An Editorial by Richard Gagnon

The life of faith is a life based on the Word of God. Every authentic Christian will agree with it. However, it is not the case that most Christians take it very seriously. In fact, we are living in a century where the Bible is no longer what it was in in the lives of the saints of the past.

I do not want to generalize, but there is nevertheless a very deep truth in what I am saying here. When is the last time you have met a Christian who was humble enough to admit to you that the reading of the Bible was not a serious exercice in his/her own life? If we want to be frank, the answer to this question is this: many times. And if it is the case with the Christians I know, it is more than likely the case with you as well. Modern Christians are not devoted readers of their Bible. Now, we must ask why is it that way, if we want to find a solution to this problem. I want to give you at least two different reasons for such a fact.

1. God is no longer what He was, even in the heart of the modern Christian

If you have read a bit of Christians’ lives of the past you already understand what I mean. For example, the Puritan’s era is very far from ours. At that time, the room God occupied in the hearts of those believers was so large that to see a man/woman not reading his/her Bible on a regular basis would have been seen as a worldly way of living the Christian life. I would admit that I agree with it to a certain point. Now, I understand that many Christians have always the famous argument which says: “You know, I am not a fervent reader.” The point is that God does not want us to read His Word on the basis of if we are a fervent reader or not, but on the basis of our need to meet Him through the revelation He has left us in order to know Him. In His sovereignty, God decided to reveal Himself through the pages of Scriptures and if we want to know Him we have no other choice than to go where He is revealing Himself; and this particular place is the Bible. It is for this very reason that we call the Bible “The special revelation”.

You know, God is a Spirit and to conceive a Spirit apart from a precise and accurate revelation is totally impossible to human minds. Moreover, the apostle Paul said: “For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.” (1 Cor. 2.11-12 )

So, my friends, if you feel a deep lack of spiritual intimacy with God through His Word, I ask you to repent and go back where you were the most delighted in the beginning of your Christianwalk; namely in the Bible. But there is a second reason why so many Christians are not so devoted to the reading of their Bible.

2. The richness of Christ is no longer what it should be in the hearts of the believers

Dear friend, who is the Lord Jesus for you? What does he really represent to your soul? Is Jesus only a historical religious figure, who walked on this earth 2,000 years ago, and nothing more? You know, the person of Christ takes another sense in our heart the moment we ask ourselves the following question: “Where did Jesus Christ come from?” Now, let us consider a couple of answers to this question.

A. He came from a simple Jewish family whose Joseph and Mary were the parents.

Although it is true on the temporal level, we must not forget that Jesus Christ had something more than just that! He had a divine nature. And on this level, he had no beginning. He is the eternal Son of the living God. The fact that he is both human and divine must seize us immediately on a specific point: He has therefore a divine character on which the authority depends. Jesus said: “My kingdom is not of this world.” In this simple sentence we have three powerful truths about Jesus. Let us consider them one by one.

- Jesus is a King (he talked about his kingdom).

- Jesus is not an ordinary man as we are (he said that it was not of this world – presupposing another one).

- Jesus came from another world (“this” world, as opposed to another).

Now, if Jesus came from a kingdom that is not of this world we have already a first clue reminding us his richness.

B. Coming from above, did he really have a special mission on earth?

A man who comes from Canada to visit USA, India, or Australia may be there for different reasons: a simple trip, his job, to meet someone important, etc. But the common thing is this. He comes for no other thing than an earthly goal. But it was not the case for Jesus. Although he came to save sinners that belong to earth, their final destiny is one either in Hell or Heaven. And to achieve his special mission of redemption, Jesus Christ had to come from above to reach those from below in order to be brought above. You see the chain?: Above, below, above again. The mission of Christ was one of great rescue. We saw recently through the news, in many parts of the world, all the tragedies that happened in Haiti, Chile, and many other place on earth in past years, through devastating earthquakes, cyclones, and all the rest. We see many rescuers working hard, many hours a day, trying to avoid the worse: the loss of thousands of lives under the remaining ruins left behind. The point is this. Many are acting as rescuers and their mission has no guarantee to fulfill the expected outcome. What I mean is this. Many will be left unsaved from the ruins and they will die. Now, it is quite another thing with the mission of Jesus Christ. He was acting as a kind of ” powerful efficient divine loner”, being the Only One that could carry out the huge task of rescuing all his elect (those who would put their faith in him and in him alone – hence the “Solus Christus” of the Reformation). Added to that, he was mandated by the Father not to fail at all. Listen to what he said:

“All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.” (John 6.37-39)

Granted, many will die without Christ, but not a single one of the elect will be left unsaved for Jesus said that no one given to him will be left hopeless. As you can see, the mission of Jesus was much more important than any other earthly missions that ever happened in the history of mankind. He was alone to carry out all this gigantic task and had not the right to fail. And he did not…Praise God!

So, if we keep in mind that the Jesus of the Bible is such a divine character walking on earth, what a good reason to be drawn back to the Bible to read this wonderful story that is always new for the one who loves Him.

In conclusion of this editorial, I encourage you to go back to read your Bible if you have neglected it for a time. On the basis of who God and Christ are, as we have seen, the Bible will and must remain the best treasure in the heart of the believer. Amen!

by: Ronald R. Kumar

Introduction

Leadership is described as a quality a person needs or has: (a) to perform one or more acts of leading, (b) to affect human conduct in order to accomplish a goal or mission, or (c) to influence a group of people to move towards achieving a collective goal or reach a mutually agreed destiny. The book of Nehemiah is an epic on leadership and management established on godly principles, values, and godly inspiration.

The Book of Nehemiah takes us to the end of the historical account in the Old Testament, about four hundred years before the birth of the promised Messiah. The return under Nehemiah in 444 B. C. take place thirteen years after the return led by Ezra and ninety-four years after the return led by Zerubbabel. The book is divided in two: (1) Chapters 1-7 discuss the reconstruction of the wall, and (2) Chapter 8-13 discusses the restoration of the people. Nehemiah is a key figure in assuring that the wall, that were once broken, is re-constructed. The wall of Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. was almost rebuilt after 464 B.C. when Artaxerxes took the throne of Persia (see Ezra 3:6-23). However, the opposition destroys the wall the second time, and when Nehemiah leans this, he walks in obedience to the God in re-building the wall.

Nehemiah, contemporary of Ezra and cupbearer to the king in the Persian palace, leads the third and the last return of Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile. His concern for the welfare of Jerusalem and its inhabitants prompts him to take bold action. Granted permission to return to his homeland, Nehemiah challenges his countrymen to arise and rebuild the shattered wall of Jerusalem. In spite of opposition from without and abuse from within, the task is completed in only fifty-two days, a feat even the enemies of Israel must attribute to God’s enabling. By contrast, the task of reviving and reforming the people of God within the rebuilt wall demands years of Nehemiah’s godly life and leadership. Nehemiah is a governor who brings physical restoration and political reconstruction and leads the people in moral reform. They combine to make an effective team in rebuilding the postexilic remnant.

The Hebrew for Nehemiah is Nehemyah, “Comfort of Jehovah.”

Leadership of Nehemiah

Nehemiah demonstrates various leadership qualities and practices for us to learn and apply. From Chapter 1 to 7, Nehemiah is portrayed as a figure who:

· Has deep concern and care for his people: when Nehemiah learns that opposition led to their second destruction, he cries out and prays on behalf of his people for forgiveness of his people. He realizes and accepts that his people are troubled and in danger because God has allowed it, therefore, seeks God for forgiveness and direction. His actions show that he prepared himself for this immense task through prayer and humility in front of God and his king. Nehemiah has a thanking heart as well.

· Is honest and sincere: Working as a governor, he decides to leave his post and help his people. He is honest to king Artaxerxes consequently securing permission to rebuild the wall. Moreover, his integrity and sincerity in front of the king also gave him provision and access to certain resources that he needed to commence his journey. Nehemiah is well organized and precise in what he needs.

Nehemiah also analyzed the situation when he went to Jerusalem. He inspected the walls personally, to identify the seriousness of the matter and what strategy to deploy to accomplish this project. Leaders need to be proactive in what they are doing and take initiative to inspect and assess things and situations individually as well. Nehemiah was in a much better position to speak to his people and understand their grievances henceforth (2:17).

· Is motivating and challenging: Nehemiah received his motivation and drive to complete this project from God through constant prayer. Moreover, he encouraged and challenged his people to “rise up and build” (2:18) the wall. What we see is that work begins immediately on the walls and gates, with people building portions corresponding to where they were living.

· Can manage setbacks and troubles: Nehemiah got sad and troubled in heart when people like Sanballat and Tobiah mocked him and his people’s effort in constructing the walls and gates. However, he was not discouraged. He reminded them that they (the enemy) have no heritage or right or memorial in the kingdom of God (2:20). Moreover, he knows that the battle is the LORD’s and cries out to Him. Nehemiah did not take matters in his hand and is patient with his people, making his grievances know to God. He calls upon God:

Hear, O our God, for we are despised, turn their [the enemies] reproach on their own heads, and give them as plunder to a land of captivity….Do not cover their iniquity, and do not let their sin be blotted out from before You for they have provoked You to anger before the builders. (4:5).

The result is:

So we built the wall and the entire wall was joined together up to half its height, for the people had a mind to work. (4:6).

· Is prepared all the time: Sanballat and Tobiah among others (opposition) conspired an attack to break the walls, however, Nehemiah and his people prayed to God and set watch-guard for protection. We learn that Nehemiah responded in faith and action, prepared to protect his people and the wall. He received the plans of the enemy from God when he prayed earnestly and acted in faith.

· Has a good planning skill: Nehemiah’s actions demonstrated his ability to plan and organize people and work in perfect order so as to carry out his objectives.

Therefore, I positioned men behind the lower parts of the wall, at the openings; and set the people according to their families, with their swords, their spears, and their bows.” His ability to encourage people in times of intimidation and weaknesses is astounding characterizing his God-given talent of a powerful leader. “… And I looked, and arose and said to the nobles, to the leaders, and to the rest of the people, “Do not be afraid of them [opposition]. Remember the Lord, great and awesome, and fight for your brethren, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your houses.” (4:13).

Nehemiah not only coached and guided his people, he literally worked with his people, demonstrating the significance of teamwork.

· Is able to handle complains and provides godly counsel: While the external opposition continued to mount, internal opposition also surfaced. The wealthier Jews are abusing abd oppressing the people, forcing them to mortgage their property and sell their children into slavery. Nehemiah again deals with the problem by the twin means of prayer and action. Nehemiah, after analyzing the situation, reminded them that such practices does not help but rob their own people and deprive them with much needed resources to accomplish the task.

After a serious thought, I rebuked the nobles and rulers, and said to them, “Each of you is exacting usury from his brother…and what you are doing is not good. Should you not walk in the fear of our God because of the reproach of the nations, our enemies? (5:7-9).

· Leads by Example with fairness: Nehemiah sacrifices his governor’s salary, and lives on God-given principles. He says:

I also with my brethren and my servants, am lending them money and grain. Please let us stop this usury! (5:9).

