Dear Reader,

There is an identifiable bias against the study of Scripture for the sake of what Scripture has to say about itself. Most homilectical sermonizing is fitted to a standard fare address of moralizing and "pop" messages as pabulum for the soul - rewarmed left-overs to say the least.

To illustrate the following survey is quoted:

 

 

 

 

My regards in Christ Jesus,

gonzodave

---

More Blissful Ignorance

Addendum #1


Featured Site:

Saturday May 31

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"So, now, whenever anybody says to me, "Your view of the atonement, you know, is very old-fashioned, the doctrine of substitution is quite out of date;" I am not at all shaken in my belief.

The gentlemen of the modern-thought school, who have been to Germany for their theology, do not like that glorious doctrine of substitution. They think that the atonement is a something or other, that in some way or other, somehow or other, has something or other to do with the salvation of men; but I tell them that their cloudy gospel might have surrounded me till my hair grew grey, but I should never have been any the better for it. I should never have found peace with God, nor come to love the Lord at all, if it had not been that I distinctly saw that he, who knew no sin, was made sin for me, that I might be made the righteousness of God in him.

When I realized that, although I had gone astray from God, and broken his righteous law, he had laid on Christ my iniquity, and punished him in my stead, my soul found rest at once; and, to this day, it cannot rest under any other explanation of the atonement of Christ. So I bear my own personal witness, and many of you can heartily join with me in bearing similar testimony. You have been with Christ, so you can speak of the power of his substitutionary sacrifice as begetting peace in your soul."

---

Dear Reader,

(Essay from an unpublished manuscript. About 2800 words)

THE HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL PREMISE OF AMERICAN CHRISTIANITY

What has been gained by the enthusiastic focus on the Christian family, concerning matters that are psychological, behavioral, and legal, when all the while, inside the church there is no difference in the rate of divorce and unwed or unwanted pregnancies? Divorce, pregnancy, and abortion may be said to be completely voluntary in more than 99 of 100 incidents. Also, there is an extreme overemphasis by many so-called Christian organizations against secular attacks upon Christianity. The presumption being that current legal activities to defend religious freedoms maintain the greater democratic freedoms that were founded by men who believed in Jesus Christ for salvation. Keeping in mind the just previous section of HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL FACTS, is this assertion accurate?

In 21st century American society it is rather difficult to distinguish Christianity from the historical beginnings of political thought that began in the post-Reformation and Protestant led English Civil War which continued in the humanism of the politics that were championed in the "Age of Reason/Enlightenment." Christianity has been joined to political thought and used by atheist and deist (e.g., Freemasonry 1) to extend their influence and control. The great contributors to American political thought, John Locke and Thomas Paine, were English Deists and certainly not Christians. John Hancock, for one, and others who signed the Declaration of Independence were Freemasons. Also, George Washington appears in a famous painting sporting full Freemason regalia and the famous Freemason "apron."

Beyond the era of the founding fathers, the Freemason William Taft, the US President between Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, was a professed Unitarian. Both recent Presidents named Bush are members of the freemasonry "Skull and Bones Club." Which is an ivy-league fraternity. "In God is our trust" is one line in the Star Spangled Banner. "In God We Trust" was not mandatory on all US currency until 1955. This motto was not originally a national movement. It first appeared on a few Union coins in 1864 - during the War Between the States.

Fierce individualism is a tenet of an unencumbered free economy conceived in the Enlightenment era and is not a NT Christian nor a OT Jewish ethic. Freedom and liberty from the power and penalties of sin contained in the gospel of saving grace does not translate into the "pursuit of happiness" coined by Jefferson (or "property" as originally penned by John Locke). If the OT Jews desired their non-voting theocracy under God so much, why were they constantly being defeated, enslaved, and dispersed as a result of their non-observance of the Sacred Scriptures?

All this is not to say that God and morality were not held in high regard in early colonial America. A little appreciated fact is that a much different "populist" Christianity existed in Colonial America than that which has dominated Protestantism since the 1850's. This dissimilarity is above and beyond any moral considerations. A sovereign grace Puritan of the 1700's is not the free will Arminian of 2008. The "New Light and Old Light" Christian of the "First Great Awakening" is not the Arminian Christian of the "Second Great Awakening." The distinction, once again, is not morality, or rules for living; rather, it is the doctrine of salvation (Soteriology). The vital foundation of the evangel of "good news." Which is "the gospel" message for the lost.

The core difference being what is believed about the value of the death of Christ for salvation. Did Christ pay the full price or not? This was the essential difference of "justification by faith" between Luther and the Roman Church in the Protestant Reformation. This difference continually returns and makes its home inside Christianity. Cults are not in view in this discussion. However, the so-called orthodox Christian salvation - in which cults share the same Soteriology of "parolee" salvation is in view.

In the blood of Christ, denominational distinctions disappear and contain no vital difference. The death of Christ is either considered the single focus, or, it is merely adapted to "rules of life," that consist of so-called biblical Christian commands for continued salvation. The two are not separate "opinions;" rather, one is false and one is true. They cannot occupy the same space. Christ did not die two separate deaths. So, then, historically, American Christianity is properly packaged and separated into apple barrels and orange crates. The distinction of probationary salvation and its traditional form of overly stressed dramatic preaching about hell-fire exists today in the vast populist presence of Arminianism that was spread throughout the early frontier America (1810-1850) by stump-jumping, turn or burn circuit riders who were farmer preachers performing for their evening meal and traveling money (viz., the non-intellectual rural nature of American "populist" Christianity).

Much of the present-day social contention over Christian freedoms would be eliminated and disappear if transferred to the common area of civil freedoms. But, only if the underlying Holy Grail of a tax-exempt status were voluntarily relinquished. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" is not an anti-Christian idea, it is the plain teaching of Jesus and the NT Apostles in many verses of the Epistles. Should this occur, the ACLU would then have no privileged adversary and, thus, no socially offended underdogs that can be elevated to the status of a "specially protected citizen." Also, there would be no "cash cow" for judgment awards to fund their extortive activities.

More importantly, what kind of Christianity is being paraded through the courts of America? Does God really bless America because of the unique worthiness of today's "populist" American Christianity? The character of Christianity that threatens her enemies in the modern secular world is quite a different hazard than that which jeopardized the 1st century secular enemies of the church. Aside from His blasting condemnation of the spiritual sin of the Pharisees, Jesus did not condemn sinners for being immoral. He cleansed the temple of spiritual sin and "thieves" who were "money changers." Also, Jesus allowed demons that He had exorcised to destroy 2000 income producing pigs that were illegally owned by Jews. The villagers promptly ran Him out of town. The Apostles, who were poor as dirt themselves, took away income also. They did this by silencing a persistent slave girl who was a fortune teller and converting people to Christianity. The well-to-do owners of the demon-possessed slave girl lost their livelihood and the conversions threatened the powerful metalsmith union that produced idols and depleted the local Jewish synagogues of tithe paying Jews. (The continued practice of Judaism for acceptance before God became spiritual sin after the death of Christ.) The Ephesian believers burned 50,000 man-days (almost 200 man-years) worth of "books of magic and spells" several years after their conversion. All of the above mentioned financially injured and non-believing parties sought legal retribution. The common thread is monetary loss of income earned by "spiritual" sin against God in the form of denying Jesus Christ, not moral sin.

The epistolary NT gives explicit details to determine a false teacher by their doctrine, not their morality. The first three Gospels, with advice intended primarily for a future time, state just the opposite. The greatest "spiritual" sin committed today is by those who enjoy a fabulous life-style from preaching a false Christianity. The "poor little donkey," the teachings defended by the NT writers against the internal enemies of the early church had to contend with adversaries who bear much resemblance to today's "populist" Christianity. A popular Christianity that esteems riches and recognition to be the deserved rewards for continued faith in Jesus Christ. Should Christianity genuinely be a "health and wealth" contract only the foolish would turn it down. Since this idea is false, who are those that offer and who are they which accept such a contract? "Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by which ye are called? For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a man in vile raiment; Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of (with) evil thoughts?" (James 2:6, 7, 2, 4).

It may be said that there exists a pecking order - an order of importance and prestige held by a "populist" Christianity. A direct example between "two forms" of Christianity may be found in chapter 22 of the book of Numbers. In this chapter, a poor little servant donkey, who later actually speaks, receives a beating from the false teacher, Balaam (Heb.=destruction). As perceived by Balaam, the donkey delays the prophet in his pursuit of a reward for cursing the immoral enemies of a king named Balak (Heb.=to make empty). These enemies threaten the religious freedoms of the king and his followers. But, as we are shown in this story, Balaam is actually serving the wrong king. He serves an easy world conformity. In this scenario, Jesus, as the Angel of the Lord, appears and says to Balaam: "And the ass saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she had turned from me, surely now also I had slain thee, and saved her alive" (Num 22:34).

In the temptation of Christ recorded in Matthew 4:3-10 there is an uncanny parallel between Balaam's donkey and Christ in the threefold sequence of physical need, self-harm, and worship. Some insightful teachers advise a new Christian to first seriously study the temptation of Christ rather than the Gospel of John. Jesus is love, yes; but what was his experience in love? and, what might the Christian expect?

THE GONZO JOURNALISM OF GRACE

Many books have been written about grace. Most are one-sided and outside-in homiletic treatments where grace is approached more by sentimentality than zealous defense. Abraham was declared righteous by God when he believed in what God said. Only one other man in the OT was declared righteous by God (other persons are named by the NT in Hebrews 11). The grandson of Aaron, Phineas, was a priest who acted in the defense of God's honor in response to the false teaching of Balaam which had seduced the Israelites. Through Abraham, the entrance into grace is typified. Through Phineas, faithful action within grace is typified. I understand these two men as demonstrating the meritless gift of grace through faith and the meritorious rewards of action because one has received the free gift of grace. Both together encompass the Christian life. This is in contradiction to behavior grounded in biblical commands and a reward of salvation for continuing faith.

