education in the Christian Community 2

An area in which the class piqued my interest was in the busting of myths pertaining to what Education in the Christian Community entails in its content. It is not just about facts and information but about life transformation, that it is about a set of curricular, that it is all about the bible and that it is none of my concern. I would like to emphasize on the part of facts and information as it applies to me most. I always had the idea that teaching was all about transmission of facts and knowledge, the know-that and know-how. But I came to realize that it is more than that! It is ultimately to bring about life-transformation. It is about enabling the recipients to think and derive at questions such as “why I need this life-transformation?” or “why do I need to come to Church?”, instead of just telling them that those are important. It is from thinking and asking these that, leads ultimately down to a personal conviction of why I am doing what I am doing and how can I change what I am doing and what this change will bring about? . . . This form of thinking requires the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing about that conviction.

Another thing which I caught from this is the need of our content to have cultural relevancy. It occurred to me with the movie I watched, ‘The 3 Idiots’ that in India, more young people die of suicide than of sickness because of the ‘shame’ culture they are living in, they rather die than bringing shame to their families by failing their exams. It is for the similar reason that many Indians will not convert to Christianity, lest they bring shame to their family. To this I thought, can I use the context wherein it says: If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Luke 14 v. 26 if I were to preach in India.

To which the lesson where continuity and decisional personalities comes to play. Will those who tend to need continuity be afraid to make a commitment and make a decision? But for those decisional ones, will they fall away on this account? Or will their faith be even more sure. This part helps me to consider people with different personalities and thinking patterns when I teach.

Education in the Christian Community

One of the interesting things which I have learnt during the course is the integrated approach emphasises the need of engaging the participants in educating them in their knowing,doing, feeling and being. I think that it is necessary to meet every facet of the individual as people learns things differently, like for people who are are empathetic, they'd tend to learn better if what is being taught excites their feelings given certain scenarios. Integrated learning also enable the individual to be more complete in the sense that he will not just know more, but do, not just do for the sake of doing but feel along what he does, and more than that, to enable the person to become more of that which is being taught. Like for example taking impressionable youths to meet other youths but those in special education. We make them aware that they considered more privileged. To do activities with them like simple games, then as an after action review, "how did you feel while you were playing with them?", ultimately with an intention of using this excision to make the youths become more sensible and not to take their privileges for granted.

Another lesson which I learnt is that education needs not take a formal lesson in a classroom setting but just going out with my youths and hearing them out or using a movie just watched as an object lesson. Same goes for ministry, every time and everything can be ministry to serve the Lord as I taught my Royal Ranger boy. But this is something I need to learn myself as I have the tendency to dichotomise my reality as spiritual and secular.

Lastly, learning as a community is important as it provides a platform of relational and mutual learning. It includes not just my learning in the process but the community's as well. As I have been taught in old testament foundations, no one in the Jewish community claims individual recognition but as a clan or tribe at the minimum.

