Francis Chan’s “Crazy Love” is Really Antinomian Puppy-Love
“He is clearly saying that when we love we are free from the Law; in fact, we don’t have to worry about….’commands.’ In other words, love is measured by some other standard than biblical imperatives, presumably, good feelings. Do you think that is unfair of me to say? Well then, look at how he wants you to determine if you are loving or not: ‘Do you feel free in your Christian life?'”
Before I comment on “Crazy Love” by Francis Chan (2008), let me set the table. There is a “let go and let God” theology sweeping through Christianity which is sometimes referred to as “Gospel Sanctification.” Hereafter, I will refer to it as “GS.” Let go and let God theology, for all practical purposes, is antinomianism because it either advocates an inability to uphold the Law by Christians or the view that Christians are not obligated to uphold it in God’s eyes. Either way, use of the Law in the life of a Christian is denied.
Basically, GS teaches that we are sanctified in the exact same way that we are justified, by faith and repentance alone. Therefore, if the Law (by this term “Law” I mean the Scriptures in general and imperatives in particular) can’t save us, neither can it be used or recognized in sanctification either. They use Galatians 3:2,3 as a proof text for this position.
Secondly, it teaches that Christ came to not only die for our sins, but to fulfill the law by obeying it perfectly with His life. In essence, it teaches that Christ obeyed the Law for us, and His perfect obedience and fulfillment of the Law is imputed to us in the same way righteousness is imputed to us in salvation by faith alone. Therefore, we are not obligated to the Law. This is sometimes referred to as “the imputed active obedience of Christ.”
Thirdly, It teaches that Christ not only fulfilled the Law, but replaced it with a new Law that only has one command: love God and others. Furthermore, in only being obligated by this one Law, our proper fulfillment of this one Law is judged by our intentions and conscience, not necessarily biblical imperatives. They use Matthew 22: 36-40 as a proof text for this position.
Fourthly, according to advocates, acts of true love will always be accompanied by a willing spirit and joy. Nothing should ever be done out of mere duty. The old Christian adage “obey God whether you feel like it or not” is considered to be anathema. Acts of true love are often described as a “mere natural flow.”
Fifthly, GS propagates the idea that Christians are still spiritually dead, and the only life in us is Christ working through the Holy Spirit. That’s why true love can always be expected to be a mere natural flow, because it is really Christ doing the work through us. They use Galatians 2:20 as a proof text for this position. This text is also used to advocate sanctification by faith alone.
Sixthly, sanctification is only accomplished through faith and deep introspection for purposes of repentance, which empties our soul of sin, and results in Christ living through us.
Seventh, the Bible’s sole purpose is to aid us in faith and repentance. As we see “pictures of Jesus” in the Bible, we learn more about who He is, and see Him more clearly. Our faith is then increased and we are changed from “glory to glory” (2 Corinthians 3:18 is the proof text for that). The Bible also aids us in looking deep within our souls to see sin that we need to repent of. In addition, all of the vast imperatives we see in the Bible makes us more thankful for Christ, knowing that we could never uphold all of those commands and He has done it for us. Thank goodness they (commands) have all been abrogated by the love of Christ working through us, according to them, that is.
Eighth, since the primary goal is to know more of who Christ is (as opposed to learning what He has said for the purpose of applying it to our lives), which increases our faith and love for Him, we don’t necessarily limit that knowledge to Scripture. General revelation is seen as being almost as valuable, because the idea is to get to know Christ as a person, “not a cognitive concept that we apply to life” (Paul David Tripp). This is eerily similar to Postmodern thinking.
Obviously, I wouldn’t have gone through all of the trouble to explain the above if I didn’t think “Crazy Love” (hereafter “CL”) propagated Gospel Sanctification. Per the usual, advocates of GS partake in careful word-craft; it goes without saying that my before-stated description would be rejected out of hand by most Evangelicals. Though there are hints of GS in the first half of the book, the doctrine is not prevalent until page 101, thats when elements of the doctrine start becoming obvious.
Somewhat unique in CL is the heavy dose of “Jesus is my boyfriend” theology. Chan pours this on really thick, even by John Piper’s standard, who is also an advocate of GS. Piper, who likens true saving faith to a deep, romantic-like love for Christ, is quoted at least once in CL. Let’s face it, if we can’t love our Lord by obeying “everything I have commanded,” (as in most GS based books, the Lordship of Christ is conspicuously missing) then something else has to fill the gap; such as, a “sincere,” syrupy like romantic love similar to teenage puppy-love. In fact, according to Chan, regarding the account of his grandmother’s relationship with Christ: He was her “lover” (p. 100).
Throughout the book, Chan draws conclusions about how we should experience our relationship with Christ from horizontal relationships; namely, romantic ones. Hence, “Because when you’re wildly in love with someone, it changes everything.” This is indicative of the eighth element, which puts general revelation on the same par with specific revelation (The Bible). There is a very heavy dose of this in the beginning of the book as Chan emphasizes the study of creation in order to understand Christ as a “person.” Chan also uses the GS phrase “word pictures” to describe the Bible throughout CL. On pages 34 and 35, Chan categorizes general revelation and the Bible together as two ways of knowing God as set against what we can’t know about Him: “So far we have talked about things we can see with our own eyes, things we know about creation, and some of the attributes of God as revealed in the Bible. But many facets of God expand beyond our comprehension.”
