Question and Answer (in a page or less): “Where and When did the Church Begin?”

Question and Answer (in a page or less)

Where and When did the Church Begin?

The Church began in the eternal counsel of the triune God as the Father determined to give His beloved Son a bride who would be regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

In redemptive history, Adam was given the ordinance to beget a holy seed that would inhabit the earth. Adam failed in this charge. He failed as prophet, priest, and king. Everything that follows in the way of covenants is part of God’s reclamation project of Adam’s failures. The promises of God find their culminating “amen” in Christ, who was born in the fullness of time.

Jesus founded disciples who were given the mandate to preach the gospel to all the nations. This task took place during Jesus’ ministry, but really finds its origin on Pentecost in Jerusalem as the ascended Christ poured out the Holy Spirit upon the “called out” assembly who were then charged with bringing the Gospel to Jerusalem, Judea, and the ends of the earth:

Acts 1:8 (ESV) — 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

Acts shows us how the apostles completed this task through missionary efforts, church planting, and training a future generation of leaders. The Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus), and selected material from other epistles give us a clearer picture of the Apostolic Church as a lasting institution. God ordains that the Church be supplied with particular servants/leaders and also supplies the description and requisites for such positions.

A properly constituted Church will function within the defined ecclesiology of the Scriptures. There are many disagreements about what constitutes a valid sanctioned Church.  These matters must be resolved from further study.

Suffice it to say that God purposed an elect body of people who would belong to Him for all eternity. This is according to the mysterious eternal counsel of God from which He set His love upon a community who would be set apart by way of covenant. The Father chose a people > Jesus consented to win the bride by redeeming them at the cost of His own sacrificial love (read Hosea) > The Holy Spirit is the “matchmaker” who wins over our hearts for Christ through the work of “new birth” and therefore makes us a “bride of Christ”. This is all revealed throughout redemptive history and culminates in the fullness of time with Christ. The NT defines the Church in the current era of redemptive history, which shall continue until the second coming of Christ.

One Catholic Church?

James Davison Hunter says that, “…Christianity in North America…is a weak culture; weak insofar as it is fragmented in it’s core beliefs and organization, without a coherent collective identity and mission, and often divided within itself, often with unabated hostility.”

My question: “what’s the solution?”

Book Review, “Church Planter: The Man, the Message, the Mission” by Darrin Patrick

Church Planter: The Man, the Message, The Mission is the latest book from the Re:Lit branch of Crossway Books. Written by Darrin Patrick, VP of the Acts 29 church planting network, it is essentially a church planting primer, or a boot camp in a book, or a field manual for those already deployed, depending on your current situation.As the subtitle suggests, the book is broken down into three parts that focus on what Patrick considers to be the key elements of planting and leading a church.

Before we even get into the main material, it is worth mentioning the introduction to the book. Here, the culturally sensitive issue of gender exclusivity in church leadership is raised and handled, in my opinion, very well. Though it would be nice if everyone agreed on all matters of Christian practice, that is not going to happen any time soon short of Jesus returning. As such, we need to handle our differences with grace. Darrin holds to a complimentarian stance, whereby the office of elder is held exclusively by biblically qualified men. He has existed both literally and intellectually on both sides of the debate and offers his position with grace and conviction – no easy task! Unlike some who hold similar positions, he does not exclude women from acts of ministry themselves, only from the office of elder. Women are free to prophecy, pray, serve, even teach, but not to lead as elder:

There is absolutely no indication in Scripture that gender plays any role in God’s sovereign distribution of spiritual gifts. (p.15)

I believe women can use any gift that God has given them in the church and that only the office of elder is reserved for men. This may seem paradoxical, but I think it is biblical. (p. 15)

The argument on teaching, briefly, is that the majority of teaching will be done by elders, therefore men, and that all elders are meant to be capable of teaching, but not all teaching must be done by elders. Elders are to oversee, shepherd and guard, so non-elders can do the same ministry actions (e.g. teach), but elders are responsible and ultimately accountable.

At the end of the day, Darrin makes a good case that, even if you disagree with his position about gender and church leadership, statistics are showing we have a problem to face about men in general and men in the church specifically.