From Nehemiah’s humility and action, all other rulers and nobles agreed and promised to obey his word. Nehemiah’s wise step to make an agreement (oath) to confirm their decision shows that he cared for his people and ensured that no confusion or pull-back results later on. Nehemiah did this because he feared God (5:19).

· Choose associations wisely: Nehemiah is quick to discern the characters of people with whom he associates with. Moreover, he chooses wisely his friends and knows the intention of any potential friendship offers and invitation. For instance, when Sanballat and Tobiah among others conspired to attack the wall, Nehemiah kept himself strong in prayers and received the strength he and his people needed (6:9). In spite of deceit, slander, and treachery, Nehemiah continues to trust in God and to press on with singleness of mind until the work is completed. The task is accomplished in an incredible fifty-two days, and even the enemies recognize that it can only have been accomplished with the help of God (6:16).

Nehemiah’s faith in God and his leadership skills applied in pooling his people and other resources demonstrated that he indeed was called by God to do this tremendous job. A called leader or manager requires such traits to be prevalent in order to successfully carry out his/her project. Humility and obedience can be achieved through faith in God. When we fear God, knowing that He will do justice at all time, gives us the complete assurance of victory through His helping hand. Nehemiah understood very well that he was called to serve his people, and not to be served. Such attitude provided him the motivation to carry out his job, sacrificing his wealthy lifestyle without retracting or caving-in.

Conclusion

Nehemiah portrays Christ in His ministry of restoration. Nehemiah illustrates Christ in that he gives up a high position in order to identify with the plight of his people; he comes with a specific mission and fulfills it; and his life is characterized by prayerful dependence upon God. While Nehemiah is portraying the physical (kingdom) restoration of Jerusalem, Jesus Christ comes to restore the spiritual kingdom of God. We learn a great deal from Nehemiah’s actions and conduct in obeying God and leading his people. When we humble ourselves and walk in faith in God, depending on Him, we can achieve results that cannot be attained with our human strength alone. For leaders in family, church, and other organizations, Nehemiah is a good role model to emulate. Let us leave aside the voluminous books on leadership for a while and just focus on the Word of God – the Bible – and use it as a guide to manage and lead our next project. I am sure one will obtain a much better result with genuineness, humility and in obedience.

]]> http://www.theoric.org/tsbs/?feed=rss2&p=131 0 http://www.theoric.org/tsbs/?p=121 http://www.theoric.org/tsbs/?p=121#comments Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:40:28 +0000 admin http://www.theoric.org/tsbs/?p=121 (By Dr. J.I. Packer)

We commend it to our readers, along with Owen’s other works.

The Death of Death in the Death of Christ is a polemical work, designed to show, among other things, that the doctrine of universal redemption is unscriptural and destructive of the gospel. There are many, therefore, to whom it is not likely to be of interest. Those who see no need for doctrinal exactness and have no time for theological debates which show up divisions between so-called Evangelicals may well regret its reappearance.

Some may find the very sound of Owen’s thesis so shocking that they will refuse to read his book at all; so passionate a thing is prejudice, and so proud are we of our theological shibboleths. But it is hoped that this reprint will find itself readers of a different spirit. There are signs today of a new upsurge of interest in the theology of the Bible; a new readiness to test traditions, to search the Scriptures and to think through the faith. It is to those who share this readiness that Owen’s treatise is offered, in the belief that it will help us in one of the most urgent tasks facing Evangelical Christendom today–the recovery of the gospel.

This last remark may cause some raising of the eyebrows, but it seems to be warranted by the facts.There is no doubt that Evangelicalism today is in a state of perplexity and unsettlement. In such matters as the practice of evangelism, the teaching of holiness, the building up of the local church life, the pastor’s dealing with souls and the exercise of discipline, there is evidence of widespread dissatisfaction with things as they are and of equally widespread uncertainty as to the road ahead. This is a complex phenomenon, to which many factors have contributed; but, if we go to the root of the matter, we shall find that these perplexities are all ultimately due to our having lost our grip on the biblical gospel. Without realising it, we have during the past century bartered that gospel for a substitute product which, though it looks similar enough in points of detail, is as a whole a decidedly different thing. Hence our troubles; for the substitute product does not answer the ends for which the authentic gospel has in past days proved itself so mighty. The new gospel conspicuously fails to produce deep reverence, deep repentance, deep humility, a spirit of worship, a concern for the church. Why? We would suggest that the reason lies in its own character and content. It fails to make men God-centered in their thoughts and God-fearing in their hearts because this is not primarily what it is trying to do. One way of stating the difference between it and the old gospel is to say that it is too exclusively concerned to be “helpful” to man–to bring peace, comfort, happiness, satisfaction–and too little concerned to glorify God. The old gospel was “helpful,” too–more so, indeed, than is the new–but (so to speak) incidentally, for its first concern was always to give glory to God. It was always and essentially a proclamation of Divine sovereignty in mercy and judgment, a summons to bow down and worship the mighty Lord on whom man depends for all good, both in nature and in grace. Its centre of reference was unambiguously God.

But in the new gospel the centre of reference is man. This is just to say that the old gospel was religious in a way that the new gospel is not. Whereas the chief aim of the old was to teach men to worship God, the concern of the new seems limited to making them feel better. The subject of the old gospel was God and His ways with men; the subject of the new is man and the help God gives him. There is a world of difference. The whole perspective and emphasis of gospel preaching has changed.From this change of interest has sprung a change of content, for the new gospel has in effect reformulated the biblical message in the supposed interests of `helpfulness.’ Accordingly, the themes of man’s natural inability to believe, of God’s free election being the ultimate cause of salvation, and of Christ dying specifically for His sheep, are not preached. These doctrines, it would be said, are not “helpful”; they would drive sinners to despair, by suggesting to them that it is not in their own power to be saved through Christ. (The possibility that such despair might be salutary is not considered; it is taken for granted that it cannot be, because it is so shattering to our self-esteem.) However this may be (and we shall say more about it later), the result of these omissions is that part of the biblical gospel is now preached as if it were the whole of that gospel; and a half-truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth. Thus, we appeal to men as if they all had the ability to receive Christ at any time; we speak of His redeeming work as if He had done no more by dying than make it possible for us to save ourselves by believing; we speak of God’s love as if it were no more than a general willingness to receive any who will turn and trust; and we depict the Father and the Son, not as sovereignty active in drawing sinners to themselves, but as waiting in quiet impotence “at the door of our hearts” for us to let them in. It is undeniable that this is how we preach; perhaps this is what we really believe. But it needs to be said with emphasis that this set of twisted half-truths is something other than the biblical gospel.

The Bible is against us when we preach in this way; and the fact that such preaching has become almost standard practice among us only shows how urgent it is that we should review this matter. To recover the old, authentic, biblical gospel, and to bring our preaching and practice back into line with it, is perhaps our most pressing present need. And it is at this point that Owen’s treatise on redemption can give us help.II. “But wait a minute,” says someone, “it’s all very well to talk like this about the gospel; but surely what Owen is doing is defending limited atonement–one of the five points of Calvinism? When you speak of recovering the gospel, don’t you mean you just want us all to become Calvinists?”These questions are worth considering, for they will no doubt occur to many. At the same time, however, they are questions that reflect a great deal of prejudice and ignorance. “Defending limited atonement”–as if this was all that a Reformed theologian expounding the heart of the gospel could ever really want to do! “You just want us all to become Calvinists”–as if reformed theologians had no interest beyond recruiting for their party, and as if becoming a Calvinist was the last stage of theological depravity, and had nothing to do with the gospel at all. Before we answer these prejudices directly, we must try to remove the prejudices which underlie them by making clear what Calvinism really is; and therefore we would ask the reader to take note of the following facts, historical and theological, about Calvinism in general and the “five points” in particular.

First, it should be observed that the “five points of Calvinism,” so-called, are simply the Calvinistic answer to a five-point manifesto (the Remonstrance) put out by certain “Belgic semi-Pelagians1″ in the early seventeenth century. The theology it contained (known to history as Arminianism) stemmed from two philosophical principles: first, that divine sovereignty is not compatible with human freedom, nor therefore with human responsibility; second, that ability limits obligation. (The charge of semi-Pelagianism was thus fully justified.) From these principles, the Arminians drew two deductions: first, that since the Bible regards faith as a free and responsible human act, it cannot be caused by God, but is exercised independently of Him; second, that since the Bible regards faith as obligatory on the part of all who hear the gospel, ability to believe must be universal.

Hence, they maintained, Scripture must be interpreted as teaching the following positions:

(1) man is never so completely corrupted by sin that he cannot savingly believe the gospel when it is put before him, nor

(2) is he ever so completely controlled by God that he cannot reject it.

(3) God’s election of those who shall be saved is prompted by His foreseeing that they will of their own accord believe.

(4) Christ’s death did not ensure the salvation of anyone, for it did not secure the gift of faith to anyone (there is no such gift); what it did was rather to create a possibility of salvation for everyone if they believe.

(5) It rests with believers to keep themselves in a state of grace by keeping up their faith; those who fail here fall away and are lost.

Thus, Arminianism made man’s salvation depend ultimately on man himself, saving faith being viewed throughout as man’s own work and, because his own, not God’s in him.

The Synod of Dort was convened in 1618 to pronounce on this theology, and the “five points of Calvinism” represent its counter-affirmations. They stem from a very different principle–the biblical principle that “salvation is of the Lord”;2 and they may be summarized thus:

(1) Fallen man in his natural state lacks all power to believe the gospel, just as he lacks all power to believe the law, despite all external inducements that may be extended to him.

(2) God’s election is a free, sovereign, unconditional choice of sinners, as sinners, to be redeemed by Christ, given faith and brought to glory.

(3) The redeeming work of Christ had as its end and goal the salvation of the elect.

(4) The work of the Holy Spirit in bringing men to faith never fails to achieve its object.

(5) Believers are kept in faith and grace by the unconquerable power of God till they come to glory.

These five points are conveniently denoted by the mnemonic TULIP:

Total depravity
Unconditional election
Limited atonement
Irresistible grace
Preservation of the saints.

Now, here are two coherent interpretations of the biblical gospel, which stand in evident opposition to each other. The difference between them is not primarily one of emphasis, but of content. One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God who enables man to save himself. One view presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind–election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit–as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly. The other view gives each act a different reference (the objects of redemption being all mankind, of calling, those who hear the gospel, and of election, those hearers who respond), and denies that any man’s salvation is secured by any of them.

The two theologies thus conceive the plan of salvation in quite different terms. One makes salvation depend on the work of God, the other on a work of man; one regards faith as part of God’s gift of salvation, the other as man’s own contribution to salvation; one gives all the glory of saving believers to God, the other divides the praise between God, Who, so to speak, built the machinery of salvation, and man, who by believing operates it. Plainly, these differences are important, and the permanent value of the “five points,” as a summary of Calvinism, is that they make clear the points at which, and the extent to which, these two conceptions are at variance.