Besides an overemphasis on general revelation as a matching bookend with specific revelation, there is only a hint of the GS doctrine in the first 100 pages. The first thing I began to notice was the dissing of practical application and obedience, which are both antithetical to GS doctrine. In regard to our supposed paramount goal of knowing Christ as a person rather than what he demands of us (number eight), Chan says the following on page 30: “If the ‘gravest question’ before us really is what God Himself is like, how do we learn to know Him?” Is the “gravest” question before Christians that of who God is? Or, is what God wants us to do of equal importance? I think we know the answer to that, and a balanced perspective by Chan is conspicuously missing throughout the book.
Then on page 101, Chan takes a hard left turn and launches into full-blown GS doctrine. After denying throughout the book (in nuanced fashion) that we are slaves obligated to obey Christ (because that doesn’t fit the gushy *Jesus as boyfriend* prism), and that God would use fear, guilt, or reward to motivate us, he says that Galatians 5:13-14 teaches the following: “When we love, we’re free! We don’t have to worry about a burdensome load of commands, because when we are loving, we can’t sin. Do you feel free in your Christian life?”
Just please stop and think about what he is saying. Words mean things. He is clearly saying that when we love we are free from the Law; in fact, we don’t have to worry about….”commands.” In other words, love is measured by some other standard than biblical imperatives, presumably, good feelings. Do you think that is unfair of me to say? Well then, look at how he wants you to determine if you are loving or not: “Do you feel free in your Christian life?” And: When we work for Christ out of obligation, it feels like work. But when we truly love Christ, our work is a manifestation of that love, and it feels like love” (page 110). Is that true? Does obedience to Christ always “feel (s) like love”?
The whole line of thought here clearly falls under element number three of GS doctrine. Furthermore, let’s be good Bereans and take a look at Galatians 5:13-14, the biblical text Chan cites to make his point:
“You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'”
Paul is talking about our freedom from the Law in regard to being saved, and then using it as an excuse to live any way we want to: “Hey, I’m saved anyway, and the Law can’t get me into heaven, so why not live any way I want to?” Because it’s self-focused and the antithesis of love, that’s why. But Paul is not saying that love has no standard other than itself because it replaced the Law. That is a classic antinomian misrepresentation of that passage. In the same statement, Chan even comforts his readers by assuring them that they are not sinning by loving apart from biblical imperatives / guidelines: “….because when we are loving, we can’t sin” [that’s why we supposedly don’t need to worry about “burdensome commands”].
Chan reiterates his point by quoting the apostle in verse 6 of the same chapter: “The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love” This doesn’t mean, as Chan implies, that love interprets itself because it comes from an undefined realization of who Christ is via a personal, nebulous, and supposedly intimate relationship. Do you think that is unfair as well? Here is what Chan says on page 104: “Something mysterious, even supernatural must happen in order for genuine love for God to grow in our hearts. The Holy Spirit has to move in our lives. It is a remarkable cycle: Our prayers for more love result in love, which naturally causes us to pray more, which results in more love….” The “cycle” that Chan describes here is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures, but rather, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Or, “Peter, do you love me? …. [then] feed my sheep.” At the very least, Chan is propagating a love that always comes naturally through a cycle of prayer only. In the best case that can be surmised, he is clearly in serious error.
Also, Chan forgets to mention that the apostle Paul also said: “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts” (1Corinthians 7:19). About a year ago, I counseled a fellow who was having trouble with a church leadership that propagates the GS doctrine. He was utterly perplexed as to why they seemed to completely ignore clear biblical directives regarding his situation. The answer is simple: if their motive was love, they did not deem themselves as obligated to biblical imperatives. Throughout the rest of the book, Chan seems to make strong statements regarding the need to obey, but what he is talking about is obedience to the one single Law of love, not biblical imperatives. This is the type of double-speaking deception that I have come to expect from propagators of the GS doctrine.
Throughout the rest of the book after page 101, Chan draws a tight GS line that propagates spiritual growth by a narrow, passive concept of meditation and prayer only (p. 104, 148, 170, to cite a few), and acts of love always experienced as a mere natural flow accompanied by joy (p. 110, 120, 129, to name a few). It is fair to say that the second half of the book is saturated with GS doctrine in its usual nuanced form. But page 203 is worth mentioning before I close. Chan presents Galatians 3:3 as a Pauline contention against effort in the sanctification process which is also supposedly a false gospel. This is a typical GS stance. Concerning this passage, Chan says the following:
“I think each of us has a strong tendency to attempt to wrestle control from the Spirit and “do” this life on our own. Each of us tends to switch from living the gospel of grace to trusting in a system of works. That’s why Paul brings up this issue with the churches in Galatia.”
