VISION 20/20

King Solomon believes that a leader must have a vision so as not to make his future bleak. The motivation behind a vision will drive people to get what they want, where and when they want it. A godly leader does not allow himself to be caught up with the ABC’s of accomplishing it, but patiently waits upon the voice of God and let Him lead him on how to approach things and make the vision a reality. We need to give up our worldly passions in order to hear God’s voice and let Him do through us his works, in His ways. Thus, our vision should not be based on our own, but is a by-product of God's revelation to us. We need to communicate it to people properly and allow them to be soaked in the precious vision of God.

It is pertinent therefore to realize that in accomplishing the leader’s vision, one must understand that the vision itself is not derived from the leader, but is communicated to him by God. It is his revelation and his workings. Spiritual leadership should bear testimony of this agenda from God and should work towards its fulfillment. We need not convince people to buy-in to it, but as God sees the leader’s desire to bring the people towards his agenda, He will work in them and then through them.

NEWS FLASH: PAT ROBERTSON BELIEVES MARIJUANA SHOULD BE LEGALIZED

Christianity Today's blog dated March 08, 2012, reports on Evangelist Pat Robertson's stance on decrimilalizing pot in the US. He succumbed to the truth that the fight against illegal drugs for that matter has not been successful and that marijuana should be treated like any other beverage alcohol. (link=> http://blog. christianitytoday.com/ ctpolitics/2012/03/ pat_robertson_t.html) While the former US presidential candidate firmly believes that is now high time for America to legalize "pot", his position has been met with criticism and still majority of conservative evangelicals would not follow in his "pot ideology".

Although marijuana has been thought of as useful in the medical field, marijuana should be made available only when medically necessary. With much respect to Pat Robertson, there is no way that "pot" should be legalized and should be made ready for purchase to just anyone right at the counter.We need to realize that succumbing to the fight against drugs should not bring us to endorse it in the end. If the evangelist has already given up on the fight against marijuana (which i fervently hope he has not), then there are still those who are fighting against the dangers and the troubles that marijuana can cause.

GOD'S HEART + HAND

The heart and hand of God are woven closely in the life of Christ. Thus, we say, that evangelism cannot be separated from social action as evidenced in the earthly ministry of Jesus. He did not only preach about the kingdom of God but showed the way of the kingdom to the people. He extended the heart and hand of God by healing the sick and doing many other great things to better the life of those who were around him. 

Matthew 4:23 vividly depicts Jesus doing a socio-evangelistic action, "And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people." It is in this aspect that social action should always be associated in our attempt to bring the Good News to people. It is the action by which the Good News is anchored, the way of love of the Christian faith by which we are and should be known.

Evangelism and social action work hand in hand. It is not easy for people to see the love of God if we are not able to reflect it in our actions. On the other hand, if social action is emphasized over evangelism, we lose the whole idea of the Great Commission. They are intertwined as words and works create a moving revolution forward to a life changed by the heart and hand of the Master.

ARMINIUS AND HIS DEFINITIVE THEOLOGY OF SALVATION

Jacob Arminius at the outset of establishing his theology on salvation made it clear first by zeroing in on the decrees of God which he distinguished in four logical pronouncements. The first three of these decrees set forth the general divine intention to appoint Christ as the mediator of salvation to fallen mankind and the fourth decree refers to particular persons and rests on the prescience and foresight/foreknowledge of God by which he foreknew, from all eternity, who would believe by the aid of prevenient grace and would persevere by the aid of subsequent grace; and who would not believe and persevere.[1]

Arminius underscored that man being under the wrath of God is able to instigate salvation but only after God had granted him the primary grace to enable his will to oblige with God.[2]

He believed that the grace sufficient for salvation is conferred both on the elect, and on the non-elect, and that their response on that grace will determine if they may be saved or not.[3] Arminius believes that God elects to salvation, on the basis of the foreknowledge of God on the response of the person, all those who have come to belief. The human choice to believe precedes the divine choice to save individuals.[4] Arminius’ understanding is that there is a prior general divine determination for the salvation of mankind and to provide sufficient means to this end and he assumes that based on God’s foreknowledge of human response to grace, he elects or rejects people to salvation.

