Do you think that contemporary praise and worship should replace hymns in church services?

I invite everyone to visit Solid Rock UMC for an example of how “out of date” the term “contemporary” is (ironically). Floodgate, Solid Rock’s headlining praise band, carries us to a place that is much further than any “contemporary” praise and worship. For Solid Rock, and ‘The Flood’ (an exceptional service where FloodGate leads as they worship in various host churches throughout the Carolinas), the vision calls for something more than “contemporary.” However, this is not a universal when speaking of God’s move in every church and church service, or with every person called “Christian.”

Just as I am often accused of being an anti-traditionalist (which I am not; said church traditions simply are not my own), I am also accused of not liking hymns. If the truth is told, I just don’t know many hymns (for the same reason that church traditions are not my own; I wasn’t raised in the church). To further tell the truth, the biblical theology contained in the hymns of the church, as a rule, are exceptional. In fact, their theology (in my opinion) far exceeds the warm and fuzzy feel good emotionalism, as a rule, of praise and worship. But it is the music supporting the lyrics that is the “hook” for most praise and worship. This is the bottom line for many of the fans of praise and worship over the old hymns. “Stiff and stale” are the descriptors for the hymns, while “alive and free” are used to describe praise and worship.

Though, again, these descriptions are not universal. There is a church in Thomasville (Pleasant grove UMC) where a full choir with robes, piano, and organ are utilized. While they also have a contemporary service, this church brings an “alive and free” feeling to the old hymns during their traditional service. I still do not know the hymns, but I certainly sense God just as much in one service as the other.

Thus, allow me to make two observations from this conversation.

First, in the form of a question, when will we quit blaming the music (hymns) for our lack of spirituality? While some will be attracted to praise and worship, others will be drawn to the hymns. We cannot say, logically, that one group contains “better” or “more spiritual” Christians, but only “different” Christians. I tell you it is Vision (or the lack thereof) which affects the spirituality of a church. And music (or hymns) reflects that Vision.

Second, I am a Metal-Head. I like heavy metal. Many “Christian-Metal” bands rework old hymns into extreme-hymns. They keep the original theological lyrics and change the music to meet a certain genre. So, my question is, can we not mix, also, praise and worship and hymns? Certainly someone has thought of this. I predict that this form of music will be a part of the Vision of many churches in the not-too-distant future!

Therefore, the heavier the better in my opinion! But I also realize that this will not work in many church settings. It is the Vision of each local church, I think, that is in question. And the “worship wars” reflect this question. Give me music, but give me theology!!

Will you explain what you mean when you say, “the church is in a paradigm shift?”

When I use the word “paradigm” I mean, “the norm by which things are.” In theology a paradigm could be considered a dispensation – “one portion of time distinguished from another.” For example: In the Old Testament, from Adam to Noah was a dispensation or paradigm. From Noah to Moses is another dispensation or paradigm. And from Moses to John the Baptizer is yet another dispensation or paradigm. Different paradigms are clearly distinguished from one another when the accepted norm changes. Those points between paradigms – those times of clear distinction – are known as “shifts.”

The New Testament paradigms become very interesting when Jesus comes onto the scene to complete the “shift” of John the Baptizer. The “norm” of the later Old Testament times was dictated by the religious leaders. Coming in the line of these leaders is John. But John comes with a different norm, a different message that rubs over against the accepted norm of the leaders. The paradigm is shifting. Jesus inaugurates the new paradigm. He sets the new norm and dictates (if you will) the way things are to be.

For nearly three-hundred (300) years this paradigm stood as the norm. Then, around A.D. 313, the paradigm began shifting again. The church was no longer the minority (the norm of the time), but was becoming the new majority. With the conversion of Emperor Constantine, and the subsequent merging of Church and State, the new paradigm of Christendom set in.

For sixteen-hundred (1600) years Christendom set the norm. Even through the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century Christendom dictated the norm and held sway with the minority. Whatever changes were brought by the Reformers were only brought to bear within Christendom (though, later, the work of the Reformers would instigate another shift).

In the mid-twentieth century (1960’s) the paradigm shifted once again. No longer was the norm of Christendom accepted. With the secular revolution of society (as well as the sacred revolution within the church) in the 60’s came a shift away from Christendom and its majority rule. Today, we find ourselves, whether in secular society or sacred church (which, incidentally, had no separation in Christendom), in the midst of this shift.

