Being Jewish, born and raised Jewish, I know so little of what it is that is a Christian. All I knew growing up was that Christians believed in Jesus. What that meant, I was not sure, but I think I thought that meant they believed He was or is God. Beyond that I had no idea. So, now today as a believer of 25+ years, I still know so little of what is a Christian.
Doing this blog has given me a opportunity to converse with a great number of Christians from different backgrounds and beliefs. I have found out that there is not one face to assign to the term Christian. It is funny, as there is a saying that if you have 2 Jews, you will have at least 3 opinions, however that may be just a truth more accurate of all of humanity, for Christianity seems to have more opinions than there are Christians. By opinions, I am referring to doctrines. First, of all if I was to apply a definition of a Christian it would have to start with the doctrine of salvation. If there is one place that all Christians should agree, and I would expand that to all believers, Jew or Gentile, it would be that salvation is by faith and faith alone, that we are not justified by works, but by faith that we have in Yeshua as the promised Messiah of the Hebrew Scriptures. That is what provides salvation, and I think without that, those claiming to be Christians or believers are making a false claim. With such folks, there should not be any unity. There should still be a love for them, but not a unity of brotherhood.
Once we get beyond salvation, then things become interesting. We have Calvinism and within that, varying levels of points; a 5 point Calvinist, a 4 point and so on. We have Arminianism, we have Open Theism. We have Evangelicals, Reformed Churches, Baptist Churches, Pentecostals. We have deferent thoughts about baptism, gifts of the Spirit, music, almost any subject, almost any practiced mentioned in the Bible we have varying interpretations on how that should be done today, or not done at all. One challenge that arises is having a discussion when the person maybe a Christian but may hold to any number of different beliefs on subjects such as the Torah, Israel, and other subjects that a Messianic might post about. I cannot assume that the reader has any certain opinion about the Law, as some believe it is totally done away with and others believe in only a moral law remaining (and I am sure a number of varying beliefs therein). I can’t assume any thoughts about Israel and the church, about Replacement theology, about Biblical practices followed today by many Messianic Jews. There is a temptation to just lump everything together and say Christians think this, or believe that and then approach those beliefs and either agree, disagree, or discuss issues and subjects based upon that. However that temptation will lead to disappointment as one will find making the assumptions that all believers not associated with Messianic Judaism believe one thing will ultimately lead to the points expressed getting confused by varying levels of agreement and disagreement. It is confusing and a challenge and because of it, I have learned a great deal.
My blog, more than anything else is to help me learn, to help me work out my salvation, and as much as it seems like I just give my opinion, the conversations that take place have opened my eyes to a great many things. A recent post opened up a large conversation and when I tried to find unity amongst the believers discussing the issue, a comment back mentioned, “Jesus preferred the truth over unity and we should also.” This got me thinking about that and I think there is some truth to that thought, although Yeshua was all for unity as well. There is certainly enough Scriptures that point to that ideal, starting with Psalm 133:1
, which in Hebrew is “Hinei ma tov uíma naíim shevet achim gam yachad.”
So how do I work that out? Well I think the truth is the truth of salvation. If we share that truth, then we can have unity, or we can work towards that unity. Now this unity does not mean that we must agree on all these other issues, however, we are unity in faith and that should count for a great deal. We should support each other through prayer and service when possible. Some difference might lead to no sharing fellowship, but it should not lead to becoming antagonistic against one another. That seems to do a disservice to the One we all serve.
So, there might not be one face to assign to Christianity, and that is probably a good thing and by design. However, if we are saved by the Messiah, let us work to share a unity in that salvation, for that is good and pleasing and will accomplish much for the Kingdom. I think one agreement most would have is that even if salvation is not about works, we have been saved for doing good works. Certainly Ephesian 2:8-10 sums up this thought, saved by grace for good works. Let us work together for Messiah.
B”H
Loading ...
9 responses so far ↓
1 Banner Kidd // Apr 26, 2008 at 10:45 am
1 John 1
says that we have fellowship as we walk in the light as HE is in the light. We know that the light is Torah, according to Scripture. The only place for real unity and fellowship is in recognizing that the Word of Yahweh is alive, unchanging and is founded on Torah. Those who believe this are in the process of working out their salvation with fear and trembling before an awesome just and hold God. In that place we have unity and fellowship.
