Questions and Answers, Part 4

Transcript

GRM 1193
07/29/2018
Questions and Answers, Part 4
Selected Verses
Gil Rugh

Okay, tonight, since I’m going to gone for awhile, I thought I’d take the evening and deal with some questions that you have submitted and then also, time permitting, we’ll open it up to any questions you might have. When I get back I hope to talk more about spiritual gifts so be sure you read the article in the newsletter. You may want to save those articles. They’re great and they do pertain to things we’ll be looking at, so they draw your attention to that and help you focus on it. I have a variety of questions in different areas that you have given. I’ll pick up with some things that are related to what I talked recently, hopefully it will be helpful.

I talked about John Piper’s book on Desiring God and the idea of a Christian Hedonism and mentioned some of the problems I have with that, so I got a question.

Would you classify Piper as an enemy and an apostate or a Christian brother who has error in certain areas? I don’t classify him as an apostate or an enemy in that sense, but I think we need to be careful that we are discerning, and I read you and let me just remind you of Piper’s own statements in evaluating someone else. This is an evaluation of the open theism and men like Gregory Boyd that I talked to you about and he makes some important points here, John Piper does in evaluating men like this.

“Evangelical denominations and educational institutions move away from orthodox Christian faith not in obvious giant steps but for lack of vigilance over incremental defections from biblical truth. “Each progressive deviation seems too small to justify a confrontation. It doesn’t seem worth the controversy or tension.” Now he’s pointing out the danger. It doesn’t seem that great a departure to call it heresy or apostasy, but it is that movement that will carry you further away. “If history tells us anything, it’s that theological drift occurs almost imperceptibly over long periods of time. One little change here, another there.” He also notes, he has a list of points, but I’m not bringing those out. “False teaching can come from a godly person whom God is using for other good purposes. Harmful teaching does not generally originate in people who are unqualified to teach and lead people to Christ . . .” and he refers and quotes from Acts chapter 20, verse 30, “Even from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, they will distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.” “Serious and damaging error generally starts in the teaching of an otherwise sound and helpful leader. “The story of churches and schools that have left their founding biblical vision points up the short sightedness of putting personality above truth. “Our plea in this book, which is a critique with others of the error of open theism, has been that Christians keep focused on the issue, not be distracted into matters of personality and so on.”

I think that is a fit warning. That’s what I would see with Piper, and my concern with him is this change seemingly—well you know, there’s an element of truth in it and he’s brought out, done some other good things in his writings you know, and then I have people say well you have to understand it the way Piper means it, and this is not what Piper is saying, he’s saying this, and why are we in this kind of issue where you don’t get clarity from the Scripture, and we have a new idea. He also warns about things that come on that seem new, that somehow the church never knew about. He calls his idea, Christian Hedonism, something fresh. Well that’s maybe a yellow light at best. We have something here the church hasn’t dealt with before, so while I wouldn’t say he’s an apostate or an enemy. From what I can tell, John Piper is a genuine believer who is committed to the gospel, but I think the distortion that he’s bringing in—part of it comes from improper hermeneutics. I shared with you; John Piper studied at Fuller Seminary under Charles Fuller’s son, who had abandoned the principles of literal hermeneutics, went to Europe, studied under Karl Barth, existentialism.

I’m troubled sometimes. Piper seems to like to refer to these existential theologians whether it’s Kierkegaard, Karl Barth, others like that. Existentialism brought experience in as the defining thing. The bible is not the final authoritative word. The bible is God’s authority to direct you, but it becomes God’s word when you enter into an experience, and I shared with you, the very common one of Karl Barth. I don’t think John Piper would hold this, but “it doesn’t matter whether Christ was raised from the dead. What matters is you have a ‘resurrection experience.’” This kind of experience oriented, and I think there’s too much of this in John Piper. These men go and study under these theologians, and then think they haven’t been influenced.

I mentioned George Elton Ladd on occasion. His biographer says he studied at Harvard under a liberal theologian. He didn’t understand how much he had been affected and infected, by that teaching and I get that sense sometimes with John Piper, that he’s not consistent in his literal hermeneutics so as I’ve mentioned he’s a non-cessationist. He believes the gifts continue today. He becomes more experiential in his emphasis. I’m disturbed with the lack of any serious exegetical works quoted in his work, this one and another one I have read and marked up. He doesn’t go to the books—you say well, they do serious exegetical work with the grammar, yet he says you know I have to demonstrate this expositionally.

Well our exposition ought to come out of our exegesis, and just quoting verses doesn’t establish a point, so no, I wouldn’t call him a—but I agree with him, the danger doesn’t come from those who are openly heretical. The danger comes from those who seem so much like us in so many ways but now they’ve got this twist, they bring in, and we try to say well, and people wonder, why are you criticizing Piper? There’s a lot of people who are worse, but you know the Mormons aren’t the greatest danger to us, the Hindu’s aren’t the greatest danger to us, we see the error. It’s the counterfeit or the distortion, the corruption that’s entering in. I think he has turned it, with his Christian Hedonism, to making experience foundational.

