Illegitimate Children of the Covenant

In Hosea 2:4, God says, “I will not have mercy upon her children; for they be the children of whoredoms.” The children in question were Israelite youth who had been born into and were growing up in an apostate church. They were church kids who had grown up in a syncretistic church which had tacked the verbiage of the religion of Jehovah onto the pagan social and religious values of the surrounding heathen nations. This made them illegitimate children of the covenant.

If this doesn't describe the last couple of generations of American evangelical kids, I don't know what does. Many, who have grown up in church, have grown up with the verbiage of Christianity tacked onto the same values as the surrounding secular culture.

Youth ministry is one of the biggest demonstrations of this bastardization of the worship of God. The unspoken assumption of typical "youth group" ministry is that God exists to make you happy in the enjoyment of whatever it is you happen to be “passionate” about. What do the children of unbelievers value? What are they passionate about? Sports, movies, bands and singers, video games. What do church youth groups busy themselves with? Sports, movies, bands and singers, video games. In the final analysis, the focus is on the dreams, desires, and ambitions of the “worshipers.” It is a utilitarian religion that uses God as a stepping-stone to what we really want.

This is, in many ways, not very different from the focus of much of the grown-up oriented ministries. The ultimate reality is you and your dreams. God exists to help realize these things. That's the heart of Canaanite paganism (all paganism, in fact). You scratch the back of the gods and they'll scratch yours. Paganism is indirect self-worship. It is the “worship” of a deity whose sole purpose is to give you what you want. Dressing this religion up with words like “Jesus,” “sacrifice,” “commitment,” “fellowship,” “disciple,” etc., doesn’t make it any less pagan. It’s still spiritual whoredom.

If your kneejerk reaction is to object that sports and music aren’t inherently evil, then you’ve missed the point (and most likely, the boat). No one is suggesting that youth groups become hermitages where the youth hand copy ancient manuscripts and wear hair shirts. But when the youth pastor’s skills include the ability to chug Mountain Dew, recite lines from the latest hit HBO show, kill at chubby bunny, and don’t include being “mighty in the Scriptures,” we’re producing the next generation of children of whoredoms. We shouldn’t be terribly surprised when the leave the faith. They never had it in the first place, nor was it ever presented to them.

A Resolution to the question of the apostatizing in Hebrews

Two factors have helped me come to, what I believe is a simple, yet thorough resolution to the troubling issue of apostasy in the book of Hebrews. They are (1) a consideration of the fuller context, more specifically, the occasional context of the book and (2) the paradigm of Covenant Theology.

A simple point to get is that the whole context of the book of Hebrews deals with the superiority of Christ over the Old Testament economy. The book was written, as its title suggests, to Hebrews – Jews, who might be tempted to return to the worship system of the Old Testament. I think all scholars are in agreement about this. This is the “occasional context,” as it is called; that is, the problem or occasion that prompted the writing of the Epistle. Hence the author goes to great lengths to constantly remind us that, despite all the glory of the Old Testament period and its ordinances, Christ is greater. Secondarily, we are informed of the abrogation of the Old Testament’s sacrificial system by Christ’s sacrifice.

Therefore if a person were wont to turn away from Christ to return to the sacrificial system of Old Testament worship, he would be going to something that had been completely evacuated of any meaning or efficacy. If one rejects the sacrifice of Christ, “there remains no other sacrifice for sin.” Not only so, but he would be denying the value of Christ’s sacrificial death. First of all, the Old Testament sacrifices were all forward-looking to the ultimate sacrifice Christ made for sin. Secondly, continuing in the practice of those sacrifices implies that atonement for sin has not yet been paid – hence it is a denial of Christ as our Surety.

As I said earlier, Covenant Theology provides a paradigm which completely obliterates all difficulty in handling this passage. The key to understanding it is this: God’s covenant people are not co-extensive with the elect.