Arminius nullifies the idea of predestination as the decree of God choosing certain people to eternal life, and others to everlasting destruction purely out of his good pleasure instead, he believed that predestination is an eternal and gracious decree of God in Christ, by which he determines to justify and adopt believers, and to endow them with eternal life, but to condemn unbelievers and impenitent persons.[5] Salvation and the giving of faith to particular persons do not exclude anybody. For him, predestination is primarily of Jesus Christ to be the Savior of sinners.[6] He insists that predestination must be understood "in Christ". In his Declaration of Sentiments of 1608, he sets forth his predestination theory in terms of four decrees. These contain the familiar "Arminian" ingredient of foreseen faith, but it is significant that the first of the decrees has to do neither with faith nor foreknowledge and is not "conditional." Rather, Jesus Christ is the object of this absolute decree.[7] Thus, Christ was appointed as the Mediator and there is no predetermination that only some will be saved for the number of the elect in Christ is open and indefinite. Thus, there is no place for the idea of an explicit number of elect for election is based on the foreknowledge of God of how humans treat his offer of saving grace.

By election, Arminius meant that it is a decree by which God resolves to justify believers and to condemn unbelievers, which is the purpose of God according to election. He believed in the election of classes: election unto salvation and election unto damnation. If God was going to predestinate, it would be in the way of class or group predestination rather than individual election. God would choose the class and man would decide his own free participation in that class of believers.[8] The foreknowledge then of God is on the response of the person to whom the gospel is presented thus man’s free will is accounted for in the process.

Arminius did not deny the doctrine of election but he insisted that it is conditional since that it should be understood as divine foreknowledge of what individuals would freely do with the liberty given to them.[9] God knows in advance who will and who will not believe (Rom. 8:29).

Arminius asserts that the saving effects of Christ’s death and resurrection are limited to the elect in the following sense: salvation extends only to those who freely choose to believe. The limited effect does not imply that he died for some and not for others; Christ died to atone for all the sins of humanity. But salvation is limited for those who believe and does not include those who reject Christ. To be damned is to reject God’s salvation. Thus, salvation becomes sufficient for all yet only efficient to those who are elected to salvation.[10]

Arminius believed that grace is resistible and that many even in Scripture resisted the grace of God. But how can salvation be “all of grace” if humans are free to either accept or reject it? Arminius answered this question with prevenient grace”, grace that goes before salvation. God is always courting his creation, extending grace and love to everyone. So long as one does not resist this prevenient grace but allows it to work, it becomes justifying grace. That change is “conversion” and is not good work but simple acceptance.

The human will liberated by prevenient grace must cooperate by accepting the need of salvation and allowing God to give the gift of faith. God will not impose it. Neither can the sinner earn it. It can only be freely accepted, but even the ability to accept is made possible by grace.[11] Since God knows everything, God knows who will accept grace and who will turn it down. In that sense salvation and damnation are predestined. Along this line, Arminius denied what Calvin had affirmed: That God determines who will accept grace and who will refuse it.[12] Arminius believed that true believers necessarily do persevere unto the end. Christians are kept by the power of God through faith- an uncompromised and persevering faith that kept him eternally.[13]

---

[1] Richard A. Muller, God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius: Sources and Directions of Scholastic Protestantism in the Era of Early Orthodoxy, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1991), 162-163.

[2] Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries, A History of the Christian Church, Third Edition, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House,1996), 317.

[3] James Nichols, translator, The Works of James Arminius, Volume 2, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1986), 53.

[4] David Bagchi and David C. Steinmetz editors, The Cambridge Companion to Reformation Theology, (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 139. 

[5] Roger E. Olsen, Arminian Theology Myths and Realities (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2006), 181.

[6] Roger E. Olsen, 184.

[7] Bangs, Carl, Arminius and the Reformation, ATLA Religion Database 184. Church History 30 no 2 Je 1961, p 155-170

[8] Charles A. Mcllhenny, “Case of Professor James Arminius and the Synod of Dort”, Reformed Theological Journal v.18 (year): 79.

[9] Earle E. Cairns, 317.

[10] Earle E. Cairns, 317.

[11] Roger E. Olsen and Adam C. English, Pocket History of Theology, (Downer’s Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press , 2005), 83-84.

[12] William C. Placher, A History of Christian Theology: An Introduction, (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Westminster Press, 1993), 226.