The key points are that men are staying boys longer in both their actions and attitudes, and that older men are not mentoring these “Bans” (boy/man) to raise them into godly men quickly. As such, we have a dearth of biblically minded, gospel-orientated men and something must be done. So whether you’re in agreement with Darrin, or whether you think he’s wrong, the reality is that something must be done to not only retain, but to train men to lead effectively in the church. It’s a pretty compelling argument for reading the book regardless of doctrinal position on this point. For the sake of this review, I will be sticking with the use of ‘he’ when referring to the elder/pastor/undershepherd.

The Man - Ministry is more than hard. Ministry is impossible. And unless we have a fire inside our bones compelling us, we simply will not survive. (p.30)

The first section of the book deals with the church planter himself, and the kind of person he needs to be both in terms of qualification and potential success. If balance between theology and practicality is highly favored, this first section is the most likely to please you (theology gets the main drive in The Message and The Mission gives it all some legs, though none of the book is lacking in both elements). Patrick deals with the type of man, the confirmation and testing of his calling, his character and his ability to lead/shepherd well. It is a high standard that Patrick holds to and a thoroughly Biblical one at that. For anyone considering their calling to pastoral ministry, stare long and hard in this mirror and make sure that you are really called!

The Message – He went from the God of heaven out there to being the Lord of earth right here. God took the theory of his love for his people and wrapped it in skin and blood and gristle and bone. (p.107)

In the second section, the central message of the gospel is unpacked and its implications for p

Tim Keller on Ministry to the Poor

Tim Keller explains how the gospel motivates and informs ministry to the poor in this Themelios article.

Great Practical Advice on the Oft-Neglected (and rarely properly done) Ministry of Rebuke

Kevin DeYoung has done a 3 part series on the ministry of rebuke and I couldn’t commend it more highly to all beleivers, especially my peeps at Sovereign Grace Fellowship. He offers a checklist of 20 guidelines. Here is a link to the 3rd installment, which contains links to the first 2 within it: link.

Here are some of his guidelines that I especially appreciated. In his first installment on “Why” to rebuke:

3. It protects. Rebuke protects you from hurting others and from hurting yourself. It also protects the flock from false teachers and evil doers. One of the chief responsibilities of the elder or pastor is that he be able to rebuke (2 Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:9, 14; 2:15). A leader who never rebukes sin and never corrects false teaching is not protecting his flock. And he who refuses to protect refuses to love.

In Ezekiel, the leaders were likened to watchmen on the city walls. That’s what the elders are to be (Acts 20:26-31). If we see enemy doctrines or enemy sin in our midst, we must warn the city, lest we have blood on our hands. Correction is our calling.

In his 2nd installment on “When” to rebuke:

3. The more the person is blind to it. Christians who make mistakes and feel terrible about it don’t need a rebuke. They need the Savior. But it’s a different story when your brother or sister doesn’t see the problem. Suppose you begin to notice that one of the couples in your small group never seems to get along. You sense coldness and hostility in their marriage. But they’ve been open with the group that they are seeing a biblical counselor for help. Probably no need to rebuke what they already see. But if they were blind to their problems, someone needs the courage to confront.

4. The more habitual the problem is. An errant swear word is bad, but depending on the situation may not require your rebuke. But where there’s a habit of letting the filth fly, reproof is in order. When Christians fall into sin they need a hand up. When they fall into the same sin in the same place day after day, they need a kick in the pants first.

 On “How” to rebuke and how to receive rebuke:

3. Check your heart. Are you getting in his face so you can serve your notice of indignation, or are you going to serve their sanctification? Consider this wisdom: “Whoever restrains his words has knowledge, and he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding” (Prov. 17:27). And, “A hot-tempered man stirs up strife, but he who is slow to anger quiets contention” (Prov. 15:18). In other words, check yourself before you wreck yourself. Or as James puts it, “Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person by quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger, for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God” (James 1:19-20).