Grace is the all-important theme of this work. The enemies of grace are found in the house of her friends. If there is no outrage at the parasitic nature of a false Christianity that ridicules the grace that sustains true believers; that holds the true children of God up to mockery and contempt for holding to the "law of Christ" and not the Law of Moses; that unreservedly asserts the child of God is lying about God's Word when assurance in the blood of Christ for salvation is claimed. Then where, I ask, is the love for Christ in those who will not and cannot defend the honor of Christ who died so that they could live? May it be recognized and well understood that the assumption of a higher ground of morality is the same turn of logic that is used by secular moral relativism to silence any arguments about moral standards. A Christianity based on broken legal commands that can destroy God's grace is in league with the world - certainly not Christ and the teachings of grace. This is a much more vital threat than secular atheism. The fact that the unsaved are atheist is hardly news or a threat to a properly informed Christian. The correct response of a worthy and pious mind is to recognize the tactical diversion of an extra-biblical threat from an atheistic world-view for what it is, namely: Get a grip, man, that's the mission field not the battlefield!

But, then, how may the proper battle be fought? By being a proper witness who defends God's saving grace in the presence of the mission field. By exposing "spiritual" sin and cleaning first the house of the Lord. How then may "spiritual" sin be known and proven beyond all doubt? How may the false friends be exposed for the "spiritual" crime from which they earn their livelihood? How may true believers who are zealous for the honor of Christ remove this insult to the grace of God, first from their own lives and then the stain from the honor of Christianity? The answer is simple by understanding grace. The process is not so easy. The transformation of the spiritual mind takes much Scripture and dedicated attention. Also, a guide is needed. Someone or something, who Christ has instructed and prepared for such a purpose. Someone who has been there and come back to tell others. This book is a guide that will detail that journey.

To begin to understand the position and moral high ground assumed by a false Christianity, one must first appreciate that God's offer of salvation in Christ, on the sole condition of faith, is a very straight forward proposition. However, sadly, as religious and pretentious men would have it, no straight forward proposition is preached by a "populist" Christianity. A higher moral ground than grace has been claimed. In a word a Mountain, the symbol of a kingdom. Willful ignorance is extremely hard to separate from convenient ignorance. In the OT this is dramatically illustrated: "Then said Micah, Now I know that the Lord will do me good, seeing I have a Levite to my priest" (Judges 17:13). Concerning Micah, Dr. C. I. Scofield writes, "A striking illustration of all apostasy. With his entire departure from the revealed will of God concerning worship and priesthood, there is yet an exaltation of false priesthood. Saying, "Blessed be thou of Jehovah," Micah's mother makes an idol; and Micah expects the blessings of Jehovah because he has linked his idolatry to the ancient Levitical order." i

The Gospel record of Jesus Christ in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the first chapter of Acts has been divinely written to be historically correct. The record within the four Gospels is chronologically accurate. There exists only minor perceived exceptions which do not actually conflict; but only provide different details of different incidents at different times. Many common scenarios are contained in the first three Synoptic Gospels. This having been said, the very existence of this correct historical record invites the grossly false and insulting misconceptions that have been preached as so-called "true" doctrines of "the gospel" by false Protestants teachers for centuries. Is this to say the Bible is used against the Bible. An emphatic affirmative is the one answer. Bear in mind the corrupted religion depicted above, from the OT with Micah as the example. Does this seem terribly confusing? Confusion is not of the Lord's making; but perplexity is the stumbling stone that discourages the unsaved who are curious and entangles the believer who is immature. Lazy minds crippled by 10 second sound bytes are not able to digest the mature spiritual "meat" of God's grace contained in Scripture. No clear distinction can be made between law and grace until a knowledge of both is obtained by contrasting one to the other.

To properly separate myth and false doctrine in "populist" Christianity from the pure teachings of NT grace, and, to understand grace from the "inside-out," as opposed to a superficial "outside-in," is a formidable task. Beyond any personal doubt, this fact has been demonstrated as a result of this extended effort. Over 7000 pages of theological instruction and references, along with three Bible translations, have been scoured and gleaned to assemble the doctrines of central importance. These teachings of God's grace have been selected to produce the proofs used in this investigative report.

A correct exposition of grace needs a highly subjective and radically honest comparison to non-grace. A passionate and dedicated, highly subjective, non-fiction - a gonzo journalism of grace - was used to identify the source, not symptoms, of misleading propaganda that would diminish the reverence that the grace of God deserves. The word "propaganda" has its origin in the 1700's. It is derived from the Latin expression, Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, "Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith."

My regards in Christ Jesus,

gonzodave
_________________________

Post Note #1: More detailed reading on the historical background of today's populist Christianity may be found at http://www.spurgeon.org/downgrd.htm 

Post Note #2: An interesting, yet criticaly relevant, abstract to "gonzo journalism" is thoughtfully stated at the following address:
Warp Speed Journalism

Mike Madias
Clinical Sociologist, Freelance Journalist

______________________________

1 The earliest of the U.S. lodges, founded by authority of the Grand Lodge of England, were the First Lodge of Boston, established in 1733, and one in Philadelphia, established about the same time. By the time of the American Revolution, about 150 lodges existed in colonial America. American Freemasons today make up more than three-fourths of the total number of all members throughout the world; world membership exceeds 5 million. Microsoft Encarta 2006. 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
i Old Scofield Study System, Dr. C. I. Scofield, p 308
Reference: The excellent and comprehensive historical work by E. Brooks Holifield, Theology in America.

---

Be careful not to allow anyone to captivate you through an empty, deceitful philosophy [theology] that is according to human traditions and the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 1 For if Abraham was declared righteous by the works of the law, he has something to boast about but not before God. For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Now to the one who works, his pay is not credited due to grace but due to obligation. But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous, his faith is credited as righteousness. 2

---

THE SCALES OF JUSTICE

A recent poll indicates that a majority of churched Americans hold the belief that heaven is a reward for good deeds. Personal sins and meritorious acts will be weighed on a set of scales by the God of the Bible Himself. This reckoning is considered a determination of one's final destiny. In Western culture this fits the very icon of justice - and blind faith.

I consider the day to day reality of this kind of belief to be a martyrdom. A martyrdom of doubt, or sacrificing for a cause which denies the certain knowledge that you and, those you love, will be together in heaven. On the other hand, a Muslim with a better grasp of his sacred text in Sirah 9:111, has a sure way to heaven. He has a guarantee of salvation when he suicides for Islam. The effect of which he hopes to make heaven his day to day reality. These two views of religion and God maintain widely differing ideas of the eternal state and what is expedient, I admit, but a parallel means of obtaining a heavenly end may be noted - that of what man may do for God. This is the fatal syncretism of religious-humanism - saved by faith - yet, sanctified by the flesh. The classic antithesis of monergism versus synergism. 3

To illustrate, further similarities exist between the Muslim who follows radical Islam and the American who follows populist Christianity. The soon-to-be-gone Muslim, true to his teaching, earnestly believes God's reward is carnal pleasure now in exchange for his jihad (a struggle by heart, tongue, hand, or sword to please God and lead a virtuous life. 4). As he is taught, the American, who has only a hope and no assurance of heaven, sincerely believes God will reward him with a measure of health, wealth, and happiness now in exchange for his jihad.

The religious American and the devout Muslim share much in common. Both focus on the here and now. Also, under the threat of expulsion, radical Islam and popular Christianity have expositors who put upon the supplicants a pay-as-you-go duty to give them God's money, as the tithe or zakat. Each religion reveres and maintains the bones of the same dead patriarchs. Mutually, they are a stipulated assortment of communal postures, prayers and ordinances to gain the favor of God. The followers of each believe that the question of heaven is answered by death. At which time a just God is obligated to give them what they deserve. They share in the belief that heaven is a reward.

GOD SAVE ME FROM YOUR FOLLOWERS! From those who pronounce God as a four syllable word; religious garb and rings that need to be kissed; from those who pronounce sin in a high nasal pitch; from those who film themselves screaming your praise and wiping their mouths and foreheads with the same cloth; from greed and the prosperity gospel; from those who film themselves healing in huge sports arenas not hospitals; from killer martyrs and their bombs; from those who film themselves separating the head from the body of an innocent kidnapped victim; from those who pride themselves as your 144,000; and those who accumulate vast records of birth and death in order to conscript and baptize the dead into a non-Christian heaven.

But first and foremost, save the lost from those who, through ignorance or by design, insult Your Son and Your untold grace by following a false hope in religious humanism to teach SALVATION BY CHRIST IS IN CONTINUED FAITH. Only because Your justice was completely satisfied in the blood of Your Son, Jesus Christ, may we believe the Good News that SALVATION IN CHRIST IS FOR FAITH to release us from the law of sin and death.

______________________________________

1 Col 2:8 NET (brackets mine, this writer) NET
2 Rom 4:2-5 (verse omission mine) NET
3 http://www.monergism.com/what_is_monergism.php
4 Microsoft Encarta 2006
______________________________________

David Coulon 2007-2008
Creative Commons 3.0 Non-Derivative No Commercial use license. Free to share. Please use with proper credit.

by gonzodave

---

PREFACE

(Revised 5.24.08, latest update #4 - 5.24.08)

This is an update of my "gonzo journalism of grace" article/essay that will be developed over time. If you have read the previous UPDATES, please scroll down and find the beginning of the most recent posting.

Sadly, too many Christians have been lulled into the idea that Christianity is the same as "being nice." Quite to the contrary, Christianity is accepting and defending the truth of God's Word as revealed in NT Scripture, not personal opinions of how to impact the world. This is a complete reversal of priorities. Christians are the means whereby "the body of Christ" is self-developing until whatever proper number of those placed "in Christ" by the Holy Spirit is final. The focus, once again, is the completion of the kingdom, rather than a conversion of the world.


Christianity and "the world" are polar opposites. God sees no shades of gray between them. We cannot see, but are told that Satan is the ruler of this age and the cosmos (KJV=world; Gk.=the organized world and its institutions controlled and executed by humankind. A different "world" underlies John 3:16 where the Greek specifies only unregenerate humanity, not the institutions of men controlled by Satan. In John 17:9 and Rev 13:8. Jesus did not pray to His "Holy Father" for the systems of the "world" which are anti-god and not theocratic as was the intention for OT Israel, which was chosen and unique.) This is according to the temporary permissive will of God until His kingdom comes in the blazing glory of our Savior and His will be done.