I read you some quotes, so happiness, satisfaction those kinds of things, I think, have turned the focus on the objective final authority of God’s Word to our experience. What he does is try it as well. This fits with Scripture but I picked up a couple of books this afternoon for studies I’m looking at for the future and they have a chapter—I just opened up one. I didn’t even know it would be there and there it is on existentialism and criticizing the kind of theology that brings that in, not particularly addressing Piper. I think we start with the mind, objective final truth. As I mentioned the existentialist like Piper refers to and I think was influenced by, your experience is the authority. Now I don’t know that he’d go that far yet, but he sets experience up as the goal. The pursuit of pleasure is not optional, it is essential is what I’m reading from the cover of his book. I just think that is not biblical. The Word of God is objective truth outside ourselves. Emotions play a place.

I have the follow up. Do we have a responsibility for the emotions we have or are they always spontaneously generated outside of our control? We control our emotions, by controlling our thinking, by disciplining our attitudes, and I connect our attitudes to our mind, not our emotions. Emotions will flow out, but we tell our kids, I want you to change your attitude. Well that means what? They are reflecting thinking and that will affect you. If your attitude about your relationship with your husband and wife is not what it ought to be, about your job or you think, nobody appreciates me. I don’t get the attention. I do all the work at my job and somebody else gets the credit. I don’t think they understand what I do, and I think this and that. Well pretty soon, my attitude has been affected, and then my actions are affected, and my emotions are affected.

You know part of the reason we have so many “emotional problems today” is what? We have made as a focal point, self, self-esteem. How do you feel? We want to know from our kids, how do you feel. I mentioned this I pulled out the article; this was from the Omaha World Herald on a very important date, March 25, 2018. It’s a very important date because that’s my birthday. “Depression is now a vital part of teen checkups and I referred to the article but its, you know, it’s how they feel. So how they determine and their starting—this is from the Omaha paper, and at Nebraska Medicine a screening reminder pops up, computerized record for all kids 12 and under. I’m talking about the groups using this and this involves a standard line item questionnaire that asks how often during the preceding two weeks a teen has been bothered by a series of problems indicative of depression, such as having little interest in doing things. Feeling badly about themselves, feeling as if they’ve let themselves or their family down.

See, it’s how you feel. Is there any teen that hasn’t expressed little interest in doing what he’s supposed to do? Well that’s probably, he’s depressed. No wonder they think so many are depressed. Has any a teenager grown up feeling--I don’t feel like going to school today? Well, you have to go. I don’t feel like doing my homework, then they don’t do it then they feel depressed, because they’re in trouble. Nobody loves me and I feel guilty. Well maybe you feel guilty because you are guilty. You didn’t do your homework. Now get over there and do it. What we do now as parents and parentally; oh honey, why do you feel depressed? Oh well, we don’t want you to feel depressed. Now we’re controlled by their feelings. Well you don’t feel like going to school, aren’t they treating you nice at school? Was the teacher mean to you? Everything comes on the feeling level and we as Christians begin to adjust to the world, allow ourselves to be conformed to the world instead of being transformed.

The world is depressed, and they should be depressed, they’re on their way to an eternal hell. They are under the judgment of God. You have good reason to be depressed, but for the grace of God, what we would be, so it starts in your mind. When I start having a bad attitude--we tell the kids, correct your attitude. Start doing the right things. What’s Philippians 4 say; we are to “set our mind on these things,” the things, “which are lovely and pure, and right and put them into practice.” Well I don’t feel--should I do this if I don’t feel like it. We’ve come as Christians to think if I don’t feel like it, it’s wrong to do it. I can’t find that in Scripture. I do what’s right because that’s what God would have me do. My children at home, you do what you’re supposed to do. I don’t feel like it. Well I’ll give you something to feel that’ll help you want to do it. I mean we just have removed that, now we don’t have any physical discipline for kids because you’ll harm their self-esteem, and pretty soon we’re caught up in something we can’t resolve, their feelings. Do the right thing and if you don’t do it, there are consequences. Period.

So, I think Piper has been swept along in this and the existential theology that seems so clearly unbiblical. In days when I was in school, I’m talking about studying for the ministry, somehow now has blended into Christians and feelings are shaping everything, and now we have theology that’s based on you feeling good, being happy, pursuing pleasure. But you understand, he doesn’t mean it this way and he even says, now this, something fresh like this can’t be understood, it takes a whole book. Well he’s critical of Gregory Boyd when Boyd says, “don’t consider me heretical, don’t consider me unbiblical; you have to work through this with me piece by piece.” Now Piper’s just luring you in. He’s made a whole industry of it, but I don’t find it to be biblical. I think you go from your mind, your thinking that affects your attitude, that affects your actions, that affects your emotions.

When you put the emotions out front, I’m not saying emotions don’t have a part in our life. I’m not saying doing actions without the right motive is pleasing to God, because God tells us through Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 4, God will “judge the motives of our heart.” That why he says, it’s a small thing that you would judge me, Paul says. My only concern is the judgment that will come to me from God who will judge the motives of men’s heart. That’s not the emotions. See we’ve begun to blend these things and the world has promoted them as though motivation is emotion. Really if you’re not motivated by your emotion, then it’s not good to do. I’m motivated by God says to do it. This is what is objective outside myself. Once you make it the emotion, we’re just floating.