[13] Reformed Theological Journal v.18, McIlhenny, Charles A. Case of professor James Arminius and the synod of dort 85.

WE NEED NOT WAIT

If life could have been fairer,
what would you have changed?

If politics was ever clean at all, 
would our present be a product of a glowing past?

If nature could speak,
would you even dare listen to what she says?

If love was more important than riches,
would you gain more and lose nothing?

The "ifs" of life are things that we could only hope for. It may or may not come, but dare we not wait for it to take place to create and act as catalysts of change. There's so much more to do in a world where the poor are harassed and oppressed by the truth of corrupt governance.

There is a way to live life and live it now. Wait and you'll get nowhere. Act and and you'll see life get better. Cheers to you and cheers to us! Now is the time of change. There is no more waiting....

Shepherding the Church the Biblical Way

Paul’s ministry in the early stages of the church serves as an exemplary pastoral model. His theology arose from his pastoral experiences and the circumstances surrounding the church and society of his time, which seemed clear in his writings. His heart, ambitions, techniques, advice and frustrations were all apparent in his letter to the New Testament churches.

According to Derek Tidball, the complexity of Paul’s role as a pastor is seen in the three phases of his ministry. First, we can see his pastoral role among the churches he founded. As a church planter, his correspondence with the church reveals his vision and concern for the church as a whole and for the individual members as well. His letters convey much love and sensitivity to the needs of the church. He dealt with the issues and circumstances much like a father. His concern primarily was for the church to grow collectively, as it is being transformed into Christlikeness.

The churches at present seemed to veer away from this model. This is the sad reality when many pastors at present are so caught up with church growth methods but are so indifferent with the idea of helping the church to be like the Savior. Paul had always wanted the believers to be like Christ, dying daily in their lives and making Christ more and more visible in their everyday walk. With this in Paul’s mind come the different analogies and expressions he used in his letters to articulate his goal- the transformation of the body of Christ. He is resolute in his goal and he sees complacency as a disease that will kill the church if they are caught unaware of it.

The passion that Paul has is shaped by his unceasing excitement for the future. Thus, his teachings cannot be separated from his eschatological hope. This is the driving force behind his zeal. It was a constant reminder of his accountability to God as much as he is eager to see the future outcome of his toil for the church.

I believe that this is one important element in our ministry that we somehow have overlooked. We seem to have forgotten the bigger picture of events fast tracking to the blessed hope of Jesus’ return. His parousia should always enthuse us to do his work, reminding God’s people that it should be our goal to be like Christ so that when he comes back, he will see us living and doing his work and shining his light to the world. Tidball argued that many churches today are motivated to keep the people committed to the church and its programs but not helping the members mature in the faith leading to Christlikeness. Quantity seems to be the name of the game disregarding the quality of the Christian life that the believers should have. Shepherds appear to be complacent that the believers will not despise the faith anymore and so they neglect those who have been there for a longer period of time. They concentrate more on the new believers at the expense of those who are already churched which is very indifferent to the New Testament style of shepherding.

Second, Paul’s role as an apostolic teacher to other churches, some of which he had never visited should be given consideration. On two occasions, Paul referred to himself as the father of the churches he had planted. This is to note his special relationship with them as a doting father who deals with his children (1 Cor. 4:4, 1 Thess. 2:11). This special relationship is qualified by Paul by saying that he became their father “through the gospel”, who provides, protects and guides them.

Some scholars are not in agreement though with the way Paul exercised his authority especially when according to them, Paul, conceitedly urged his “children” to “imitate” him, accusing him of power tripping. Yet, it is important to know that Paul only invited the churches whom he founded to do so (Phil. 3:17, 1 Thess. 1:6, 2 Thess. 3:7, 1 Cor. 4:16 and 11:1). These churches had the privilege of seeing Paul and observing his way of life. He was not advocating his own personal cause since he qualified his statement by saying, “Imitate me, as I imitate Christ.” (1 Cor. 1:11). Thus, the end goal of Paul is for them to follow Christ in his example and be conformed to His image.

Paul’s emotional bond to the churches is apparent in his letters, and this Tidball said that the apostle is always aimed at helping the believers reach their full potential as adults and not reinforcing his own position of power. This is a good reminder and a rebuke at present for many church pastors nowadays to consider. They were given the God-given authority to lead which entails the exercise of power, yet, it is vital to realize that the task of pastoral leadership is not about power tripping as Andrew Clark emphasized, but being of help to the church, serving and encouraging the body of Christ to be more like the Savior.