However, it would not be correct simply to equate Calvinism with the “five points.” Five points of our own will make this clear.In the first place, Calvinism is something much broader than the ” five points” indicates. Calvinism is a whole world-view, stemming from a clear vision of God as the whole world’s Maker and King. Calvinism is the consistent endeavour to acknowledge the Creator as the Lord, working all things after the counsel of His will. Calvinism is a theocentric way of thinking about all life under the direction and control of God’s own Word. Calvinism, in other words, is the theology of the Bible viewed from the perspective of the Bible–the God-centred outlook which sees the Creator as the source, and means, and end, of everything that is, both in nature and in grace. Calvinism is thus theism (belief in God as the ground of all things), religion (dependence on God as the giver of all things), and evangelicalism (trust in God through Christ for all things), all in their purest and most highly developed form. And Calvinism is a unified philosophy of history which sees the whole diversity of processes and events that take place in God’s world as no more, and no less, than the outworking of His great preordained plan for His creatures and His church. The five points assert no more than that God is sovereign in saving the individual, but Calvinism, as such, is concerned with the much broader assertion that He is sovereign everywhere.Then, in the second place, the “five points” present Calvinistic soteriology in a negative and polemical form, whereas Calvinism in itself is essentially expository, pastoral and constructive. It can define its position in terms of scripture without any reference to Arminianism, and it does not need to be forever fighting real or imaginary Arminians in order to keep itself alive. Calvinism has no interest in negatives, as such; when Calvinists fight, they fight for positive Evangelical values. The negative cast of the “five points” is misleading chiefly with regard to the third (limited atonement, or particular redemption),which is often read with stress on the adjective and taken as indicating that Calvinists have a special interest in confining the limits of divine mercy. But in fact the purpose of this phraseology, as we shall see, is to safeguard the central affirmation of the gospel–that Christ is a Redeemer who really does redeem. Similarly, the denials of an election that is conditional and of grace that is resistible, are intended to safeguard the positive truth that it is God Who saves.

The real negations are those of Arminianism, which denies that election, redemption and calling are saving acts of God. Calvinism negates these negations in order to assert the positive content of the gospel, for the positive purpose of strengthening faith and building up the church.Thirdly, the very fact of setting out Calvinistic soteriology in the form of five distinct points (a number due, as we saw, merely to the fact that there were five Arminian points for the Synod of Dort to answer) tends to obscure the organic character of Calvinistic thought on this subject. For the five points, though separately stated, are really inseparable. They hang together; you cannot reject one without rejecting them all, at least in the sense in which the Synod meant them. For to Calvinism there is really only one point to be made in the field of soteriology: the point that God saves sinners. God–the Triune Jehovah, Father, Son and Spirit; three Persons working together in sovereign wisdom, power and love to achieve the salvation of a chosen people, the Father electing, the Son fulfilling the Father’s will by redeeming, the Spirit executing the purpose of Father and Son by renewing. Saves–does everything, first to last, that is involved in bringing man from death in sin to life in glory: plans, achieves and communicates redemption, calls and keeps, justifies, sanctifies, glorifies. Sinners–men as God finds them, guilty, vile, helpless, powerless, unable to lift a finger to do God’s will or better their spiritual lot. God saves sinners–and the force of this confession may not be weakened by disrupting the unity of the work of the Trinity, or by dividing the achievement of salvation between God and man and making the decisive part man’s own, or by soft-pedaling the sinner’s inability so as to allow him to share the praise of his salvation with his Saviour. This is the one point of Calvinistic soteriology which the “five points” are concerned to establish and Arminianism in all its forms to deny: namely, that sinners do not save themselves in any sense at all, but that salvation, first and last, whole and entire, past, present and future, is of the Lord, to whom be glory for ever; amen.

This leads to our fourth remark, which is this: the five-point formula obscures the depth of the difference between Calvinistic and Arminian soteriology. There seems no doubt that it seriously misleads many here. In the formula, the stress falls on the adjectives, and this naturally gives the impression that in regard to the three great saving acts of God the debate concerns the adjectives merely–that both sides agree as to what election, redemption, and the gift of internal grace are, and differ only as to the position of man in relation to them: whether the first is conditional upon faith being foreseen or not; whether the second intends the salvation of every man or not; whether the third always proves invincible or not. But this is a complete misconception. The change of adjective in each case involves changing the meaning of the noun. An election that is conditional, a redemption that is universal, an internal grace that is resistible, is not the same kind of election, redemption, internal grace, as Calvinism asserts. The real issue concerns, not the appropriateness of adjectives, but the definition of nouns. Both sides saw this clearly when the controversy first began, and it is important that we should see it too, for otherwise we cannot discuss the Calvinist-Arminian debate to any purpose at all. It is worth setting out the different definitions side by side.

1. God’s act of election was defined by the Arminians as a resolve to receive to sonship and glory a duly qualified class of people–believers in Christ.3 This becomes a resolve to receive individual persons only in virtue of God’s foreseeing the contingent fact that they will of their own accord believe. There is nothing in the decree of election to ensure that the class of believers will ever have any members; God does not determine to make any man believe. But Calvinists define election as a choice of particular undeserving persons to be saved from sin and brought to glory, and to that end to be redeemed by the death of Christ and given faith by the Spirit’s effectual calling. Where the Arminian says: `I owe my election to my faith,’ the Calvinist says: `I owe my faith to my election.’ Clearly, these two concepts are very far apart.
2. Christ’s work of redemption was defined by the Arminians as the removing of an obstacle (the unsatisfied claims of justice) which stood in the way of God’s offering pardon to sinners, as He desired to do, on condition that they believe. Redemption, according to Arminianism, secured for God a right to make this offer, but did not of itself ensure that anyone would ever accept it; for faith, being a work of man’s own, is not a gift that comes to him from Calvary. Christ’s death created an opportunity for the exercise of saving faith, but that is all it did. Calvinists, however, define redemption as Christ’s actual substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners, through which God was reconciled to them, their liability to punishment was for ever destroyed, and a title to eternal life was secured for them. In consequence of this, they now have in God’s sight a right to the gift of faith, as the means of entry into the enjoyment of their inheritance. Calvary, in other words, not merely made possible the salvation of those for whom Christ died; it ensured that they would be brought to faith and their salvation made actual. The Cross saves. Where the Arminian will only say: `I could not have gained my salvation without Calvary,’ the Calvinist will say: `Christ gained my salvation for me at Calvary.’ The former makes the Cross the sine qua non of salvation, the latter sees it as the actual procuring cause of salvation, and traces the source of every spiritual blessing, faith included, back to the great transaction between God and His Son carried through on Calvary’s hill. Clearly, these two concepts of redemption are quite at variance.
3. The Spirit’s gift of internal grace was defined by the Arminians as `moral suasion,’ the bare bestowal of an understanding of God’s truth. This, they granted–indeed, insisted–does not of itself ensure that anyone will ever make the response of faith. But Calvinists define this gift as not merely an enlightening, but also a regenerating work of God in men, `taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by His almighty power determining them to that which is good; and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.’
4. 4 Grace proves irresistible just because it destroys the disposition to resist. Where the Arminian, therefore, will be content to say: `I decided for Christ,’ `I made up my mind to be a Christian,’ the Calvinist will wish to speak of his conversion in more theological fashion, to make plain whose work it really was:

`Long my imprisoned spirit lay
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray;
I woke; the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off; my heart was free;
I rose, went forth, and followed thee.’

5 Clearly, these two notions of internal grace are sharply opposed to each other.Now, the Calvinist contends that the Arminian idea of election, redemption and calling as acts of God which do not save cuts at the very heart of their biblical meaning; that to say in the Arminian sense that God elects believers, and Christ died for all men, and the Spirit quickens those who receive the word, is really to say that in the biblical sense God elects nobody, and Christ died for nobody, and the Spirit quickens nobody. The matter at issue in this controversy, therefore, is the meaning to be given to these biblical terms, and to some others which are also soteriologically significant, such as the love of God, the covenant of grace, and the verb `save’ itself, with its synonyms. Arminians gloss them all in terms of the principle that salvation does not directly depend on any decree or act of God, but on man’s independent activity in believing.

Calvinists maintain that this principle is itself unscriptural and irreligious, and that such glossing demonstrably perverts the sense of Scripture and undermines the gospel at every point where it is practised. This, and nothing less than this, is what the Arminian controversy is about.There is a fifth way in which the five-point formula is deficient. Its very form (a series of denials of Arminian assertions) lends colour to the impression that Calvinism is a modification of Arminianism; that Arminianism has a certain primacy in order of nature, and developed Calvinism is an offshoot of it. Even when one shows this to be false as a matter of history, the suspicion remains in many minds that it is a true account of the relation of the two views themselves. For it is widely supposed that Arminianism (which, as we now see, corresponds pretty closely to the new gospel of our own day) is the result of reading the Scriptures in a `natural,’ unbiased, unsophisticated way, and that Calvinism is an unnatural growth, the product less of the texts themselves than of unhallowed logic working on the texts, wresting their plain sense and upsetting their balance by forcing them into a systematic framework which they do not themselves provide. Whatever may have been true of individual Calvinists, as a generalisation about Calvinism nothing could be further from the truth than this. Certainly, Arminianism is `natural’ in one sense, in that it represents a characteristic perversion of biblical teaching by the fallen mind of man, who even in salvation cannot bear to renounce the delusion of being master of his fate and captain of his soul. This perversion appeared before in the Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism of the Patristic period and the later Scholasticism, and has recurred since the seventeenth century both in Roman theology and, among Protestants, in various types of rationalistic liberalism and modern Evangelical teaching; and no doubt it will always be with us.

As long as the fallen human mind is what it is, the Arminian way of thinking will continue to be a natural type of mistake. But it is not natural in any other sense. In fact, it is Calvinism that understands the Scriptures in their natural, one would have thought, inescapable meaning; Calvinism that keeps to what they actually say; Calvinism that insists on taking seriously the biblical assertions that God saves, and that He saves those whom He has chosen to save, and that He saves them by grace without works, so that no man may boast, and that Christ is given to them as a perfect Saviour, and their whole salvation flows to them from the Cross, and that the work of redeeming them was finished on the Cross. It is Calvinism that gives due honor to the Cross. When the Calvinist sings:

`There is a green hill far away,
Without a city wall
Where the dear Lord was crucified,
Who died to save us all;
He died that we might be forgiven,
He died to make us good;
That we might go at last to Heaven,
Saved by His precious blood.’

he means it. He will not gloss the italicised statements by saying that God’s saving purpose in the death of His Son was a mere ineffectual wish, depending for its fulfillment on man’s willingness to believe, so that for all God could do Christ might have died and none been saved at all. He insists that the Bible sees the Cross as revealing God’s power to save, not His impotence. Christ did not win a hypothetical salvation for hypothetical believers, a mere possibility of salvation for any who might possibly believe, bur a real salvation for His own chosen people. His precious blood really does `save us all;’ the intended effects of His self-offering do in fact follow, just because the Cross was what it was. Its saving power does not depend on faith being added to it; its saving power is such that faith flows from it. The Cross secured the full salvation of all for whom Christ died. `God forbid,’ therefore, `that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.’6Now the real nature of Calvinistic soteriology becomes plain. It is no artificial oddity, nor a product of over-bold logic. Its central confession, that God saves sinners, that Christ redeemed us by His blood, is the witness both of the Bible and of the believing heart. The Calvinist is the Christian who confesses before men in his theology just what he believes in his heart before God when he prays.