In many ways, we look very much like a prior paradigm shift of New Testament history. Where the religious leaders of Jesus’ day set the norm, which Jesus disrupted and contradicted; the norms set by the religious leaders of Christendom are being violently overturned by the way we “do” church today. And the establishment called “Christianity,” in the age of political correctness, is quickly becoming the minority sect and the outcast of society once again (as it was for three hundred years before Christendom).

I should also mention that paradigm shifts are universal. What I mean is, paradigms shift globally and throughout every aspect of society. Today’s paradigm shift is evident in the political spectrum of America. “The way it has always been done” is now being rejected. While it is hotly debated exactly what kind of “change” has recently occurred, it is clear that “change” is precisely what has happened; and that, in and of itself, is a paradigm shifting.

What is the difference between a “carnal” and a “spiritual” Christian?

The question comes out of the King James Version of the Bible:

1Corinthians 3:1-3 – And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envy, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

But in Pauline theology, the point is found, not in the term “carnal” but in the word “flesh” as opposed to spirit. The Amplified Bible does a great job of capturing the thought:

1Corinthains 3:1-3 – However, brethren, I could not talk to you as to spiritual [men], but as to nonspiritual [men of the flesh, in whom the carnal nature predominates], as to mere infants [in the new life] in Christ [unable to talk yet!] I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not yet strong enough [to be ready for it]; but even yet you are not strong enough [to be ready for it], For you are still [unspiritual, having the nature] of the flesh [under the control of ordinary impulses]. For as long as [there are] envying and jealousy and wrangling and factions among you, are you not unspiritual and of the flesh, behaving yourselves after a human standard and like mere (unchanged) men?

It is important to understand how Paul viewed both, to be “fleshly” and to be “spiritual” and what he meant by these terms and thoughts.

Sometimes Paul used the word “flesh” (“sarx” in the Greek, or a slight variant in form) to refer to that which all humanity has in common; that which puts us all in the same category (Rom. 1:3; Rom. 2:28; Rom. 3:20; Rom. 4:1; Rom. 7:14; Rom. 9:3, 5; 1Cor. 1:26; 1Cor. 5:5; 1Cor. 6:16; 1Cor. 15:39, 50; 2Cor. 5:16; 2Cor. 7:1; 2Cor. 10:3; Gal. 1:16; Gal. 4:29; Eph. 2:11; Eph. 5:29, 31; Php. 1:22, 24; Php. 3:4; Col. 1:24; 1Tim. 3:16; Heb. 2:14; Heb. 5:7; Heb. 9:13).

Other times he uses the same word to mean something more. Often when Paul uses the word “flesh,” (“sarx” or variant in form) he is speaking of that material which identifies us as humanity, but also that sin nature which identifies us as humanity. And he often uses the term as an antithesis to something “other than” the material and the nature of humanity. (Rom. 6:19; 7:5, 18, 25; 8:3-9, 12-13; 9:8; 13:14; 2Cor. 1:17; 2Cor. 4:11; 2Cor. 7:5; 2Cor. 10:2-4; 2Cor. 11:18; 2Cor. 12:7; Gal. 2:16, 20; Gal. 3:3; Gal. 4:23, 29; Gal. 5:13, 16-17, 19, 24; Gal. 6:8, 12-13; Eph. 2:3, 15; Eph. 6:5, 12; Php. 3:3-4; Col. 2:11, 13; 1Tim. 3:16; Phm. 1:16; Heb. 10:20).

The second use of the word is the thrust of the “carnal/spiritual” understanding in question. For Paul, when a person is living according to the flesh, that person is living under the curse of the law. Conversely, when a person is living according to the spirit, that person is living under the free gift of grace offered exclusively through Jesus Christ alone.

The dilemma to which Paul addresses in Corinth (as well as most of his other churches) is that of Christians who are, theologically, justified, but not sanctified. The question is not about salvation, for the “infants” are “infants in Christ.” The issue at hand is the very same issue, with which Paul dealt many times in his ministry, as well as the issue with which many Christians find themselves today; that is, the infatuation with combining Law with grace! Throughout the references offered above (but especially the letter to the Galatians), the people were being lead to believe that grace was not enough and that they must also adhere to the law in order to be “mature” Christians. However, for Paul, maturity (or sanctification) comes from something else altogether.