So, effort on our part (Christians) to “’do’ this life” is supposedly denying the gospel that originally saved us. This is the most basic element of GS which is the synthesizing of justification and sanctification. Obviously, if we can’t do anything to be saved, neither can we participate in sanctification either except for the same role we play in justification, faith and repentance only. However, Paul is not talking about sanctification in Galatians 3:3. He was talking about the Galatians possibly denying the gospel that saved them by faith alone, and doing so by returning to a salvation by works. Apparently, they were being tempted to consummate this decision by being circumcised, and therefore denying the true gospel by proclaiming a false one. This is absolutely clear by the way Paul summarizes his argument:
“Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace” (Galatians 5:2-4).
Paul makes it clear that he was talking about justification (“ You who are trying to be justified by law”) and not sanctification. Besides, specifically, Paul is talking about their ultimate goal of being completely transformed (glorification) in 3:3, not sanctification, or their role in the growing process. Paul discuses that in the second part of the book, the first part deals with justification. This can be clearly seen by the fact that Paul uses the word “justification” at least ten times in the book while “sanctification” is not used once, even though it is a biblical word in the same way justification is (1 Corinthians 1:30 and 6:11; both are listed together with glorification).
It is no different than someone who is saved by the true gospel , but then leaves an orthodox community of believers for a community that professes a false gospel. Like Paul, we would “stand in doubt” of them. Besides, specifically, Paul is talking about their ultimate goal of being completely transformed (glorification) in 3:3, not sanctification, or their role in the growing process. I believe the Young’s Literal Translation demonstrates this well:
“so thoughtless are ye! having begun in the Spirit, now in the flesh do ye end? “
In the final analysis, CL adorns GS with some challenges that the church needs to hear, but Chan’s solution is a false doctrine. The first hundred passages were subtle enough to keep me in denial while eating red herrings and ignoring straw men used to diss the conventional hearing of God’s word and the proper application to life thereof. Which is very annoying.
paul
Per the Usual, You Always Learn Something When You Do Dr. J’s Homework
In a recent post (https://paulspassingthoughts.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/i-always-do-dr-js-homework/), I comment on a post written by Jay Adams where he raises concerns about passive forms of sanctification running about in the church. He suggested that counselors have counselees make a list of all imperatives located in 1Corithians, and then ask themselves who the commands are directed to. Them? Or, (as he asked in a keynote address) the Holy Spirit? I just couldn’t help but to see the challenge as a homework assignment, and the results are documented in the above-mentioned post.
But as a former counselee under NANC counseling back when they were dealing with a full deck, I always learned from Dr. J’s homework that was part of the curriculum, and this assignment was certainly no exception. First of all, as would be necessary to state in the present climate, an examination of nouns, verbs, adjectives, ect., and how they relate to each other in 1Corintians would seem to indicate that all imperatives in the book are directed toward us. However, like those peasants that were “taught” by Jesus via the Sermon On the Mount, I haven’t yet taken any courses from Westminster Theological Seminary (which I am sure was located in Jerusalem at the time before Israel became the church) on *redemptive historical hermeneutics*. That could be critical because I recently heard from a counselee (being counseled by a NANC certified counseling center) that some counselors, you know, the advanced ones, are counseling people from *narrative diagrams* instead of cognitive literature. Yes, instead of instruction, the counselor drew a diagram of the counselee’s life and showed him where he was located in the diagram. Wow, Sweet dude, say amen and pass the bong.
But I learned much more than who the imperatives are directed at in the book of 1Corithians, I learned that 1Corithians does violence to Gospel Sanctification (the passive form of sanctification that I am concerned with) and its four pillars: NCT (New Covenant Theology; not all proponents of GS hold to NCT, but most do); heart theology; Christian hedonism, and redemptive historical hermeneutics. My post here will be far from a comprehensive list of examples from 1 Corinthians, but let me share some examples.
First, NCT teaches that the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) is an isolated unit symbolized by stone rather than “hearts,” (or “word” verses “Spirit”) and is indicative of all biblical imperatives, and is not applicable to the New Testament (ie., New Covenant), but was replaced by a transcendent “higher Law of Christ” that now interprets (the “apostles hermeneutic”) the Old Testament as partial revelation that was pre-designed by God for replacement. Paul’s statements in 1Corintians destroys this notion completely.
1) In 1:31, Paul makes a case for one of his points by citing Jere. 9:24, and prefaces it with the phrase “it is written.” This is the exact phrase Jesus used in Mathew 4:4 (before the New Testament was written), and said that man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of God. Therefore, man also lives by every word in the Old Testament, including the so-called “Decalogue.”
2) Paul validates his arguments to the Corinthians by citing the Old Testament, often prefaced with “it is written” in 9:8, 9:9, 10:6, 10:7, 10:8, 10:9, 10:10, 10:11, 10;25-26, 11:16, 14:21-22, 14:34. Therefore, the OT often lends understanding to the NT and vise versa.
3) In 9:8 and 14:34, Paul calls the whole OT “the Law.” In 9:9, he calls the Pentateuch “the Law.” In 14:21, he calls Isaiah 28:11-12 “the Law.” The Ten Commandments is not “the Law” apart from the rest of Scripture, and therefore the focus of doctrine that separates its purpose from the New Covenant.