It required the writing of the NT to establish grace and salvation through the living, resurrected Jesus Christ. We learn from the Apostle Paul to be "quick to defend" God's gospel of grace against the pride of intellectualism (i.e., vain imaginations known in the primitive church as gnosticism). Much like Noah who "found grace" and preached for 120 years without the conversion of a single soul, it is the Christ-like effort and truth which we repeat that God accepts as credit to us for future rewards. And, as always, any success is to His credit and sovereignty.

Aside from the primary and serious difference in the salvation that is preached, today's Protestant Christianity properly falls into 3 current categories - fundamental, neo-evangelical, and liberal, or modernist. As can be easily discerned, a neo-evangelical view would be a middle-of-the-road compromise (viz., neutralism or religious humanism). Concerning contemporary neo-evangelicalism, Eerdman's Handbook to Christianity in America reads on page 319:

"The social gospel differed from evangelical reform movements like the Salvation Army in at least two respects. First, it tended to emphasize structural reforms, changes in law, government policy, and the formal institutions of society. Second, it was firmly rooted in Protestant liberal theology."

---

Dear Reader,

An Evangelical is commonly considered and explained as one who adheres to the historical gospel. This is more than a misrepresentation, it is a false claim and deliberate evasion of contemporary church history by those who because of their many advanced degrees and studies should know better.

A pro-comment concerning "The Manifesto of Evangelicalism" under the posting The Point of the Manifesto Put Simply May 08.08. http://blog.bible.org/bock/node/369#comment-8126 reads:

"Manifesto
Submitted by dopderbeck1 (not verified) on Wed, 2008-05-14 07:05.

As a law professor who self-identifies as an evangelical, I think the Manifesto is an excellent and much-needed document, and I signed it without hesitation. Could I find nuances in it that I might not agree with 100%? Sure. But its tone, its holistic approach, its bold affirmation of vibrant and historic Christian faith, represent the very best ideals we should want to pursue -- ideals, I think, that go right back to Jesus' teaching and the Apostles' instructions to the early church as reflected in scripture."

The Apostle Paul writes to his "son in Christ" in 1 Tim 6:20: "O Timothy, guard {imperative-the gospel} and keep the deposit entrusted [to you]! Turn away from the irreverent babble and godless chatter, with the vain and empty and worldly phrases, and the subtleties and the contradictions in what is falsely called knowledge and spiritual illumination." {this writer} AMP

"All of us have been tempted to water down the gospel to make it palatable to a friend. We knew that we were wrong when we did it. New evangelicalism made it acceptable to water down the gospel. Campus Crusade's "Four Spiritual Laws" are a prime example. They give a diluted presentation of the gospel designed be non-offensive. Who could fail to be attracted to, "God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your life:"? It is not false, but it is not the gospel as preached by Peter or Paul. It is an accommodation to the way the natural man thinks about himself. It produces an easy-believism in which every man is saved but lives just as he did before.

With this accommodation of the message to the natural man came an accommodation in the way of presenting the message. The historic method has always been what Scripture calls, "the foolishness of preaching." The new method became the selling of the gospel by the use of sports heroes, beauty queens and famous people."

John E. Ashbrook, New Neutralism II

"Not only is the new-brand Evangelicalism born of compromise, but in the second place, it is a movement nurtured on pride of intellect. The statements of its leading advocates indicate that these men are trying very, very hard to be accepted among `the upper four hundred' of the intelligentsia. This new crop of evangelical scholars has done graduate work at Harvard, Chicago University and Princeton, and they know a lot of answers that the common herd of fundamentalist preachers can't fathom. To speak very plainly, an attitude of intellectual snobbery is very typical of many of its leaders."

William E. Ashford, Evangelicalism: The New Neutralism (I)
_______________________________

FOREWORD

The following citation is somewhat extended, but necessary to establish my contra-view of the claims of neo-evangelicalism. Dr. John Ashbrook writes in New Neutralism II (1991):

"In 1958 when my father finished his eight page tract on new evangelicalism, he gave it the title, The New Neutralism. His thesis was that new evangelicalism was a movement which determined to take its stand halfway between fundamentalism on the right and modernism on the left. From its beginning new evangelicalism took a position on the top wire of the fence between belief and unbelief, in the no man's land between irreconcilable armies, and on the white line in the middle of the road. Neutrality has always been a precarious position, and precarious becomes "impossible" when the truth is involved. The title of my book indicates that it is a sequel and that I share my father's analysis of the position.

... As my father pointed out in his book, there is a tremendous pride of intellect in new evangelicalism. Let me quote again from Dr. Ockenga’s December 8, 1957 news release:

'The New Evangelicalism differs from Fundamentalism in its willingness to handle the social problems which Fundamentalism evaded ... The New Evangelical is willing to face the intellectual problems and meet them in the framework of modern learning ... The evangelical believes that Christianity is intellectually defensible, but the Christian cannot be obscurantist in scientific questions pertaining to the creation, the age of man, the universality of the flood and other moot Biblical questions.'

It seems to me that as Dr. (John) Ockenga paints the portrait of the new evangelical with his right hand, he caricatures the fundamentalist with his left. Do you see the picture? The fundamentalist is unwilling to handle social problems, unable to face intellectual problems, not possessing modern learning and obscurantist in scientific questions. Intellectual pride is peer pressure on a scholarly level, and it doesn't look any better on scholars than it does on teenagers. Ho, ye new evangelicals, wisdom has arrived and will die with us! From its inception new evangelicalism has been determined to impress the world with its intellect. It has craved the respect of academia. It has determined to earn plaudits at the fountainheads of secular learning. Why should this be a goal for the Christian?

... A book could easily be written defending the thesis that Wheaton College is the educational parent of new evangelicalism. Dr. Ockenga, and a majority of the founding fathers of Fuller in particular and new evangelicalism in general, had roots at Wheaton.

... New evangelicalism has a vise-like grip on most of the Christian colleges and theological schools of our day. It has accomplished an almost complete takeover of the Bible institutes and colleges which sprang up after the fundamentalist-liberal battle in the early part of this century.

... To the new evangelical, the fundamentalist errs by lacking love, scholarship and a social program. The modernist errs by lacking Biblical faith. The two lacks are made to sound quite equal. As a fundamentalist I do not accept the new evangelical's charge. I would observe that to lack Biblical faith is far more serious than to lack love, scholarship and a social program.

... Mass evangelism is the exclusive province of new evangelicalism. New evangelicals such as Billy Graham and Luis Palau are the household names of evangelism. Publishers whose materials once helped establish fundamental churches now train a generation of new evangelicals. New evangelicalism owns the music publishers. The churches which once thrilled to the wholesome songs of great Christians now are satisfied with the trash of contemporary Christian music drawn from the rhythm of the same world the Lord commanded us not to love. The new neutralism is not logical; it is not Scriptural; but it is overwhelmingly popular.

... It is no mistake to call him the father of new evangelicalism. Dr. Harold John Ockenga coined the name, "Neo-evangelicalism". When the National Association of Evangelicals was born in 1942, its first President was Harold John Ockenga. As a pastor he occupied the pulpit of Park Street Congregational Church on the edge of Boston Common. When Fuller Theological Seminary was founded in 1947 its first President was Dr. Harold John Ockenga. Christianity Today, the daily racing form of new evangelicalism, had its birth in 1956 as the brainchild of Billy Graham and his father-in-law, Dr. L. Nelson Bell.

... Dr. Ockenga's third "re" is the recapture of denominational leadership. I cannot see from the Bible that either men or denominations are ever recaptured from apostasy. New evangelicalism has been on the scene recapturing denominational leadership for over forty years. What denominational leadership has been reclaimed? Has the United Presbyterian Church been recaptured for Biblical Christianity? Has the Methodist Church been recaptured for the doctrine of the Wesleys? Has the leadership of the United Church of Christ been triumphantly recaptured? Men from these denominations have talked in theological dialogue with the scholars of new evangelicalism and have sat on the platforms of great crusades with Billy Graham, but the leadership of not one denomination has been reclaimed. The policy has failed, for it is a policy of horrible, hideous, compromise. God's program for apostasy is to separate from it, expose it and contend against it.

... Dr. Ockenga wrote the foreword to Dr. Harold Lindsell's book, The Battle for the Bible, published in 1976. In that foreword he said:

'Neo-evangelicalism [i.e., as opposed to Karl Barth's Neo-Orthodoxy] was born in 1948 in connection with a convocation address which I gave in the Civic Auditorium in Pasadena. While reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism, this address repudiated its ecclesiology and its social theory. The ringing call for a repudiation of separatism and the summons to social involvement received a hearty response from many evangelicals... It differed from fundamentalism in its repudiation of separatism and its determination to engage itself in the theological dialogue of the day. It had a new emphasis upon the application of the gospel to the sociological, political, and economic areas of life.'

Separation is God's prescription for treating the disease of apostasy. It is not ours to repudiate, for it is a divine command, not a human idea. The doctrine of separatism gets its name from 2 Corinthians 6:17, 18.

'Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.'

The same doctrine is taught in passages such as Ephesians 5:11 which says, "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." It is the theme of II John, culminating in verses 10 and 11:

'If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.'

It is taught throughout the Scriptures, but it is very plain in passages such as I Kings 13, II Chronicles 19:2, Romans 16:17. II Thessalonians 3:6 and I Timothy 6:3-5. It is not my purpose to expound the doctrine of separation in this book. I have sought to do that in another booklet. Repudiation of separatism may sound acceptable until you realize that it is a repudiation of God's command about how to treat apostasy. In a much earlier press release dated December 8, 1957, Dr. Ockenga made the following statements:

'The New Evangelicalism has changed its strategy from one of separation to one of infiltration. Instead of static front battles, the new theological war is one of movement. Instead of attack upon error, the New Evangelicals proclaim the great historic doctrines of Christianity ...The strategy of the New Evangelicalism is the positive proclamation of truth in distinction from all errors without delving in personalities which embrace error.'