Let me elucidate that a bit. All of Israel was God’s covenant people. However, not every single Israelite was among the number of God’s elect to salvation. Every Israelite did experience certain blessings as a part of the larger community of God’s people, but not every Israelite experienced the spiritual blessing of God’s regenerating work in his heart. Paul says, “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” (Romans 9:6b) Every Jew was circumcised and offered the sacrifices prescribed by the Law. Every Jew experienced the blessing of God’s protection of the nation from invading armies, etc. But not every Jew was a child of Abraham by faith in the Promised Seed.

When we come to the New Testament, things are no different. We all willingly acknowledge that church membership is not co-extensive with salvation. Just because a person is a member of God’s covenant people (the Church), this does not automatically mean that he is a member of the elect. Therefore, like the unregenerate Jew, he may partake of many things which are blessings to his life. But these are not necessarily the spiritual blessing of new birth.

Applied to the “apostasy passages” of Hebrews, the difficulty is removed by noting that the writer is telling us that (1) the Old Testament sacrifices are forever done away with by Christ’s all-sufficient death. Hence a return to them would be foolish, because there no longer is any efficacy in them – not that there ever was efficacy in the actual sacrifice of a bull or lamb. The efficacy was in the forward-looking faith towards the Lamb of God sacrificed before the foundation of the world. If you don’t acknowledge Christ’s sacrifice for sin, that’s tough luck for you because there is no other sacrifice out there. The Old Testament ones have been abrogated. (2) Membership in the Christian Church is not co-extensive with membership in God’s elect. Therefore a person can attend at Christian worship and receive many blessings thereby and still perish, not because he lost his salvation, but because he was never among the elect in the first place.

This is why after the warnings given in chapter 6, the writer concludes by saying, “But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.” (v 9). Understood any other way, this passage is impenetrable, I think, because we would seem to be left with a scenario wherein the writer warns about the possibility of losing one’s salvation by apostatizing from the faith, then concludes his warnings by saying that salvation cannot be lost. Hence I feel confident that the paradigm of Covenant Theology is the only way to navigate this passage.

Apostate Christianity: A First Hand Encounter, Part 2

Yesterday I began a short critique of a nearby Congregationalist church. I picked up a few printouts of their pastor’s sermons last Tuesday and I read over them. One need not read in much detail to see how vapid, hollow, insipid and vacuous these sermons are. I cannot even imagine how dreadfully dull it must be to sit under this kind of teaching week after week.

I noticed that on the sermon dated September 26, 2010 that among the texts for the message was a passage from the Qur’an. I’m not about citing the Qur’an, but if I read it from the pulpit, it will be to demonstrate the evil nature of the religion it purveys. But how does New England Congregational use the citation from the Qur’an? The title of the sermon says it all: So, What Does New England Congregational Believe, Anyway? The Biblical passages were both from Ephesians. Mind you, there is no exposition of these passages; they are merely quoted at the beginning of the message. On the face of it, it would appear that the pastor is comfortable with putting the Qur’an side by side with Sacred Scripture.

Lest you think I am jumping to unwarranted conclusions, I must hasten to add that I checked several of the sermon print-outs, and in every case, there was a quotation from the Qur’an. So this was not an isolated incident.

Well, let’s ask the burning question: What does this church believe, anyway? Remember, these are their words, not mine. In fact, the pastor actually remarks that many members of the congregation were surprised that the church even had a statement of its beliefs! He says, “Consensus on theological beliefs cannot be easily found here because of the wide spectrum of belief about the nature of God, the person of Jesus, or a ghost that is holy.” I submit to you that that is blasphemy.

So, “tongue in cheek,” by their own admission, here is what they believe:

1. We believe in an interpretation of faith that allows us to encounter God in any way God chooses to come to us.

2. We believe that by being theologically liberal we are best able to respect individual differences in faith and pilgrimage, worship God, honor the bible, and follow Christ’s teaching. (The lower case “b” in bible is not a typo on my part; that is exactly how it appears in their print-out. Surely this says something about their view of the Bible.)