Well folks, we’re not going to have a long sermon today, I didn’t feel like studying. I didn’t feel like it and people don’t come to church because they don’t feel like it. I just find it easier anymore to get up in the morning and read the paper and have a cup of coffee rather than get dressed and come to church. Well I don’t doubt that’s how they feel but we see what goes on in the world around us with the unbeliever when everybody does just what they feel like doing. It becomes hard for me, as the pastor of this church who teaches the Word of God, to deal with people. Some of them, not all of them don’t, but people, well I don’t know I just don’t feel the same about--well I can’t picture feelings, but I can tell you what God says, tell you what you ought to do. All right a little bit on that.

Let me change, if I’m not in enough trouble. A question here I got, “if we hold to a literal interpretation of the bible, why don’t the women in church wear head coverings?”

That’s a very good question. I look around here; does Marilyn have a hat on? No, we’ll skip that. Come to 1 Corinthians 11 quickly. First Corinthians 11, this is where it comes from and some of you are of a background, the Mennonite Communities, the old Mennonites you’ll see, they’ll wear hats, the ladies wherever, they wear some kind of head covering. In First Corinthians chapter 11, you have the order here; “I want you to understand Christ is the head of every man, the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.” If we get to it, I want to deal with a question that relates to this chapter as well. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. Every woman who has her head uncovered, while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, so it becomes, shouldn’t women have a head covering? Well first, note, the issue of the head covering is related to praying and prophesying so the only time a woman has to have a head covering is when she’s praying and prophesying.

Now other passages of Scripture talk about the men are to pray in every place, like 1 Timothy chapter 2, “I want the men to pray in every place, lifting up holy hands.” I want the women to do this in contrast to the men, regarding adornment and so on, so it wouldn’t be an issue here because when we’re together, the women don’t pray or prophesy. I think what he’s dealing with here though, probably the praying and the prophesying go together in light of the passages that say the men are to pray, and the women keep silent in the church when it comes to praying, teaching and so on. Women did have the gift of prophecy. It is not widespread. I made a list; there are four women prophetesses in the Old Testament. Miriam, perhaps the most familiar because she was the sister of Moses and Aaron, so if you want to read about her, described as a prophetess, I’ll just give you the chapter rather than the verses with these, Exodus 15. Miriam is called a prophetess.

Deborah, perhaps second most well-known because of her connection with Barak, and in leading the armies of Israel and prophesying there, that’s in Judges Chapters 4 and 5, Deborah was a prophetess. Hilda or Huldah, (Hul) in our bibles. My grandmother and my aunt were called Hilda. It wouldn’t be connected to this biblical name that’s in 2 Kings 22, and perhaps the least familiar of all is Noadiah, the prophetess in Nehemiah chapter 6, so there are four women prophetesses in the Old Testament. I say that, it would not, obviously, we’re most familiar with the men prophets and they were the ones who were used of God to write the Scripture, but these women were given revelation from God. In the New Testament, we have two. Well it’s more than two, but two identified. Anna in Luke chapter 2, remember she was a woman who, from the death of her husband, lived at temple, and then when Christ has come to be presented and she is identified as a prophetess. Anna, in Luke chapter 2, and then we have Phillip’s daughters and they’re just mentioned. Philip the evangelist who had four daughters who were prophetesses in Acts chapter 21.

Now I take it that with the gift of prophecy still in existence, and we’ll talk about the gifts at a future time and what gifts are present and what gifts are not and why, praying would go with that. Go back to Luke chapter 2 just for Anna. She would be in the line of Old Testament prophetesses because as you’re aware, the Gospels are still under the Old Testament economy, the Law that is in effect until the resurrection of Christ. In Luke chapter 2, verse 36 and there was “a prophetess, Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, and had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage and then as a widow to the age of eighty-four. She never left the temple, serving night and day with fasting and prayers.” I think the connecting of praying and prophesying would indicate a woman, who had the gift of prophecy, might pray and prophesy, in the meeting of the congregation. If she did, she had to have her head covered, because that was a function that in the normal flow of things would be carried out by men, who would do the praying as Paul said, “I want the men to pray in every place,” speaking before the congregation as well. If she was a prophetess, God could give a message to her, but with the passing of the gift of prophecy I take it the praying aspect of women in the congregation in light of the other passages, would not be going on.

All of that to say, why do women, if we take a literal interpretation of the bible, we would, if there was the gift of prophecy, but it is no longer present. We have to establish that, and in light of the passages where it says the women are not to pray, the men are to pray, I would understand it as we’re talking about if a woman has the gift prophecy, connecting with her gift of prophecy is praying, as Anna did. We have limited information on that since Anna’s the only one that we have any information of in the New Testament, even though it’s under an Old Testament economy with her, so I would put that there. Whatever the view, women don’t have to have their head covered just because they come to worship, but if they were audibly leading the congregation in prayer or by prophesying, they would have to have their head covered, and I would link the prayer to the prophesying, so it wouldn’t affect. Even without that, we don’t have women praying or prophesying in our public meetings, so they wouldn’t have to have their head covered anyway, even if you had a different view on the praying there. We’ll talk about the gifts at a later time.