Where it breaks down is when we try to have fellowship and unity with such a person who claims to be a follower of the True and Living God while rejecting HIS Instruction. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of Yah. The only Word they knew at the time of Paul’s writing this was Torah the Prophets and the Writings (Psalms, Proverbs, etc.). The Torah is Yah’s instructions and all the rest of the Scripture was preaching repentance to Torah! And, read and understood in context, so does all the Apostolic Scriptures we call the New Testament. We, if we believe this Scriptural Truth, will be at different levels of understanding in our walk, yet submitted to the Torah to gain understanding, by faith. Faith means hearing and doing. Apart from the act of doing faith is dead (James). We can discuss and reason together with Scripture, in context and in totality, as our arbiter of Truth, and we have unity and fellowship as we seek to grow in HIM, growing together, as living stones, into the dwellling place of Elohim. Apart from this there is only pseudo unity which is based on lies and tolerance of lies that keeps people from the Tree of Life (Rev 22
).
Shabbat Shalom
-Banner
2 Tom Albrecht // Apr 28, 2008 at 10:50 am
To BK:
What is “torah”?
3 Tom Albrecht // Apr 29, 2008 at 4:05 pm
“I cannot assume that the reader has any certain opinion about the Law, as some believe it is totally done away with and others believe in only a moral law remaining (and I am sure a number of varying beliefs therein). I can’t assume any thoughts about Israel and the church, about Replacement theology, about Biblical practices followed today by many Messianic Jews.”
Bryan,
One the benefits I find in being a confessional Christian is that it helps to answer these very types of questions. I can point you the Westminster Standards or the Three Forms of Unity as an adequate statement of what I believe as a Christian. They may not cover every area in details, but they are sufficient to express my views on the essentials of the faith.
I confess that I have a hard time sometimes relating to Christians who have no such confession, or, worse yet, denigrate those who do have a confession. E.g., I really do not know what “Messianic Jews” believe in some areas because of the variety of views within the movement and because there is no Messianic confession. It often boils down to an “I am of Paul” vs. “I am of Apollos”. The views seem to be those of whoever happens to lead that sect of Messianic Judaism. (But that is really no different from we see much of the rest of Christianity.) There are a variety of practices with respect to the rigor of old covenant law keeping. And I have encountered some MJs that appear to espouse forms of heresy wrt the doctrine of the Trinity. Practices are one thing, but fiddling with the person and work of Christ is a serious issue.
4 B Z // Apr 30, 2008 at 4:12 am
Tom, you bring up some interesting points that raise up a few questions for me.
In your church (not just your individual church, but your church in the broader sense) must all the members accept these confessions? And if so how is the belief in these confessions measured? Are some kicked out for not walking in them or could they confess them with their mouths, but walk according to a different standard and still be accepted. I am just curious as to how this works itself out. Of course at congregations that do not have such a confession you do have a variety of ideas and approaches. I am just wondering if there is in some respects the same thing in the “confessional churches” if that is an acceptable term.
Secondly, how do you view these confessions, Westminster, etc? Do you regard them as inspired, like Scripture? If not, how does one resolve the imperfection of human opinion upon these documents? I mean no disrespect, nor am I trying to be controversial, just wondering how this is resolved.
It is just that in my mind the idea that if these confessions are needed as much as Scripture then possibly is this saying that Scripture only is not enough? Once again, I want to make it clear I am not trying to make accusations or be controversial but wondering if these things have been discussed and what the answer would be to these types of thoughts.
Banner, I really took to the “different levels of understanding in our walk” part of your comments as I have heard your Pastor say himself, that he has taught certain Scriptures different at points in the past, then he does now, as Scriptures have been further revealed to him through prayer and study. As such, I would think that he would not have considered himself outside the unity we have with God when he taught those things formerly, and thus I agree that as we grow in Him we discover new richness in His word, each discovering at a different pace and with different emphasis at different issues, and that is why I try to stress the concept of unity with those that may have some different viewpoints, yet accept salvation based upon the same exact principles as we do.
If when you were at the point of understanding as previously spoken to by your Pastor, how would it have come across to you if someone who had your current understanding came and painted you as outside of the Truth? I would think that you still considered yourself a believer at that point before, and thus my calls for unity are just expressing that we consider those still growing in understanding as believers as well and offer them the same level of mercy as we offer to ourselves.