3. We believe in the teaching of the Gospel variously interpreted in an environment that does not require strict adherence to a creed.

4. We believe that being inclusive of all people is fundamental to our faith community.

If you do not find this heretical in the extreme, you have cause to question your profession of Christianity. This is an apostasy worthy of Rome. A Christianity with no doctrinal content, a Christianity whose beliefs cannot be codified in a creed is a Christianity not worth having! God save us from such “Christianity.”

Apostate Christianity: A First Hand Encounter

We frequently hear about the apostate character of the mainline denominations, but because we attend more theologically sound churches, it is a rare occasion that we actually get a firsthand look at the depth of this apostasy.

This past Election Day was such an occasion for me. The polling place is a Congregation church. Right next to the tables where you check in to vote there is a rack on the wall with flyers and leaflets. Two or three of the slots have sermon print-outs. I picked up a couple to read, just out of curiosity. I must confess, the description “apostate” used in reference to many of the mainline denominations is not misapplied with regard to the output of this church’s pulpit!

One sermon urges us to be like Jesus and just soak in the sheer joy of being alive. The sermon speaks of Jesus having fun, sucking back a few cold ones with his friends and telling some good jokes (i.e., the Parables). I must admit, I have never read a parable I found funny, nor have I ever heard anyone even insinuate that they were jokes. If you were to read this guy’s “sermon” (what an abuse of the word!), you’d think that the Gospel’s are full of stories about Jesus cracking jokes and laughing hysterically all the time.

What’s missing from this message? How about the Gospel! Do you mean to tell me that the twelve Apostles were martyred for the message of “have fun and enjoy life?” Polycarp was burned at the stake for this? Cyprian was martyred for enjoying life? No God, no Trinity, no sin, no grace, no substitutionary atonement, no imputation, no distinctly Christian content at all. Yet they have the audacity to call this a Christian church!

I will detail a few more of the apostate things they teach tomorrow. But just think: This is a so-called witness for Christ and His Gospel. God forbid that any church should turn out like New England Congregational, a synagogue of Satan.

Lust Rescued Me!

I think I just found out what blasphemy against the Holy Spirit looks like. It’s called missionary dating! If this doesn’t qualify as out-and-out blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, nothing does! This idiocy so boggles my mind, I almost can’t believe it’s for real. Alas, it is for real. It turns out that hot girls can use their narcissism to win hot guys to Christ. I guess they believe that ugly people are doomed to Hell.

Lest you begin to panic and get the crazy idea that this is evil and unbiblical, missionary daters have answers to you questions and 10 helpful tips for hot girls who want to use their sensuality to win hot guys to Christ.

Here is their advice:
1. If he tells your that you are hot...
Tell him God made you hot.
2. If he wants to hold your hand...
Give him a Bible.
3. If he tries to get closer...
Tell him the Holy Spirit is wooing him.
4. If he asks to pay for dinner...
Remind him that Jesus also paid a debt He did not owe!
5. If he reaches his arm around you...
Tell him that nobody will ever be as close to you as Jesus is.
(or ask him if you instead could "lay hands" on him in prayer)
6. If he tries to kiss you...
Remind him that a kiss killed your Savior.
(and you're not ready to "speak in tongues")
7. If he asks to come inside...
Ask him if he has asked Jesus to come inside his heart.
8. If he tells you he loves you...
Tell him that Jesus loves him.
9. If he gets angry that you won't put out...
Clarify to him that W.W.J.D. does NOT mean "Who would Jesus Do."
10. After you dump him...
Tell him that Jesus Christ will never leave or forsake him.

You think I’m making this stuff up. I’m not! Apparently, there are people stupid enough to believe this garbage. Here’s the proof: http://datetosave.com/. Trust me, you don’t want to look at the items in the website’s shop.