Here’s a question, what does the bible say about women in leadership roles outside the church?

That is a question I think is important. Some that would agree with our position, now let me just say, my position, so I can address it that way, would have a different view than I would hold on this. Some say, well the instructions about women’s leadership only apply in the church, so outside the church it’s not an issue. Now it’s true the Scripture is only addressed to God’s people, that’s true of the Old Testament. The Scriptures of the Old Testament weren’t addressed to Assyria. There are prophesies about Assyria but their given to Israel as well. The closest you get is when Jonah goes to Nineveh, and there prophesies, but basically the prophecy of the Old Testament is addressed to God’s people. The New Testament is addressed to God’s people, the church, and the epistles are addressed to the church and so and so.

So yes, it is addressed to the church because God doesn’t say anything about messages of judgment about the unbelievers that are outside the realm of being His people. They are living a life of rebellion so it’s not unusual that what God says—now come to 1 Timothy 2, we use that just as an example. My understanding is—well let me get you to 1 Timothy 2 and just read it here and this is the contrast where verse eight he said, “I want the men in every place to pray. Likewise,” verse 9, “I want the women to adorn themselves” in this way so you see the contrast, I want the men, he uses the word for men, a male here and a female, a woman so the contrast. The men are to pray in every place and that doesn’t mean the women can’t pray and don’t have access to God but we’re talking about in a public setting. When I pray or one of the other men pray aloud, they are leading, and so we often say, maybe in your Sunday School class they might ask a man, would you lead us in prayer this morning, because when you pray audibly, you’re leading everybody else, in the prayer.

Any of us as believers have direct access to God’s throne of grace in our own private personal prayer, so then you come down, verse 11 “a woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.” I didn’t write that, God did, and receive instruction with entire submissiveness. We’d have a lot less turmoil in the church if that was taken seriously. We’ll move right on here. Verse 12 “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet,” and so they say well this is addressed to the church and church activity, but you’ll note the reason for it. Verse 13 “for it was Adam who was first created, then Eve.” His foundational reason for this is, this is God’s intention in the creation, so naturally God’s people should be carrying out what God intends. Now the world doesn’t care what God said but naturally the church should be, but the foundational reason for the order between male and female is, this is how God created them to be related. That’s not just in the church.

Come back to the Book of Leviticus, to Leviticus 12. Just an example. “When God gave the Law, and you’ll see He wants a distinction made. We’ve talked about this on other occasions, between a male and a female, from birth. The chapter opens up Leviticus 12, “the LORD spoke to Moses saying, ‘Speak to the sons of Israel, saying ‘When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days.’” Verse four the instructions, she is unclean for days then the circumcision of the male child then verse four, “She shall remain in the blood of her purification for thirty-three days;” ceremonially unclean, as far as being involved in the worship system there. “If she bears a female child, she shall be unclean for two weeks.” Now whatever there is in here it’s clear, God is making a distinction between the birth of a male and a birth of a female, and they are to recognize the distinction of this, at birth, and you know God is indicating He intended them from His creation to be different. I mean, well, you know as far as the physical carrying out, there might be as much blood involved in the birth of a girl as a boy as of a girl, so it’s not, well there’s more bloodshed or involved in a woman giving birth to a girl, that’s not necessarily so. He doesn’t give a reason, He just says for the bearing a female child, she shall be unclean for two weeks, and shall remain in the blood of her purification for sixty-six days so it’s twice as long she is unclean. Now whatever other reason you might bring in, God is what? He is saying clearly, from birth, you recognize the distinction between the male and the female, and it is beyond just the physical difference, because that would be obvious, but He wants it clear.

The other reason given is the facts of the fall, in 1 Timothy 2, why the woman, it’s not at creation, but also the facts of the fall, it was “not Adam who was deceived but Eve.” It is because some people say, well the only reason the woman is submissive to the man was because of the fall, but with the coming of Christ all of that was taken care of so now the woman doesn’t have to be submissive, so you get all this but it’s not just that. He goes back to the way God created a male and a female. He created them differently. He created man as male first out of the dust, then He created the woman out of the man. So, come over to 1 Corinthians 11, I mentioned this, we’d come back here. I want to read it first, verse 3, “I want you to understand, Christ is the head of every man, the man is the head of a woman, God is the head of Christ.” I take it that is established.

Now again we see those taking the Scripture and to fit more with where the world goes, we have those who claim to be evangelical bible believing Christians who begin to make adjustments. Some more major, some minor but they claim to be evangelicals, and some just disregard some of this. This is Paul’s background, but they still claim to be evangelicals. Some of that goes back to some of those to be found at Fuller Seminary, which I mentioned earlier. Christ is the head of every man that’s true, I mean He’s ultimately the authority. Now the world is in rebellion, against God but we recognize that, we recognize that as men we are under the authority of Christ, we’re not independent authorities.