  There is a common notion among the educated people that the Bible contains numerous Scientific errors. Because of this, many Bible-believing people have tried to compartmentalize the whole outlook about science and theology. They say that there is a “Scientific truth” believed by the world while there is a divine truth held by Christians. We have reasons to maintain that such a split-belief leads one to error both in science and in theology.

The best view on Bible and science has to be an integrated whole, not a split picture. For developing such an approach we must start with a right view of science as well as the Bible.

Bible is the inspired word of God. Its primary purpose is spiritual, so it should not be looked upon as we look upon a textbook of science. However, since God is all-knowing, He cannot err when He pronounces something. Hence, when the Bible is interpreted properly (taking attention of common usages and grammar, etc.) then it will show no conflict with the fully established facts and laws of the science.

Science is a collection of facts and interpretations of varying degrees of reliability. They can be classified into two groups: the unquestionable "facts and laws of science" and the fully questionable "theories of science". Out of these two, only the "facts of science" have permanence, so only they should be used for a legitimate examination of any Biblical passage. A theory should be allowed to mature till it becomes an established law of science before it can be used to question the Bible.

Though the Bible is not meant to be a textbook of science, yet it comments upon topics related to many branches of the natural science. Whenever such a comment is examined under the pertinent facts and laws of the Bible, the conflicts generally resolve. If anything is not fully settled, it is generally due to incomplete understanding of either science or the Bible, or both. The history of Christian apologists provides numerous such examples where further understanding of either the science or the Bible has helped us to settle the seeming conflict. This has happened more often with the science rather than the Bible i.e. more conflicts were solved with the development of scientific understanding in comparison to the development of Biblical understanding.

Psalm 19 is an example of the above statement. In verse six the psalmist seems to say that the sun is a moving object which travels from one end of the sky to the other. Many people used to point out this verse saying that here is a contradiction. They claimed that since we know that the "rising" of the sun in the east and its "setting" in the west are effects produced by the

earth’s rotation about its axis (and not due to the East-West motion of the sun), the passage under consideration is an error.

A closer examination of the passage will reveal that it does not say anything about the east-west motion presumed by the critics. It only says that the sun moved from one end to the other of the earth. Now, this is a fact of science that the sun is indeed moving through the heavens at tremendous speed about the center of our galaxy. So there is no conflict with the facts when the Bible says that the sun is running across the skies.

Numerous examples and studies can be quoted to support what has been said above. Thus it is clear that the compartmentalized approach to knowledge provides us only a fragmented picture of reality. We have to take integrated approach to study the relationship between Bible and science. The integrated approach uses only the legitimate methods for studying this subject. The legitimate approach is to use only the established laws and facts of science in conjunction with proper interpretation of the Bible. Such an approach would surely end most of the presumed conflicts between the Bible and science

Bible And Archeology | Apologetics Courses

]]> http://www.theoric.org/tsbs/?feed=rss2&p=114 0 http://www.theoric.org/tsbs/?p=61 http://www.theoric.org/tsbs/?p=61#comments Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:55:02 +0000 Richard Gagnon http://www.theoric.org/tsbs/?p=61 Dr. William J. Peters, DRS, PhD (C)

Grace is a beautiful word, truly a great Bible truth is resident in this word. In fact, it is a word and concept without which man’s salvation would be impossible. The gospel (good news) is a result of God’s grace (Gal. 1: 6-9). Grace is presented as sufficient and Christians are called by grace (2 Cor. 12.7-10, Gal. 1.15).

Man is saved by grace, the heart is established by grace, and we are justified by grace (Eph. 2.5, 8, Heb. 13.9, Tit. 3. 7). Moreover, we render acceptable service by grace and grace imparts everlasting consolation (Heb. 12.28, 29, 2 Thes. 2.16). God’s grace also makes us better people and helps us in time of need (I Cor. 15.9, 10, Heb. 4.16).Grace is not given to whoever is deserving. “Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt” ( Rom. 4.4). To save the undeserved is grace. “Being justified freely by his [God's] grace” ( Rom. 3.24). What is meant by “freely”? In the original Greek, “freely” is the same word as is translated “without a cause” in John 15.25 where the Lord is recorded as saying, “They hated me without a cause”, quoting from the Old Testament.

Remember that the Lord imprisoned the entire world under the penalty and power of sin in order to induce all of us to receive his mercy (Romans 11.32). Therefore the only way you will ever get free from sin is to get under grace and stay there.

Remember that legalism has the power to actually arouse sinful passions. In 1 Corinthians 1.30 Paul said that Jesus “became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption.”

God Father is totally satisfied with Jesus. Grace means that, together with the Father, you must be satisfied with Jesus, and thus you can rest in him and abide in him, in all that he is for you. Romans 1.16-17 says:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous man shall live by faith.”

Put all your faith in Jesus Christ himself to be all that you need for right standing before God, and begin to move from faith to faith. In our quest to understand God’s grace it is important to realize that God’s grace is available to every man. Titus 2.11 , “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.”

It is interesting to note that God’s grace has been extended to all men, yet all men are not saved! That is not God’s fault though. For he came “to seek and to save that which was lost.” Luke 19.10 . This was the whole purpose of Jesus coming to earth. God purchased our salvation with his own blood, Acts 20.28 .

“If righteousness could be gained through the law,” Paul wrote, “Christ died for nothing!” (Galatians 2.21). The only alternative, as he says in this same verse, is “the grace of God.” We are saved by grace, not by keeping the law. These are alternatives that cannot be combined. We are not saved by grace plus works, but by grace alone. Paul makes it clear that we must choose either one or another.

Cheap grace is not the kind of forgiveness of sin which frees us from the toils of sin. Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves. Cheap grace says you don’t have to be concerned about purity, holiness, and obedience—Jesus already did all that so that you don’t have to. Absolutely not! He did all that, empowered by the Holy Spirit, so that His life could live again through us.

Romans 8.16, 17, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if it so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together.”

There is nothing cheap about it. Free, yes, but not cheap—God has His part and that is what makes us free, BUT we also have our part in response.

If you can fully grasp and understand exactly what the grace of God is and how it personally applies to your own individual walk with the Lord – you will then be able to walk away with a clear and complete understanding as to exactly how you were able to be saved in the first place with the Lord – along with how to receive the grace of God in your life as His divine power working through you so that you can fully accomplish everything that He wants you to accomplish for Him in this life.

(By William J. Peters, Ph.D. (C))

There are 273 references to angels in the Bible. What does the Bible say about angels? First of all, the term "angel" is derived from the Greek word angelos, which means: "messenger." Angelos and the Hebrew equivalent, malak (which also means "messenger"), are the two most common terms used to describe this class of beings (Richards).
In general, in texts where an angel appears, the task is to convey the message or do something on behalf of God. Since the focus of the text is on the message, the messenger is rarely described in detail. Thus, the divine emissary may or may not be some sort of supernatural being.

Another set of terms used to describe angels focuses not on angels as mediators between God and us, but on God’s heavenly entourage. Terms such as "sons of God", "holy ones", and "heavenly host" seem to focus on angels as CELESTIAL beings. As such, these variously worship God, attend God’s throne, or comprise God’s army. These terms are used typically in contexts emphasizing the grandeur, power, and/or mighty acts of God (Richards).

1. Where did the angels come from?
The Bible does not say other than to affirm that since only God is eternal, angels must therefore be created beings. They are not ghosts nor are they spirits of the dead. No place in Christian theology do we find any reference to humans becoming angels.

2. Was Jesus superiority to angels still retained when He became man?
Yes. Jesus never lost His deity when He was here. He added humanity and retained His deity. Dickason writes that: "Based on Gen 1.26-28, at the time of creation it was God’s purpose to subject the earth to the authority of man. Psalm 8 is quoted here reaffirming God’s destiny for man. God did not subject the earth to the authority of angels but man. Angels are inferior to man because of man’s destiny in the world to come."

CHRIST’S SUPERIORITY TO ANGELS NOT CONTRADICTED BY HIS SUFFERING
A. The Savior could not even reach the end to which He was appointed without suffering. Jesus secured our destiny when he died for us. We can expect to suffer as well (Ruckman).
B. Christ must identify (become one with) the ones He would redeem. On the Day of Atonement the High Priest puts his hand on sacrifice and the sacrifice making them one. So Christ took our flesh & blood and did the same literally.
C. His death broke Satan’s power in realm of death (Eph 4). Satan lost his death grip on man.
D. Delivered those who were in fear of death. There is real freedom there. No sting in it.
E. Christ’s death was not for angels because He did not take on form of angel but man only. Christ identified himself with human race only and salvation provided puts man above angels.

Man is a wonderful creation, higher than plants, animals, and any other material creation in this world. But there are created beings even higher than man–angels. Hebrews 2.9 indicates that angels are higher than humans because it says that when Jesus became a man, He "was made a little lower than the angels."

Many cults and unorthodox religious organizations deny the deity of Christ on the basis of Hebrews 1.4. They claim that Christ was not God but a created being. Thiessen writes that: "When verse 4 says, Being made so much better than the angels," they (the cults) say, "See, Christ was made." But the Greek word used there for "made" is not poieo, which means, "to make" or "create"; it is ginomai, which means, "to become."

The point of the author of Hebrews in verse 4 is to prove Christ’s superiority, not only over the prophets, but also over angels. Some Jews might say fine. Christ is superior to the prophets, but in no way is He superior to spirit beings, such as angels. Well, according to Hebrews 1.4, Christ is "much better" than the angels. Now this is a very important phrase; it appears 13 times throughout the book of Hebrews (Ryrie). The word "better" is stressed throughout the book. The point of the author is that Christ is a better priest, Christ is a better hope, a better covenant, a better promise, a better sacrifice, a better possession, a better resurrection, a better privilege, and better blood shedding. Christ is better in every way, including better than the angels (Ryrie).

It is important to realize that the author of Hebrews is saying that Christ is better than the angels, not as God, but as a man. He has been better than the angels as God for all eternity, but when He voluntarily left Heaven, and became the Messiah, He became "much better" than the angels as the God-man. At that time He "inherited a more excellent name than they." It is Christ who has the better name than the angels, therefore He is superior.

REASONS CHRIST IS SUPERIOR TO ANGELS
The author declares, "For to which of the angels did He ever say, ‘Thou art My Son, today I have begotten Thee’? And again,’ I will be a Father to Him, and He shall be a Son to Me’ " (Hebrews 1.5). What is the name that Jesus has? The name of God’s Son. This fact alone denotes a position that is superior to the angels, or any other created being (Gaebelein).

The proof that Christ is superior to angels is evidenced in verse 7. In this picture, we see the angels as servants. The author says, "And of the angels He says, ‘Who makes His angels winds, and His ministers a flame of fire." Again, we have another Old Testament quote (Psalm 104.4). God is saying that the angels are like the wind and lightning. He sends them out to accomplish His purpose. It is the same with the angels. Angels are "ministers" literally servants (Gaebelein).