“Carnal” (or “fleshly”) Christians are those which still attempt to find satisfaction in the human nature (which places them squarely under the law and its penalty). Evidence of this fact is clearly pointed out by Paul in several of the references above, but expressly in the Corinthian account (“envy, jealousy, wrangling, and factions”). “Spiritual” Christians are those who live by the same Spirit which saved them (Gal. 3:1-3). Theologically we call this, “sanctification.” Paul called this being “in Christ.” The term for this today is “the cruciform” (I have discussed this more distinctly elsewhere). Today, this “carnality” is expressed in the ideology that, “now that we’re Christians, our flesh – our nature – will be better.” “Christ can make us better people” is the fallacy of the issue. Paul explains that we experience the killing power of the cross, we have died to the “flesh” and its evil desires and, therefore, are on “solid food” (or “meat”) that feeds the spirit rather than the flesh.

The problem with “carnal Christianity” is that it may speak for the salvation of the individual, but it is silent concerning any expression of the church as the expression of Christ. When it does speak corporately, it speaks the same language as those who do not know Christ, because it is fed the same food. The solid food that leads one in the full expression of Christ in an individual and, thereby, in the church as a whole, is found only when one “is crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in him/her” (Gal. 2:20). That “spiritual” one is a living sacrifice who is being transformed by the renewing of their mind (Rom 12:1-2).

Can you help me with some highlights of Jeremiah’s life and ministry?

Before we, in the New Testament era, begin to study the Old Testament (and the New, for that matter), it is important that we understand the critical contexts (i.e. historical, literary, et. el.) of the writers and books. One of the greatest hermeneutical (interpretive) errors today is having a text without a context (which is a pretext). Much theological suicide is committed because we either ignore or are ignorant of the time, place, by whom, and to whom a composition was written or spoken. Many today have an agenda they wish to support (a pretext), thus they search the Scriptures to find a text (thereby removing it from its context) and end up making it appear as though God spoke only to support their claims. It is especially when one goes looking for New Testament concepts in the Old Testament that this is clearly evident, for example. We do not have to pull Scripture out of context in order to hear God speak today. His voice echoes through the ages, and in the context of the age.

Jeremiah of Anathoth (the “weeping prophet;” 8:18 – 9:3; 13:15-17), the son of Hilkiah, was a prophet in the southern kingdom of Judah about 100 years after the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel and its capital, Samaria (722 B.C.). He was a priest – probably a descendent of Abiathar (priest to King David). He was called to be a prophet of God in the thirteenth year of Josiah (627 B.C.). He was probably around 20 years old when he was called and prophesied for over forty years (1:2-3).

Jeremiah first prophesied in his hometown (Anathoth), but soon angering his family and neighbors (11:21; 12:6) he moved to Jerusalem. He, at least, began his ministry in a prophetic school with other prophets who were connected to the Temple (23:11; 26:7-16-18; 28:3).

By the reign of King Jehoiakim (608 – 598 B.C.) he had collected all of his previous prophesies into one book (chapter 36). By the reign of King Zedekiah (597 – 597 B.C.), Jeremiah was an established and very well known prophet. He continuously warned the king of Judah not to revolt against the Babylonians. Jeremiah was wanted dead by the leaders of Judah, but they did not dare kill him. So, instead, they arrested him and locked him in a pit-house where he would have died if not for a rescue from the king who placed him under less harsh conditions. Jeremiah’s warnings went unheeded and Jerusalem fell in 587 B.C. after three Babylonian invasions (37:21; 38:28).

There are only two recorded converts due to Jeremiah’s preaching: his scribe, Baruch (32:12; 36:1-4; 45:1-5), and an Ethiopian servant to the king named Ebed-Melech (38:7-13; 39:15-18).The martyrdom of Jeremiah cannot be substantiated and is believed to be a legend of later Jewish traditions. History shows that many of the Judean people fled to Egypt after the assassination of the Judean governor, carrying with them Jeremiah and his assistant Baruch. Several of Jeremiah’s sayings are from this Egyptian period (43:8 – 44:30; 46:13-26). And Egypt is where he probably died.

It is believed by many scholars that Jeremiah’s assistant, Baruch, formed the original structure of the book known as Jeremiah (36:1-4, 32). Next, Deuteronomistic disciples reworked the collection according to literary and religious concepts (i.e. to update prophecies and their interpretations, and to ensure proper Jewish doctrine) of the early fifth century B.C.