Thanks for both your thoughts, Tom and Banner. Good stuff. B”H.
5 Tom Albrecht // Apr 30, 2008 at 8:56 am
It depends on the denomination/congregation. Some are very strict and require subscription to the confession by all members, but most do not. They do require subscription of all the officers (ministers, elders and deacons).
I’ll stick with examination of officers since I’ve never actually been in a body that requires subscription of the entire membership.
Generally, subscription is identified two ways, 1) By examination. When a person presents himself to the leadership for admission to the congregation they are examined on their personal testimony and understanding of basic Christian doctrine. Officer examination is much more extensive and intensive, requiring an understanding and affirmation of the doctrines of the church. 2) By oath. When a person is ordained and installed into their office they are asked certain questions before the congregation and asked to indicate their agreement. For example, in one Presbyterian denomination, the officer questions go like this:
1. Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as originally given, to be the inerrant Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice?
2. Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures; and do you further promise that if at any time you find yourself out of accord with any of the fundamentals of this system of doctrine, you will, on your own initiative, make known to your Session the change which has taken place in your views since the assumption of this ordination vow?
3. Do you approve of the form of government and discipline of the Presbyterian Church in America, in conformity with the general principles of biblical polity?
4. Do you accept the office of ruling elder (or deacon, as the case may be) in this church, and promise faithfully to perform all the duties thereof, and to endeavor by the grace of God to adorn the profession of the Gospel in your life, and to set a worthy example before the Church of which God has made you an officer?
5. Do you promise subjection to your brethren in the Lord?
6. Do you promise to strive for the purity, peace, unity and edification of the Church?
If at any point in the future they change their views they are bound by oath to bring that fact to the attention of the rest of the church leadership for consideration. One of the principles of all the churches that belong to the Reformed species (of which I’m a member) is plurality of elders for oversight of the congregation. No one individual is tasked with deciding matters of the faith, since there is wisdom in a multitude of counselors (Prov. 11:14
).
Most confessional churches that I’m familiar with allow members who hold views different from the church’s confession, but they are generally not allowed to teach or hold church office (for obvious reasons). My experience is that over time the views of the individuals tend to match the confession of the church as a result of careful discipleship and catechizing from the minister and elders.
Confessions are human documents, neither inspired nor infallible. Where they agree with the Word of God they are to be received and approved by the Church. Confessions may be amended when they Church at large determines that the language of the Confession dopes not match the teaching of the Word of God.
For example, the Westminster Confession contains the following language:
“The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.” (Chapter 1:10)
“All synods or councils, since the Apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.” (Chapter 31:3)
Synods and Councils, including the one that wrote the Westminster Confession, can and do make errors regarding the proper handling of the Word of God. So the ultimate authority is the Word of God. Confessions are summaries in particular areas.
Someone has said that every heresy begins with an affirmation of the Word of God. It seems that every cult and quack carries a Bible. The Church has always been faced with this problem (cf. Acts 20
), and so confessions are one way for the Church to say this is what the Bible says, whether it be on the person and work of Christ, the nature of salvation, relationship of law and grace, etc. The recognition of the value of confessions takes seriously Christ’s promise that He would be with His Church and that the gates of Hades would not prevail against it. They are given to deal with the sudden appearance of novel yet appealing teachings that have the effect of tossing the Church to and fro. While cults come and go, most of these confessions have withstood the test of time.
While I do not regard the confessions as being on the same level of the Word of God, my commitment to them is an expression of my love for Christ and His body, the Church, which formulated them for the glory of God and the good of all the sheep.
I appreciate your questions and the opportunity to answer them.
6 B Z // Apr 30, 2008 at 9:55 am
So,as a followup, would there be the potential for a conflict with Sola Scriptura? (which from Wikipedia is defined as:)
I am wondering I guess if there are common criticisms that the Reform Churches with the strong emphasis on the confessions is adding to Scripture, and the doctrine ends up being the result of Scripture and the confessions instead of Scripture only.
Is there a danger, or are there some churches that end up turning this into a tradition, similar to I guess Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition or even Rabbinic Judaism and all reliance on Mishnah and Talmud?
Can it become, or has it sometime become a “I am of the Westminster” or am am of that confession instead of being of Paul or Apollos? Is this a danger or one that has been fallen into by some churches or groups?