Verse 8 quotes directly from Psalm 45.6-7. Contrast the role of angels with the position of Christ in verse 8: "But of the Son He says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom." Gaebelein asks us to: "Notice that verse 8 begins with the word ‘But’, which indicates a complete contrast. In verse 7 we saw that angels are servants. ‘But’ Christ is identified as ‘God’. This is a very clear statement identifying the deity of Christ."

As glorious as the angels are, as great as is their work, they are, nevertheless, in subjection to the Lord Jesus Christ as man, for in His human nature, God has enthroned Him high above all. Since Christ is more excellent than the most excellent, he must be the most excellent of all. He is seated on the right hand of the Majesty on High.

Guthrie informs that: "The Hebrew word for "Lord" is Adonai. The name "Adonai" assumed an extraordinary importance in Hebrew speech, for in practice it replaced the personal name of God, Jehovah. No Jew pronounced the word "Jehovah," even when reading the Bible. Instead he said, "Adonai." Not only in popular speech but also in Jewish literature and in the writing and transmission of the Old Testament, the word "Adonai" became almost synonymous with Jehovah, the personal name of God.

Consequently, when the early Christians made their confession — "Jesus is Lord" — they were actually confessing that Jesus of Nazareth is the God of Israel, Jehovah, the only true God. So, Jesus "has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than" the angels. He is Lord! He created and controls the angels (Guthrie).

Is God Vain? (by

Have you ever been asked "Isn’t it arrogant of God to demand that we praise Him?" Find out what Greg has to say about God’s worthiness, and our own vanity.

I was confronted about a week and a half ago at a conference up at Mount Herman in Northern California with a very interesting question. It’s a question you might be confronted with as well. The question was simply, Isn’t God vain in wanting us to praise Him? And if vanity is bad for us, then it’s bad for God. This young man didn’t know how to respond. So he asked me about it. I’ll give you my response.

…it simply doesn’t follow that what is inappropriate for us (vanity in this case,desire for praise or adulation or worship) is also wrong for God.

How can God ask for our praise? Isn’t that vain of Him? Isn’t that arrogant? Isn’t that self-centered? My response to the gentleman was this. First off, just because something is wrong for us, doesn’t mean it is wrong for God. We explored this concept, if you recall, when we explored mass loss of life in the Old Testament a couple of months ago. If it is wrong for us to kill, then how can God kill so many in the Old Testament? The answer is, because God is God. The Author of life has the right to take life. Or to put it colloquially, man can’t play God, but certainly God can play God. The reason is obvious. Different appropriate freedoms accrue to different persons by virtue of their office or character. Kids have bedtimes; parents don’t. Doctors can explore private parts of your body; strangers can’t. The President of the United States has authorities and powers and liberties we don’t possess. So it simply doesn’t follow that what is inappropriate for us (vanity in this case, desire for praise or adulation or worship) is also wrong for God. So the main presupposition I guess here is faulty.

But even so, it may be that the expectation of praise, here described as vanity, is inappropriate even for God, though not for the reason that we just mentioned. So let’s take a moment and look a little closer. Let’s have an exercise of clear thinking here as we dissect this problem. Vanity, according to Webster, is being excessively proud of oneself or one’s qualities or possessions. Praise on the other hand, is to commend the worth of. So both praise and vanity relate to worth. Praise is ascribing worth. Vanity is a distorted sense of worth. OK? Worship, the highest form of praise, might be called "worth ship" because you are ascribing worth to someone, in this case, God.

I think that a person who raises this kind of issue about vanity isn’t objecting because they think that praise per se is foolish. In other words, that praise in itself is irrational or unreasonable. When we praise someone, we acknowledge a certain kind of worth that person has. We saw he has produced something of worth or he manifests in his person or in his character something of worth. Praise per se is only foolish or irrational if there is nothing of worth in anyone in the whole world. And if no one had any worth, then ascribing worth of any kind would simply be error because nothing praiseworthy existed anyway. But clearly this can’t be true. Only an extreme cynic would suggest such a thing. If he does suggest that nothing in the whole world has any worth, then it strikes me that the burden is on him to prove that everything is worthless and not on me to prove that some things have value. It seems obvious. There are many things in the world of value. Many acts of value people perform. Many qualities of value that people possess.

So praise in itself seems to be rational. Of course, we all know this. That’s why we praise others in some measure. That’s why we are constantly seeking praise ourselves. We think it is deserved. It is reasonable. It makes sense. So praise is a rational concept. That’s the first thing.

Second, it’s not vanity to expect praise for praiseworthy acts. In other words, praise goes naturally with merit. Vanity is excessive pride, not appropriate pride in someone’s accomplishments. If one displays merit of some sort, in a deed, in a design, in a desire, well, then, praise commensurate with the particular merit seems to fit. So praise is appropriate where it fits the merit. We are making progress here, right?

Third, praise is even obligatory. What do I mean by that? Well, think of this: years ago there was a plane crash. It was winter. The airplane lay half submerged in a turbulent, icy river. You might have seen the video tape capturing this dramatic scene of rescuers throwing themselves in that frigid torrent to save the few who survived the impact of the crash, bobbing around amidst the ice flow there. Do you remember that? Let me ask you a question. What is our appropriate response to that? Is it morally sound for us to look at such a scene, such a dramatic display of goodness and selflessness and be completely unmoved? Is it rational for us to treat that act with the same kind of moral disinterest as somebody taking a short dip in a refreshing pond? I don’t think so. If we have no room in our heart for praise of an heroic act like this, people would call us cynical, right? And they’d be right. It is cynical not to acknowledge worth in an eminently worthy thing. In our silence, we are saying that something that appears worthy actually has no worth at all.

Now, there may be a problem with men’s expectation of praise. I think that there is. I’m not so sure that that problem applies to God as well.

There is a measure of praise that is appropriate for every person….Vanity is wanting praise we don’t deserve.

There is a measure of praise that is appropriate for every person. After all, we will get rewards in heaven. So, clearly even God thinks that we are deserving of something. Our problem is that we don’t deserve as much as we think. We characteristically seek a lot more credit than we are due. And that is vanity. Vanity is wanting praise we don’t deserve.

Now here is something to think about. When you think about it, virtually everything that we think is worthy of praise of ourselves, in ourselves is actually derivative. In other words, it resides in us. We possess it, but it really came from somewhere else. Good looks, native intelligence, opportunities for education, social advancement. These things are almost entirely accidents of birth or circumstance. Some guy says, Hey, I met Robert Redford. I’m so cool. But how did he meet him? Well, somebody thinks he’s a big shot because he accidentally bumps into Robert Redford in the airport. And that’s why name droppers are so offensive. They usually are trying to take credit for something that happened to them by accident. OK, you’ve got the general idea there.

Now, let’s talk about God for a minute. God has many wonderful qualities. He has performed many marvelous deeds. He is a Person of immeasurable worth who performs acts of immeasurable worth. What’s more, for God nothing is derivative. Nothing about Him is a result of chance or accident. Every single goodness He possesses, ladies and gentlemen, every fine quality He has, every wonderful thing He has ever done is completely His own. To take it a step further, even the glories that you and I possess that are derivative (those are the things which include most of the things we seek praise for ourselves) actually are derived from a different source and that source is, guess where? God. If we are good looking it is because God made us that way. If we are intelligent, it is because God created us that way. And so on.

Think of the challenge here. The challenge is that God is vain because He desires praise. The irony is, that if praise is rational at all, virtually all of it goes properly to God, even the things that we want to take credit for. Because He is the source, to quote James 1, "He is the source of every good and perfect gift." If praise is properly deserved, then as we mentioned earlier, it is properly obligatory. In other words, it is not only proper for God to receive praise, we owe it to Him. And in fact, we owe praise to God for the things that we think we ought to be praised for. In fact, what we are doing is we are stealing His credit and taking it for our own.

…if God is worthy of praise, He’s worthy of praise whether my life is nice or miserable. He’s worthy of praise whether I’m happy or sad. Because praise is about Him, it’s not about me.

So, we’ve done a little exercise in clear thinking here haven’t we? Upon a little reflection we found that praise is rational, it is appropriate in certain circumstances and it is even obligatory in some circumstances. But we’ve really done more than that. We have learned that we ought to praise God regardless of who we are. And I might add, regardless of how we feel. This reflection has had a tremendous impact on me when I realized that praise is obligatory to one who is praiseworthy; the level of praise obligatory is that praise that meets the merit of the one being praised and that merit has absolutely nothing to do with my circumstances and my feelings. In other words, if God is worthy of praise, He’s worthy of praise whether my life is nice or miserable. He’s worthy of praise whether I’m happy or sad. Because praise is about Him, it’s not about me. If my life is happy and lots of good things are happening to me, well, those are additional things that I might praise God for and that’s appropriate because that kind of praise is a little different kind of praise. It’s called thanksgiving. Like saying, I praise you God for what you did and by the way, what you happened to do in this situation affected me. I’m thankful for that. I appreciate that.

So not only is it not vain for God to want praise, it is right for Him to demand it. And a person who cannot find reason to praise God is someone who is completely thankless, frankly. Is someone who feels he owes nothing to anyone, but that all his accomplishments are his own. Now, what do we call a person who feels like they owe nothing, especially thanks, to any one, they owe praise for nothing to anyone, but all of their accomplishments are utterly and completely their own? I guess arrogant would fit; self-centered would fit; how about vain? That would fit, too. We’d call them vain. So it turns out, that the person who thinks God ought not be praised is the very one who would take all the credit for himself. When he does that he robs it from the One who really deserves it, God Himself. Kind of ironic, isn’t it? The person who says that God is vain, says that God doesn’t deserve praise for anything, then if anything is praiseworthy in that individual, they are the ones who deserve it all. The person who says that God is vain, is in fact the person who is guilty of vanity themselves. And it’s no wonder then when you reflect like this that the Psalmist writes in Psalm 150:2, "Praise Him for His might deeds, praise Him according to His excellent greatness." We praise God for what He does, we praise Him for who He is. We ascribe worth to Him. Only a vain cynic would argue otherwise.

(Taken from: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5274)

An Editorial By Richard Gagnon

Many of you have already heard the expression “The fear of the Lord”. In fact, this expression is so used in the Bible that most of the time it is taken out of its proper context. Doing so, it may imply a wrong definition of what it really means. Let us look at some of them used in the Bible.

We will look at 3 instances. In them, the main purpose is to understand not only what it really means, but to see if it changes anything in us once we understand what it could mean.

Of all the expressions commonly used in the Bible, I think that the “fear of the Lord” is one of the most misunderstood. Let us see how and why together.

1. A respect that we owe to God alone (Heb. 11.7). The author of the epistle to the Hebrews tells us that Noah was inhabited by that kind of fear:

“By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.”

In this passage, the fact that Noah feared God is obvious. It is out of it that he obeyed God in the construction of the ark which would become the instrument of protection to him, his near family (a total of 8 persons – see 2 Peter 2.5) and the rest of the animals that God commanded him to call and to make enter inside of it. But the text is very clear on one thing: “By this, he condemned the world…” To whom the “he” referred in this first part of the verse? It is clear that it is to Noah since the rest of the sentence says that “he” became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith. God could not be the “he” since the Lord cannot became the heir of anything. He is the Giver, but not the receiver of the inheritance. We have a first definition of what the fear of the Lord may mean. It refers, sometimes, to the fact that a man has to be reverent or respectful toward God.