Epistle to the Romans

Mainly throughout the course of the Romans module, I encountered issues of doctrines which challenged those which I have held to such as that of predestination and ‘eternal security’ and faith.
I have actually stated in the NT Encounter (NTE) my view on eternal security of the believer, that the notion of ‘Once saved always saved’ is rather misleading, yes! There is a place of where this notion is embodied, and this is seen in the Church of today where many of the ‘so-called-Christians’ live in a licentious manner, and professes faith.
But for the elect, as I have qualified in the (NTE) is an existential experience (subjective) unfolding an (objective) salvation, which I see encompasses the maturity of the believer. This is seen where Peter calls the believers to make their calling and election sure. My apologies, if this goes beyond the Epistle of Romans, but as I have also been taught, we ought also to see the Bible from a concentric ripple flowing from the textchapterbook author  testament  the bible as a whole. I certainly believed in the part where Romans 8 v. 28-30 refers to the maturity of the believer. Thus, the election of the believer is seen in the justification which assumes the certainty of glorification, entailing the need of having to be conformed into Christ’s image. Therefore, if a ‘so-called-Christian’ who seems to externally exhibit signs of being an elect, but falls away, it would appear that the notion of eternal security is fallacious, but it need to be questioned as to the certainty of whether he was first justified, this is often insensitive to judge the issue, thus assuming the possibility that ‘the elect’ could fall away. But if one is led by the Spirit, he is a son of God, thus he is characterised by maturity in becoming conformed into Christ’s image. This is the existential process to which we can make certain our election or the negation of it.
In the gospel of John, Jesus says that those whom the Father have given to Him, no one can snatch them out of His hand, because they too are in His Father’s hand, He and the Father are one, and he shall give them eternal life. But this too is qualified by those who hears His voice and follows Him as opposed to those who do not. By plain reading, He told the Jews that were with Him, you do not believe because you are not my sheep (John 10 v. 26). Logically, one would infer that we are His sheep and therefore we believe, not that we believe and therefore we are His sheep just as those who did not believe because they were not His sheep. Then we can safely assume that 1 John 2 v. 24-25, is the culmination of the eternal life Jesus spoke of in John Gospel, these will receive the promise. The aspect of the will is upheld by the fact that as long as he and she perseveres in his/her faith, he/she can be sure that God is at work of preservation. (Jude 24). Therefore one is to work out his salvation with fear and trembling for it is God at work both to will and work for His good pleasure. (Phil 2 v. 12-13)
With regard to faith, I cannot understand why there are distinctions of faith, one to use the gifts (Rom 12), disputable faith (Rom 14) and saving faith. When I read Ephesians 4, it mentioned . . . one faith . . . then it went about to say, “ But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8 This is why it says:
“When he ascended on high,
he took many captives
and gave gifts to his people.”
I think that, we ought not to dichotomise our faith as to their function, but with same faith with which we are saved, though it may vary by measure, strong or weak, I believe that by the very same faith are we saved, by which are also we use our gifts.

I also learnt one practical lesson through the course of the group project. Acceptance. Dogmatic as I was, I didn't feel that it was right to make light and frivolous the skid as it seemed to convey 2 groups, carnivores and herbivores. the Carnivores seem to exhibit a rather uncanny form of indifference to their faith pertaining both to food and holy days when in fact, both the strong and weak Christians sought by the measure of faith given them to glorify God. But it would be an irony on my part as I later realised, if I couldn't accept the skit on acceptance.

1 & 2 Corinthians

Through the course of my learning journey I have learnt much but I shall present three interesting things I have gleaned. First, it was through the process of my group presentation and exegetical understanding of the passage in 2 Corinthians 10 v. 12-18. I found it something of a paradox when I was playing my role as “humble” pastor because at one point I had to answer questions pertaining to the assurance that God can approve of my work, and if my work in the ministry glorifies God. Is that not boasting in my heart if I should presume that God approves of what I do? This is probably a subtle struggle in Asian culture of true humility and false modesty where some does not outwardly boast about their ministry but there is a tendency that one finds inwardly a pride in their work to think that their small Church is small and “humble”. Ultimately, I believe that this area is an existential aspect where one knows that whatever he has for his ministry is given by God, big or small, is entrusted to the minister according to their ability and therefore he does his utmost best by the enabling of God to use him and if God sees fit to grow and expand his area of ministry, so be it because it is God who gives us the ministry of reconciliation, everything that we are and have comes from God.
The second thing which I have learnt is in the area of the Lord’s Supper. I realised that it has to do with the body of Christ as a whole if one sins another member. But I was thinking that while in that context , it speaks of abusing and being sacrilegious to the whole body by not considering the rest of the members in its immediacy, I think that personal sin still has its part in affecting the social dynamics with one another in the body. In some sense, since one member is hurt, the whole feels with it, there could well be a concentric effect of one member’s sin to the whole.
The third thing I have learnt is the theories behind 2 Corinthians and the missing letters. Some commentators has it that two letters were written between 1 and 2 Corinthians, others has it that 2 Corinthians is made up of several fragments and some has it that portions of 2 Corinthians was written by a pseudographer. Whatever the case, the canon of Scripture is what it is for a reason and yet infallible. I wonder why so many times why much of modern scholarship speculates and questions Pauline authorship take for example Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles and probably more, taking to consideration that the purpose of each letter has an inexplicable connection with who the author is.