In a war, generals may change strategy, but that is not the prerogative of the Christian when God has given a command. Obviously separation is God's command, and infiltration is man's idea. The irenic statement above sounds rather noble in man's eyes. One can picture the new evangelical standing peacefully with hands folded far above the din of battle. But how does that square with Jude 3 and 4?

'Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.'

What do you think of the new evangelical suggestion that we can proclaim truth "without delving in personalities which embrace error"? Throughout church history, heresies have always been identified with the men who perpetrated them. Almost every heresy of the past has been associated with a personality You cannot erase nineteen centuries of church history with a cute phrase. Certainly Dr. Ockenga was aware that the battle for the faith in the 1920's was between a Baptist unbeliever, Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick, and Presbyterian believers. Did he believe that his brilliant teacher, Dr. J. Gresham Machen, should not have delved into the blasphemous statements of Dr. Fosdick in the First Presbyterian Church of New York City? The idea of preaching positively without contending for the faith is a compromise of Biblical truth."

THE MANIFESTO OF EVANGELICALISM

Source of this featured article:

Darrell Bock's Blog

Dr. Darrell Bock is Research Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. He is an Editor at Large for Christianity Today and is a Past President of the Evangelical Theological Society (2000-2001). He is the author of over...

Billy Graham is an Alumni of Wheaton (see my article The Scales of Justice which illustrates in a simple, brief essay the religious humanism of neo-evangelicals). Please do not be taken in by the ambiguous term and the umbrella of contemporary, ecumenical EVANGELICAL tolerance (viz., NEUTRALISM/HUMANISM). I've never identified myself by this term, nor have I used it in any of my articles aside from this one. Jesus Christ did not carry around the contemporary baggage of an evangelical. He was an evangelist, which is a world apart from today's evangelicalism. The word evangelist only appears 3 times within the NT. The major occurance is Ephesians 4:11 which bears the meaning of a pioneer missionary who takes the message of God's saving grace to new regions. Scripture knows nothing of evangelicalism as defined in "The Manifesto of Evangelicalism" under discussion. More on this later.

Am I suggesting some type of retrogression? Of course not, eternal truth neither progresses beyond and outside of Scripture (as some would suggest; i.e., the Holy Trinity was always revealed in NT writing), nor does it fall out of fashion and develop new priorities.

Evangelicalism, without doubt, has control of the Christian forum in America. If someone suggests to you a gospel of self-improvement that does not have the living Jesus Christ as the central focus and means, run don't walk away from them.

If you haven't heard about Dr. Darrell Bock's blog articles at dts.org and bible.org concerning a "Manifesto of Evangelicalism" and an open invitation to sign-up with those who drafted this document, you will soon. It is destined to be the flavor of the month on all the Clear Channel Christian Radio stations.

The original posting that I followed was by Dr. Darrell Bock, titled "The Point of the Manifesto Put Simply May 08.08." It may be viewed @ http://blog.bible.org/bock/node/369#comment-8126

I first began to follow comments concerning this MANIFESTO at many blog sites on Pentecost Sunday.

In the spirit of a well rounded "gonzo journalism of grace" (an oxymoron, perhaps?) I direct the interested reader to 4 pre-dated "contrary view" articles.

Firstly, "Please Don't Call me an Evangelical" by Dr. C. Matthew MacMahon, @
http://www.apuritansmind.com/HistoricalTheology/McMahonDontCallMeEvangelical.htm

Secondly: "The Pelagian Captivity of the Church" by Dr. C. Matthew MacMahon @
http://www.apuritansmind.com/HistoricalTheology/McMahonPelagianCaptivity.htm

Thirdly, a chapter from, " New Neutralism II," titled "Institutions" by Dr. John Ashbrook. @
http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/institutions.htm

And lastly, an excerpt from "New Neutralism II" @
www.crossroad.to/Excerpts/books/transformation/new-neutralism.htm

You will not be disappointed in the new perspective that will be gained through these articles.

More later and my regards in Christ Jesus,

gonzodave

_____________________

UPDATE 2 (5.15.08)

Dear Reader,

I posted the following comments at Bock's Blog "The Point of the Manifesto Put Simply May 8. 08" (http://blog.bible.org/bock/node/369) and received a courteous response from Dr. Bock each time. I don't agree with his take on the articles I suggested he read, but if you have read this article from the beginning you can see the background argument that I am making.

1) Definitions of "evangelical"
Submitted by gonzodave (not verified) on Sun, 2008-05-11 21:17.

Dear Dr. Bock,

I've followed with interest the many comments around the "blogosphere" concerning this MANIFESTO of Evangelicalism. Definitions about "isms" come and go.

I invite you and any interested party to take a look beyond the "in speak" of evangelicalism and read a fascinating and timely piece written by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon @
www.apuritansmind.com/HistoricalTheology/McMahonDontCallMeEvangelical.htm.

Regards in Christ Jesus,

gonzodave

1) Definition dlb
Submitted by bock on Mon, 2008-05-12 14:02.

Gonzodave:

Thanks for the post. Just a note. Anyone who writes that Carl Henry was against the evangelical movment does not understand its history at all. Henry edited the journal that has represetnted the movment for years. Its name: Chrsitianity Today. So I am not at all sure how accurate the post is.

dlb

2) More history of evangelicalism
Submitted by gonzodave (not verified) on Sun, 2008-05-11 22:14.

Dear Dr. Bock,

Post Note to my previous comment:

In the spirit of "ecumenicalism" and a well rounded view of of the ambiguous word - evangelicalism, I additional invite any interested person to read the article posted @
http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/institutions.htm.

Regards in Christ,

gonzodave

2) More History dlb
Submitted by bock on Mon, 2008-05-12 14:07.

Gonzodave:

More of the same, thanks. Anyone who complains of Billy Graham today, suggesting he is liberal, really has an imbalanced spectrum. No one has presented the gospel clearly to more people in our time.

dlb

This writer:

Of course when the word gospel is used the language-game falls into play and what the speaker means by gospel is not necessarily that perceived by the listener. It just happens that I have a great article from my unpublished manuscript detailing "the gospel" in its varied aspects. I will post it first here in ChristiansUnite.com for my readers.

The latest posting for 5.13.08 concerning this topic at Dr. Darrell Bock's blog site may be found @
http://blog.bible.org/bock/node/371

For 5.14.08 see
Beliefnet Manifesto Feedback and the Under 30s May 14.08 (Revised May 15.08) @
http://blog.bible.org/bock/node/372

and the referenced weblog article at Beliefnet @
http://blog.beliefnet.com/castingstones/2008/05/the-evangelical-manifesto-a-ca.html?bt=polmashup

The document under discussion, The Manifesto of Evangelicalism, may be viewed @
http://www.evangelicalmanifesto.com

The full book "New Neutralism II" may be viewed chapter by chapter beginning @
http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/foreword.htm

More later.

Regards in Christ Jesus,

gonzodave
________________________________

UPDATE 3 (5.16.08)

Dear Reader,

Straight from the official history of the National Association of Evangelicals which credits its origins to a Reverend J. Elvin Wright that associated with Dr. John Ockenga in Boston.

"When the younger Wright succeeded his father in 1929, he transformed First Fruits Harvesters into the New England Fellowship. Rather than continuing a ministry devoted to Pentecostal distinctives, the new fellowship would serve a broader constituency by operating a summer conference to inspire and bring together evangelicals of all stripes throughout New England. This was not his only change. In 1934 Wright became a Congregationalist, being received on profession of faith into the membership of Park Street Church in Boston. The new ecclesiastical commitment proved beneficial to the New England Fellowship, enhancing Wright's relationship with a number of emerging evangelical leaders, including one who would play a role in NAE, the Reverend Harold John Ockenga."

http://www.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=nae.history

The NAE gives 1942 as its founding date. The above and other previous citations are to establish the contemporary aspect of neo-evangelicalism which was a spin-off from fundamentalist groups. Evangelicalism denies the biblical doctrine of separation from apostasy, yet, that was the origin of its beginnings and fundamentalist bear the brunt of their condemnation of sin - the sin of being unloving. This is illustrated in a recent comment concerning "The Manifesto of Evangelicalism" that reads:

"Fundamentalism not a part?
Submitted by MIKE (not verified) on Thu, 2008-05-15 20:19.

Upon reading the manifesto, I was delighted to see Evangelicals seeking to define themselves theologically. I believe too, the list of sins mentioned are extremely accurate too (ie. the entertainment, materialism, etc). One thing I do not understand is the stance against Fundamentalism. If Evangelicals are seeking to define themselves theologically, and Fundamentalists agree theologically with the manifesto's definition, would Fundamentalists not then be under the umbrella of "Evangelicals" too? The "liberals" were distinguished from Evangelicals based on theology yet the Fundamentalists were distinguished based on their practice (or sins). The manifesto mentioned the Fundamentalists' lack of forgiveness and love (p.9). These are horrible sins to be sure! Yet these are sins no greater than the ones listed by the Evangelicals themselves! Without doubt, Fundamentalists are in dire need of reforming and repenting themselves in these areas just as Evangelicals need to reform and repent of the areas they mentioned. It is my hope, that Evangelicals will accept their Fundamentalist brothers and sisters, even if the acceptance is not returned."

http://blog.bible.org/bock/node/369

A broad spectrum of comments regarding the question: "Evangelical Christians: who exactly are they?" (posted by Aris) may be read @
http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?p=1683526#poststop

In the following citation of my comment at Bock's Blog, "me thinks I've been assassinated" by some very quick dance steps that were executed to leave me lagging behind. See what you think.

Response to my comment:

"More History dlb
Submitted by bock on Mon, 2008-05-12 14:07.