2. The beginning of wisdom (Prov. 9.10). Here, the author of the proverb teaches us what the fear of the Lord brings with it:

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.”

The moment a person begins to fear the Lord he begins to be wise, he begins to be able to show deep insight. It is obvious that the wisdom which is referred to in this passage is not the wisdom that we see in the world. It is even not the wisdom that someone could get after asking counsel to anybody who does not know God. Even though the advice might be good in and of itself, it does not entail the fact that it is “according to God”. So, wisdom is not always Widsom. The one described in the Proverb is the wisdom of the Lord; a wisdom that is holy as the Lord is Holy. We have then a second definition of what the fear of the Lord is. It produces holy wisdom in the heart of the one who obeys God and takes heed of what He is: Holy.

3. A holy restraint (Isa. 11.3). Here, the prophet Isaiah is talking about the fact that restraining ourselves in some situations is a mark of the fear of the Lord:

“And his delight shall be in the fear of the Lord. He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide disputes by what his ears hear,”

Many times men are tempted to judge “on the spot”, when they see or hear something. Often, they do not even know the context of the situation on which they are pronouncing themselves, but they think they have enough insight to analyse the situation up to the point of making a judgment quite quickly. For example, what about a divorced man who is again in the ministry of the Word after this sad episode? Many would say: “He can no longer be in the pastoral ministry because of his divorce.” If you read well the judgment, it is because of the divorce. Now, let me ask you a question. Suppose you have three potential candidates to be called in the ministry for your church. The first one, a very gifted man in the Word became an alcoholic because of a lot of troubles in his life for which he was not able to find a real solution. He ruined his life and ministry. After a successful desintoxication process he wants to be back in the ministry since he is sober for the past 10 years. What would you say about him? Would he be qualified to be back to serve the Lord in that task again? The second is a man who was caught by the police because he stole money of the church where he was the pastor. We saw him on the local newspaper. After repentance before the whole church, with much sincerity, he remains faithful to the Lord serving Him in many other ways and one day is called to be in the ministry again in another church. What would you say about him? Would he be qualified to be back to serve the Lord in that task again? The third one is a man who left his wife because he desired another woman. He repented of his sin and took again the right path in the ways of God. He is now out of the ministry for many years, after having been living alone for 5 years. One day, he met another woman, a devoted Christian, who is very dedicated to the Lord. After about 10 years outside the pulpit, this man is called by a church to become their minister. He takes time to explain to them that he is a divorcee. He shows a very humble heart to everyone admitting his past wrongdoings with sincerity. The church calls him anyway, because they believed that God showed them this man and after a long time of struggle in his heart, asking God to see if it was possible again to enter the ministry in another city far from his first one, he cried out to God: “Lord, I fear you, but in the bottom of my heart you alone can see how desperate I was in my divorce situation and how I fear you to enter in this call. I am not sure if this call is from you. I know you forgave me and I know that you still love me, because of Christ. But, because of men and their tendencies of being quick in their judgments, especially about the sin of divorce, I am not sure if I should go to this church. Please, show me your will God. I want to obey you and in the bottom of my heart you know that I would love so much to serve you in the ministry again, because I know that you equipped me with many gifts and I would be happy again to fill the greatest task that a man can be called to. I know that you forgave David and that you kept him as King and the shepherd of Israel in spite of all he did. I do not know what you want of me, but I trust you that you will show me down the road.” What would you say about him? Would he be qualified to be back to serve the Lord in that task?

Now the question is this. If one of these men (or all of them) had a very deep sincere heart toward God, as King David had (in spite of his double sin – adultery with Bathsheba and commanding the murder of her husband Uriah ), what would you say about these candidates? Would you disqualify them all forever just because gross sins crossed their paths? Let me tell you something dear friends. If a man like David were available today to pastor your church with the same sins to his credit, but with the same heart, I am not sure that you would make the right choice to reject him altogether just on the basis of one particular sin in his life. Listen to this carefully: A man should be judged or evaluated on the basis of a longer period of his life to see his real character. What he does with his sins and how he reacts is very important to God and should be to you too. But if you judge him on the basis of one sin (even a terrible one), you have not the fear of the Lord as Isa. 11.3 teaches us. Granted, the man described in this text is one who does not approve sin , but who is nevertheless able to look at all the elements of a situation before to pronounce a quick judgment. Furthermore, the man of this same passage fears God enough to see in the heart rather than to look only at what is seeable through human eyes. In fact, this text is a prophecy of our Lord Jesus. This restraint is a mark of the fear of the Lord.

I was thinking about this issue of the problem of evil. I’ve read a number of books on it. I’ve done a whole teaching on suffering, evil and the goodness of God. I wrote an article called Sophie’s Dilemma which we’ll have in our journal coming out in July called Clear Thinking . We had Doug Geivett on four weeks ago, who has written a whole book on the problem of evil and we talked about the ins and outs of the issue.

I was thinking more about this the other day. I often try to think through some of these issues to see if there is a shortcut to the solution that won’t undermine the argument, that won’t rip the guts out of it.

When we talked to Dr. Geivett, he spelled out the classical objection to the problem of evil, the most damaging objection, potentially, to Christianity. That objection is this: there is something inconsistent in what Christians believe about the nature of the world and the nature of God. In other words, the Christian belief is contradictory. As Dr. Geivett pointed out, having an argument that is contradictory is the worst thing that could happen to you, because it means your view is false. Period. So if it can be shown that the Christian view is contradictory then at least at that point the Christian world view is false.

Here’s how the objection is usually stated: If God were all good, as you say, He would want to deal with the problem of evil. And if God were all powerful, as you say, then He would be able to deal with the problem of evil. Obviously, evil exists, therefore He is either not all good or He is not all powerful, or maybe He is neither. In any case, the presence of evil in the world disproves the Christian view of God.

See how that argument works? It is called a defeater. This observation of an apparent contradiction defeats the Christian’s view of God.

Now of course if the argument is sound, then Christianity has been defeated. I think that is fair to say. I don’t think the argument is sound, though. And we’ve talked in different ways about how Augustine has argued and C.S. Lewis has argued and others have unfolded this particular argument and for some it might have been complex. Well, I’m going to give you a short cut, because what Doug Geivett said really stuck in my mind. In his response Dr. Geivett questioned both of the premises. His question was, "What makes you think that taking away evil in the world has anything to do with God’s strength?"

Here is how it can be played out. This will make it very clear. When this comes up again I’m going to tell this story.

Let’s pretend that you claim to be the strongest person in the world. More than that, you are the strongest person in the universe. You can pick up an entire building. You are so strong that you can pick up an entire city. You are so strong you can pick up an entire country. In fact, if you had a place to stand, you could lift the entire planet, even the solar system. You have so much strength, you can do anything that strength allows you to do. This is your boast to me.

"OK," I say, "let’s see if you can prove it."

"Just give me any test you want" you respond.

"This has nothing to do with strength, does it? Because no matter how strong I am, I could never make a square circle, because making a square circle has nothing to do with power. It is a self- contradictory concept, having square circles. They can’t be made by anybody regardless of how strong they are. This test is unrelated to the issue of power."

Now, how does this tie into our discussion of the problem of evil? Simply this. God certainly is strong enough to obliterate evil from the earth or to have prevented it in the first place. No question about that. But let me ask you a question. Is it a good thing that God created human beings as free moral creatures, capable of making moral choices? It strikes me that the answer to that is yes. Because God is good–which is one of the things in question here–God created free moral creatures.

But this changes everything, doesn’t it? What makes you think that strength has anything to do with God creating a world in which there are genuinely free moral creatures and no possibility of doing wrong?

You see, now we’re back to square circles. It’s just as ridiculous to ask God to create a world in which we have genuinely free creatures with no possibility to do wrong, as it is to ask Him to create a square circle. The task has nothing to do with His strength. It has to do with the nature of the problem. If you’re going to have morally free creatures–that is, human beings that can make moral choices for themselves–and if God is good, then He is going to create creatures that will be truly morally free. But that entails, of necessity, at least the possibility of evil in the world.

This has nothing to do with God’s power. It is unrelated to the issue of power just like making square circles is unrelated to the issue of power. It relates to the nature of the good universe that God created, a universe that was populated by beings that were morally free. Morally free creatures by necessity, by definition, have the possibility of going bad.

Now you know why this is not a good argument against the existence of God. It just doesn’t apply. One could even argue there’s a kind of category error here because in this particular case, according to Christianity, dealing with evil has nothing to do with strength. It has to do with the nature of the game itself.

What’s neat about the Christian point of view, is that God did the good thing by creating morally free creatures that went bad, yet still did the loving thing by cleaning up the mess man created in such a way that greater good results. Now that’s the result of a Master mind.

(taken from http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5264)

* Introduction

* Open

* Prominent

* Schisms

* Doctrinal Stand

* Outreaches

* Institutions

* Publications

Though the Brethren Assemblies — at least by the reckoning of some — in the places of origin are facing a decline of sorts, the situation is totally different in the Far East, including India. In fact the NT Pattern church in India is a vibrant one, having a large number of outreaches, with scores of new churches established every year, and this church history of Far East is incomplete without an account of the origin and growth of the Brethren Assemblies in India.

The Christian faith came to India in AD 50 when Saint Thomas the doubting disciples came here with the gospel. He received a warm welcome from Hindu kings and nobles and soon many professed faith in Christ, and an active community of Christians came into existence in India in the middle of the first century AD.

This community kept growing and soon there were churches all over the southern and western parts of India. This was an educated community of people, as opposed to the general illiteracy, and had business links with many countries. Many non Indian Christians also moved to India and merged into this mainstream, making it a culturally rich community.

In the first millennia the church in India kept faithful to biblical truths, but towards the close of it the Roman Catholic church treacherously (inducement, murder, politics, deception) took control of large segments of Non Catholic churches and established themselves firmly in the Indian soil. This admixture of error with truth led to more than one revival and several denominations oriented to the gospel came up, specially towards the second half of the second millennium. However, gradually ecclesiastical priesthood and religious rituals began sapping their strength and vigor. This coincided with the modern missionary movement in the west, and an increasing number of missionaries began coming to India. Gradually their work began replanting the seeds of gospel among Indians.

During this period the Lord raised many men from the decaying church in India who began studying and teaching the pure word of God, denying the spiritual efficacy of church rituals. This eventually led to a greater interest in studying the pure word of God, and many began to gather in homes to search the scriptures — particularly in the tiny south Indian state of Kerala. With the establishment of a printing press, Bible was easily available (though costly) in this language. These investigations eventually lead them to the discovery of the doctrines of justification by faith, the priesthood of all believers, and the baptism of believers as opposed to infant baptism practices in their own churches.