Secondly, GS teaches that all of our focus must be “change at the heart level,” resulting in obedience that is a “mere natural flow.” Paul didn’t get the memo. Paul was a strong advocate of what I believe Jay Adams calls “radical amputation.” In other words, life choices that present obstacles to sinning or an escape from sin. Said another way, change on the *outside level.* Clearly, Paul’s instruction for those who cannot control their lust was to simply get married (7:9). He also advocated obedience in regard to sexual relations to prevent temptation (7:5) By the way, I know of a specific case where adultery was the final death-blow to a marriage were depriving of intimate relations was a long standing issue. The counselor told them to disregard 1 Cor. 7:5 because what they really needed to do was get to the “heart issues.” In 10:14, Paul says to “flee” from adultery. In 11:31, Paul said to judge ourselves to prevent judgment from God in our lives. He also uses fear of judgment from God to motivate us to behave in 10:8 (sexual immorality), 10:9 (provoking God), and 10:10 (grumbling).
Also, it may be noted that Paul advocated the redirection of desires through obedience: 14:1, 14:12, 14:15, 14:18, and a strong emphasis on exertion regarding self discipline (9:25, 9:27).
Thirdly, Christian hedonism stands against obeying God from the perspective of duty, rather than pure motives supposedly marked by joy. Again, Paul didn’t get the memo. In 7:3, he commands husbands to fulfill their marital “duty” to their wives.
Fourthly, in regard to redemptive historical hermeneutics:
1) RHH teaches that the Bible is to be used sorely “in the service of the gospel.” But again, Paul didn’t get the memo. In 4:1, he refers to biblical truth as “things,” a plural noun clearly implying a multiplicity of propositional truth. Conspicuously absent is a definite article in regard to the gospel. But, in 11:2 Paul uses a definite article in regard to “teachings,” minus an object, making it a noun in plural form, and thereby implying in no uncertain terms that Scripture encompasses a multiplicity of propositional truth. If the gospel is the ne plus ultra of Scripture, how could Paul make such statements?
2) RHH teaches that the Bible is a gospel narrative that serves the same purpose for believers as well as unbelievers; it is to continually impart life to both. Micheal Horton goes to great lengths to make this point in “Christless Christianity.” So, the idea that the Bible contains truth that we receive for the purpose of salvation, and then move on to “something else,” is vehemently dismissed by advocates of RHH. But yet, Paul said in 14:22 that tongues is a sign to unbelievers, and prophesy (knowledge that edifies) “is for believers, not for unbelievers.” This shows clearly that the Bible does contain a dichotomy of truth for different uses in regard to justification and sanctification. Obviously.
3) RHH promotes an exclusive redemptive hermeneutic, but Paul displays an example of how the Bible uses various hermeneutics and states them accordingly. If no hermeneutic is stated, the plain sense of the text is assumed (“he opened His mouth and taught them”). For instance, Paul said to the Galatians in regard to part of what he wrote: “this is allegory.” We have another example of this throughout chapter 7, where Paul carefully explains the the context in which what he writes is to be interpreted.
4) RHH teaches that both Scripture and general revelation are not for the purpose of practical application, but rather to “show forth the gospel.” But Paul speaks of a practical application in 11:14,15 that, according to him, can be ascertained from nature; namely, that men should not have long hair. Many examples of this can, of course, be seen in the book of proverbs as well.
“Teachers” of our day have been laboring for some time to build a consistent theology that makes NCT, Christian hedonism, heart theology, and RHH, all fit together in application and experience. The results of this homework assignment make one thing crystal clear, at least one huge obstacle is Paul and his letter to the Corinthians.
paul
Jay Adams: Marriage is to Solve the Problem of Loneliness, and My Thoughts on Liberating Simplicity
Recently, I had reason to be concerned with the whole issue of divorce and remarriage. I’m just one of those strange guys that thinks God’s opinion matters in how we conduct our lives; in fact, I believe the Bible calls it “walking in the Spirit.” That is, I believe walking in the Spirit is the same as walking according to the will of God as revealed in the Scriptures. Also, I’m old enough to conclude, as I have observed the landscape of life over the past 53 years, that confusion and indecision is bad, and wisdom that leads to doubtless direction is good; you are usually at peace with yourself and the results are mostly favorable. And if the results are not favorable from a pragmatic perspective, our primary goal of pleasing God is still intact anyway; it is always a win / win proposition.
So why would I go out and buy a book (“Marriage, Divorce, And Remarriage In The Bible” by Jay Adams) instead of just looking in the Bible myself? Well, because God’s will in every situation is not always easy to ascertain in the Scriptures. Some life issues are complicated, and God has this really neat system where he pays certain men to study the Scriptures full-time and document what they find, so that layman like myself can get this all-important information in a timely fashion while confirming the conclusions with our own Bibles. Granted, in our day, most of the men that God has blessed with this privilege have squandered the call and continue to come up with better techniques in doing so, but Jay E. Adams is not among them. In fact, though my own situation is extremely unique, somehow, I assumed I would find his (Adams) book a useful tool in finding God’s will and I was right. Confusion bad. Clarity good. Me happy.