Now it’s true God rules over all in His positon as God but it’s not recognized so obviously, we’re talking about believers. “The man is the head of a woman. God is the head of Christ,” so you have the Father, the Son, the man the woman. Well that’s a put down of the woman, no just God’s plan. That’s why if you don’t have the objective authority of Scripture and its stand as the authority outside of ourselves, it doesn’t matter how we feel about this. This is the way it is and to the extent we don’t submit ourselves to the Scripture, we as God’s people are in rebellion against God. I mean if I say I’m not going to submit to Christ, period. I know what He says in this area but it’s not what I feel like doing. They say, well how can you call yourself a Christian and not do that. If a woman doesn’t submit to her husband, in a biblical way, how could she say she’s submissive to Christ? She’s not! The world doesn’t want to hear that, the world is in an uproar about that but it’s an uproar about everything biblical.

I have someone coming to town who made a statement about the biblical position of homosexuality and they don’t think he ought to be able to work here in town, and some of you read that in the newspaper. What’s he supposed to do then, deny the Scripture. The world doesn’t just want you to tolerate sin, you must accept it and support it. We want to be careful, the bible’s our authority so this is what God created and a woman who doesn’t recognize it—now the man has to recognize he’s accountable to Christ. I’m not the final authority! God’s Word is, and since Christ is the authority over me, I come to His Word and realize, I am to love my wife and how am I to treat her, like Christ. All of that, true, but by the same token the woman then submits to her husband. It’s a problem, leadership is a problem. It is a frustrating problem.

It’s a burden, leading the church. People are always finding a reason why they don’t have to follow the leadership God’s appointed. They’ve come up with their own ideas and so I’m just leaving. Well, what about what God established. Well I don’t like it, I don’t agree with it. Show me doctrinally where we’re not being biblical. Well, I just don’t feel like it’s the thing we ought to do. Well I don’t care what you think. You ought to care what I think, what does the Scripture say, so I think this principle and this truth established, is established. Now I realize, how does that all get worked out? I think we have created problems by going outside the biblical order that God has established.

We bear the results of it in our society. God appointed kings for Israel. We have one exception, Athaliah, but nobody recognizes Athaliah is in any way having a relationship with the living God, but God appoints kings for Israel. God appoints men as priests in Israel. Before the kings, God appointed Moses and then He appointed Joshua. God appoints male leadership. That’s His order that reflects the order of the Creator.

Why do you believe at your church that women should be submissive to men? Now I realize wives are submissive to their own husband. I don’t have authority over every woman in every area but in the structure of society God has set that up. Remember the rule, those in Romans who are in authority are appointed by God whatever area of leadership. That’s God’s appointed, that’s why we submit to the President, that’s why it’s a disgrace and a manifestation of lawlessness, whether it’s President Reagan or President Clinton or President Obama or President Trump. We recognize him, we respect him. We give honor to him. Why? Because God placed him in that position, not because we agree with everything he does. Just like Jeremiah had a battle with the children of Israel, you’d better submit to the Babylonian authority, or you’re going to suffer more greatly for it. God raises up the leaders.

We have a leadership crisis and it comes into the church, people just decide the leaders do something we don’t like, you just don’t do it. My husband does what I don’t think he ought to do. Now if he’s a godly husband you want to be sensitive to his wife. You know, I want to talk things over with my wife. I want to provide godly leadership and care for her, read the love chapter of concentrating on that person, but my understanding is this is God’s plan for leadership authority, just like political leaders. God’s leadership structure is set so I don’t think it is God’s plan for the women to be the leaders of the men down through society.

Now I look at the structure of Israel down to the clans and the families and the individual families, and it’s structured down and it’s male leadership. I don’t know what else to say, it’s contrary to the world but it’s where we are. The bible’s our authority. We don’t say, well that’s a different culture, a different day. Yes, but we have the eternally true Word of God.

All right, maybe I ought to answer this next question. Where in the bible do we get the idea of churches having one pastor, and what does the bible say about churches being led by a team of elders without having one pastor?

The structure of leadership—if you want to get into, compare the different styles of leadership, you can pick up a book down at Sound Words. I don’t know that I like the title; it’s titled Who Runs the Church, but it gives you four different perspectives and there’s one of these where one who holds to this view, writes his view and then the other three critique his view, so it’s a good way of becoming--Episcopalian style government, a government of bishops. Presbyterian, government of elders with a hierarchy in the structure of elders, not just, like we are. A single pastor rule like you have in most Baptist churches. When I was in a Baptist Church you have one elder, the pastor and then you have a board of deacons under the pastor, so in that book, Paige Patterson who’s been here, a Southern Baptist, writes defending the one pastor-elder in a church. Then there is a man who writes with a group of elders.