Gonzodave:

More of the same, thanks. Anyone who complains of Billy Graham today, suggesting he is liberal, really has an imbalanced spectrum. No one has presented the gospel clearly to more people in our time.

dlb"

My new comment to dlb's response:

"Your response to "More History
Submitted by gonzodave (not verified) on Thu, 2008-05-15 19:27.

Dear Dr. Bock,

Thank you for your courteous responses. However, concerning an "imbalanced spectrum" held by John E. Ashford in his book "Evangelicalism: The New Neutralism II" that he updated and revised in 1991 from his father's work of 1958 and 1975, I read in Eerdman's Handbook to Christianity in America on page 319:

"The social gospel differed from evangelical reform movements like the Salvation Army in at least two respects. First, it tended to emphasize structural reforms, changes in law, government policy, and the formal institutions of society. Second, it was firmly rooted in Protestant liberal theology."

Regards in Christ Jesus,

gonzodave

dlb's response to the comment above:

"More History dlb
Submitted by bock on Fri, 2008-05-16 07:27.

Gonzodave:

I think you missed my point. There is no social gospel when the work being affirmed is a reflection of spiritual commitments that grow out of the gospel. This is not merely an ethic we are discussing in that context (as the social gospel was and liberal theology often is), but a responses tied to the concept of being faithful to Jesus' call to live in a manner that honors God. In other words in this issue, the point does not remove the centrality or role of Jesus (In contrast to the social gosple which made his role one only of ethical guide). So this is precisely why we are not discussing the social gospel here but the living out of values rooted in Jesus' teaching and the call to be faithful to the gospel in terms of how we engage others. This is why the quote you give does not apply to what I am saying.

dlb"

http://blog.bible.org/bock/node/369

Now bear in mind, the above is in context with Dr. Bock's posting titled "The Point of the Manifesto Put Simply" in which he provides the following summary in 4 points:

"Jesus has much more to say about a whole host of issues than the ones that have been targeted over the last few decades, INCLUDING the ones that have been discussed and defended (sometimes very well, sometimes not so well). Does tone matter as well as content? I think so. To these questions the Manifesto also calls for reflection. What variety of factors are at stake in such an assessment? Among them are: (1) the well being of our society, (2) the authenticity of believers' claims to love God and one's neighbor, (3) the integration of those calls to love, as well as (4) the central importance evangelicals give to the need for spiritual transformation to really grow into human maturity, as individuals and as a society."

Maybe I'm slow to follow a highly regarded Professor of Spiritual Development and Culture at Dallas Theological Seminary who is a New York Times best selling author, but I read 2 of the 4 points addressing societal issues, as in a "social gospel" which is most assuredly a platform of evangelicalism that can be verified by many sources.

A short Bio of AW Tozer at www.christiansunite.com reads:

"In 1950 Tozer was elected editor of the Alliance Weekly now called Alliance Life. The circulation doubled almost immediately. In the first editorial dated June 3, 1950, he set the tone: "It will cost something to walk slow in the parade of the ages while excited men of time rush about confusing motion with progress. But it will pay in the long run and the true Christian is not much interested in anything short of that.""

I have read very carefully the MANIFESTO several times. If I am to take what Dr. Bock is asserting in his response, which is echoed in his many responses to comments about the MANIFESTO adding to the "culture war" and adding more mud to the water, I could be encouraged that this document is a turn toward a more fundamental view and away from a societal focus in Neo-Evangelicalism. I'll need to survey new comments and follow a few more articles before I am convinced.

In closing I offer a fine "classic" sermon presented by the highly regarded A. W. Tozer concerning the denial of the diety of the Holy Spirit by neo-evangelicals. It is a free to listen MP3 @
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/A_W_Tozer/archives.asp?bcd=2005-12

More later and my regards in Christ Jesus,

gonzodave

---

UPDATE 4 (5:24.08)

Dear Reader,

In an article at http://withchrist.org/MJS/neoevan1.htm includes this citation from secttion 1 of 3:

Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse and Neo-Evangelicalism

Miles J. Stanford

"By both conviction and experience, Charles H. Spurgeon valued separation.

Numbers of our good brethren remain in fellowship with those who are undermining the Gospel, and they talk of their conduct as if it were a loving course which the Lord will approve in the day of His appearing. We cannot understand them.

The duty of a true believer towards men who profess to be Christians, and yet deny the Word of God and reject the Fundamentals of the Gospel, is to come out from among them. Complicity with error will take from the best of men the power to enter any successful protest against it. When will Christians learn that separation from evil is not only our privilege, but our bounden duty?

NEO-EVANGELICALISM SPAWNED -- During the 1940s there was a vast evacuation of believers from the ranks of the already separated Fundamentalist movement. There was a joining of minds and mood with Christians who had remained within the Liberal denominations, a "union" which finally resulted in the formation and growth of the National Association of Evangelicals.

Thus we have the emergence of the ecclesiastical hybrid, self-identified as Neo-evangelicalism. Initially Fundamental in its beliefs, but ecumenical in its bent--the anomaly of the separated inclusivists. Its strategy is to penetrate the Liberal denominations in the hope of regaining control for orthodoxy. It seeks to infiltrate with love, without making an issue of doctrinal error or attacking personalities who hold those errors. It has love for the Liberal; but it has very little love for the separated Fundamentalist brother in Christ.

FUNDAMENTAL "FAILURE" -- We should look for a moment at some of the basic characteristics of Neo-evangelicalism. The movement asserts that it separated from Fundamentalism because the latter is separatist, and therefore divisive. It also accuses Fundamentalism of being "obscurantist," "hypocritical," "anti-intellectual," "unloving,' "anti-science," etc.

The Neo-evangelical admits to being Fundamental in doctrine, but not fundamentalist in name. Call him anything but that! "There are thousands of Neo-evangelicals who would bristle at being termed Liberal. But they would bristle even more at being tagged Fundamentalists." "Do not call me a Fundamentalist. While I really do believe the great Fundamental truths of the Bible; still, I do not wish to be known as a Fundamentalist because the 'intellectuals' hate the term. I wish to be accredited."

LIBERAL LOATHING -- The Neo-evangelical also accuses the Fundamentalist of failure to win the Liberal and reclaim the denominations because of his "ill-reasoned" and "poorly-presented" Gospel. Conversely, Neo-evangelicalism would win the campaign by means of infiltration, intellectual approach, accommodation, and love.

It is true that naught can be accomplished apart from the Savior's love. But what Neo-evangelicalism fails to comprehend is that Liberalism does not reject the claims of Christianity because it is ill-reasoned or poorly presented, but because it is Christianity! Neither does it accept Christianity when it is intellectually reasoned and proudly presented.

THE CROSSLESS CHRISTIAN -- Even if all of his accusations were true of the Fundamentalist--and some of them are--the truth is that the Neo-evangelical cannot bear to be looked down upon. He will avoid stigma at any cost, and he will seek recognition at any price. His thinking is that if he can gain the respect and approbation of the religious and secular worlds, he will thereby gain a hearing.

However, fear of the stigma of being known as a Fundamentalist, plus fearlessness of acceptance by the Liberal, add up to Neo-evangelicalism's avoidance of the Cross concerning intellect and reputation, if nothing more. What we should all realize is that "the world's frown is comparatively powerless; it is its favor that we have most to fear." Dr. Vance Havner once observed, "The devil goes about as a roaring lion, but he does far more harm as an angel of light."

LEADERS LEACHED -- The Neo-evangelical movement was originally marshaled and directed, mainly under the aegis of the National Association of Evangelicals, by such well-known leaders as Dr. Harold Ockenga, Dr. Carl Henry, Dr. Billy Graham, and Dr. Donald Barnhouse, to mention but a few. If Dr. Ockenga is considered to be the father of the movement, Dr. Barnhouse could certainly be considered its "mother."

The shame is that while Liberal denominations made great gain of Dr. Barnhouse, the same penetrated combine manages to make immeasurable gain by means of manipulating one Dr. Billy Graham. A leader of the World Council of Churches has boasted, "We are using him to build our churches."

Yes, infiltrate, accommodate, stay in--and be won instead of win! This is exactly what happened to Dr. Barnhouse, to name but one among all too many. The penetrator is himself penetrated. Let the would-be infiltrator beware! If it can happen to these giants, what makes you impervious? "While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption; for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage" (2 Peter 2:19)."

MORE CONTEMPOARY HISTORY OF NEO-EVANGELICALISM

Christianity Astray: Is "New Evangelicalism" Really Pseudo-Evangelicalism?
an excerpt from Pulpit—the online magazine of The Shepherds' Fellowship

Perhaps you page through each month's issue of Christianity Today as I do—baffled and disconcerted to see that venerable magazine being used as a platform for so many of the dubious fads and disturbing theological trends that constantly flourish at the fringes of the evangelical movement. Until now, all I could think to do was wince and chuck the magazine in the circular file. But from now on, I'm going to express my frustration by writing about it. Pulpit magazine—the online periodical of The Shepherds' Fellowship—has allotted me a column to expose and respond to the latest aberrations seeking acceptance from the evangelical mainstream—in the pages of CT and elsewhere. This is one of the early editions of that column.