These gals don’t seem to be bothered by the deception involved here. The hot missionaries deceptively enter relationships with guys they intend to dump: either when they guy gets too carnal (!!!!) or gets saved (!!!!) They evidently aren’t concerned about the inherent stupidity the idea of luring men into the Kingdom by means of lust. In my father’s words, “Someone needs to be horse-whooped!”

A pox on anyone who advocates this blasphemy!

Covenant is Not Co-extensive With Election

Two factors have helped me come to, what I believe is a simple, yet thorough resolution to the troubling issue of apostasy in the book of Hebrews. They are (1) a consideration of the fuller context, more specifically, the occasional context of the book and (2) the doctrine of the Covenant.

A simple point to get is that the whole context of the book of Hebrews deals with the superiority of Christ over the Old Testament economy. The book was written, as its title suggests, to Hebrews – Jews, who might be tempted to return to the worship system of the Old Testament. I think all scholars are in agreement about this. This is the “occasional context,” as I called it; that is, the problem or occasion that prompted the writing of the Epistle. Hence the author goes to great lengths to constantly remind us that, despite all the glory of the Old Testament period and its ordinances, Christ is greater. Secondarily, we are informed of the abrogation of the Old Testament’s sacrificial system by Christ’s sacrifice.

Therefore if a person were wont to turn away from Christ to return to the sacrificial system of Old Testament worship, he would be going to something that had been completely evacuated of any meaning or efficacy. If one rejects the sacrifice of Christ, “there remains no other sacrifice for sin.” Not only so, but he would be denying the value of Christ’s sacrificial death. First of all, the Old Testament sacrifices were all forward-looking to the ultimate sacrifice Christ made for sin. Secondly, continuing in the practice of those sacrifices implies that atonement for sin has not yet been paid – hence it is a denial of Christ as our Surety.

As I said earlier, the doctrine of the Covenant provides a framework or paradigm which completely obliterates all difficulty in handling this passage. The key to understanding it is this: God’s covenant people are not co-extensive with the elect.

Let me elucidate that a bit. All of Israel was God’s covenant people. However, not every single Israelite was among the number of God’s elect to salvation. Every Israelite did experience certain blessings as a part of the larger community of God’s people, but not every Israelite experienced the spiritual blessing of God’s regenerating work in his heart. Paul says, “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” (Romans 9:6b) Every Jew was circumcised and offered the sacrifices prescribed by the Law. Every Jew experienced the blessing of God’s protection of the nation from invading armies, etc. But not every Jew was a child of Abraham by faith in the Promised Seed.

When we come to the New Testament, things are no different. We all willingly acknowledge that church membership is not co-extensive with salvation. Just because a person is a member of God’s covenant people (the Church), this does not automatically mean that he is a member of the elect. Therefore, like the unregenerate Jew, he may partake of many things which are blessings to his life. But these are not necessarily the spiritual blessing of new birth.

Applied to the “apostasy passages” of Hebrews, the difficulty is removed by noting that the writer is telling us that (1) the Old Testament sacrifices are forever done away with by Christ’s all-sufficient death. Hence a return to them would be foolish, because there no longer is any efficacy in them – not that there ever was efficacy in the actual sacrifice of a bull or lamb. The efficacy was in the forward-looking faith towards the Lamb of God sacrificed before the foundation of the world. If you don’t acknowledge Christ’s sacrifice for sin, that’s tough luck for you because there is no other sacrifice out there. The Old Testament ones have been abrogated. (2) Membership in the Christian Church is not co-extensive with membership in God’s elect. Therefore a person can attend at Christian worship and receive many blessings thereby and still perish, not because he lost his salvation, but because he was never among the elect in the first place.