7 Tom Albrecht // Apr 30, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I don’t see a conflict with the definition. Affirming a confession is not adding to Scripture, or diminishing the authority of Scripture. How someone can claim that after reading, for example, Westminster Confession Chapter 1:10 is beyond me.
Remember, it was the confessionalists of the 16th and 17th centuries that gave us (or rather revived) the doctrine of sola Scriptura.
A helpful article in this regard is A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura by Keith Mathison.
Many folks think that sola Scriptura is a license to believe whatever they wish to believe. The Reformation doctrine stresses the importance of the Church in guiding the individual into a proper understanding of the Word of God. The Reformation recognized there are no lone ranger Christians. Today, many church members operate as if the fall had no effect on their reasoning skills and that they are able to come to an independently correct (infallible) interpretation of the Bible.
The basis for the confession is the Word of God. What is in the confession began in the Word of God. Reformed confessions (as opposed to Roman Catholic ones) make no claims beyond what is found in the Bible. Westminster says:
“The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” (Chapter 1:6)
Note that the confession explicitly denies the place of human traditions in the formulation of divine doctrine.
I think the criticism is leveled against confessionalists by non-confessionalists. It is not unique to the Reformed churches. Most (all) denominations have some form of confession or creed use to define the distinctives of the group. Within Protestantism, Lutherans, Reformed Baptists, Anglicans are all confessional.
Men are sinners, so there is always that potentiality. The antidote is to continually call people to a deep study of the Word of God. The antidote is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, since that leads to even more confusion and abusive, aberrant doctrines and ideas.
That is the surface appearance, but the difference is that Westminster was codified by the larger church, not by an individual. When I say “I’m Westminsterian” I’m acknowledging a aspect of Christ’s body that stretches back in church history. I’m acknowledging a love of the body (and ultimately Christ), not mere allegiance to one man with one idea.
I think it’s safe to say that the confessions themselves (at least the Reformed ones) guard against the very concerns you have expressed. Imperfect men are left to the implementation of the theory. The alternative, every man doing what seemed right in his own eyes, has more dire consequences.
8 B Z // Apr 30, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Tom, thanks for your responses. Once again, I was not leveling any accusations at all, just asking questions from my ignorance of the subject.
Sometimes on the web, everything is “in your face” and everyone is so busy stating their opinion that even questions can come off as statements or accusations. I appreciate your understanding and answering in a manner that defends your position, but was also open and honest.
I do not see a conflict with a confessional. In some ways I do see the positive aspects you point out for it. I guess like everything else, it has to be judged against Scripture for accuracy. Seems like a very expanded statement of faith.
And this does seem to get to my point of the topic that there are lots of different approaches to how we walk out our faith, some are very detailed, with large confessions, some try to do it in a more touchy-feely way (”doing what is right in their own eyes”) and other are in between. My point was that I have learned all this from this interaction, and thus it is hard to put one face on a Christian, as if they all think the same way. At the same time, I do think that while not everyone that calls them self a Christian is one, that among those that truly are there still remains different thoughts and approaches to certain parts of the walk, part of the “Practices are one thing” that you mentioned in your first post.
For me when I started doing this it was real tempting to just say that Christians believe this or that about this or that, but I have come to find that there is not necessarily one Christian though on certain subjects. On some there must or should be otherwise our definition of a Christian or believer is too broad, but on other issues it appears that there can be multiple Christian response to it, and I have learned to be sensitive to it.
Thanks for your input once again. You truly bring forth a great wealth of knowledge to my journey.
Blessings to you,
9 Tom Albrecht // Apr 30, 2008 at 7:34 pm
“Tom, thanks for your responses. Once again, I was not leveling any accusations at all, just asking questions from my ignorance of the subject.”
Bryan,
I did not take anything you said negatively. I appreciate the opportunity to dialog.
I encourage you to study the richness of the Reformed faith, a faith that has been embraced by many ethnic Jews including Alfred Edersheim, who was converted to Christ after he made the acquaintance of John Duncan, a Scottish Presbyterian chaplain. Edersheim was later ordained as a Presbyterian minister and wrote a number of important books including The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah and The Temple: Its Ministry and Services at the Time of Jesus.
Leave a Comment