he February issue of Christianity Today anticipates the magazine's 50th anniversary (still two years away) by beginning a series of special articles called "Evangelicals: The Next 50 Years." The series is introduced with a one-page piece (p. 37) titled "The New Evangelicals in the New Century."
Rehearsing how CT was born, the introduction says, "Billy Graham helped start CHRISTIANITY TODAY to do for evangelicals what The Christian Century had done for liberal Protestants."
Indeed, for several years now, CT has been doing for evangelicals exactly what its liberal counterpart once did for the mainstream denominations: It has systematically blurred the boundaries of the movement, muddied our theological distinctives, forfeited biblical integrity in pursuit of "academic respectability," and bartered away the uniqueness of authentic evangelicalism for a mess of ecumenical pottage.
These days CT's editors are careful to portray their rivalry with The Christian Century as a friendly one. They more or less acknowledge with pride that both magazines have moved and are now much closer together. ("Though we still lock theological horns with the Century from time to time, a look at both magazines shows that we have learned from one another over the decades.")
It's obvious, however, that CT's editors still regard their magazine as the evangelical movement's unofficial house organ. While tacitly acknowledging that they have shifted stance, they show no interest in relinquishing the name "evangelical" to the old evangelicals. They clearly believe their own Centuryfied, increasingly-ecumenical perspective represents today's evangelical mainstream. They think they speak for the movement and would be quite happy to set its agenda. They have in effect co-opted the word evangelical.
Ironically, CT's editors note with a tone of disapproval that U.S. News and World Report recently featured a cover article on evangelicalism without ever precisely defining the word evangelical.
"That's a problem in general," the CT editors opine. "Scan books and journal articles from the last two decades, and you'll find that evangelical is used to describe a theology, a subculture, a religious attitude, a mission emphasis—and some even argue it represents a mythical group!"
Yet while saying the lack of evangelical definition is "a problem," CT's editors offer no clear definition of their own. Instead, they imply that (as a sort of early birthday present to themselves) now would be a good time to reimagine the whole movement: "It seems to us that as this magazine approaches its 50th anniversary, it would be good to think afresh about the movement associated with the word evangelical."
It seems to us, however, that's precisely what CT has already been doing for several years: reconceptualizing what it means to be "evangelical." No one has done more than CT to prop up and popularize the notion that it's possible to advocate open theism, postmodernism, Roman Catholicism, neo-orthodoxy, or whatever—and still legitimately call oneself an evangelical. CONTINUE READING>>

The Fundamentals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Fundamentals or The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth edited by A. C. Dixon and later by Reuben Archer Torrey is a set of twelve essays published from 1910 to 1915 by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles. They were designed to affirm orthodox Protestant beliefs and defend against ideas deemed inimical to them. They are widely considered to be the foundation of the modern Fundamentalist movement.

The essays were originally financed by Lyman and Milton Stewert, two wealthy Christian oil magnates, in 1909 to set out what they believed to be the fundamentals of Christian faith. These were to be sent free to ministers, missionaries, Sunday School superintendents and other aggressive Christians.

The volumes defended orthodox Protestant beliefs and attacked higher criticism, liberal theology, Catholicism (also called by them Romanism), socialism, modern philosophy, atheism, Christian Science, Mormonism, Spiritualism, and evolutionism (an article by geologist George Frederick Wright). CONTINUE READING>>

My regards in Christ Jesus,

gonzodave

---

David Coulon 2007-2008

Comment (0)

Dear Reader,

To become a Christian today is much like the experience of a time traveler. Speaking personally, yet for many, when I began seriously reading the Bible, it was from a self-centered point of view - from a position of: How does this passage apply to me? An assumption rarely corrected in the mind of church attending Christians is that whatever denominational perspective is taught, that was what the early believer in the first century, Apostlelic churches heard and believed. Is it necessary to say: "This is not - in all cases - true.?"

Should one enter the kingdom today, in order to find one's way to the city of the High Priest, it is necessary to know how and why the suburban real estate - surrounding the city - was developed. The suburbs are meant to be an attractive, enticing alternative to city-dwelling. A city which is marketed by the real estate developers as metaphorical. Thereby, it stands to reason, by living in and expanding the suburbs, those who wish to enter this future city will be accepted because of the fine housing and well manicured lawns that they have maintained.

I offer the highly regarded work of Phil Johnson - his "front page" is included here - as a useful way to understand why the suburbs are not the city. A literal city that has been divinely constructed without hands and freely given to the urban dweller. A quantum leap and improvement over living in the suburbs which truly fits the NT theme of ... now-but-not-yet.

My regards in Christ Jesus,

gonzodave

Life is a short airplane flight. It is impossible that the pilot will discover a fatal hidden flaw in the wing of her single seat plane. She is flying over a vast oceanic world inhabited by sharks. A parachute is available.

This is the gospel message on the pilot's radio: "Jesus Christ says: 'All pilots were born to die and go to perdition because of a fatally damaged airplane;¹ He will save and regenerate the spirit, body, and soul of all living men who jump without a parachute and trust Him for salvation because He came and died to defeat all the sharks.'"

Another gospel radio transmission is: "Jesus Christ says: 'All pilots were born to die and go to perdition because they do not fight sharks; He will reward the souls of all dead men who have become good shark fighters and trust Him for salvation. And this because - He is the great example who came and died to show mankind how to fight sharks.'"


The pilot may either wake-up to this false dilemma, or not. The awakened pilot realizes that through no fault of her own, she is going to die, but more importantly, her everlasting fate is immanent. By faith she is required to take a leap and leave the safety of a terminally flawed airplane. However, she must leave before it is too late.

The end of this analogy is: skeptical pilots and shark fighters alike, become eternal sharks in the sea of lost mankind; but - those who believe and act in trust that Christ defeated all the sharks will live with Him in a regenerated spirit, body, and soul.

______________________________________


The above illustration to a true decision of faith may be exemplified in the enigma of the following verses. Which can only be clarified by the different Greek words and meanings which underlie the one English word "life" used in the KJV and other translations.

Mtw 10:39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life because of me will find it. NET

Mark 8:35 For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and for the gospel will save it. NET

John 12:25 The one who loves his life destroys it, and the one who hates his life in this world guards it for eternal life. NET

______________________________________

LIFE

Excerpt from Vine's Expository Dictionary
vines.mike-obrien.net
______________________________________

Life, Living, Lifetime, Life-giving
______________________________________

1 zoe (noun)

(Eng., "zoo," "zoology") is used in the NT "of life as a principle, life in the absolute sense, life as God has it, that which the Father has in Himself, and which He gave to the Incarnate Son to have in Himself, Joh. 5:26, and which the Son manifested in the world, 1Jo. 1:2. From this life man has become alienated in consequence of the Fall, Eph. 4:18, and of this life men become partakers through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, Joh. 3:15, who becomes its Author to all such as trust in Him, Ac. 3:15, and who is therefore said to be 'the life' of the believer, Col. 3:4, for the life that He gives He maintains, Joh. 6:35,63. Eternal life is the present actual possession of the believer because of his relationship with Christ, Joh. 5:24; 1Jo. 3:14, and that it will one day extend its domain to the sphere of the body is assured by the Resurrection of Christ, 2Co. 5:4; 2Ti. 1:10. This life is not merely a principle of power and mobility, however, for it has moral associations which are inseparable from it, as of holiness and righteousness. Death and sin, life and holiness, are frequently contrasted in the Scriptures. "Zoe is also used of that which is the common possession of all animals and men by nature, Ac. 17:25; 1Jo. 5:16, and of the present sojourn of man upon the earth with reference to its duration, Lu. 16:25; 1Co. 15:19; 1Ti. 4:8; 1Pe. 3:10. 'This life' is a term equivalent to 'the gospel,' 'the faith,' 'Christianity,' Ac. 5:20."* [* From Notes on Galatians, by Hogg and Vine. pp. 324,325.] Death came through sin, Ro. 5:12, which is rebellion against God. Sin thus involved the forfeiting of the "life." "The life of the flesh is in the blood," Le. 17:11. Therefore the impartation of "life" to the sinner must be by a death caused by the shedding of that element which is the life of the flesh. "It is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life" (id., RV). The separation from God caused by the forfeiting of the "life" could be removed only by a sacrifice in which the victim and the offerer became identified. This which was appointed in the typical offerings in Israel received its full accomplishment in the voluntary sacrifice of Christ. The shedding of the blood in the language of Scripture involves the taking or the giving of the "life." Since Christ had no sins of his own to die for, His death was voluntary and vicarious, John 10:15 with Isa. 53:5,10,12; 2Co. 5:21. In His sacrifice He endured the Divine judgment due to man's sin. By this means the believer becomes identified with Him in His deathless "life," through His resurrection, and enjoys conscious and eternal fellowship with God.

by gonzodave

---

The time is November, 1968. The scene is a monochrome black and white. The occassional, random sound echoes from off the hard, thickly painted concrete and metal surfaces.

You are sitting in the viewing gallery of a state prison, on death row, listening to the private thoughts of a condemend felon. Who, in only a few moments, will be electrocuted for the crime of multiple murders.

You are about to witness the execution of a man who had savagely slit the throats of his many victims.

---

For the last time the shiny blade does its job. Tightly in my wet palm, I grip the ragged yellow page. I know it by heart. Yet, no better than I do my unfaithful wife: “Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom is due; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self. Love worketh no ill to his neighbor therefore: love is the fulfilling of the law.”

My head is shaved. Time to pay. … No stay of death will stop what’s coming my way. … My thoughts are razor sharp. They slash and bleed my doubting heart. … Am I saved? Am I saved? ... If I can lose my salvation that means there are unforgiven sins of mine that Christ did not die for and I am lost. If my sin after saving faith can defeat my salvation, how was my sin forgiven in the first place?

Is it not the blood of Christ that washes away all my sin? If I can be saved again, then I am back to where I started and I am lost. If salvation is a reward then Christ died for nothing and I am lost! Oh, wretched man that I am! Condemned to die! Who will save me from the miserable followers of a God they command: “Save thyself! Save thyself! Come down from the cross”?

I am overcome and fallen from a grace I can never deserve. I am held hostage to doubt, blackmailed by religion, and left to make sense of it all! … Lies! Damnable lies! They are wrong. … Faith has made reason my friend. … Oh, glorious day! I am forgiven! You died my death and shed your blood for me. Save me! Give me your resurrection life, sweet faithful Jesus. Love me! Fulfill the law for me, before I leave this wicked world to be with you – today in Paradise!
____________________________

Dr. Charles Bing comments on the eternal destiny of all believers: "Hope is grounded in the gospel of grace. Another important fact about hope in Colossians 1 is that it is grounded in the true gospel of grace. The Colossians had heard the truth about this hope of heaven through Paul‘s gospel (v. 5). Any other gospel could not give hope, because the true gospel is according to grace, which Paul noted in verse 6 (―the grace of God in truth).17 Only grace can assure a believer of his or her eternal destiny because it makes salvation unconditional instead of subjecting it to the conditionality of one‘s performance. Commenting on hope and assurance of salvation, Rengstorf writes, ―Hope arises when man learns to see that he can do nothing for his own salvation, but that God can do everything and that the aim of God is to lead man to salvation, not by the way of attainment, but by a gift sola gratia. 18" ¹

17) See also 2 Thessalonians 2:16, which says Jesus Christ and God the Father gave believers ―eternal comfort and good hope by grace, and 1 Peter 1:13, which encourages believers to ―fix your hope completely on the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.
18) Rengstorf, ―, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 2:529."