Don’t be loud if you can be soft. Galatians 6:1 says restore your brother gently. 2 Timothy 2:25 tells us to correct our opponents with gentleness. A gentle answer, Proverbs tells us, turns away wrath (15:1). It was always Paul’s desire to come in a spirit of gentleness; the rod was only a last resort (1 Cor. 4:21; cf. 2 Cor. 13:10). You see a pattern here? Try gentleness first. Don’t be the one whose rash words are like sword thrusts (Prov. 12:18).

Immature Christians only have one decibel level. Some don’t know how to whisper and some don’t know how to scream. The goal is to administer the rebuke as softly and gently as possible. In most situations, the trumpet blast should come only after you’ve tried the flute first. Don’t launch the nukes at the first sign of trouble. Try diplomacy, then sanctions, then warnings, then strategic targets, then air, then sea, then ground, then start consulting about the big red button. Don’t punch them in the gut if an arm around the shoulder will do the trick.

How to Receive Rebuke

1. Consider the source. If you are any kind of public figure there will always be complaints. Ditto if you spend any time on the internet. So it’s imperative we know what to do with criticism. Ask yourself: is this rebuke coming from someone I trust and respect? Is it from someone I know and someone who knows me? Is this person someone to whom I am accountable–a spouse, an elder board, an employer? We can’t take every rebuke to heart. But ignoring every unflattering assessment is foolish too.

2. Consider the substance. Pray about the hard word spoken to you. Ask others what they think. Maybe this rebuke needs your blind eye and deaf ear. Jesus was rebuked by Peter, so not every correction hits the mark. If you take an honest, humble look at the rebuke and it doesn’t seem to fit. Don’t wear it. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 4 “My conscience is clean.” That didn’t mean he was necessarily acquitted before God, but as far as he could tell, he had not sinned. So he moved on.

But sometimes we do screw up. Even the best of men are men at best. I doubt many of us are over-rebuked. Most of us, myself included, would probably do well to receive more specific correction. So consider the source, consider the substance, and be prepared to grow.

3 Very Different Documentaries on Christian Engagement: “Hell House”, “Jesus Camp”, and “Lord, Save us from Your Followers”

Well, with my new Netflix subscription in effect, I was able to take in a few documentaries (I am a big documentary fan for some odd reason). I saw “Jesus Camp“, “Hell House“, and “Lord, Save Us from Your Followers“. These 3 documentaries offered 3 very different pictures of Christian cultural engagement.

“Jesus Camp” essentially portrays Pentecostal catechesis of children; full of intercessory prayer, tongues, and Spiritual warfare…all intended to claim the world for Jesus. Kids are taught to go all out, to ramp up their opposition to “sin” in the cultural battles of our day, and to share Jesus with everyone. Hey, to be honest, there’s a lot good there, however watching the film grieved me in many ways. There is no dialectical aspect to sharing the faith and engaging culture. Everything is an all out war. Also, a little girl “felt led” to share Jesus with someone at the bowling alley in typical “hit and run” fashion and the parents affirmed it. The interviews with some of the kids, including a young girl reveals some expected immaturity, however it is more dangerous because their is a spiritualizing of their immaturity. In one scene, a girl criticizes churches that don’t yell to Jesus when they pray, going so far as to say that Jesus only likes worship from the churches that yell and get exuberant. What is sadder is that parents are reinforcing all of this. So, not only are these kids at war with culture, they are also condescending of the broader church.

Kevin De Young’s Suggestions for Transformation in the Church…easier than you thought, but probably too demanding for you to actually do (please prove me wrong!!!)

C.J. Mahaney blogged a recap of Kevin De Young’s recent conference message on the Church. Here is the blog and here is the audio link. Here are some of the things that De Young suggests you do:

• Find a good local church.
• Get involved.
• Become a member.
• Stay there as long as you can.
• Put away thoughts of a revolution for a while.
• Join the plodding visionaries.
• Go to church this Sunday and worship in Spirit and truth.
• Be patient with your leaders.
• Rejoice when the gospel is faithfully proclaimed.
• Bear with those who hurt you.
• Give people the benefit of the doubt.
• Say “hi” to the teenager that no one notices.
• Welcome the old ladies with the blue hair and the young men with tattoos.
• Volunteer for the nursery.
• Attend the congregational meeting.
• Bring your fried chicken to the potluck like everybody else.
• Invite a friend.
• Take a new couple out for coffee.
• Give to the Christmas offering.
• Sing like you mean it.
• Be thankful someone vacuumed the carpet for you.
• Enjoy the Sundays that “click.”
• Pray extra hard on the Sundays that don’t.
• And in all of this, do not despise the days and weeks and years of small things (Zechariah 4:8–10).