We function with a group of elders. I understand and we’ve been through this, pastor, elder, overseer, sometimes translated bishop are all the same, referring to the same individuals. A passage like Acts chapter 20, Paul calls for the elders of the church, at Ephesus. There’s a plurality, each time we see elders of a church it is a plurality of elders. The first reference to that for a church we have is in Acts chapter 14. Paul on his missionary journey, goes, preaches the gospel, people are saved then he returns, revisits those churches as he retraces his steps and appoints elders, plural in every church. So Acts chapter 20 he calls for the elders, plural of the church at Ephesus and he tells them to shepherd, pastor, the flock where God has made them “overseers,” bishops, so it’s the same group that we sometimes give different titles, but we have a plurality of elders governing this church, or a plurality of pastors.

Early in my ministry here, I talked to the men who were comprising the leadership board at the time. He says we need to view ourselves as a group of pastors, sharing the ministry. I wasn’t hired to do all the ministry. There are other men that share the oversight of the ministry, so there’s a plurality of leadership. The structure within the Board, there is an equality; tell you how we are at Indian Hills, every elder is equal, in the sense of every elder has one vote, and so in that sense there’s no one superior to the other. In that sense I may be less superior because I do not have a vote, unless there is a tie, so I’m an official member of the Board but I do not vote in the decisions of the Board. We want to be sure it’s not a one-man show and any elder is in a position to stop an action.

We have provision in our constitution, the decisions of the majority of the Board of Elders are the decision of the elders, and we’ve been through this. You have to have a way to deal with a conflict that may come up if you require constitutionally unanimity on every decision, if you have an elder that gets off track, and your constitution is your legal document that you have to function with, well you would be paralyzed. We did get into that many years ago, which caused us to make an adjustment then, when we worked through that in our constitution, because you have to be able to deal with a crisis, so you have the provision constitutionally.

The majority of the elders can act on behalf of the board and their decision is legally binding, so if I got off track with two other elders, the other elders could vote and overrule us and remove us for example. If you require legally unanimity, because some have asked, well why don’t you have it in your constitution, things have to be unanimous? For that reason, you have to be prepared for the worst situation and the normal decisions made, if someone says I’m uncomfortable with this right now, we table it.

Sometimes you’ll have an elder who seems unsure and he’s asked would you be uncomfortable, moving forward? He says oh no, I wouldn’t be uncomfortable moving forward with it, because obviously in every decision, if you’re going to say, well I feel more strongly about tha, less strongly about this, but an elder, he’s in the position to say, no I wouldn’t be comfortable in moving forward. When somebody says that, we don’t even do a vote. We just said we’ll table it, so we want to know, since I chair the meetings, I ask, you want to be sure we’re in agreement here. Anybody not comfortable with this position. Anybody like more time, those kind of things, so there is an equality in the board.

Now it doesn’t mean we all do the same things. Why do we have one person like myself, get the prominence? The Plymouth Brethren Churches, some of those at least, have a group of elders and they share all the ministry including the preaching, so you might have a different elder preaching on different weeks. I would say, well that’s fine, if that’s the way you want to do it. I don’t think it has to be done; the elders can decide how they’re structured internally. Come over to 1 Timothy 5, you know God’s established order and organization. Think about it, He created man as male and female. There are only two people, on the face of the earth, and one of them is in charge, because He created the man first, then the woman. There’s not even any sin present, but just like there’s order within the Godhead, God created order in the humanity that is created in His image, so there is order. Why would you need Adam to be the leader, there are only two, there’s no sin but according to the creation order that was God’s intention from the beginning, so I don’t think it’s unusual that when you have a group together, there will be leadership within the group.

In 1 Timothy chapter 5 verse 17 the elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching, so within the elders there will be recognition of different gifts. There is greater recognition given to those who may be stronger in the preaching and teaching so that would be one thing that I was called to do, and they can be supported, worthy of double honor. All the elders could be paid, they give time, they don’t have to, but they are worthy of pay regardless. We do pay what we call staff pastors or elders, some of the staff are not yet elders, some of them are. It depends, there’s time for development and growth. They may be called pastors because the duties they’re doing, but really, there’s no difference. Elders are pastors, pastors are elders but in the formal recognition, within our body, younger men who come in, don’t come in with the full recognition of an elder, even though they may be called pastor. It may be a confusion that doesn’t help things, but the board recognizes that difference, they are not a pastor in the full-fledged sense of that word, and with that same authority and position. That comes with the passing of time.

Okay, that’s a little bit why we do--the way we are. Most, even the Plymouth Brethren churches, some of you read Alexander Strauch writings, and he’s been here, he’s a Plymouth Brethren background, so some of his writings on elders, downplays having any elder who has greater recognition than other elders, but as the church that he’s part of has becomes larger, I think it’s become more clear. Name me another elder at that church. Well we know Alex Strauch and it just naturally there is a recognition of the different gifts.

If a baby dies, does it go to heaven? Where does the Scripture support this?

