QC and SG accountability
16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. (Matt 28:16-17)
We looked at this passage together because Pastor Ling preached on this earlier this week. We asked if it was legitimate to be entrusted with the Great Commission (Matt 28;18-20) even though we doubt. So I asked: 1) Who is it who is doubting? 2) What are they doubting? before we ask that question.
The doubt some had is contrasted to the worship of others. Here, the doubt is with respect to the resurrection and triumph of Christ leading to worship of Him as divine. It appears that vs. 16 indicates that only the 11 disciples were referred to here in this verse. The parallel passage in Mk 16:14-19 suggests that this was the case, and yet the context in Mark 16 is different (at table and not on mountain) as well as the disputed authenticity of the later half of Mark 16 weaken this support. If indeed only the 11 were doubting, we can be sure that their doubting did not lead to loss of salvation. If other disciples were also involved, then we cannot be certain that their doubts were final. It may be that some doubted at the time, but later were able to overcome their doubts.
We asked whether doubt can be distinguished from uncertainty - is doubt indicative of an attitude that opposes the truth, or are both of these terms equivalent. My feeling is that Scripture tends to be gentle in rebuking those who doubt (c.f. Thomas in John 20, the disciples in Lk 24:38), but harsh on those who actively oppose the truth (2 Ti 3:8). So honest doubt due to the perceived absence of evidence is not something that God condemns. Thomas quickly believed and worshiped when the evidence he asked for was provided. He did not delay a decision, as some do, by asking for even more evidence.
We must hold some core truths about Christianity with absolute certainty (e.g. the Trinity, the nature and work of Jesus, the fact of the resurrection), and yet have great uncertainty on many other peripheral matters not critical to salvation (e.g. paedobaptism, mode of baptism, age of the earth). There must be sufficient core certainty to empower effective witness to Christ, while realizing that we do not know the truth of many other matters (c.f. the healed blind man in John 9:25)
How can we tell when doubt is good or bad? How can we test the spirits (1 John 4:1ff) unless there is doubt? The intent matters, but I think the crucial issue is that doubt is bad when we doubt God. Doubt in the sense of wanting to test everything else - the spiritual roots of what we watch, read, see and hear (= testing the spirits) is good.
We ended by addressing the area of how to distinguish between the OT moral law, ceremonial law and civil law. The Ten Commandments are the heart of the moral law, that we keep. The ceremonial law has to do with religious rituals prescribed by God. The civil law is mostly case law ("If... then..."). The distinction is quite plain when one reads the text. We know that there are specific places in the NT where Jesus' coming fulfills and sets aside OT ceremonial law (or in fact civil law - John 8:1-11 comes to mind). We see this in Mk 8:18-19 with respect to food laws, Sabbath keeping in Matt 12:8, Mk 2:28, Lk 6:5, Rom 14:5) as well as in Peter's vision in Acts 10:13. We also see how the early church compromised in this matter at the council of Jerusalem (Ac 15:20-29). So it is noteworthy that the Christian church re-interprets the Sabbath keeping as the Lord's Day and does not keep the Sabbath the way the Jews kept the sabbath.
We looked at this passage together because Pastor Ling preached on this earlier this week. We asked if it was legitimate to be entrusted with the Great Commission (Matt 28;18-20) even though we doubt. So I asked: 1) Who is it who is doubting? 2) What are they doubting? before we ask that question.
The doubt some had is contrasted to the worship of others. Here, the doubt is with respect to the resurrection and triumph of Christ leading to worship of Him as divine. It appears that vs. 16 indicates that only the 11 disciples were referred to here in this verse. The parallel passage in Mk 16:14-19 suggests that this was the case, and yet the context in Mark 16 is different (at table and not on mountain) as well as the disputed authenticity of the later half of Mark 16 weaken this support. If indeed only the 11 were doubting, we can be sure that their doubting did not lead to loss of salvation. If other disciples were also involved, then we cannot be certain that their doubts were final. It may be that some doubted at the time, but later were able to overcome their doubts.
We asked whether doubt can be distinguished from uncertainty - is doubt indicative of an attitude that opposes the truth, or are both of these terms equivalent. My feeling is that Scripture tends to be gentle in rebuking those who doubt (c.f. Thomas in John 20, the disciples in Lk 24:38), but harsh on those who actively oppose the truth (2 Ti 3:8). So honest doubt due to the perceived absence of evidence is not something that God condemns. Thomas quickly believed and worshiped when the evidence he asked for was provided. He did not delay a decision, as some do, by asking for even more evidence.
We must hold some core truths about Christianity with absolute certainty (e.g. the Trinity, the nature and work of Jesus, the fact of the resurrection), and yet have great uncertainty on many other peripheral matters not critical to salvation (e.g. paedobaptism, mode of baptism, age of the earth). There must be sufficient core certainty to empower effective witness to Christ, while realizing that we do not know the truth of many other matters (c.f. the healed blind man in John 9:25)
How can we tell when doubt is good or bad? How can we test the spirits (1 John 4:1ff) unless there is doubt? The intent matters, but I think the crucial issue is that doubt is bad when we doubt God. Doubt in the sense of wanting to test everything else - the spiritual roots of what we watch, read, see and hear (= testing the spirits) is good.
We ended by addressing the area of how to distinguish between the OT moral law, ceremonial law and civil law. The Ten Commandments are the heart of the moral law, that we keep. The ceremonial law has to do with religious rituals prescribed by God. The civil law is mostly case law ("If... then..."). The distinction is quite plain when one reads the text. We know that there are specific places in the NT where Jesus' coming fulfills and sets aside OT ceremonial law (or in fact civil law - John 8:1-11 comes to mind). We see this in Mk 8:18-19 with respect to food laws, Sabbath keeping in Matt 12:8, Mk 2:28, Lk 6:5, Rom 14:5) as well as in Peter's vision in Acts 10:13. We also see how the early church compromised in this matter at the council of Jerusalem (Ac 15:20-29). So it is noteworthy that the Christian church re-interprets the Sabbath keeping as the Lord's Day and does not keep the Sabbath the way the Jews kept the sabbath.
Comments
Post a Comment