul says, “Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.” The Christian walk was not meant to be done in a bubble; for we are “compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses”. The Apostle to the Hebrews gives the same sermon as a means to stir us up to running the race set before us. Heb 12:1.

Now imagine a body running a race and one leg wants to go this way, and the other that way. The runner will not get far at all. Paul says to walk by the same rule, mind the same thing.

This CANNOT be impossible! For Paul would not say to do something that you could not do. In fact he says in another place that we will walk in unity of the faith, looking like a mature man (see Eph 4:11-16). Could you imagine the Phillipians arguing with Paul? “Paul, you just don’t understand. It aint gonna happen. You’ve seen those Corinthians.” Or “Paul, don’t you think this is a little too high? I mean I could see if you were talking about Heaven, but here? Now?... Maybe he is talking about Heaven.”

Paul was not talking about Heaven. For the Resurrection is the finish line. Have we attained unto that? No, yet we are to walk now, and mark now.

In a future essay I will get more into the idea of “Faithful Attainments”, but for now I intend to leave you with some serious practical questions.

- Who are our “Examples” that we are to mark?
- Do we only look to mark those who live presently or just in our neighborhood?
- Who sought to define and collect and defend these Biblical attainments?
- Who sought to remove them?
- Who are “we”? Who do we see ourselves the posterity of Ecclesiastically, or did we just come into existence on our own?
- Is our current practice keeping with Paul’s commands? In other words is our present Church membership/constitution promoting walking in that which we have attained unto, or are we promoting to not mind the same things?

I’m sure there are many more great questions out there. Feel free to put them in the comments section. I just offer a few elementary ones.

Shalom,
-shawn

Essentials VS Wellness

The unity of the Body of Christ could very well be the most important contemporary issue the Church faces today in America and Europe where we see the most independent denominationalism and therefore schism.

As I read contemporary writing and dialogue regarding separation and unity in the Churches it seems that from my humble perspective we are speaking past each other. I think it is important that we AGREE in definitions of some of the terms we use before we just throw them out there and confuse what the discussion at hand really is about.

Maybe we could begin by seeing if we agree with some Church history in relationship to an essential vs. faithful distinction of the Visible Church. (I will be summarizing)

The "Church Fathers" sought to define the ESSENTIAL distinction of the Church. What defines the ESSENCE of the Visible Church, as opposed to Paganism. In other words, either you are in the Visible Church, or you are in the Satanic institution Christ Jesus calls "the World", and your religion then is Satanic. (John 17)

My understanding is that their answer was "The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation." (WCF XXV.2)

"ALL THOSE THROUGHOUT THE WORLD THAT PROFESS THE TRUE RELIGION; AND OF THEIR CHILDREN"

And how did they seek to define the TRUE RELIGION? By the Universal Creeds (Apostle's, Athanasian, Nicene) And so you will see that many, many denominations will fit into this category: Presbyterians, Reformed, Methodists, Roman Catholics, Baptists, Episcopalians, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, (most) Pentecostals, African Methodist Episcopal, etc. And they fit because they uphold the Universal Creeds.

When the RPNA says "the BEING" of the Church, we mean the same thing as the Early Church Fathers meant as to the ESSENTIAL distinction of the Visible Church. We have never sought to take people out of the Visible Church.

Now a problem arises when we begin to deal with the FAITHFUL distinction of the Visible Church. The Reformers found themselves having to come out of what they believed to be part of the Visible Church in ESSENCE (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church), however, their justification for doing so was that Rome departed NOT FROM THE ESSENCE, but from the FAITHFULNESS of the Visible Church.

How did they understand the FAITHFULNESS distinction? Well is it possible that they understood the nature of it, but did not develop the doctrine of it until after they had left? We see that there was a development as the Reformation progressed.

Right preaching and sacraments
Right preaching, sacraments and church discipline
Right doctrine, sacraments, and church discipline
Right Doctrine, Worship, Discipline and Government

And these all mean the same thing, but we see a greater clarification as time and reformation progress. These became the Marks of the True Church, and many have referred to them as the ancient landmarks (Prov. 22:28).

Now when they say TRUE Church vs. FALSE Church, one must discern whether they speak of:

TRUE is CHRISTIAN as to FALSE is PAGAN or
TRUE is FAITHFUL CHURCH as to FALSE is UNFAITHFUL CHURCH

In other words, they would use terms to mean something in one context, and turn around and use the same term differently in another. They do this with other terms as well, and so if we are not careful, we too could be guilty of not being clear enough, and this could easily lead to offense; which I hope none have been thus far in my post.

The Reformation was not about departing or leaving, but rather RETURNING to the FAITHFUL Doctrine, Worship, Discipline and Government that had already been established prior in Church history. And because of the size of Reformation and ability to settle many matters in a high court they then sought to establish a greater faithfulness than had been established prior. For this is nothing less than confirming the Great Commission given to the Bride of Christ, through the Ministry of the Word.

When the RPNA uses the term "WELL BEING" They refer to the FAITHFULNESS distinction of the Visible Church.

You have the ESSENTIAL Visible Church and the FAITHFUL ESSENTIAL which is,
You have the BEING, and the WELL BEING.

Until we agree to the definition of these terms and historical testimony of the Reformations, then we will not be able to move on in the discussion.

For further thought/clarification see:

The Covenanted Reformation Defended Ch.2

Westminster Confession of Faith Ch. 25 - “Of the Church”