Pastoral Epistles

2.1 Four interesting ideas/concepts/practices that you have gleaned through class interaction, presentation, lectures, reading and research

a) One of the interesting concepts I learnt was the interpretation of ‘saved through childbearing’. It is almost as simple as the woman being committed to her household management and chores, of which childbearing is but one of them yet is represented in a way for all. On one hand I would like to believe it is that simple but on the other, I am still doubtful but at least it is worth consideration.

b) Whether to interpret 1 Tim 3 v. 11 as a female deacon or as a deacon’s wife. It is interesting that John Mac Arthur took the view that the text was referring to a female deacon as he takes the view that a woman should not teach in a Church setting coming from his doctrinal background. I honestly would like to stand in the camp of the deacon’s wife but I have no qualms about women teaching or preaching in the church.

c) I’d think the part of the discussion in class on fearing of God or fear of sin was quite interesting. It occurred to me that we tend to serve that which we fear, and serve whom we love, it could also be that we’d love that which we fear, more often than not its observable. But it depends on how we qualify these three terms. But if we fear God, we’d serve Him, and we love Him and because of our love we serve Him. Another thing is we love our fear for God, sounds funny but come to think of it, if we have an appreciation of this fear of God, it’ll keep us from loving, serving and fearing sin.

d) I think that the process of doing the exegesis helped me think about the idea that our lifestyle is the best form of apologetics (or polemics) to which there will be to it nothing we will have to apologize for. If we do not conduct ourselves in a Christ-like manner, no matter how much we argue for our faith, there is vacancy for people to point a finger at “our Christianity” and us and there will be much apology to be made by others on our behalf when having to clear the name of Christianity. But if our conduct is blameless and people tries to find fault with our faith, there will be no grounds for them to make accusations on our faith because of our behavior.


2.2 Interaction with any other related outside reading, etc

In my reading of the New Bible Dictionary for the Origin of the Goddess of Diana with regard to Ephesus, it is interesting to note that it was believed she fell from the sky and she was a hunter but the religions of Asia Minor have somewhat made her into the goddess of fertility. However, Diana was however said to have been a virgin. Underlying these, I would think that the people in Ephesus regarded Diana (Artemis) highly and that is also probably the reason the culture had a high regard of women and that they had a higher social status.

2.3 And how each of them has changed your perspectives, or challenged you, or helped you

It helped me understand the background behind the Epistles to Timothy in Ephesus somewhat and how the women thought of themselves in the Church and why Paul had to tell them not to let the woman teach or exercise authority over a man.

551 words

The Heidelberg Catechism

Question 1. What is thy only comfort in life and death?

That I with body and soul, both in life and death,am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ; who, with his precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him.


At Mandai crematorium,
I saw the somber reality of life; that is death.
This catechism came to mind.
What is my only comfort in life and in death?

WHO IS THIS DIVIDED MAN?

INTRODUCTION


There is a dilemma of Christian perfectionism and it is reflected in how one is perceived by themselves with regard to sin and perfection. Generally people have an affinity towards wanting to know what perfection is, and here, Christian perfection is in question, can it be had?
Benjamin Warfield did a study and observed “rationalists who were very much concerned with the ‘miserable-sinner Christianity’ of the Reformers and efforts were directed in an attempt to show that the Apostle Paul thought of Christians as sinless” .
The attempt made by the rationalists propelled implications across to which this research aims to discuss. Is the man in Romans 7:14-25 the regenerate Paul expressing his torment in his struggle against sin or is he the unregenerate Paul whom is made out to be? If he was the regenerate Paul, Christian perfectionism does not and cannot stand. But if it was the unregenerate Paul, it is without dispute that Christians are and should be sinless.
The consequence of Christian perfectionism led to J.I Packer’s near mental breakdown and would concur the same would be with many who seeks perfection. J. I Packer empathically describes his experience:
“I scrapped my inside, figuratively speaking, to find things to yield to the Lord so as to make consecration complete, and I worked hard to ‘let go and let God’ when temptation made its presence felt. at that time I did not know that Harry Ironside, sometime pastor of Moody Memorial Church, Chicago, once drove himself into a full-scale mental breakdown through trying to find the secret that I was trying to find. . . , . . . as I have concluded since, that the higher Christian life as I was conceiving it is an unreality, . . . So I must scrape my inside yet again to find whatever maggots of unconsecrated selfhood still lurked there. A few months of this left me, as can be imagined, fairly frantic.”