The discovery led to action, and soon four men who accepted Christ as savior were baptized. Convinced of the need for believers to commemorate the death of the Lord in a non ritualistic manner, they celebrated the first Lord’s Supper under a tree in 1887. This is reckoned by many to be technically the birth of the Brethren Assemblies in India. Just as the Lord raised a group of people for Himself in the West, He also raised a group unto Himself independently in the East.

Many churches were being established all over India by the efforts of foreign missionaries, and this helped create an atmosphere of great spiritual zeal and expectation in the older Indian churches. This atmosphere in turn helped this new movement to spread the gospel and gain a large number of believers. India being a extremely communal society, these conversions soon led to serious family and church problems.

In a communal society the community is the dictating agency as to how people live and conduct themselves, and the individual has no freedom of choice in most things related to spiritual life, marriage rituals, and even burial. The community in turn creates these strong stipulations through the family unit, where everyone is subject to the authority of the oldest male member of the family. If this member stipulates that everyone should go to a certain church, none dare disobey it lest he or she be punished or even be removed from the family. And once a person is removed from the family, he has no existence other than that of a vagabond in a communal society. Freedom of conscience, or freedom to choose according to personal desires is not existent in such societies, and such indeed was the society in Kerala (South India) when the Brethren movement began here.

Soon the young believers were warned by their churches and families to either renounce their newfound faith or face expulsion from the church, the family, and even the town — and in those days once thrown out of one’s house there was practically no dwelling place available in one’s town. Houses were not available on rent, and it was impossible to fine anyone in that communal society having the courage to employ or even help these social outcasts. However, all of them preferred to live on the streets with their newfound faith rather than living in their cozy homes but without God.

Many were thrown out, others were beaten and abused mercilessly, and still others were mocked in inhuman ways. They used to throw the excreta of pigs upon believers in places like Angamally. It is the same place where an evangelist (Lonappan Upadeshi) was stripped naked while he was publicly preaching the gospel, and where those opposed to this new faith exhumed the dead-body of a young girl and threw it in the courtyard of her father (Lonappan Upadeshi) for his "crime" of embracing Christ, compounding the pain of parents who had not yet recovered from the pain of the untimely death of their beloved daughter. Finally believers had to sleep over the grave for many days after burying the child again. Down south Koshy Mathunny was unable to find a place to bury his young wife who was only in her thirties, and had to take the bold and unheard of step of burying her in his own compound, just a few feet behind his residence. Incidentally, he had purchased this pieces of land from some generous Hindus who gave him shelter when he was thrown out of his house because of his newfound faith.

The Lord honored the faith of the new believers, and the people added to the church kept increasing by the day. Soon there were churches all over the state of Kerala, Tamil Nadu (Madras), and Andhra Pradesh. Meanwhile some foreign missionaries who had come to India care of non Brethren missions were also won over the New Testament truths, and they also started laboring with the people of God in India. V. Nagal, E. H. Noel and Handly Bird being some of them.

Many dedicated themselves to serve the Lord, and soon there was a large group of evangelists spreading the gospel throughout the southern parts of India. The late M. E. Cheriyan became one of the first Indians to resign from a full-time secular job to enter full-time Christian ministry. Though it met with some resistance from some foreign missionaries (and particularly their wives) who felt it a threat that qualified local people are entering full-time ministry, Mr. Cheriyan was not deterred. He became sort of a pioneer when he left his native place and moved to another state for cross-cultural evangelism. He was followed by other pioneering young men like T. A. Kurian (Saugor), K. M. Mathai (Bhopal), V. T. John (Chandigarh), T. E. Easow (Patna) and Philip Abraham (Gwalior). These men became models of the Missionary Wave among the brethren, that depended only upon Indian resources and logistical support for expanding the work indigenously throughout the country, and even beyond.

The second generation of the Brethren had their paths cut out by the first, so they were able to advance much beyond their predecessors. This then became the time for establishing assemblies, para church ministries, schools, orphanages, and hospitals. The third generation spread the flame throughout the country because they now had a strong army of people to support them. The fourth generation brought a lot of career-seekers from other denominations, mostly castaways from there and uncommitted to the assemblies, and created quite some problem due mainly to hoard the massive but untapped social and financial resources that suddenly became available to them in this group. These men also became the leading voices that challenged the values, biblical practices, fundamental doctrines, and the esteemed leaders that the Brethren Assemblies had held dear in the first seven to eight decades before this migration. Under the influence of the fourth-generation migrants to the Assemblies, groups of people even moved into cultistic directions, but the trend was arrested soon due to a remnant who sensed the danger and sounded the alarm.

The fifth generation of leaders and evangelists brought a new era in leadership, teaching, disciple-making, and planning. A large number of them were trained under non Brethren teachers, and therefore they were able to fill in the blind spots to which the leadership in the earlier generation was oblivious. What’s more, a large number of them were men of high caliber and high professional background. This resulted in many changes, two of which are notable. First, they successfully put a cap to the rivalry for resources that was seen in the earlier generation. Second, they began emphasizing quality along with quantity, resulting in a quantum leap in the overall quality of teaching from assembly-based pulpits. This also became the generation that began producing high quality theological and doctrinal books.

The sixth generation is yet to emerge at the time of this writing, and only time will tell what it will be like. However, most observers at present are quite optimistic about the immediate future.

Open Versus Closed: Since the Open/close divide is more of European origin, it does not have much relevance for the Indian Brethren Assemblies, who generally tend to be open in nature. However, in the last two decades of the twentieth century some brethren from England and other countries began visiting India to contact preexisting assemblies, and this had led to a situation similar to the Open/Close situation.

At present there are close to 2200 assemblies in India, almost all of which are Open Brethren in nature. Within them there is considerable variation in practices, some allowing non Brethren to participate in the Lord’s Supper if they are born again and baptized, with others totally forbid such participation. This variation has more of historical reasons than Biblical, and has not created much problem with either the insiders of the outsiders.

Towards nineteen eighties, however, several closed brethren from outside India came in contact with Indian evangelists, and persuaded them to align themselves the Closed Brethren. At the same time certain financially well endowed brethren from the United Kingdom also were able to carve out some of the preexisting assemblies to themselves, and make them "closed" to the rest of the assemblies in India. Over the space of two decades these two groups have been able to take away about 20 assemblies of the formerly Open Brethren to the Closed fold.

While the Open Assemblies do not find it difficult to accommodate the brethren from the Closed fold, the brethren in the Closed assemblies exhibit marked animosity towards those in the Open group. What is more, it is common for brethren in the Closed group to speak contemptuously against the well respected leaders in the Open group. The basic reason is the imposition of separation by brethren who tend to control the strings from outside, mainly through financial incentives, with the aim to carve territories that they can presumably claim as their own in front of their people (the donors) in the West. It would be readily noticed that due to these historical reason the Closed assemblies are a minority in India, and also that they differ much from the Closed assemblies in West. Any kind of reconciliation between these groups seems to be difficult as long as the domination of the brethren from the outside continues.

Prominent Leaders: The Brethren in India were Bibliophiles right from the beginning, and this brought many of them into much prominence. In addition many of them were capable and outspoken leaders, organizers, and visionaries. Thus the Brethren Assemblies in India have never lacked leaders of substance and prominence.

The first generation produced men like P. E. Mammen, Varky Upadeshi, Lonappan Upadeshi, and many others. Mahakavi K. V. Simon also became part of this generation when he was persuaded by many to join the Brethren instead of the Baptists. The second generation produced Stalwarts like E. P. Varghese, C. T. Mathai, K. G. Kurian, V. T. Mathai, M. E. Cheriyan, T. K. Samuel, Y. Ezekiel, Mammen Kurian, M. P. John, T. G. Samuel, Dr. Justus Samuel, etc. Men committed unconditionally to the scriptures, they became able propagators and defenders of the New Testament truths. The second generation served as a link between the first and the rest of the generations so far, and in addition to providing many other benefits this produced a continuity in thoughts and practices among the brethren. The third generation of leaders includes men like M. M. Skaria, Prof. P. P. Skaria, K. Daniel Williams, E. J. Paily, E. V. John, E. J. Mathew, Thomas A. Itty, K. A. Philip, K. Paul Thomas, M. A. Joy, Silas Nair, K. P. Samuel, etc. Many of them were involved in secular jobs, and devoted a considerable amount of time, energy and personal finances to support the ongoing growth of the Brethren Assemblies. There are numerous other notable figures belonging to each of the groups above, and they will eventually be featured in the "People" section of BrethrenAssembly.Com.

Since the fourth generation was populated with a lot of people who were career seekers, it is difficult to identify anyone who stood steadfast either in faith or commitment up to an advanced age in their lives. The fifth generation of prominent leaders now includes a large number of highly qualified and trained men who, because of their secular training on one hand and spiritual commitment on the other, have brought in much spiritual quality and professionalism in the assemblies. These include men like A. John George, John Kurian, Dr. Alexander Kurian, Joy John, Jos Mathew, Abraham Thomas (Kochi), James Varghese, Varghese John, Dr. K. C. Johnson, Dr. Oommen Philip, John P. Thomas, Dr. Johnson C. Philip, Shalu T. Ninan, Billy P. Jacob, etc.

The fifth generation also saw the rise of specialized ministries and also more organized outreaches. People like Abraham Thomas (Pullad) and Thomas Mathew (Tiruvala) introduced an nurtured specialized ministry in India. Men like Rajan Thomas, PC Abraham pioneered similar work outside India. It is also in their period that Indian men like P. Jospeh Raju initiated outside India what was unthinkable a generation ago. Roji Varghese (USA) pioneered the use of Web for information-dissemination for the assemblies, and he was later joined by many enterprising assembly webmasters. John Sebastian pioneered Internet for evangelism, and many others followed.

In summary, the Brethren Assemblies in India never lacked leaders, visionaries, or pioneers, qualified in spiritual and secular fields. The greater the need, the larger tended to be the number of leaders the Lord raised.

Schisms And Conflicts: Just as the Brethren Movement in Plymouth suffered one or more schisms, the Assemblies in India also have passed through more than one schism, though this did not lead to a split of the type that took place in Plymouth. The first schism took place over the issue of Native or Foreign control over the assemblies in India.

As the number of assemblies grew in India, many foreign missionaries realized that using financial and other influences they can easily control and manipulate the local leadership, resulting presumably in portraying these assemblies as the direct fruit of their labors in this alien land. Thus it became necessary for them to marginalize the more able Indian brethren. At the same time, many of these brethren were able to lay hands upon reports circulated by these missionaries where they tended to label Indian evangelists and church leaders as their "workers" dependent upon their paid rolls.

Thus a struggle for power arose between the foreign missionaries and the Syrian Indians. The Syrians are Indian Christians who trace their ancestry as far back to the arrival in India of Saint Thomas. Having administered the church for two millennia without foreign support or intervention, they felt aggrieved at the way the foreign missionaries were trying to wrest control into their hands and also the way they were sending reports to the countries of their origin. After much heartache the churches divided into missionary and Indian camps, but the mutual fellowship among them was not affected due mainly to the strong communal ties that bound the Indian believers.

