QC and SG accountability 21/7/17
We addressed three main QC topics today! The latter 2 were quite complicated. I thought in all the topics today it was difficult to find neat proof texts in Scripture.
As promised, we discussed the issue of Wesley Methodist Church engaging armed guards in response to the threat of terrorist attacks. This was raised by Mark in his sermon last week, as well as by Pastor Daniel at the LCEC earlier this month. It was said that while we trust God to protect us, we wear seat belts and lock our doors at night. In other words, knowing that God protects us is not in consistent with our responsibility to take care of ourselves.
Eugene raised a good point about the Jews of Nehemiah's time working on the wall with armed protection (Neh 4:12-18). My response was that this was in response to a threat to a geopolitical entity. The church is not called to go to war in the way that the Israelites of the OT were called to go to war.So this passage is difficult to apply to our situation. I do not see in the NT any indication that Christians are asked to physically protect ourselves against violence. In this we take the example of our Lord, who refused armed protectors on the night He was betrayed (Jn 18:10-11). We are asked to accept suffering and persecution with a joyful heart (Heb 10:34, 1 Pe 2:20), knowing that in these adverse circumstances we are following His example.
I do not regard engaging armed guards as equivalent to the passive protection of a seat belt or of a locked door. The presence of a gun indicates the presences of life-threatening violence. We are perhaps giving the message "I will kill you before you kill me", and I do not believe this is a particularly godly way to deter violence. I would recognize that the the answers here are not clear-cut, but even if one day FFMC is asked to engage armed guards we will do so after prayerful consideration, out of faith and not out of fear, and not out of a knee-jerk response to solve a worldly threat in a worldly way.
We then discussed the canon of Scripture (the 'rule', or 'measuring staff'). Canonical books are those recognized by the church as those containing the authentic Word of God. Canonicity therefore connotes authority. I said that Piper's book "A Peculiar Glory" gives an excellent treatment of this topic (download for free at https://document.desiringgod.org/peculiar-glory-en.pdf?1459274602). In summary, we said that the canonical books of the OT were well-established by the Jews at the time of Jesus, that He quoted from them, alluded to their completeness (Lk 11:49-51) and referred to their structure (Lk 24:44). The Apocryphal books recognized by the Roman Catholic Church as canonical were not in the Bible Jesus used. They contain teachings contrary to Scripture and in themselves do not claim prophetic authority. Their formal inclusion into the RC canonical books was only formalized at the Council of Trent, the RC Church's major response to the Reformation. I also mentioned that the church recognized over time the books that spoke with the authentic voice of God. In this regard, the canon is not chosen by the Church (as the RCs see it), the canonical books speak for themselves, and the Church simply recognizes them as Scripture.
I noted that it is possible to refute that Christians use circular reasoning in justifying their regard for Scripture. This goes: "The Bible is the Word of God" "The Bible is therefore infallible" "The Bible says it is the Word of God". There are several counter-arguments available to the Christian apologist. We can say that when the Bible claims divine inspiration and authority it is at least being internally self-consistent.; We point also to the fact that the NT documents at least can be regarded even by secular historians as being basically reliable, and that Jesus Christ existed. In starting from the historical person of Jesus we know that He had a very high view of Scripture (e.g. Matt 5:18) as God's inspired Word. It is the historicity of Jesus and the documents that refutes the accusation of circular argumentation.God does not leave us no room for doubt, but neither is our faith meant to be based on thin air. We do not honour God by a leap into the dark, Our faith must be rationally founded on logic and truth.
I mentioned in a parenthesis here that God does not give us incontrovertible proof of His existence. When He did this with the daily miracles of the Exodus, His people still turned away from Him. Instead, He gives us evidence in nature and history such that those with eyes to see will see His hand, whereas others will only see randomness or human working.
Finally,we addressed the issue the possible inconsistency of Christian voters desiring to make society in a Christian mold, whereas Christian politicians making policy might have to make decisions based on the needs of the entire nation, not only on personal beliefs. If I read most of our comments rightly, we said that there is no conflict here. Each follower of Christ at all times and in all ways should act in a way that reflects his or her role as salt and light to a corrupt and dark world (Matt 5:13-16). I think it is significant that the latter passage speaks of our light shining before 'others' - those who do not know God. The laws provided by government are there to restrain evil. My thinking is that the best laws - those that are most beneficial to mankind in general - are those most consistent with the revealed will of God in His word. Hence laws that prohibit homosexuality and immorality are to be encouraged, even though we recognize that they do not have transforming power to enable behavioural change. Good laws are part of the common grace (= the sovereign grace of God bestowed upon all of mankind) clearly taught in scripture (Ps 145:9, Lk 6:35, Acts 14:17), because good laws benefit all of society. I mentioned that John Piper was criticized in refusing to vote for either candidate in the most recent USA presidential election, but there his reluctance was based on the moral deficiencies in both candidates. On the other hand, if given a choice between voting for abolition or for retention of a law that reflects the revealed will of God, we should not hesitate to express our preference for the latter.