“I want a real chaplain who believes in a real God and a real hell!”

“I want a real chaplain who believes in a real God and a real hell…your uncertainty is making things worse…I need someone who will look me in the eye and tell me how to find forgiveness because I am running out of time!!!”

My story -

When I visited my dying grandpa, I was in the role of a chaplain of sorts. It was incredibly awkward…this is the grandpa who modeled for me stability, love, and strength. I admired the man more than any other. He was full of humility and would speak ill of no one. I cry now thinking about him. I loved him. Anyhow, he wasn’t a church goer and believed that all “good” people essentially would end up in heaven. He also said that he has always sought to live his life according to the 10 Commandments. While a teen, I would simply nod– who was I too challenge my grandpa?

Well, as my grandpa was ill and not knowing if this would be the last time I would ever see him alive, I felt a “burning in my bones” that couldn’t be constrained. I could not watch him die while simply nodding my head in affirmation to his thoughts of being good and going to heaven. I looked him in his eyes and suggested that He ought to love the lawgiver more than the law. I told him about Jesus. His eyes watered. He was the most decent man I had ever known and who was I to convince him that he was a depraved sinner in risk of hell fire? I had to, for the sake of his soul, I had to…I wanted to. His watery eyes then looked hopeful as I pleaded with him to believe upon the work of Jesus for his salvation. I held his hand and prayed with him.

My grandpa Norman Hogaboam ended up returning home. I visited him and he asked me to do his funeral when he passed on. I looked down and agreed to do it, holding back tears. He was at peace with death. He died shortly after. I did his funeral, crying the whole time, and was able to share the hope I had spoken to him about and his acceptance of the lawgiver. My tears would have otherwise been full of guilt and remorse, even to this day. I can’t help but think that some other chaplain would have simply nodded in affirmation and patted him on the back for a life well lived…comforting him into hell.

I look forward to seeing my grandpa again and am grateful that God granted me the strength and boldness to share the Gospel with him.

A Baptismal Homily

Here is a link to the audio.

Here is my sermon outline:

Romans 5:18-6:14 Baptism Signifies a Changed Identity

Pastor Rick Hogaboam, Sovereign Grace Fellowship, 6.20.2010 A.D.

Romans 5:18–6:14 (ESV) — 18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.

-          A Changed Identity

-          Who’s your daddy?

• The whole human race is represented by one of two heads, Adam or Christ.
  • Everyone is born into Adam by natural birth, an enmity with God because of the fall and the infection of sin into the whole human race.
  • You are only born into Christ by rebirth, regeneration, being “born again”.  Paul shows how baptism corresponds to this reality of dying and newness of life.
    • 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life

20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

-          The Superior power of Grace

1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?

-          Grace is not licentiousness!!! You died to sin, past tense. In Christ, judicially but also in actuality. Sin no longer has reign over you.

A Confirmation -

3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

-          There are realities in baptism, namely that it signifies a very real union with Christ. This of baptism as your wedding ring.

• In some sense, we are to wear our baptism.
• It is dangerous if someone is tempted to remove their wedding ring, usually leads to trouble, a desire to show oneself available.
• Our baptism signifies a dying to one life and a rising to a new one. It signifies our transfer from darkness to light, from death to life, from Adam to Jesus.
• Marriage also signifies this transfer from Rick being Rick, to being one with Mimi. I am no longer myself and alone, but and wedded with another.

-          “in order that” – very important, pay attention.

-          “we too might walk in newness of life” – connected with Jesus’ resurrection which allowed Him to walk in the realities of exalted Lord, a newness, so also we.

• Paul corresponds with our future hope, but also in the present newness, an actual newness that we are to walk in.