But this is really a post about simplicity that liberates. Over the years I have had the privilege of counseling people and watching their response as I unapologetically give them God’s solution from the Scriptures. I never get weary of seeing their response when they find out their dilemma is not nearly as complicated as the world and lame theologians made it out to be. They get this wide-eyed look, then they look down at what you showed them in the Bible on their lap, then they look up at you again, repeating this process several times in some cases. It’s called hope. It’s the halo data you see when a captive to confusion has been set free. It’s the look you get when a person realizes that God’s wisdom supplies a way out according to the Lord’s purposes.
I was reminded of all of this as I approached chapter two of Dr. J’s book. The very title of the chapter stopped me dead in my tracks: “What Marriage Is All About.” Oh my, If only I had a dime for every theory that attempts to answer that question! (why did a picture of Oprah appear in my mind? Weird). But what stopped me in my tracks even more was Dr. J’s biblical answer to the question: marriage is to solve the problem of loneliness. That’s it? Now I was the one with the before mentioned deer-in-the headlight look. Yes, in fact, Adams refers to it as a formal biblical covenant: “The Covenant of Companionship.” He cites Genesis 2:18 to make the point that man is not wired to be alone. By the way, as I was confirming this information I discovered that the English spelling for the Hebrew word “alone” in Gen. 2:18 is B-A-D (according to “E-sword”). That doesn’t mean anything, I just thought it was interesting. Furthermore, I found his assertion that this simple purpose for marriage was an actual covenant in the Bible to be rather bold as well, but in his typical mode of operation, he backed-up this assertion well with Proverbs 2:17 and Malachi 2:14; both of these references specifically link the idea of companionship with the marriage covenant.
So, on one page only, I was taken aback thrice. But now I confess, my surprise came from a bad memory. You see, though much truth in the Bible is simple, the ramifications are profound. The problem of loneliness is profound. Let me explain. I recently experienced the great joy and privilege of accompanying my son-in-law (David) and my daughter on a road trip in which he had several speaking engagements. One night, we stayed at a bed and breakfast owned by friends of David, and that night, several people were invited over for fellowship. As we sat around a large table after dinner, David suggested that every one present share their testimonies. One lady was single for reasons unknown to me, but after sharing how she came to know Christ she began to tell the strangers sitting there about a nemesis in her life: loneliness. As she began to share in regard to this her countenance quickly morphed into an expression of utter despair and she began to openly weep. When this event was brought back to mind as I pondered the Adams thesis I remember her face like I saw it yesterday and a portion of her pain is still with me.
But let’s talk about my failure that night as well. The healing, hope, and encouragement I could have given her that night from the simple truth of God’s word is an unfortunate omission that goes on way too much in Christianity. I could have told her why she felt the way she did, and what God wanted her to do about it. I could have also shared yet another simple, but profound truth that Adams shared on the very next page of that book: singleness and marriage are both gifts (1Cor. 7:6,7), and as Christians, we are commanded to practice our gifts. If one is called to be single, they need to practice that gift, if one is called to companionship, they are called to practice that gift as well. Yes, I could have explained her pain, and tempered her self-pity with God’s loving direction, but I sat in ignorance. Two simple pages – so much pain.
But more can be said of this in something I did right on another occasion. A single man approached me who was being counseled by a pastor in regard to his struggle with being single. Here is where I must practice restraint because I will inform you that I have been known to vent my frustration a time or two on this blog. The young man was being counseled by his pastor that his struggle was due to evil desires from an idol in his heart that was causing him to desire companionship with a woman more than Christ, and if he used Scripture to see more of Christ, his desires would be reoriented, or realigned with a proper desire for Christ, and thus eliminating the struggle at hand. Sigh. Do I really have to expound on the problem here? And how it effects the lives of Christians in profound ways? The desire didn’t come from an idol, the desire came from a void that the Bible fully explains in very simple terms. My counsel to him was to worship Christ by getting married immediately. He looked at me like I was crazy! It was just really all kinds of fun, especially when I told him it might be necessary to change churches because the church where he was attending lacked sufficient candidates, and his pastor was a bozo.
But I did fail on one wise. The young man honestly related his fear that he would fail at marriage. I could have told him that we are gifted at marriage / companionship; it’s a spiritual gift, and God has given us all the spiritual resources we need to be successful at it if we will only obey. Yet another simple, profound, biblical truth that is not always easy to accomplish – it takes effort on our part that goes way beyond the mystic management of heart idols.
By the way, he got married a short time later, and I wasn’t invited to the wedding! Oh well, such is ministry.
paul
The Skeleton Reformation: Parts One and Two
“The skeleton is now the new colors of the Christian clan”
Life can be really interesting. Some people I know are infatuated with all the nuances of nature that they discover; for example, a type of butterfly they had never seen before and so forth. Me? I just love to watch all of the new “discoveries” found by propagators of the antinomian doctrine known as the *gospel driven life* or *gospel sanctification.* Gospel sanctification is a tenet of New Covenant Theology, and can best be described as plenary monergism in every aspect of salvation, whether justification or sanctification.