These sentiments are shared among Christians who seeks so earnestly and fervently to consecrate their lives, but at the same time a sense of helplessness to succumb to their indwelling sin takes the Christian to state of which he feels that he can never attain complete consecration.
Therefore, the thesis of this research seeks to find out who the divided man is in Romans 7:14-25 and the implications it has on Christian living with regards to perfectionism and God’s progressive work of sanctifying the believer.








WHY IT IS THE CHRISTIAN PAUL WHO RELATES HIS DILEMMATIC EXPERIENCE
Use of Present Tenses
In Romans 7:14-25, it is the Christian Paul who relates his dilemmatic experience. Leon Morris has observed “that Paul consistently employed the use of the present tense in reference very much to himself”. Moreover, Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones pointed out “this lies in contrast to preceding verses (vv. 7-13) where the past tense is used with concern to himself and the law” .
Ubiquitous ‘I’ Found

Leon Morris expressed that “The use of ‘I’ or the Greek word, Ego, was used six times” is notable . However, Douglas Moo, observed “that ἐγώ ; ego had been employed seven times in verse 15 alone” . This frequent usage accentuates that the word ‘I’ or ‘ego’ is employed ubiquitously in the text which evinces that Paul is relating from personal experience.
Postulation of Paul Being ‘Fleshly’ and Not in the Flesh

William Hendriksen noted “that when Paul says ‘The law is Spiritual; but I am unspiritual’. The apostle does not imply that he is in the flesh that and that he is being controlled by the sinful nature as it is ascribed to an unbeliever. Instead, to be carnal or fleshly means that one is contrary to what is prescribed by the law. So while the Law being Spiritual, perfect and divine, Paul postures himself as unspiritual and imperfect though he has become a Christian. It is evident in Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians where he mentioned that ‘I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ (1 Corinthians 3:1) ’” It is apparent that Paul regards the Corinthian Christians to be in Christ though referred to as infants. Paul knows that as much as he is a Christian, he is susceptible to carnality as Cranfield has pointed out: “However, the implication leaves Paul marked by carnality as is opposed to God”, Cranfield explains further that “When carnality here is compared to that of chapter eight, we see that in Paul’s view this carnality in a believer is not carnal in the same unqualified manner that the unregenerate man is carnal. ” How is that so? By observing that the carnality of a Christian (as mentioned by Hendriksen earlier) is one whereby the Christian is not controlled by the sinful nature but the unregenerate man is controlled by the sinful nature because the Christian as reiterated may be fleshly but not in the flesh.
Consequently, what can be seen is this, John Stott interchanges law with principles, “’I discovered this principle at work. When I want to do good, evil is right there with me.(Romans 7:21)’ The antithesis of the good I want to do and the I beside whom evil lies . . . presents that the regenerate personality are simultaneously good and evil ”

WHY IT IS NOT THE PRE-CHRISTIAN DEPICTED

The Sinful Nature Cannot Submit to God’s Law

Now, the reason why it is not the pre-Christian Paul that is being depicted is this: (Romans 7:22)“For in my inner being I delight in God’s law”, with assumption that this is the regenerate or Christian Paul speaking, it is contrasted against Romans chapter eight verse seven where it says “The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so” but back to chapter seven verse twenty-five it says “Consequently I with my mind serve the law of God”. John Murray makes it very poignant: the unregenerate man in the flesh in Romans chapter eight verse seven cannot submit to the law of God try as it might, it is futile but the regenerate man in Romans chapter seven verse twenty-two speaks of one who delights in God’s law and is after the inward man and in the preceding verses there is an antithesis of good and evil waging war in the principles of Paul’s mind which is very telling that Paul struggles with sin when he expresses his angst in saying “For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do... For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.” (Romans 7:18-19)
Paul’s Former Way of Life: Faultless