Jesus Manifesto – A Review

Leonard Sweet and Frank Viola have teamed up to write “Jesus Manifesto”. I am reviewing it for the www.BookSneeze.com program. The book sets out to call the church to recommit to the supremacy and centrality of Christ. Beginning reading the book, I had to keep setting aside my preconceived ideas about Viola, since I have strong disagreements with a lot of the work that has brought him into prominence as a writer and speaker.

Of course, a work that seeks to uphold the centrality and preeminence of Christ is one of value. The text focusses a lot on the epistle to the Colossians and calls that text “the high-water mark of divine revelation in all the New Testament” (p.24) which is a great example of one of my main hesitations in recommending “Jesus Manifesto”: Sweet & Viola are guilty of stating their strong convictions as inescapable, all-encompassing fact. It is not their desire of the church to return to Jesus alone that troubles me, but these little asides, along with the sweeping condemnation of the church in America/the West that causes me to balk somewhat. I agree with the authors’ passion, but I don’t agree with their evaluation of the church at large. No doubt, there are many who are focussed on anything but the glorious Son of God, but the tone they take seems more elitist than engaging – I fear that the very people they need to encourage and correct will reject the book for that reason.

One other point of contention I have is the ongoing attitude towards the Law. “The One who nailed to His bloody cross every law, every rule, and every regulation that would condemn the beloved people of God” (p.33) is good sounding, but seems to imply that God is sad about the Law. But God is not sad about the Law, He’s sad about sin. There’s an antagon

istic attitude towards the Law, without a recognition that, as it was given by God, it was good. It’s sin, and man sinning, that is bad! God didn’t send Jesus to save us from the Law, but to save us from our sinfulness.

The current trend seems to be one of distrust of the Old Testament, as though it was God’s mistake, but that certainly does not seem to be Jesus’ attitude, nor the early church’s, and so we have to be careful with our theology of the Cross that we focus on being redeemed from the bonds of sin, not the bonds of the Law. The Law cannot save us, I agree. But it does serve a purpose – through the law comes knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20).

To the more general aspects, the writing is fast and conversational, not overly technical but not dumbed down. Sweet & Viola are certainly gifted authors, and their hearts scream off the page. I disagree with some of their theology, and I probably won’t be recommending this text to anyone I know, but in their conviction about the centrality of Christ they have served to help me look and evaluate all that I do to be sure that the Lord of All is indeed in the Lord in all I do!

Our Future

It is hard to imagine what the future of the USA will look like, and forecasts are useless anyway, because none of us actually KNOWS the future. That said, we face such tidal waves of debt in this nation and globally that a reckoning day will come. [I will make my own useless forecast] Since we are unlikely to cut spending much or raise taxes much, my guess is that the reckoning will be in the form of hyperinflation. Inflation makes debts small at the cost of destroying the currency and punishing savers. What all this means for me and my children is worrisome.

How Do the Church and Kingdom Triumph on Earth

In my last post, I referred to Wilson’s postmillennial view of the Church/Kingdom relationship.  His post explains how he believes the Kingdom of God will come on earth: through the gradual working of the Spirit (leaven is an analogy that he often uses, referring to Jesus’ parable).  Here are a couple quotes:

When kings come to Christ, their glory will grow. When kings die to their own glory, they will be raised in the glory of Another. And incidentally, though I am a minarchist (not an anarchist), and I believe that the kings of the latter glory will largely be ceremonial figureheads, I do not intend this as demeaning or as some kind of a nothing-honor. Why would any of us think that ceremony is a trivial thing? I suspect it will be shown to be the chief thing, far better than the current techniques for lording it over people — to wit, kicking butt and taking names — peace through superior firepower. That is a model that has a certain rough justice about it, but we have to admit that improvements could be made. When the lion lies down with the lamb, it will not be because men with block letters on their jackets are standing over them with automatic weapons.

Secondly:

So the Church is not gathered into the State, with ecclesiastical functions delegated to some part of the bureaucracy. Rather, I see the nations gathered to the Church, with the remaining civil functions distinct from the Church proper, but subordinate to it. The honor and glory of the kings really is honor and glory, and that honor and glory is really brought as tribute to be laid on the altar. In other words, I don’t see the nations gathering the Church, but rather the Church gathering the nations.