As with most false doctrines, the advocates are primarily focused on the novelty of it. So when the novelty wears off, some new twist , or a “deeper” understanding must be brought forth to recharge the faithful as they wait with bated breath at the doors of the Church Of The Potted Plant. There is nothing new in regard to this. J.C. Ryle contended against a very similar doctrine in the 19th century and had this to say accordingly:
“There is an Athenian love of novelty abroad, and a morbid distaste for anything old and regular, and in the beaten path of our forefathers. Thousands will crowd to hear a new voice and a new doctrine, without considering for a moment whether what they hear is true.”
While I am still looking for new and exciting trends to come out of this movement like the anticipation of daily baptisms for believers (since we are saved by the gospel everyday), one has come forth that I never saw coming: the depiction of Christians as skeletons. Man! How could I not see that coming? It is a perfect picture of their theology; Christians are dead and can do nothing. From blog handles to Facebook status pictures, the GS faithful are proudly presenting themselves as empty skeletons, humbly praying, unlike those arrogant, hateful skeletons we often see in Hollywood movies. In Micheal Horton’s book “Christless Christianity (pg 189),” he presents Sunday worship as a valley of dry bones event; a reference from Ezekiel, chapter 37:
“ God gathers his people together in a covenantal event to judge and to justify, to kill and to make alive. The emphasis is on God’s work for us – the Father’s gracious plan, the Son’s saving life, death, and resurrection, and the Spirit’s work of bringing life to the valley of dry bones through the proclamation of Christ.”
So in other words, Sunday worship, like the rest of the Christians life, is a passive event in which dry bones are brought to life on a continual bases. No doubt; I would think this would be essential for believing skeletons. Christians are therefore just a valley of dry bones and unable to do anything but wait for God to give us life on a continual bases. And even if he does, we are only then able to get on our skeleton knees and pray for more life. The skeleton is now the new colors of the Christian clan. Hopefully, the Hell’s Angels motorcycle gang will not sue for copyright infringement.
But there is only one thing missing. They forget to put their favorite Bible verse (slogan) over the praying skeleton, Galatians 2:20;
“I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”
It would be perfect (even though the context of this passage is clearly a contention against justification by works): a black leather jacket with the praying skeleton, and an arching, fancy font of Galatians 2:20 over the praying skeleton. Then you could have a sub-title / slogan underneath like “Ride to Live. Live to Ride”; except we would say, “Live to Do Nothing. Do Nothing to Live.” Would that seem offensive? Why? Christians are more and more like motorcycle gangs these days; nether care very much for the Law of God.
Part Two: “Yes my friends, a skeleton reformation is at hand!”
Just when I thought I had heard it all, a Facebook friend sent me a link to a gospel-driven blog. When I read the link, I could only sit and shake my head in disbelief. But before I get to that, let me backup and explain what “gospel driven” is. It is also known as gospel sanctification, gospel-driven sanctification, gospel-centered (add just about everything; parenting, marriage, counseling, etc., etc.,). In the following, I will refer to it as GS.
It is a doctrine that eliminates key distinctions between justification and sanctification, leading to an unbiblical view of sanctification; namely, an overly passive form of sanctification. Basically, it teaches that “the same gospel that saved us, also sanctifies us.” So, think with me for a moment: indicative in the gospel message is the fact that we cannot do anything to be saved; likewise, if we are sanctified by the gospel as well, neither can we do anything to be sanctified.
So also, before we were saved, we were dead, and according to proponents of GS, you still are. They interpret Paul’s (the apostle) statement in regard to being “dead to the Law” as an inability on our part to keep the Law, even though we are born again. As Paul Tripp said concerning believers in How People Change, “when you are dead, you can’t do anything.” Likewise, John Piper quotes Romans 6:17 to make the same point:
“Yes, it becomes increasingly evident that the experience of joy in God is beyond what the sinful heart can do. It goes against our nature. We [Christians] are [present tense] enslaved to pleasure in other things (Romans 6:17 [a justification verse that is clearly in the past tense] ).”
You then will ask: “If we can’t obey, who then obeys?” Answer: the Christ in us. We are dead, Christ is the only thing in us living, so he is the one obeying, not us. Their primary proof text for this is Galatians 2:20;
“I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”
You then may continue the dialog with the following question: “Well then, how do we know when it is Christ obeying, or us trying to obey without Christ?” Answer: whenever you obey without hesitation, and full of joy, that’s when it is Christ obeying for you. It’s called Christian hedonism.
Let’s pretend you continue to ask questions: “Can’t we do anything in regard to obedience?” Answer: Yes, two things, and two things only; using the Bible as a gospel narrative only, and “deep repentance.” I am not going to delve into deep repentance here, but suffice to say for now, that in my opinion, it is a mystical concept that supposedly identifies idols of the heart in detailed fashion. It falls under the auspices of heart theology, a brainchild of David Powlison hatched in early 1980 via his “Dynamics of Biblical Change” program at Westminster Seminary. In regard to the gospel narrative (the Bible), we are changed from “glory to glory” by “gazing on the gospel narrative (the Bible),” or as John Piper says: “beholding as a way of becoming.” Their text for this is 2Corinthians 3:18;
“But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord [the gospel narrative], are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.”