Contrariwise to the imperfect man, where Paul postulates himself struggling with his conflicting ego, Paul’s pre-conversion experience seems to exhibit the very opposite of his deploring monologue. “(Philippians 3:4-6) Paul says ‘circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless [mine].’ And in (Galatians 1:13-14) Paul says, ‘For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.’ John Piper puts it this way: “Paul hardly flinches nor bats an eyelid [mine] in torment or show any signs that he was in a dilemmatic state of being the divided man in Romans chapter seven but rather Paul depicted the man that was full of zeal for the law and its traditions and he says ‘as for legalistic righteousness, I was found
[mine] faultless.’ such was the sentiments Paul had for his pre-conversion experience .”

THE IMPLICATION OF PAULS IDENTITY FOR CHRISTIAN LIVING
In here, the implication of finding who this dilemmatic Paul found in (Romans 7:14-25) has on Christian perfectionism is the focus. An all-or-nothing view of God versus that of a progressive work of sanctification will be examined as well as an apathy to the effects of indwelling sin versus that of one having to embattle against these effects. Here, F.F. Bruce puts it succinctly that as far the believers goes, “he is only perfect as to his justification, but his sanctification has only begun. It is a progressive work.”
In first Thessalonians chapter four, Paul tells the Christians at Thessalonica “that it is the will of God, your sanctification...( 1 Thessalonians 4:3)” Does it mean the responsibility of sanctification lies on the Christian or it is God who is his sanctification? And what does sanctification mean? “Sanctification here denotes the moral and spiritual transformation of the regenerate believer and to be sanctified is to be conformed to the image of Christ because the believer is ‘in Christ’ and thus, the risen life of Christ is reproduced in the believer as he grows in grace and reflects the glory of his Lord. ”
Leon Morris puts it as such that Sanctification is both a demand which in that makes it a responsibility of the believer to live a sanctified live, as well as it is a gift of God. So while the need for Sanctification implies that the believer is imperfect, it is called upon the believer with the demand to live a life that is holy. John Piper however puts it this way, “When God calls you to himself, he justifies you freely by faith in Christ on the basis of Christ’s blood and righteousness, and he calls you to a life of holiness, which in this context refers explicitly to sexual purity. This (Sanctification)[mine] is the practical fruit of justification by faith.”
Therefore, God is not an ‘all-or nothing God’ because He provides His sanctification, equipping the Christian to Holiness, and underlying which, recognises the frailty of man. In that, no allowance is given for apathy because of God’s demand for Holiness.
Paul’s dilemmatic experience brings to surface an awareness of struggle towards sin a Christian undergoes and Paul recognises this principle, that says “I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.( Romans 7: 25)” An ongoing battle with sin demands a progressive work of Sanctification.


Conclusion


A Christian is to take Paul’s dilemmatic experience and realise that Christianity is not an all or nothing religion as much as God is not an all or nothing God, but however, that does not give him into licentiousness but rather, the believer must understand that it is also a responsibility to sanctify himself as much as it is God who sanctifies.
The Christian ought to embattle against the residual effects of indwelling sin because the work of sanctification is progressive and in order that the Christian not despair at his imperfection but find fulfilment in the work of God in him, and working out in his disdain towards sin to which he struggles frantically with.
Therefore, the Christian in finding who the divided man in Romans 7:14-25 is, understand that it was the Christian Paul, and correspond his life as such which finds himself in a constant conflict wherein he does say along with Paul did, “For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. . . What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!(Romans 7:19,24) recognising that it is God’s sanctifying work in him which enables him to say as he did.