The second schism took place in the nineteen sixties over funds that were collected from the USA by K. G. Thomas an able Indian brother. The reports circulated by him among the US donors eventually fell into the hands of many responsible brethren here, and they objected against the way wrong reports were being used for fund collection. Eventually it led to a public confrontation between the brethren who had already split into two groups, but with that the problem came to an amicable settlement and the two groups continued in good fellowship with each other.

The third schism took place in late seventies and early eighties over the prophetic issue of Pre versus Post tribulation. Some men like E. V. Varghese and M. A. Thomas initially attracted a number of followers to Post Tribulation view, but eventually Dr. M. A. Thomas left both the brethren as well as the conservative fold and moved into a cultistic thinking which was an amalgamation of Charismatic and Roman Catholic heresies. E. V. Varghese also lost much of his following. Thus what once had flared up as a subject of intense debate all over India among the Brethren eventually died a well deserved death. Even today a few die hard Post tribulationists continue to spread their teachings, but this is ignored by the majority. Most of the followers of Post Tribulation have now become silent.

The fourth schism took place in the late nineteen nineties over the issue of whether there is revelation outside the Bible. Several brothers, argued through their books to the effect that almost all religious in general, and Hinduism in particular, contain Holy Spirit inspired revelation. Having substantial following among the doctrinally uninitiated, and being men of great eloquence, they were able to create quite a formidable wave in favor of "Revelation Outside The Bible" and against the fundamental doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Meanwhile a non-brethren man by the name of Koshy Abraham built a whole Super Cult around a Hindu god by the name of Prajapati. When certain apologists from the Brethren assemblies attacked the doctrines of this Super Cult, some of the above-mentioned brothers fought against the Brethren people lending support to the Super Cult doctrines. Some of them propagated all kinds of vicious lies to justify their alliance with heresy. A split between the proponents of revelation-outside and Sola Scriptura seemed imminent, but eventually the confrontation died out when the majority of believers discovered the issues at stake. They realized that many brethren had been lying deliberately to protect their heresy over against the Scriptural truths. Thus the majority chose to adhere to the received principle of Bible Alone, and the controversy died out without a final split.

Marks of another schism are becoming prominent as this essay is being revised and posted on the net. It is over the Brethren/Baptist identity of certain incoming funds and the brethren-baptist identity of certain men who claim to be Brethren but who raise funds from non-Brethren sources and use it for ministry among the Brethren. A number of Indian brethren have been raising funds to the tune of millions from baptist churches in USA, reporting dutifully back to those baptist donors, and also organizing programs in India using baptist financial support. They have also been hosting baptist speakers in these programs among the Brethren. After giving the impression to the local population that these are assembly-related activities, they have been reporting to their Baptist supervisors the very same activities as baptist-supported ministries. In other words, these are baptist-workers who are soliciting and collecting baptist money from USA, and reporting back to them, representing assembly-ministries to them as baptist-church-ministries. These men maintain a double-identity so as to gain Baptist financial support and Brethren appreciation. Never have the assemblies been politically so contaminated in the last one century.

Some of theeir invitees, such as David Mills (an American Baptist Pastor), an American Baptist Youth Pastor, and an American Baptist Deacon, when they visited Ranni, Kattappana, and Gujarat, became a source of intense contention among the Brethren Assemblies, particularly in Ranni region. Though the Baptist identity of these men was kept a secret, many things became obvious to the observant people when these visiting speakers were identified as "Reverend" this or that. Many believers from Ranni collectively even issued a warning about spiritual compromise, ecumenism, and other things done by so-called Brethren who are secretly working for and under baptist support.

In previous generations those brethren who decided to work under baptist support (Dr. K. C. Thomas, Dr. M. A. Thomas, Dr. Kunjumon Chacko, Dr. Paul Pillai, C. V. George, C. V. John) were honest men, and demonstrated spiritual integrity, in that they moved out of the assemblies, rather than trying to keep a deceptive dual identity. But the present group of people among the Assemblies is dishonest and unethical in this matter. They wish to raise funds from baptists, work under baptist support, report back to baptist churches in USA, represent brethren ministries as baptist work, yet at the same time they wish to cling to Brethren pulpits and Brethren identity. A caucus – like structure can be seen emerging, which does not hesitate to slander and even threaten Brethren-assembly believers with dire consequences and court-cases if the questionable activities of these people are questioned. This is an IGM kind of situation, and it is not expected to last much. Brethren have always stood for purity of doctrine and separation of identity.

When the schisms among the Brethren in Europe is compared with that in India, it becomes obvious that in spite of much bitterness and heat, the Indian church has better been able to handle schismatic issues. While some bitterness always remains, even after things are mended, it has not affected the overall unity and fellowship of the Brethren in India. This is a highly commendable quality of the church in India.

Doctrinal Stand: The brethren in India have been theologically conservative right from the beginning. Thus they found it easy to assimilate the works produced by conservative and fundamentalist scholars in the West. However, having no widely agreed-upon statement of doctrine, and also the standard evangelical creeds not being available in Indian language, the average person finds it difficult to state the exact boundaries of his theological belief. This did create some difficulty from time to time when individuals (mostly from the previously mentioned career-seeking fourth generation) tried to pass erroneous doctrines as part of the "received" doctrines.

The first major confusion arose when Zac Poonen a man at that time having some Brethren affiliation tried to spread the Smithist doctrines related to the person of Christ. His attempts were soon repulsed by concerned brethren, and eventually he left the Brethren fold to form his own False Cult. Even today he continues to enjoy some links and some sympathizers among the Brethren, but his overall influence upon the movement is negligible.

The second major doctrinal confusion is the Charismatic Confusion, and the chief reason is the large number of intermarriages between Brethren and Pentecostal people, the majority of which took place under the influence of the fourth-generation leaders. The Lord has raised some men who are at present systematically suppressing this error, but it will take much more time to undo the harm that has already been done.

Other confusions arose from time to time about the time of rapture (whether it is Pre or Post Tribulation), doctrine of Trinity, whether there is revelation outside the Bible. Almost all of them were dealt with effectively by brethren burdened for the church, and none of them had an impact wide enough to worry people who love the church of God. At the same time it must be emphasized that the lull that came in teaching during the dominance of the fourth generation has created wide ranging spiritual illiteracy, and it will take quite some time for the present generation teachers to fill in this gap.

Outreaches: Evangelism and church planting has always been a hallmark of the Brethren assemblies in India. This is the reason why the number grew from 0 to 2200 in just one century — a growth probably unparalleled anywhere. Of this, the larger proportion of churches came into existence in the last 30 years when the foreign missionaries made an exit and the local leadership took the control and directing of the entire system into their hands.

Though there is a general resistance to the idea of para church organizations, the Brethren assemblies in India have given formed a large number of church-related movements that aid outreach and evangelism in one way or other. YMEF, or the Young Men’s Evangelistic Fellowship is a pioneer in this. Today YMEF units are found throughout India and also in those countries where Indian brethren gather. Then there are regional bodies like Gospel Penetration Campaign, Bastar Evangelistic Fellowship, or Orissa Brethren Movement where the focus is evangelism of a specific region. The number of such regional bodies is now in hundreds, and it is impossible even to catalog them.

Literature ministries, radio ministries, open air preaching, and house to house visitation are quite common. Overall the Brethren in India are a group actively committed to evangelism, and the spirit of sharing the gospel continues to thrive. This is one reason that makes this writer optimistic about future of the Brethren Assemblies in India.

Institutions: Though there is a resistance against para church agencies, there are a large number of para church agencies in India, some of which work closely with the church while others do not have even a remote connection. Most of the Institutions that have come up indigenously and which are financed through contributions from Indian Brethren continue to maintain close ties with the assemblies. On the other hand, those organizations that were initiated by non Indians, and that continue to get support from non Indian sources tend to shy away from active fellowship with local assemblies. Part of the reason could be their desire not to become accountable to the Indian believers.

Institutions in India include, among others, orphanages, hospitals, schools, camp centers, literature ministries, radio ministries, bible schools, old age homes, etc. The net total result of such ministries has been greatly enriching to the church in India.

Publications: Right from the beginning the Brethren in India recognized the importance of the print media, and began publishing periodicals. The high level of literacy in the state of Kerala, the place where this movement had its origin, also helped. There never was a shortage of writers or subscribers. These publications helped foster a unity among diversity, and conserved the doctrinal orthodoxy and purity of believers. False teachings and false cults were attacked in the strongest possible words, creating in believers a desire for separation from all doctrinal evil.

The major publications currently popular are Suvisheshadhwani, Atmaprakashini, Suvisheshakan, Vedanadom, Pravachana Pradeepika, Kunjumanas, (all in Malayalam language), Masihi Gavahi (Hindi), Insight India, Steward News, Brethren News (all in English). There are some minor publications and one-man outfits, brought out mainly by individuals, and at times some of them have been quite divisive and indulge even in yellow journalism. But being of limited influence, they have not been able to do much damage.

Right from the first generation, the Brethren in India have produced a large number of publications with great breadth as well as depth in the subjects handled. So much so that even people from denominations antagonistic to the Brethren readily buy and read these books because of the unimpeachable scholarship and insight of the Brethren. This state of affairs continues to be the same today, even a hundred years after the beginning of the movement. The earlier writers included K. V. Simon, E. V. Varghese, Y. Ezekiel, K. G. Kurian, M. E. Cheriyan, A. M. Samuel, etc. The most widely distributed current writers include K. V. John (Pathanapuram), K. V. George, Silas Nair, Shibu K. Paul, K. A. Philip, Saneesh Cheriyan, Dr. Johnson C. Philip, Dr. Alexander Kurian, Jijo Angamally, M. V. Thomas, E. K. George, Vinoji Samuel, etc.

A notable development is the contributions of the Calvin Research Group, and informal fellowship of Bible-students. Begun originally as a collaboration between Dr. Johnson C. Philip and some of his students, who had a general Calvinistic orientation in theology, now the group includes a large number of writers, young and old with qualifications ranging from multiple masters degrees to multiple doctorates both in theology as well as in supportive secular subjects. This group has already contributed a number of massive volumes such as Systematic Theology (800 pages), Christian Apologetics (650+450 pages), Bible Encyclopedia (4 volumes), and many others. All books have been produced indigenously, and are original contributions by Indians. The group aims to produced books on all main branches of theology, apologetics, and doctrine by AD 2010. So much ahead are the Brethren writers in the breadth and depth of their writings that their dominance in the field of theological books is expected to continue for decades.

Prognosis/Summary:The Brethren Assemblies in India are 100 years young, and all signs indicate that it is alive and active in spite of forces that are opposed to church growth. If the growth continues at this rate, then the present assembly strength would become double by 2025 and the present missionary strength would become three times as much. There will be growth in all areas of ministries. It would be many decades before the signs of death similar to what is seen in the west would set in, and that also only if some crucial changes take place in the outlook and overall composition of the assemblies. In all likelihood, Indian assemblies would become the focal point of evangelization of Far East by 2025, if the Lord tarries.

(This article is a copy from a webpage taken by Richard Gagnon – Senior Mentor and Chief-Editor for the Trinity Journal). The source is:

http://biblebeliever.co.za/Brethren%20Assemblys/Brethren%20Information/Brethren%20Movement%20in%20Indiar.htm#Prominent)