I know, I know, this passage doesn’t say “the gospel narrative,” it says, “the Lord,” but John Piper’s answer to that would be: “God is the Gospel.” The point here being, that if we use the Bible as a gospel narrative only, we are able to “yield” our bodies so that Christ can obey for us, and through us. Dana Stoddard calls this, “new obedience” (Journal of Biblical Counseling, Westminster Seminary).
But let’s keep pretending. You then ask: “Paul, how in the world can you see the whole Bible, and every verse, as being about the gospel?” Dude, that’s a great question. Answer: the redemptive historical hermeneutic, as articulated by Geerhardus Vos. This hermeneutic views the Scriptures through a gospel prism, and according to some, more than likely, is based on tenets of Historicism, which includes its share of ancient pagan philosophy. It paves the way for the whole GS scheme to fit together as a whole [“ignoring textual ideas”; Ted Black, The Hermeneutics of Geerhardus Vos].
But it gets better. If you think the gospel saves you, and then you “move on to something else” (according to Tripp, this would be: practical application of the Scriptures, biblical thinking, imperatives, ect.), “you loose both.” In other words, if you don’t believe in a plenary monergistic sanctification, but instead believe in a synergistic sanctification ( a dependent colaboring with God in sanctification), you believe in a false gospel; and your lost; and you unregenerate; and you were never saved. Did I leave anything out? Michael Horton states it this way:
“Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both” (Christless Christianity, pg. 57, emphasis / underline by me [the actual title of the conference recently held at Grace Community Church; good grief!] ).
No wonder then, that John Piper also said: “Never, never, never, never, never, never, never, say that we are saved by the gospel, and then we move on to something else” (emphasis / underline by me). Also, no wonder that Jerry Bridges often says: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.”
Furthermore, no wonder that some proponents of this neo-reformed movement like to represent themselves as mere skeletons, as some do in blog handles and logos, like the praying skeleton featured at the beginning of this post. Yes, it’s a miraculous work of God that a skeleton can even get on its knees, and then all we can do is pray; for as we know, skeletons are “dead and can do nothing.” And as you might imagine, these humble, loving skeletons wish to save the church, which is totally unaware that only skeletons are saved. Yes my friends, a skeleton reformation is at hand! Besides that, these praying skeletons, in their endeavor to save the church, are continually finding new “truths” that the anti-skeleton, Papal minions are totally unaware of; for instance, did you know that you cannot be saved unless you have asked God to forgive you of your good works?
That’s right, the skeletons have once again raised the stakes as they plead for evangelicals everywhere to be saved. This now brings me to the link my friend sent me. It is a quote from Tim Keller’s book, The Prodical God:
“What must we do, then, to be saved? To find God we must repent of the things we have done wrong, but if that is all you do, you may remain just an elder brother. To truly become a Christian we must also repent of the reasons we ever did anything right. Pharisees only repent of their sins, but Christians repent for the very roots of their righteousness, too. We must learn how to repent of the sin under all our other sins and under all our righteousness – the sin of seeking to be our own Savior and Lord. We must admit that we’ve put our ultimate hope in both our wrongdoing and right doing we have been seeking to get around God or get control of God in order to get hold of those things. It is only when you see the desire to be your own Savior and Lord—lying beneath both your sins and your moral goodness—that you are on the verge of becoming a Christian indeed. When you realize that the antidote to being bad is not just being good, you are on the brink. If you follow through, it will change everything—how you relate to God, self, others, the world, your work, you sins, your virtue. It’s called the new birth because its so radical”
Bless their hearts, for being skeletons who cannot do anything, they sure are good at coming up with higher standards of righteousness for the purpose of salvation. You might also recall, Tim Keller is the one that Piper mentioned, along with Paul Tripp, to the (The) Christian Post, in regard to the type of repentance that he needed to focus on during his eight-month sabbatical. This should really scare us out of our skins, no pun intended. By the way, just in-case you think that this is a blog authored by hyper-Calvinist fanatics, think again. The excerpt was posted by the successor to James D. Kennedy at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, and visiting authors who post on this blog include D.A. Carson and Tim Challies. Let me ask anybody reading this post in regard to themselves and any Christians that they know; how many of us asked God to forgive us of things we did as unbelievers that were honorable, or according to the Law that He writes on every heart (conscience)? Look, there is no room here to address that theological debate, but here is my point: even if I had, in a time past, “repented” and embraced their goofy doctrine, here I would be, once again, being re-saved as these arrogant mystics continually come up with new stuff every week.
paul
I Always Do Dr. J’s Homework
In another recent post by Dr. Jay Adams, he seems to once again allude to the doctrine of the evil twins ( https://paulspassingthoughts.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/dr-jays-hopeful-post-and-the-evil-twins/ ). The most recent post I am referring to can be viewed here: http://www.nouthetic.org/blog/?m=201008 second from top.
Let me begin with this quote from his post: “Others are confused because of the recent revival of an old error: confounding Justification by faith with Sanctification by the work of the Spirit. The Spirit works His fruit in us by enabling us to understand the Word, by giving us the desire to obey it, and by enabling us to do so.”
Dr, J further explains: “In the revival of this teaching, passages that speak of justification by faith are related to sanctification.” Yes, there are many examples this. He then relates how this can effect counseling: “As a result, instead of encouraging Christians to obey God’s admonitions in the Bible, they are told that they can’t do so, and that—in one way or another (not everyone agrees how)—God must do it to them, for them, instead of them.”