Paul, while being a founder of these churches did not consider himself of a higher status than the ordinary believers. In fact, he explicitly stated that he is of no importance (1 Cor. 3:5-12), a fool for Christ (1 Cor. 4:9-10) and a garbage of the world (1 Cor. 4:13). He regards himself as a slave representing and imitating Christ who became the servant of all (Phil. 2:1-11).

Lastly, Paul was like a statesman passing on the baton to the next generation. He did this by teaching them their identity which sets them apart from others. He reminded them of how the church was formed and reinforced the importance of knowing how Christ’s followers are to behave themselves in this world. The apostle stressed that the church is a community under the cross (1 Cor. 1:26-2:16), and this should lead them to practice discipline in their lives.

The infant church needed a lot of care and attention from Paul. It was not an easy task for him yet, he strove hard to help these churches to develop and mature in the faith. He led them not astray to the most important aspect of being a Christian and that is to grow into Christlikeness. Paul’s relationship with the church was such a personal one that he considered himself as a loving and caring father especially to the churches he planted. Yet, he did not deem himself the main Person to be imitated since he led those who followed him to look up to Jesus and be like Him.

Pastors at present should go back to the New Testament model of shepherding. While we are aiming at winning multitudes of souls for Christ, we ought to balance it by helping those who are already in the faith to grow in their commitment to Christ and live lives which are pleasing to him. The nurturing of the saints entails hard labor yet there is nothing compared to the joy of seeing the church mature as it prepares itself for the coming of the Bridegroom.

************

This article is a response to the 6th chapter of Derek Tidball's, "Ministry by the Book", entitiled, "Paul: Ministry in an Infant Church The Ministry of a Founding Father.

BOOK REVIEW: OUTSIDE THE CAMP BY RICHARD JOHNSON

The sociological background of the book of Hebrews is greatly essential to the understanding of the people to whom it was written and the purpose for which the epistle was circulated. In Going Outside the Camp, Johnson argues that a lucid understanding of the recipients background in light of the levitical system, expounded by the book’s author in the cultic section of Hebrews, gives warrant to his study. The author, drawing his idea out of William Lane’s book, Hebrews 1-8, asserts that since scholars are not in harmony on the background and purpose of the epistle, an in-depth sociological examination of the letter is a crucial necessity to a better understanding of the epistle to the Hebrews.


Johnson’s work is central to a scholarly understanding of the letter. The lengthy section of the cultic practice is possibly a major key to a better understanding of the letter’s addressees. His guide to a stratified society and its descriptions of the recipients’ cosmology is a much a welcome addition to the limited works done on the levitical critique as an aid to a better understanding of the community addressed in the letter. The author intended to show that even though there is no consensus as to who those people were, this group was actually functioning as a society which he then termed as the “implied society.” This term was cautiously chosen to make amends to the present thought in relation to the identity of the addressees.


This book contributed to a clearer, and better knowledge of how that particular society (although still unspecified), worked as he delineated and explained how it treated the “outsiders” who are not part of the implied community. His description of these outsiders as “the foes of God” (p. 85) is imperative in the overall perception and idea of how the recipients of the letter perceived the outside world. The description he gave was in line with their relationship with God and not because of their separation from the addressees. In addition, His take on the social implications of their understanding of the levitical practice in relation to their society will certainly enlighten those who are skeptical as to the purpose of the book in light of their background. The author’s indubitable and extensive labor in unleashing the distinctiveness of that society should be commended since the cultic activity which he espoused here gives superior insight as to how the recipients looked at the rituals in the Day of Atonement and how this has affected their worldview as a community.


The author’s critique of the levitical cultus led him to conclude that the society, described, yet unnamed, is exhorted and suited for a greater task- that which is to do the mission of the church, to go outside the camp, and bring the gospel to the Gentile world. Thus, the sociological function of the ritual of the addressees did not end in worshipping their God within the community but was a reminder to them that theirs was a taxing assignment to lead the heathens to an understanding of God’s salvation. Johnson, with his critical approach in studying this sociological phenomenon, succeeded in demonstrating the power of the practice to influence the implied society.