Church and Kingdom

Kevin DeYoung has noted before that people talk a lot about the Kingdom of God, but don’t always have a fully biblical view of this issue.  Last week, he posted some thoughts on this issue, cautioning people who want to bring the kingdom to earth.  DeYoung argues instead that the kingdom is closely identified with the Church:

If the kingdom of God is heaven breaking into earth, Eden being replanted, the New Jerusalem nailing in stakes, then we should expect to see the kingdom almost exclusively in the church. Of course, the church, living in the world, ought to embody the principles of the kingdom. Likewise, we will be pleased when the world around us reflects many of the values of the kingdom–forgiveness, compassion, mercy, and justice. But we will not expect the world, in this life, to become the kingdom.

Here’s the problem: when people talk broadly about bringing heaven down to earth on the culture writ large, they can’t help but be selective about the nature of the kingdom. So some Christians will argue for dismantling of nuclear weapons because in the kingdom swords are beaten into plowshares. True, but in the kingdom everyone also sits under their own vine and fig tree. The vision of the kingdom/garden/city is one of extravagant opulence and prosperity. So should we try to be as rich as possible as a sign of the kingdom’s in-breaking? Well, no because the kingdom is not the full reality yet. As a result we must temper the notion of kingdom-living prosperity with the reality that some people don’t have enough to live. In the same way, we must temper the notion of kingdom-living pacifism with the reality that there are lots of bad guys in the world who don’t want us to live.

In other words, when we think of the kingdom as what we are trying to build in this world we will be severely disappointed, potentially dangerous. But when we see the church as the presence of the kingdom in this world then the theological pieces start falling into place. The oversight in some recent conceptions of building the kingdom is that the kingdom is only thought of in terms of social services. But where Christ reigns, wickedness is expelled too. If you want to build the kingdom in your town, if you want heaven to come down to earth in your city, then you must not allow unrepentant sinners to live there. For Scripture is clear that they share no part in the kingdom.

Gotta Love John Piper

John Piper shares a journal entry from years ago about contemplating whether he should step aside from ministry. What is shocking is that the reason wasn’t because the Church was dying, but was rather growing. Only a John Piper would look at a growing ambitious Church and pray whether he should remain a part of it.

There is a humbling wisdom to his petitions of years ago. As I approach the completion of my second year of the pastorate here at Sovereign Grace Fellowship of Nampa, I am now finally comfortable with the prospects of a growing Church. I want growth in His timing and according to His will. I want lasting growth in the lives of our people. I have said over and over again that if we don’t grow the right way, I want no part of it. We’re not trying to fill the “theater” and feel happy that our production was a success…we are trying to disciple big-hearted, faith-venturing followers for Christ.

Here is Piper’s article. Thanks Pastor Piper for your honesty, transparency, and humility. Your intended encouragement in sharing this story is received by this young ambitious pastor who always needs to assess whether my ambition is for the glory of God above all things or for feeling good about myself and vindication by a growing Church.

Clarifications About Last Sunday’s Sermon…Misspoke on a Number Fact and More Thoughts on Whether the “Unforgiving Servant” Was Truly Forgiven and Lost “His Salvation”

Greetings to all who were present at SGF this past Lord’s Day for worship.

I want to clarify a comment that was made which was erroneous. When commenting on the story of the “Unforgiving Servant” from Mt. 18:23-35, I made mention that the small debt owed to the forgiven servant was around $10. I meant to say around $10,000. I forgot to mention a few zeroes behind it. That’s the last time I will teach my kids that zeroes mean nothing.

At the end of the day, 6 Billion to $10,000 might as well be like a buck that is owed in comparison.

Also, in regards to whether the original servant really was forgiven, because he is later summoned and thrown into prison after failing to show mercy, I would say that the forgiveness wasn’t complete. If the king truly forgave Him, He would have no grounds to throw him into prison afterwards. In some sense, the forgiveness of debt was conditional. So also, our future glorification is conditioned upon a persevering faith that evidences fruits of sanctification (though never perfect in this life).