Quite frankly, the Scripture does not directly address it. Now some people go to the situation with David and his relationship with Bathsheba, which produced a child, but that baby dies, and David says, “well he will not come to me, I will go to him” so that’s when they ask him. “Why were you,” you know “grieving while that baby was living and now, the baby dies and you get a shower and want dinner, and are done grieving.” It’s usually the opposite of what we think. You know you grieve when a person dies and that’s when “David says, ‘I won’t go to him, he’ll come to me.’” Some take that to mean, we’ll see that’s an indication the baby is in God’s presence because we know David would go to God’s presence since he was a saved man. I don’t think that that can be a strong evidence. Likely David is just saying I can’t bring the baby back to life. I’m going to die, but he’s not coming back to life, so I don’t accomplish anything by continuing to grieve. I can’t bring him back, and the fact is he’s not coming back to life, I’m going to join him in death, so if somebody takes it the other way that’s fine, but I don’t see that as a convincing proof of life after death.

The fact is the Old Testament doesn’t talk a lot about that, because God’s promising to Israel the land. What they are called to do is have their faith in the God that they are to serve, and honor Him and obey Him, so they can possess the land and live in the land. It is by persistent rebellion that they’ll come under judgment, and be removed from the land. I’m not saying there are not indications in the Old Testament of life after death, but it’s not a developed concept, its part of progressive revelation and when you come to the New Testament there becomes a fuller development. For babies, I think there is some indication and number one and for example in Ezekiel 18, God says, He will not hold the child responsible for the sin of the parent, or the parent responsible for sin of the child. Well if the baby is going to die and go to hell--they’ve committed no sin. They’re dying for the sin that they inherited from their parent so that would seem to me to be contrary to what God has said.

In line with that, all the judgments of Scripture are based on works. We’re going to talk about this when we deal with the judgments, the various judgments of Scripture when I get back and we move on in Revelation. They’re all based on works. No one is going to be saved by their works, but the judgment that evaluates them and ultimately settles their eternal destiny includes their works, so even we as believers will stand before the Bema Seat and be judged for what we have done, good or bad. First Corinthians 3 talks about the loss that can be incurred at that judgment, even though we’ll be saved, so all the judgments of Scripture, are based on works.

At the great white throne, which is the ultimate sentencing of people to hell, the book of their works is opened, for a baby it’s not there. They have done nothing. When Christ uses little children as an example, He calls the little child and says the kingdom of heaven is like this. He doesn’t use them as a hopeless sinner on their way to hell. There is a recognition, if you will, of the innocence there that even though they were sinners from conception David says, “in sin did my mother conceive me,” not that the conceiving was sin, but with conception passed on the sin nature from Adam, but the baby will not be sentenced to hell just on that basis.

I’ll talk a little bit more about this when we get to the judgments because it’s important to sort this out. That doesn’t mean people who haven’t heard the gospel are not lost, because remember Romans 1 says everybody’s been exposed to the revelation of creation, and rejected that, so they demonstrate their rejection of God, rejecting the amount of light He has given to them. And greater light will give greater responsibility, which will bring greater accountability, which will bring greater condemnation for rejecting light. All that to say it doesn’t seem babies fit into this, so I think it’s consistent with Scripture and I leave it with the Lord there that they would be covered, under the death of Christ. His provision takes care of that Adamic sin they inherited and everybody recognizes a baby, a two week old baby is not held accountable, for any actions, so I’m not saying they’re not sinful. I’d say the death of Christ covers that so another way to say it is, only elect babies die. That’s a comfort to a parent who’s a believer, and that would account for how there will be people in heaven from every tribe, every nation every language, because babies who die there are an act of God’s grace. That’s how I would look at it, but I acknowledge there’s not a final statement regarding babies, but it seems what the bible does say—there’s not inclusion for babies in any of the judgments or the sentencing. What is said seems to make it impossible for babies to be held accountable, as God said they must be held accountable, because God won’t hold them accountable for the sin of the parent. That would be true if you have a stillborn baby, a baby who dies in the womb. Well, in sin they were conceived so they had sin passed from Adam, you want to say they’re going to hell. I think that doesn’t fit with what the bible does say, but I can see the death of Christ being a provision for those—that would also include those then because of mental ability that never develop the mental ability to comprehend and understand. It could be included under that as well.

Okay, I have some other questions but let me just stop here since time is moving along. Maybe you came with a question you’d like to have me address and give you a chance for that. If not, I’ll add another question or two from the list I have.

Let me address tithing. I know tithing was commanded in the Old Testament. Is it commanded for us today as well?

Now I just grabbed a book off the shelf and thought I’d read you a little bit. People don’t understand tithing under the Mosaic Law. Now again, Abraham tithed some of his giving, but none of those things were required and understand what was included in the Law, when we talk about tithing because people will think, well under the Mosaic Law you had to give a tenth and is that a basis. I don’t think it’s a basis because nowhere in the New Testament, the church or epistles are we required to tithe.