---

¹ BIBLIOTHECA SACRA 164 (January–March 2007): Pp 74–88 THE WARNING IN COLOSSIANS 1:21–23, Charles C. Bing)

---

David Coulon 2007-2008

by gonzodave

---

Blessed Assurance

Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine
O what a foretaste of glory divine
Heir of salvation, purchase of God
Born of His Spirit, washed in His blood

This is my story, this is my song
Praising my Savior all the day long
This is my story, this is my song
Praising my Savior all the day long

Perfect submission, all is at rest
I in my Savior am happy and blest
Now I'm watching and waiting, now I'm looking above
Filled with His goodness, lost in His love

_{© 1999 Integrity's Hosanna! Music / King Garf Music / ASCAP / All rights reserved. Used by permission.}

---

REVEALED BY THE "EXPERIENTIAL" [JOY] ASPECT OF THE VALUE OF THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF CHRIST.


Dear Reader,

The command to love one another as Christ loves us is more than a magnificent "ideal." It is not one among other com-mands. It is the very heart of "the word," the command, given by God the Logos, Jesus Christ, to each believer. This "law of Christ" will fulfill the obligation to conform to the very nature of God. It is accomplished through a new love, working out the relation between Christ and all believers, enabled by the daily imparted grace [power] of God to the child who seeks to "keep the commandment(s)" and learn by doing the will of God.

1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness [Gk. eusebeia, belief that forms the basis for behavior by which man is restored to godliness]: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. NET

How supremely insufficient is the attempt made by professing Christians who adhere to a shallow interpretation of God's Word. Which is assumed to be implied in the synoptic Gospels, namely, The Sermon on the Mount. This presumption is driven and conditioned upon a man-made notion, a theory of atonement (Arminian Soteriology known as the Rectoral, Federal, or Governmental theory of atonement) which defines the value of the death of Christ. This theory undervalues His shed blood and overlooks the power of His resurrection life shared by all believers. Taken together, the presumption and the theory support the stalwart assertion that "daily behavior" through self-effort determines the outcome of a future salvation. The self-centered and joyless "experiential" aspect of Arminian salvation is that believers can never be assured that they themselves, or their believing loved ones have become the children of the living God who will be together in heaven with Christ.

Christianity has two commands (1 John 3:23): (1) to the unsaved, to obey the gospel, to believe in the Bible's witness and testimony to Jesus Christ which is Jesus as the preexistent Son of God who was conceived by God of a virgin and entered this world in the flesh of a newborn babe, who died for all the sins of the world, and, "this same man" rose again in glorified human flesh that all believers might share His resurrected life and "never see death," and, (2) to those who are saved, to love fellow believers as Christ loves them.

The common ground of the 1 John profession of a false Christology and today's Arminian profession of a false Christology is the inescapable harmony in that: (1) the assertion of a low moral ground whereby behavior does not matter (salvific sinlessness is a given by faith because of the pre-existence of Christ, Jesus came in water [incarnation at baptism] and His death [blood] is of no value for a forgiveness that is unnecessary) or, (2) the claim of the high moral ground whereby behavior is everything (salvific sinlessness is maintained by self-effort and continued faith, Jesus came by water and blood, but the blood has only a "theoretical" value for an incomplete forgiveness).

Both professions of faith, despite the human consequences of moral position, are false. Both maintain a low view of the value in the death of Christ. Therefore, true saving belief in Jesus Christ is not possible. Proved by the many clear statements of Scripture that assert without disagreement that the blood of Christ removes all sin through faith. And, secondly, reliance on the living, resurrected Christ, just as He is now, as the source of daily behavior is missing from both assertions. The secessionists of 1 John and the Arminian have failed to first obey the command incumbent upon the unsaved and, thus, lack the ability to appreciate and obey the command incumbent upon the saved (1 John 3:23).

God's graceful truth is that only through the completed and secure infinite redemption of salvation is righteous daily behavior possible "to a thousand generations to those who love me and keep my commandments" (Ex 2:6). More than anything, the primary commandment of Jesus "to love one another as I have loved you" is not the indication, rather it is the means by which Christian behavior is perfected through love and "fulfills the law." This is the defining argument that convicts the secessionists in I John of a false Christological profession and apostate doctrine.

The Arminian, with his "Social Gospel," is blind to the divine imperative spoken by Jesus, "you must [Gk. dei] be born again from above [Gk. anothen]" to "see the kingdom of God" (John 3:7ff, 3ff) and, "Seeing you have purified your souls in obeying the truth [the gospel] through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently. Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever" (1 Pet 2:22-23). In the "word," the command from the lips of Jesus, "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. This is my commandment, That ye love one another as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you" (John 15:3-5, 9-14).

Only by the new birth is this love for one another manifested. It is a Christian reality. Without it, one cannot abide in Jesus as the true vine and have communion (koinonia) with God and other believers "that your joy might be full."

My regards in Christ Jesus,
gonzodave

---

References and sources for defining Koinonoia

Vine's Expository Dictionary
(available at: vines.mike-obrien.net)

Communicate, Communication
--------------------------------------------------------

3koinonia (Noun)

Akin to A (which see), is translated in Heb. 13:16 "to communicate," lit., "be not forgetful of good deed and of fellowship;" "fellowship" (AV, "communication") in Phm. 1:6, RV. See COMMUNION.

------------------------------------------------------
Communion
------------------------------------------------------

1koinonia (Noun)

"a having in common (koinos), partnership, fellowship" (see COMMUNICATE), denotes (a) the share which one has in anything, a participation, fellowship recognized and enjoyed; thus it is used of the common experiences and interests of Christian men, Ac. 2:42; Ga. 2:9; of participation in the knowledge of the Son of God, 1Co. 1:9; of sharing the realization of the effects of the Blood (i.e., the Death) of Christ and the Body of Christ, as set forth by the emblems in the Lord's Supper, 1Co. 10:16; of participation in what is derived from the Holy Spirit, 2Co. 13:14 (RV, "communion"); Php. 2:1; of participation in the sufferings of Christ, Php. 3:10; of sharing in the resurrection life possessed in Christ, and so of fellowship with the Father and the Son, 1Jo. 1:3,6,7; negatively, of the impossibility of "communion" between light and darkness, 2Co. 6:14; (b) fellowship manifested in acts, the practical effects of fellowship with God, wrought by the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers as the outcome of faith, Phm. 1:6, and finding expression in joint ministration to the needy, Ro. 15:26; 2Co. 8:4; 9:13; Heb. 13:16, and in the furtherance of the Gospel by gifts, Php. 1:5. See COMMUNICATION, CONTRIBUTION, DISTRIBUTION, FELLOWSHIP.

---------------------------------------------------------
Contribution
---------------------------------------------------------

koinonia

Is twice rendered "contribution," Ro. 15:26; 2Co. 9:13, RV, (AV, "distribution"). See COMMUNION.

--------------------------------------------------------
Fellowship
--------------------------------------------------------

1koinonia (Noun)

(a) "communion, fellowship, sharing in common" (from koinos, "common"), is translated "communion" in 1Co. 10:16; Phm. 1:6, RV, "fellowship," for AV, "communication;" it is most frequently translated "fellowship;" (b) "that which is the outcome of fellowship, a contribution," e.g., Ro. 15:26; 2Co. 8:4. See COMMUNION, CONTRIBUTION, etc. Note: In Eph. 3:9, some mss. have koinonia, instead of oikonomia, "dispensation," RV.
_______________________________________

ISBE (available at: bible.org )

Communion; (fellowship)

II. Fellowship as Experienced.

From the very beginning the early Christians experienced a peculiar sense of unity. Christ is at once the center of this unity and the origin of every expression of fellowship. Sometimes the fellowship is essentially an experience and as such it is scarcely susceptible of definition. It may rather be regarded as a mystical union in Christ. In other instances the fellowship approaches or includes the idea of intercourse. In some passages it is represented as a participation or partnership. The terms occur most frequently in the writings of Paul with whom the idea of Christian unity was a controlling principle.

In its various relations, fellowship is represented: (1) As a communion between the Son and the Father. The gospel record represents Jesus as enjoying a unique sense of communion and intimacy with the Father. Among many such expressions those of Mt 11:25-27 (compare Lk 10:21,22) and Jn 14 through 15 are especially important. (2) As our communion with God, either with the Father or the Son or with the Father through the Son or the Holy Spirit. "Our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ" (1 Jn 1:3; compare also Jn 14:6,23,16). (3) As our communion one with another. "If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another" (1 Jn 1:7). Sometimes the idea of communion occurs in relation with abstract ideas or experiences: "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness" (Eph 5:11); "the fellowship of his sufferings" (Phil 3:10); "the fellowship of thy faith" (Philem 1:6). In three passages the relation of the fellowship is not entirely clear: the "fellowship of the Spirit" (Phil 2:1); "the communion of the Holy Spirit" (2 Cor 13:14); and "the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 1:9). The fellowship is probably to be understood as that prevailing among Christians by virtue of the grace of Christ and the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

It is not to be inferred that the idea of fellowship is limited to the passages in which the specific words for communion are used. Some of the clearest and richest expressions of unity and fellowship are found in the Gospels, though, these words do not occur in them. In fact, perhaps, the most familiar and forcible expressions of the idea are those in which they are represented symbolically, as in the parable of the Vine and the Branches (Jn 15:1 ff) or in the figure of the Body and its Members (Mt 5:29 ff; Rom 12:5; 1 Cor 12).