Then he continues with a suggestion for those counselors who are fortunate enough by the grace of God to get a second crack at those who have been counseled that way, unlike many that I know who have had their faith shipwrecked by this teaching: ”When meeting up with those who have been taught this sort of thing in your counseling, and who are confused because it ‘didn’t work,’ you should ask them to do something like the following :
- List all of the commands in 1 Corinthians (for instance).
- Write down how many times Christ, the Holy Spirit or the Father is the One Who is thus commanded.
- The write down how many times you (or the Corinthians, if you will) are commanded to do them.
Well, when I was in counseling some time ago, I was given a lot of Jay’s homework assignments from his various books by a guy who I hope is not being deceived by the doctrine of the evil twins. But since I did all of the homework assignments, when Jay posted this one, I just couldn’t resist. So, in the following list, I document all commands from 1 Corinthians and answer questions 2 and 3. This should make it much easier for any counselor or counselee who actually wants to follow through with Jay’s suggestion, and share the results with him ( feedback@nouthetic.org ) However, remember, this would not even include instruction or commands that are implied through Paul’s informative teaching.
Also, the list creates huuuuuuge problems for the four pillars of Gospel Sanctification (not necessarily what Jay is speaking of here, but very similar, could just be a doctrinal evil twin); namely, New Covenant Theology, heart theology, Christian hedonism (wouldn’t JC Ryle love that one?), and redemptive historical hermeneutics. I will be posting in the near future on why these verses do extreme violence to the GS doctrine. But, if someone wants to help me out with some examples, I would appreciate it. Post them in the comment boxes.
So, here’s the list, hope it helps:
Chapter 1
10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.
31 Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord” [Jer. 9:24].
Chapter 3
18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a “fool” so that he may become wise.
21 So then, no more boasting about men!
Chapter 4
1 So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God.
2 Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful.
5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes.
6……”Do not go beyond what is written.”
14 I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children.
16 Therefore I urge you to imitate me.
Chapter 5
4 When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.
7 Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are.
9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.
11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you” [Deut. 17:7; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21,24; 24:7].
Chapter 6
1 If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?
4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church!
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
12 “Everything is permissible for me”—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible for me”—but I will not be mastered by anything.
18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.
20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
Chapter 7
1 Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.
3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.
5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.
11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.
15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.
17 Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.
18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised.
19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.
20 Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him.
21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.
23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.
24 Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.
25 Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. 26 Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are.
27 Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
29 What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31 those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.
36 If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning.
37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing.
39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes,
……but he must belong to the Lord.
40 In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.
Chapter 8
9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak.
12 When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.
13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.
Chapter 9
8 Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing?
9 For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain” [Deut. 25:4].
14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.
24 Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize.
25 Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever.
27 No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.
Chapter 10
6 Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did.
7 Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in pagan revelry” [Exodus 32:6].
8 We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died.
9 We should not test the Lord, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes.
10 And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel.
11 These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come.
12 So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!
14 Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry.
15 I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say.
17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.
21You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons.
24 Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.
5 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26 for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it” [Psalm 24:1].
27 If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.
28 But if anyone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience’ sake— 29the other man’s conscience, I mean, not yours.
31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.
32 Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33 even as I try to please everybody in every way.
Chapter 11
1 Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.
2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings,[a] just as I passed them on to you.
3 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head.
5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved.
6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.
7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
10 For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
11 In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.
12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.
17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good.
27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.
31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32 When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.
33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other.
34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.
……And when I come I will give further directions.
Chapter 12
1 Now about spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant.
21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor.
25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other.
……And now I will show you the most excellent way.
Chapter 13
1 If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
……love is kind.
……It does not envy,
……it does not boast,
……it is not proud.
……it is not self-seeking,
……it is not easily angered,
……it keeps no record of wrongs.
6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
……always trusts,
……always hopes,
……always perseveres.
1 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy.
9 So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying?
12 So it is with you. Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church.
13 For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says
15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind.
18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.
20 Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults.
21 In the Law it is written: “Through men of strange tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me,” says the Lord [Isaiah 28:11,12].
22 Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers.
26……All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.
27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret.
28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.
29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.
30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop.
31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged.
33……As in all the congregations of the saints, 34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission,
……as the Law says.
35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
37 If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command.
39 Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.
40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.
Chapter 15
33 Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.”
34 Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God—I say this to your shame.
51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—
58 Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm.
……Let nothing move you.
……Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.
Chapter 16
1 Now about the collection for God’s people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do.
10 If Timothy comes, see to it that he has nothing to fear while he is with you, for he is carrying on the work of the Lord, just as I am.
11 No one, then, should refuse to accept him.
……Send him on his way in peace so that he may return to me.
……stand firm in the faith;
……be men of courage;
……be strong.
15 You know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints. I urge you, brothers, 16 to submit to such as these and to everyone who joins in the work, and labors at it.
……Such men deserve recognition.
20……Greet one another with a holy kiss
22 If anyone does not love the Lord—a curse be on him. Come, O Lord!
paul
3 comments