Second Corinthians chapters 8 and 9 are the fullest expression, of the principles and guidelines for giving, and I have a little booklet on “God’s Plan for Giving” you can work through those various provisions, but something about Old Testament tithing we ought to understand. This is from Allen Ross, a good book; I appreciate Allen Ross’ writings. He was a professor at Dallas, now he’s a member of an Episcopalian church but an expert in the Old Testament, written three volumes on the Psalms, which are outstanding, a commentary on Leviticus, which is so good. This is a book on worship, working through the bible on the principle worship, Calling: Recalling the Hope of Glory but here’s what he reads about tithing and sacrificial giving. “On the surface tithing sounds like a very simple calculation. Ten percent but the laws for Israel’s stewardship were more complex . . .” and he goes on. He gives all the passages where tithes and offerings were instructed in Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and Nehemiah but then he goes on to talk about, “the standard ten percent was paid to the Levites covering all forms of income,” so for the Levites you have ten percent, of all your income, but there was also a second tithe. A budgeted 10 percent to be spent in Jerusalem at the three annual festivals. Then in the third and sixth years of the seven-year cycle a third tithe, properly known, as the poor tax was due, plus a faithful Israelite family could pay anywhere between 22 percent and 30 percent in a given year, so you understand.

People say, well but 10 percent that was the tithe in Israel, but you have to study what there was. There was more than one tithe, 10 percent required, and above and beyond the yearly tithes, there were other financial obligations. Fields were not to be planted in the seventh year that meant over a seven-year cycle people would relinquish up to one-seventh of their income. Then the Year of Jubilee was every fiftieth year. There was little or no income so people had to prepare for the loss of that amount. Remember that, they weren’t to plant their fields, and to harvest and so on and then the jubilee year all the debts had to be cancelled. Possessions returned, lands restored, so you see people had to be planning because you know, this is going to revert back to the original owner, because you couldn’t permanently transfer your land from one tribe to another and so on; you remember. Then to all this we must add all the animal sacrifices. “Three times a year the Israelites were to go to the sanctuary. Each time they were to bring a few animals and some foods per family. Then if there were sins, they had to bring reprobation offerings and then if anything, they had done wrong, they had to pay a 20 percent penalty to the sanctuary. Farmers were to leave the corners of their fields for the poor. Charitable gifts were expected, from the devout and finally people also made vows and free will offerings, a promise to give something to the Lord that was above, and beyond what was required,” so you know this is just an example. Sometimes people say well under the Law it was 10 percent, maybe we ought to do it. I’d like to recommend it. Thirty percent is a good starting point, but you remember, these gifts and all this also went not only to support the religious part, but you had all the other aspects, because Israel is a nation. They had other things going on socially, politically and so on, but as he noted, just supporting the religious aspect was major, because there you know, the whole tribe of Levi was supported by the rest, so that’s one twelfth of the nation right there. Just in that, but so he says in summary, “This is why it’s not easy to transfer the rules of the tithes and offerings over to the church. A simple 10 percent is a small part of what the Israelites paid.”

If people try to live under the Law today they cannot ignore all these covenant obligations, so some people they, you know, think we take parts of the Law, and, you know, the Law required 10 percent and we should not do anything less than 10 percent, but the Law didn’t require just 10 percent. It required 10 percent of this, and 10 percent here and 10 percent there, and then on top of that these repeated animal sacrifices and remember animals were wealth. Now herds and flocks and now you know you’re taking out of what I have and then all these others.

Part of the problem is that people try to break out the Law and parts of the Law, and what part of the Law applies and what doesn’t. That’s why James says it’s a unit, and even some dispensationalists want to break out the moral part of the Law. Well, is giving part of the moral part of the Law? The ceremonial part of the Law is part of the worship. I mean, is it part of the civil law? Now we’re going to try to break these things out and say our giving here, this was in the moral part of the Law, but this would have been more directed to—you just can’t do it. I appreciate that Ross is clear on that. I don’t think tithing is applicable to us today, but he does say what you do learn from the giving required in the Old Testament. God requires and expects, because on top of all this we have freewill offerings that could not be included in the tithes, because then they wouldn’t be free will. He makes that point so what He says we are to be generous in what we give to the Lord, so it’s a principal. Second Corinthians, it is a personal decision but that doesn’t mean the Lord should be happy with whatever I decide to do. I want to evaluate my own giving and say, “am I being generous?” Even though I’m not under the Law, I do see there, God wanted His people to be generous and He tells them, “not because I need anything, because I own everything.” We don’t give to God because He has need but we give because we honor Him.

Okay, I didn’t answer all of your questions but some will carry over so we have a starting point for when I get back and then I have some subjects I want to address more fully then.

Let’s pray together. Thank You Lord for Your word. Thank You that we have an authoritative word from You to guide us, to instruct us, to lead us, but Lord a word is not optional. You have spoken so that we might know Your will, so that we might submit to Your will that we might honor You with our obedience. Lord pray that will be true of us as a church that we will apply ourselves with diligence to Your word, because it is Your word. How awesome, how amazing that we have in our very possession, each one of us, the completion of Your word for us. Lord, we would read it, we would study it, we would absorb it, we would meditate upon it, we would live in submission to it. Pray You’ll bless us as we serve You in so many various ways in the week before us. We pray in Christ’s name. Amen.






.