As promised, we discussed the issue of Wesley Methodist Church engaging armed guards in response to the threat of terrorist attacks. This was raised by Mark in his sermon last week, as well as by Pastor Daniel at the LCEC earlier this month. It was said that while we trust God to protect us, we wear seat belts and lock our doors at night. In other words, knowing that God protects us is not in consistent with our responsibility to take care of ourselves.
Eugene raised a good point about the Jews of Nehemiah's time working on the wall with armed protection (Neh 4:12-18). My response was that this was in response to a threat to a geopolitical entity. The church is not called to go to war in the way that the Israelites of the OT were called to go to war.So this passage is difficult to apply to our situation. I do not see in the NT any indication that Christians are asked to physically protect ourselves against violence. In this we take the example of our Lord, who refused armed protectors on the night He was betrayed (Jn 18:10-11). We are asked to accept suffering and persecution with a joyful heart (Heb 10:34, 1 Pe 2:20), knowing that in these adverse circumstances we are following His example.
I do not regard engaging armed guards as equivalent to the passive protection of a seat belt or of a locked door. The presence of a gun indicates the presences of life-threatening violence. We are perhaps giving the message "I will kill you before you kill me", and I do not believe this is a particularly godly way to deter violence. I would recognize that the the answers here are not clear-cut, but even if one day FFMC is asked to engage armed guards we will do so after prayerful consideration, out of faith and not out of fear, and not out of a knee-jerk response to solve a worldly threat in a worldly way.
We then discussed the canon of Scripture (the 'rule', or 'measuring staff'). Canonical books are those recognized by the church as those containing the authentic Word of God. Canonicity therefore connotes authority. I said that Piper's book "A Peculiar Glory" gives an excellent treatment of this topic (download for free at https://document.desiringgod.org/peculiar-glory-en.pdf?1459274602). In summary, we said that the canonical books of the OT were well-established by the Jews at the time of Jesus, that He quoted from them, alluded to their completeness (Lk 11:49-51) and referred to their structure (Lk 24:44). The Apocryphal books recognized by the Roman Catholic Church as canonical were not in the Bible Jesus used. They contain teachings contrary to Scripture and in themselves do not claim prophetic authority. Their formal inclusion into the RC canonical books was only formalized at the Council of Trent, the RC Church's major response to the Reformation. I also mentioned that the church recognized over time the books that spoke with the authentic voice of God. In this regard, the canon is not chosen by the Church (as the RCs see it), the canonical books speak for themselves, and the Church simply recognizes them as Scripture.
I noted that it is possible to refute that Christians use circular reasoning in justifying their regard for Scripture. This goes: "The Bible is the Word of God" "The Bible is therefore infallible" "The Bible says it is the Word of God". There are several counter-arguments available to the Christian apologist. We can say that when the Bible claims divine inspiration and authority it is at least being internally self-consistent.; We point also to the fact that the NT documents at least can be regarded even by secular historians as being basically reliable, and that Jesus Christ existed. In starting from the historical person of Jesus we know that He had a very high view of Scripture (e.g. Matt 5:18) as God's inspired Word. It is the historicity of Jesus and the documents that refutes the accusation of circular argumentation.God does not leave us no room for doubt, but neither is our faith meant to be based on thin air. We do not honour God by a leap into the dark, Our faith must be rationally founded on logic and truth.
I mentioned in a parenthesis here that God does not give us incontrovertible proof of His existence. When He did this with the daily miracles of the Exodus, His people still turned away from Him. Instead, He gives us evidence in nature and history such that those with eyes to see will see His hand, whereas others will only see randomness or human working.
Finally,we addressed the issue the possible inconsistency of Christian voters desiring to make society in a Christian mold, whereas Christian politicians making policy might have to make decisions based on the needs of the entire nation, not only on personal beliefs. If I read most of our comments rightly, we said that there is no conflict here. Each follower of Christ at all times and in all ways should act in a way that reflects his or her role as salt and light to a corrupt and dark world (Matt 5:13-16). I think it is significant that the latter passage speaks of our light shining before 'others' - those who do not know God. The laws provided by government are there to restrain evil. My thinking is that the best laws - those that are most beneficial to mankind in general - are those most consistent with the revealed will of God in His word. Hence laws that prohibit homosexuality and immorality are to be encouraged, even though we recognize that they do not have transforming power to enable behavioural change. Good laws are part of the common grace (= the sovereign grace of God bestowed upon all of mankind) clearly taught in scripture (Ps 145:9, Lk 6:35, Acts 14:17), because good laws benefit all of society. I mentioned that John Piper was criticized in refusing to vote for either candidate in the most recent USA presidential election, but there his reluctance was based on the moral deficiencies in both candidates. On the other hand, if given a choice between voting for abolition or for retention of a law that reflects the revealed will of God, we should not hesitate to express our preference for the latter.
Comments
Post a Comment