Russell Benjamin Miller
______________________________________

Variations of Koinonia in the Greek text w/ "Strong's Exhaustive Concordance" numbering

κοινωνει
2841 {V-PAM-2S},{V-PAI-3S} communicate, distribute, be partaker

κοινωνειτε
2841 {V-PAI-2P} communicate, distribute, be partaker

κοινωνειτω
2841 {V-PAM-3S} communicate, distribute, be partaker

κοινωνια
2842 {N-NSF},{N-DSF} (to) communicate(-ation), communion, (contri-)distribution, fellowship

κοινωνιαν
2842 {N-ASF} (to) communicate(-ation), communion, (contri-)distribution, fellowship

κοινωνιας
2842 {N-GSF} (to) communicate(-ation), communion, (contri-)distribution, fellowship

κοινωνικους
2843 {A-APM} willing to communicate
______________________________________

See also the Wikipedia entry below:

"Koinonia is the anglicisation of a Greek word (κοινωνία) that means communion by intimate participation. The word is used frequently in the New Testament of the Bible to describe the relationship within the early Christian church as well as the act of breaking bread in the manner which Christ prescribed during the Passover meal [John 6:48-69, Matthew 26:26-28, 1 Corinthian 10:16, 1 Corinthians 11:24]. As a result the word is used within the Christian Church to participate, as Paul says, in the Communion of - in this manner it identifies the idealised state of fellowship and community that should exist, this we call - Communion.

Contents
1 New Testament usage of koinonia
2 The spiritual meaning of koinonia
2.1 Sharing
2.2 Relationships
2.3 Community
3 The sacramental meaning of koinonia
4 Further Reading
5 References
6 Bibliography
7 External links

New Testament usage of Koinonia

The essential meaning of the koinonia embraces concepts conveyed in the English terms community, communion, joint participation, sharing and intimacy. Koinonia can therefore refer in some contexts to a jointly contributed gift.[1] The word appears 19 times in most editions of the Greek New Testament. In the New American Standard Bible, it is translated “fellowship” twelve times, “sharing” three times, and “participation” and “contribution” twice each.[2]

In the New Testament, the basis of communion begins with a mystical joining of Jesus Christ with the community of the faithful. This union is also experienced in practical daily life. The same bonds that link the individual to Jesus also link him or her with other faithful. The New Testament letters describe those bonds as so vital and genuine that a deep level of intimacy can be experienced among the members of a local church.[3].

The first usage of koinonia in the Greek New Testament is found in Acts 2:42-47, where we read a striking description of the common life shared by the early Christian believers in Jerusalem: "They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the communion, to the breaking of bread and to prayer...All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need…They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people.” Communion itself was the breaking of bread and the form of worship and prayer. It was in the breaking of the bread that the Apostles "recognized" Christ and it was in the breaking of bread, called Communion, that they celebrated Christ's Passion, Death and Resurrection by the manner which Christ asked during the Last Supper when he said, "Do this in memory of me."

A special New Testament application of the word koinonia is to describe the Communion that existed at the celebration of the Lord's Supper or sacrament of the Eucharist. For example, 1 Corinthians 10:16 (KJV) use the English word “communion” to represent the Greek word of koinonia. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" Any common meal certainly could represent a “sharing.” The koinonia is viewed as much deeper, however, when the meal is associated with a spiritual purpose. Joining in the Lord’s Supper is uniting oneself with other believers in the objective reality of Christ’s death. [4]

The spiritual meaning of Koinonia

The word has such a multitude of meanings that no single English word is adequate to express its depth and richness. It is a derivative of "koinos," the word for common. Koinonia, is a complex, rich, and thoroughly fascinating Greek approach to building community or teamwork.

Koinonia embraced a strong commitment to Kalos k'agathos meaning "good and good," – an inner goodness toward virtue, and an outer goodness toward social relationships. In the context of outer goodness, translated into English, the meaning of koinonia holds the idea of joint participation in something with someone, such as in a community, or team or an alliance or joint venture. Those who have studied the word find there is always an implication of action included in its meaning. The definition of the word is quite rich in that there are many connotations because the word used in a variety of related contexts.

Sharing

Koinonos means 'a sharer' as in to share with one another in a possession held in common. It implies the spirit of generous sharing or the act of giving as contrasted with selfish getting. When koinonia is present, the spirit of sharing and giving becomes tangible. In most contexts, generosity is not an abstract ideal, but a demonstrable action resulting in a tangible and realistic expression of giving.

In classical Greek, koinonein means "to have a share in a thing," as when two or more people hold all things in common. It can mean "going shares" with others, thereby having "business dealings,” such as joint ownership of a ship. It can also imply "sharing an opinion" with someone, and therefore agreeing with him, or disagreeing in a congenial way. Participation is vital because vital as the members are sharing in what others have. What is shared, received or given becomes the common ground through which Koinonia becomes real.

Relationships

"Koinonos" in classical Greek means a companion, a partner or a joint-owner. Therefore, koinonia can imply an association, common effort, or a partnership in common." The common ground by which the two parties are joined together creates an aligned relationship, such as a "fellowship" or "partnership". In a papyrus announcement a man speaks of his brother "with whom I have no koinonia", meaning no business connection or common interest. In the New Testament, (Luke 5:10) James, John, and Simon are called “partners” (koinonia ). The joint participation was a shared fishing business.

Two people may enter into marriage in order to have "koinonia of life", that is to say, to live together a life in which everything is shared. Koinonia was used to refer to the marriage bond, and it suggested a powerful common interest that could hold two or more persons together.

The term can also relate to a spiritual relationship. In this sense, the meaning something that is held and shared jointly with others for God, speaking to man's "relationship with God". Epictetus talks of religion as ‘aiming to have koinonia with Zeus". The early Christian community saw this as a relationship with the Holy Spirit. In this context, koinonia highlights a higher purpose or mission that benefits the greater good of the members as a whole. The term "enthusiasm" is connected to this meaning of koinonia for it signifies “to be imbued with the Spirit of God in Us."

To create a bond between comrades is the meaning of koinonia when people are recognized, share their joy and pains together, and are united because of their common experiences, interests and goals. Fellowship creates a mutual bond which overrides each individual’s pride, vanity, and individualism, fulfilling the human yearning with fraternity, belonging, and companionship. This meaning of koinonia accounts for the ease by which sharing and generosity flow. When combined with the spiritual implications of koinonia, fellowship provides a joint participation in God’s graces and denotes that common possession of spiritual values.

Thus early Greco-Roman Christians had a fellowship God, sharing the common experience of joys, fears, tears, and divine glory. In this manner, those who shared believed their true wealth lay not in what they had, but in what they gave to others. Fellowship is never passive in the meaning of koinonia, it is always linked to action, not just being together, but also doing together. With fellowship comes a close and intimate relationship embracing ideas, communication, and frankness, as in a true, blessed interdependent friendship among multiple group members.

Community

The idea of community denotes a “common unity” of purpose and interests. By engaging in this united relationship a new level of consciousness and conscience emerges that spurs the group to higher order thinking and action, thus empowering and encouraging its members to exist in a mutually beneficial relationship. Thus community and family become closely intertwined, because aiming at a common unity strives to overcome brokenness, divisiveness, and, ultimately gaining wholeness with each of the members, with their environment, and with their God. By giving mutual support, friendship and family merge. Both fellowship and community imply an inner and outer unity. No where in the framework of community is their implied a hierarchy of command and control. While there is leadership, the leader’s task is to focus energy, and align interests, not impose control.

Koinonia creates a brethren bond which builds trust and, especially when combined with the values of Wisdom, Virtue and Honor, overcomes two of humanity’s deepest fears and insecurities: being betrayed and being demeaned.

Whether working collectively or individually, the innovators of ancient Greece worked for the greater good of the whole – to propel their community forward, to share their understanding with others so that all ships would rise on a rising tide. Thus loftier goals and dreams are more easily manifested in the mind and achieved in reality. The team’s sense of Purpose became manifest.[5]

The sacramental meaning of Koinonia

The Eucharist is the sacrament of communion with one another in the one body of Christ. This was the full meaning of eucharistic koinonia in the early Church.[6] St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "the Eucharist is the sacrament of the unity of the Church, which results from the fact that many are one in Christ."[7]

Further Reading

Verna Lewis-Elgidely Koinonia in the Three Great Abrahamic Faiths: Acclaiming the Mystery and Diversity of Faiths Cloverdale Books (2007) ISBN 978-1-929569-37-3 [1]

References

^ Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 352
^ NAS Exhaustive Concordance
^ Richards, Expository Dictionary of Bible Words,p. 275-276
^ Cite error: Invalid tag; no text was provided for refs named Robinson
^ Lynch, "How the Greeks created the First Golden Age of Innovation"
^ Hertling, L. Communion, Church and Papacy in Early Christianity Chicago: Loyola University, 1972.
^ ST III, 82. 2 ad 3; cf. 82. 9 ad 2.

Bibliography

(1981, 1998) NAS Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible with Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries. The Lockman Foundation.

Bromiley, Geoffrey W. (1979). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co..

Robert Porter Lynch; Ninon Prozonic (2006). How the Greeks created the First Golden Age of Innovation (Word document) (English) 14. Retrieved on 2007-04-08.

Richards, Lawrence O. (1985). Expository Dictionary of Bible Words. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Corporation.

Thayer, Joseph H. (1885). Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

External links

Lexicon entry for koinonia, common domain
Healthy Devotion, free download from non-commercial site
Koinonia Foundation was at this site from 1945-1985
For the Christian jazz band of the same name, see Koinonia (band)
For the Christian conmmunity established by Clarence Jordan in Americus, Georgia (USA), see Koinonia Partners
For the organization "Koinonia Music Center" located in Jinja Uganda, see Koinonia Music Center
For the Christian conference grounds located in Santa Cruz, CA, (USA), see Koinonia
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koinonia"
Categories: Biblical phrases
Hidden categories: Articles lacking sources from January 2007 All articles lacking sources

---

http://www.mediafire.com/?jzx0ogz0ujm " href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/"> David Coulon 2007-2008