This is why after the warnings given in chapter 6, the writer concludes by saying, “But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.” (v 9). Understood any other way, this passage is impenetrable, I think, because we would seem to lest with a scenario wherein the writer warns about the possible of losing one’s salvation by apostatizing from the faith, then concludes his warnings by saying that salvation cannot be lost. Hence I feel confident that the doctrine of the Covenant is the only way to navigate this passage.

Covenant isn't Co-extensive with Election

Two factors have helped me come to, what I believe is a simple, yet thorough resolution to the troubling issue of apostasy in the book of Hebrews. They are (1) a consideration of the fuller context, more specifically, the occasional context of the book and (2) the doctrine of the Covenant.

A simple point to get is that the whole context of the book of Hebrews deals with the superiority of Christ over the Old Testament economy. The book was written, as its title suggests, to Hebrews – Jews, who might be tempted to return to the worship system of the Old Testament. I think all scholars are in agreement about this. This is the “occasional context,” as I called it; that is, the problem or occasion that prompted the writing of the Epistle. Hence the author goes to great lengths to constantly remind us that, despite all the glory of the Old Testament period and its ordinances, Christ is greater. Secondarily, we are informed of the abrogation of the Old Testament’s sacrificial system by Christ’s sacrifice.

Therefore if a person were wont to turn away from Christ to return to the sacrificial system of Old Testament worship, he would be going to something that had been completely evacuated of any meaning or efficacy. If one rejects the sacrifice of Christ, “there remains no other sacrifice for sin.” Not only so, but he would be denying the value of Christ’s sacrificial death. First of all, the Old Testament sacrifices were all forward-looking to the ultimate sacrifice Christ made for sin. Secondly, continuing in the practice of those sacrifices implies that atonement for sin has not yet been paid – hence it is a denial of Christ as our Surety.

As I said earlier, the doctrine of the Covenant provides a framework or paradigm which completely obliterates all difficulty in handling this passage. The key to understanding it is this: God’s covenant people are not co-extensive with the elect.

Let me elucidate that a bit. All of Israel was God’s covenant people. However, not every single Israelite was among the number of God’s elect to salvation. Every Israelite did experience certain blessings as a part of the larger community of God’s people, but not every Israelite experienced the spiritual blessing of God’s regenerating work in his heart. Paul says, “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” (Romans 9:6b) Every Jew was circumcised and offered the sacrifices prescribed by the Law. Every Jew experienced the blessing of God’s protection of the nation from invading armies, etc. But not every Jew was a child of Abraham by faith in the Promised Seed.

When we come to the New Testament, things are no different. We all willingly acknowledge that church membership is not co-extensive with salvation. Just because a person is a member of God’s covenant people (the Church), this does not automatically mean that he is a member of the elect. Therefore, like the unregenerate Jew, he may partake of many things which are blessings to his life. But these are not necessarily the spiritual blessing of new birth.

Applied to the “apostasy passages” of Hebrews, the difficulty is removed by noting that the writer is telling us that (1) the Old Testament sacrifices are forever done away with by Christ’s all-sufficient death. Hence a return to them would be foolish, because there no longer is any efficacy in them – not that there ever was efficacy in the actual sacrifice of a bull or lamb. The efficacy was in the forward-looking faith towards the Lamb of God sacrificed before the foundation of the world. If you don’t acknowledge Christ’s sacrifice for sin, that’s tough luck for you because there is no other sacrifice out there. The Old Testament ones have been abrogated. (2) Membership in the Christian Church is not co-extensive with membership in God’s elect. Therefore a person can attend at Christian worship and receive many blessings thereby and still perish, not because he lost his salvation, but because he was never among the elect in the first place.

This is why after the warnings given in chapter 6, the writer concludes by saying, “But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.” (v 9). Understood any other way, this passage is impenetrable, I think, because we would seem to lest with a scenario wherein the writer warns about the possible of losing one’s salvation by apostatizing from the faith, then concludes his warnings by saying that salvation cannot be lost. Hence I feel confident that the doctrine of the Covenant is the only way to navigate this passage.