Theologically, the Book of Jeremiah documents the spiritual decline and tragic downfall of Jerusalem. Jeremiah speaks of sin as the affectionless and hypocritical deceptions of the human heart; destroying not only personally, but also socially. Jeremiah continuously calls humanity to return to God. He speaks of God’s worldview concerning the judgment of sin itself – using Jerusalem and Babylon as examples – as well as God’s worldview of His sovereignty exercised in His plan and purpose to reconcile humanity to Him-self. He speaks of discerning God’s word over-against the lie. And Jeremiah speaks of the lawsuit which God brings against humanity and the graceful coming of the “not guilty” verdict in the new covenant.

For Jeremiah, royalty is not about luxury, but justice toward the oppressed; truth in prophetic sayings is tested by the personal conduct of the speaker and their attention to others repentance, which is always truly in contrition and tears; and the old religious establishment was utterly rejected by Jeremiah in favor of a complete religious revolution (which did occur in his time).

The major themes of Jeremiah are God’s judgment on religious infidelity and worldwide sin, and His determination to restore humanity for Himself through a new covenant. The final collection of Jeremiah’s sayings was purposed for those awaiting the end of Judah’s exile. It was (is) a reminder that Jerusalem’s fall was not due to any lack on God’s part but was due entirely to Jerusalem’s faithlessness and unfaithfulness.

The Book of Jeremiah is an anthology, a collection of writings drawn from a life-long ministry of Jeremiah, and (for the most part) about his beloved Jerusalem. It is divided thusly:

Chapters 1 – 24 begins and ends with visions. The key question in this section is God asking, “What do you see Jeremiah?” This section contains autobiography (1:4-19), poetic discourses (2:1 – 6:30), and reports of oral sermons (7:1 – 8:3).

Chapters 25 – 45 are bracketed by two narratives about the fourth year of Jehoiakim. It is highly biographical and pictorial. It contains oral sermons (26:1-9), reports of sermons in written form (36:1-8), historical narratives (37:1 – 43:13), and messages to individuals (45:1-5).

Chapters 46 – 51 are against the nations, beginning with Egypt and ending with Babylon (the Greek Septuagint, differing from the Masoretic Text, positions these sayings differently and after the same pattern as Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Zepheniah. The entire book is also shorter in the Greek than in the Hebrew).

Chapter 52 is an historical appendix.

The Book of Jeremiah can be outlined thusly:

I. The Call (chapter 1)
II. To Judah (chapters 2 – 24)
A. Early (Chapter 2 – 6)
B. Temple Message (chapters 7 – 10)
C. Covenant and Conspiracy (chapters 11 – 13)
D. The Drought (chapters 14 – 15)
E. Disaster and Comfort (chapters 16:1 – 17:18)
F. The Sabbath (chapter 17:19-27)
G. The Potter (chapters 18 – 20)
H. Condemnation (chapters 21 – 24)
I. Babylonian Exile Coming (chapters 25 – 29)
J. Coming Restoration (chapters 30 – 33)
K. History (chapters 34 – 35)
III. The Suffering Prophet (chapters 36 – 38)
A. Burn the Scroll (chapter 36)
B. Prison (chapters 37 – 38)
IV. Jerusalem Falls (chapters 39 – 45)
A. The Fall (chapter 39)
B. Assassination (chapters 40:1 – 41:15)
C. To Egypt (chapters 41:16 – 43:13)
D. Against those in Egypt (chapter 44)
E. Promise to Baruch (chapter 45)
V. Against the Nations (chapters 46 – 51)
A. Egypt (chapter 46)
B. Philistia (chapter 47)
C. Moab (chapter 48)
D. Ammon (chapter 49:1-6)
E. Edom (chapter 49:7-22)
F. Damascus (chapter 49:23-27)
G. Arabia (chapter 49:28-33)
H. Elam (chapter 49:34-39)
I. Babylon (chapters 50 – 51)
VI. Historical Appendix (chapter 52)

You have mentioned an “order to salvation;” what did you mean by that?

The ‘Order of Salvation’ is a theological way of understanding how God works in humanity to make them everything they have been called to be. Augustine of Hippo (4th century theologian) began the development of this Order and John Wesley (18th century theologian and founder of the Methodist movement in the Anglican Church of England, and in early Colonial America) built upon and expanded it. Incidentally, though Wesley is credited with the term used for the first phase or stage of the Order, Augustine was utilizing the term 1400 years beforehand, which arguably makes it a founding principle in the theology of grace. The Order of Salvation is…

First, humanity is in such a state that it is completely incapable of responding to God without God first empowering them to have faith. This empowerment is known as ‘Prevenient Grace’ (“grace that goes before…”). It does not save us but, rather, it comes before anything that we do, “wooing” us to God. Prevenient Grace is Universal, in as much as all humans receive it, regardless of their having heard of Jesus or not [this in no way implies universal salvation, but only universal grace – God’s desire to save universally]. It manifests itself in humanity as the yearning to know God (Rom. 1:18-20).