If the original servant truly was forgiven of the debt, it would have been realized in his heart and would inevitably affect his actions towards others. The fact that his heart was unchanged shows that he viewed his forgiveness as nothing more than”get out of prison” card. He had no gratitude, failed to appreciate the King’s heart in the matter, and failed to apply the forgiveness received. He flunked. Because of his deficiency, the debt really wasn’t fully settled, but was reasserted after it became evident that this guy was using the “King” by crying out for mercy.

How does this look today?

Well, someone comes to Jesus, and from all appearances it appears that the contrition, repentance and faith are all genuine. As such, I would baptize such a person and declare to them that they are heirs of eternal life and that their sins have been washed away based on the signs of their repentance. I am not omniscient and only declare according to what is seen. This baptized professor goes out rejoicing that their debt is settled and uses it as a license for hatred towards brother, and all manner of unspeakable sin. When confronted with such sin, if the person fails to repent, they would then be “excommunicated”. This excommunication is intended to convey that they no longer have the rights and privileges to the Lord’s Table and Christian fellowship. Now, were they saved in the first place or not? Only time will tell. I think it dangerous to emphatically state that they indeed were saved and have now lost it. It is also dangerous to say that they never were saved, when in fact their season of disobedience might not nullify a very real faith within. All we can do is administer the “keys of the Kingdom” based on what we see externally. Some would protest that this sounds like salvation by works. We, however, are told to judge fruit and take into account the fruits of repentance. There would be no basis for Church discipline if we were to ignore the way people behave. Church discipline is not a system of salvation by works, but rather an act that protects the integrity of the Church, the doctrine of salvation and sanctification, and is intended to provoke the unrepentant to repentance.

If the one disciplined were to return to the Church, we wouldn’t rebaptize them or declare that they are getting saved over again. We would simply restore them to fellowship and rejoice that the prodigal has returned. Our concern is not to make infallible statements about the deep things of the heart, which God alone knows. If we committed the error of saying that they never were saved, then many would be reluctant to restore a fallen brother thinking that they are faking it again. This is the error of the Corinthian Church which wouldn’t restore the immoral brother. The other extreme is to so distort saving grace, that you refuse to discipline and actually boast of sin within the body (which the same Corinthian Church did before Paul told them to deal with the immoral brother).

These matters are intricate and need to be administered with a proper understanding of the boundaries and jurisdiction of the local Church.

Now back to the parable. This story is told from Jesus and the illustrations don’t fit perfectly our context. First of all, the King summons the servant back and throws him into prison. This illustrates eternal punishment. One needs to be careful with establishing doctrine from parables, however this action would constitute God’s holy and righteous judgment at the last judgment. It will be shown that this servant will pay dearly for his misappropriation of forgiveness. This story only makes sense if someone infallible is telling the story (Jesus) who is able to infallibly make pronouncements on what really was going on from God’s perspective (King). At the end of the day, the King did show grace and forgave him his debt with the assumption that the person would be changed. This person was not changed and therefore never really was forgiven…he was still bound by hatred, unforgiveness, and a vindictive spirit. He was still bound to the evil one and his own flesh. He was not transformed and produced no fruit. He would be like the seed that fell alongside the road that was eaten up.

Jesus said that we must abide in Him and that He would abide in us and that we would produce fruit. If we don’t produce fruit, then Jesus threatens judgment. This is the same language employed by the prophets to the Covenant community before Christ and it is the same language spoken to the New Covenant community. I see no inconsistency with how the Bible speaks to God’s people in warnings, pleadings, and threats…with the doctrine of “eternal security”. The doctrine of “eternal security” only makes sense in the eternal perspective on things for those whom are truly the elect of God. The “elect” cannot be lost in the grand scheme of things. The physical “elect” Church community, however, is filled with the decreetive “elect” (those who will persevere) as well as tares (those who gave minimal signs of faith to bring them to baptism and the Lord’s table, but whose heart is far from God and fail to seek God’s grace in sanctification). This “unforgiving servant” was admitted to the “Church” by the gracious actions of the King, but upon further review, he never made his calling and election a sure thing, but chose to walk in the “church” of Satan instead. His baptism and profession of faith are therefore now something to heighten the judgment on the last day instead of tokens of grace.