Secondly, after we are drawn to God and are empowered to respond, with faith, to the offered gift of right-standing-with-God – when we actually say “yes” to Christ – we are given ‘Justifying Grace,’ which washes away our sin and incorporates us into the Body of Christ. This is the point of “Regeneration,” in which we are returned to the state of Adam and Eve in the Garden (before the fall from grace). In Justifying Grace we are judged to be, not innocent but, “not guilty” of our past sins and are also forgiven for the sins we continue to commit now.

Thirdly, grace through faith in Jesus Christ doesn’t end with Justification, however. One hasn’t “arrived” and finished the race, but has only begun. Justification is the point at which God judges us “just as if we were Christ.” The Perfection, the Righteousness, of Jesus is not yet a part of who we are, even though we are viewed by God as if we were righteous (theologically, we are “forensically” righteous, though not practically). ‘Sanctifying Grace’ comes to make the objective judgment of “Righteous” a subjective reality in our way of life. The Righteousness of Christ is, through our seeking of God’s Grace, made an increasing part of who we are. We become more Christ-like. In other words, the Love and Will of God becomes our lifestyle as we become more and more like Christ.

And finally, while none of us can be perfect by our own ability or will (not to mention, our definition of “perfect” is quite perverted), Sanctifying Grace transforms us into a greater and greater likeness of Christ. As we grow in Sanctifying Grace, we approach the Will of God for us. This growth is described by the theological term “Cruciform,” which is the expression of the Pauline “in Christ” and his view of a mystical union with Christ (for example, Gal. 2:20). Thus, through Sanctifying Grace we are blessed by occasional moments or fleeting instances of knowing and living in God’s perfect love and will. This is what John Wesley meant when he said that we are all to be “Moving on to ‘Perfection’” (or “Entire Sanctification”).

Therefore, a relationship with God is presented to us, first, by the initial urging of God in Prevenient Grace; without which, we would never seek His face. Having established first contact, second, God offers Justifying Grace when we say “yes” to the free gift that the Cross of Christ offers. We are now identified by God and identifiable with Him. This is only the beginning because, thirdly, the journey continues in God’s extension of Sanctifying Grace as we are transformed more and more into Christ’s likeness. The logical end result of which is Perfecting Grace, where “daily” we die to the “desires of the flesh” and put on “the mind of Christ.”

A “Christian,” by definition has received Prevenient Grace (along with the rest of humanity) and has also received the Justifying Grace so offered. This is the place where most “Christians” find themselves, though not because God has desired for them to stop there. Few are those “Christians” who are walking in Sanctifying Grace, dying to ‘self’ and allowing Christ to live in them. And fewer still are those “Christians” seeking Perfecting Grace, where they are filled to overflowing with the love and will of God; where they are not only “forensically” righteous, but are practicing righteousness as well.

What are the basic differences between Calvinist theology and Methodist theology?

This question reaches further than any one document or answer can touch upon. There is simply too much history between the two schools of thought to formulate an unbiased answer, and if the truth were to be known, both schools are as divided inwardly as they are between one another. Any “Methodist” theology (assuming the presupposition that John Wesley is the seat of this theology) must take into account that the Wesley’s presuppose Calvinist theology (among many others) and Calvinist theology presupposes the great theologians that came before John Calvin (Augustine, for example, on which much of Calvinism is based). Remember, John Calvin lived some 200 years before John Wesley. We also must realize that any theology is based on the human attempt to understand God’s logic (theology, by definition), and that it is safe to assume that any theological doctrine, therefore, is flawed and more than one theological stance may be correct (as long as they don’t contradict) or a combination of doctrines is probably more accurate (because no human has the fullness of truth).

That being said, the “TULIP” formula may be the best known summation underscoring the differences in the two schools of thought (though neither school is limited to the five points of the formula). Calvinism is, then, summed thusly:

‘T’ – Total Depravity – humanity is totally depraved and, not just unwilling, but unable to seek God without the illumination of God’s grace.
‘U’ – Unconditional Election – God unconditionally elected some to salvation, while others were, not passively, but intentionally elected to reprobation (damnation).
‘L’ – Limited Atonement – the atoning work of Christ on the cross was effectual only for those unconditionally elected for salvation by God.
‘I’ – Irresistible Grace – the one that was unconditionally elected for salvation cannot say “no” to the Holy Spirit’s application of Christ’s atonement.
‘P’ – Perseverance of the Saints – those unconditionally elected to salvation are preserved by God and can never lose their salvation.

Methodist theology, concerning TULIP, says:

‘T’ – Total Depravity – Wesley rejected the idea (preferring “complete corruption”) until later in his ministry, when he accepted the thought of humanity’s complete rejection of God without Christ.
‘U’ – Unconditional Election – Wesley and most Methodists reject this premise outright. They believe that Christ died for “all” and He “does not wish that any would perish.”
‘L’ – Limited Atonement – Wesley and most Methodists believe in “unlimited atonement.” Not that Christ brought about universal salvation, but that all sins of all humanity have been atoned for by Christ.
‘I’ – Irresistible Grace – Wesley and most Methodists believe in “resistible grace.” Humanity can reject God’s grace simply by acting out of their total depravity (or complete corruption).
‘P’ – Perseverance of the Saints – Wesley and many Methodists believe that a believer saved by grace can sin to such an extent that that one can lose their salvation.

Personally, I agree with the Calvinist view on the “Total Depravity” of humanity because of the sin of Adam.

Augustine of Hippo once explained it like this:
In the garden, before the fall, humanity was able not to sin.
After the fall humanity is not able not to sin.
In heaven humanity will not be able to sin.

I also agree with the Calvinist view on the “Perseverance of the Saints” (for the reasons I explained in ‘Can you lose your Salvation?’ on my blog).

I agree with the Methodists (with qualifications) concerning the other three points. In my opinion, Christ died for all as the Scriptures explain. Christ’s atonement is “sufficient” for all, but “efficient” only for those who believe (this point was actually formulated by a Calvinist who wished to better align doctrine with the other founding Reformers – Luther and Zwingli). And I agree that God’s grace is resistible (based on other Wesleyan premises, which are beyond the scope of this essay. I will cover these in a later answer) because of the human “freedom of choice” (similar to “free will,” which term I do not hold dear for reasons beyond this essay).

Again, I think that both forms of theology are extremely helpful, and no one school of thought is complete without the other. The idea of balance is the wisest choice when it comes to any belief-system or thought because it, in and of itself, reaches the goal of making one think about the logic of God (theologize).

Can you lose your salvation?

This is a question which, for the most part, circulates within Wesleyan influenced churches (i.e. obviously the Wesleyan Church, Methodist of one kind or another, United Methodist, Pentecostal, Holiness, etc. et. el.). Contrary to the belief and understanding of John Wesley, there is simply no consensus of thought concerning this question among those of his heritage. Opinions are equally leveled from both sides of the argument, but it appears to me that sound logic, as well as Scripture itself, falls clearly on the one side. Concerning logic: If it is agreed (as I am assuming it is among Protestants) that one cannot earn salvation –but it is a gift of God – then it necessarily follows that one cannot lose it either. According to the Law of Opposites, if one does nothing to earn it how, then, does one do something to lose it? Though the phrase, “Once saved always saved” is undesirable, the sentiment is steeped in good theology.

Concerning theology, I think the confusion (on this subject, as well as others) comes when comparing the gospel accounts (especially the Synoptics – Matthew, Mark, and Luke) to the Pauline canon. In the gospel accounts salvation always has a physicality to it; that is, it is always about one’s active faith that strengthens salvation; there is almost always a physical healing with salvation, it appears to be based on individual faith and thus, almost always about our exercise of God given faith. Therefore, if one doesn’t use, then one loses it.

In the Pauline letters, there is usually a different aspect to salvation. For Paul, salvation is Christos-centric (Christ centered); it has everything to do with the act of the Cross of Christ. Salvation is the very purpose of the incarnation, almost exclusively (1Tim. 1:15). Salvation, in all of Paul’s letters addressing it, is an all-encompassing act that has rescued humanity – presently and eschatologically (in the ultimate “end”).

In Pauline Theology salvation originated in the Father and was executed in the Son (2Cor. 5:19), and established by the Holy Spirit who is given as a security deposit of the fact (Eph. 1:14; 2Cor. 1:20-22). We who were once enemies of God are now reconciled with Him (Rom. 5:10) “in Christ,” where salvation is held secure (2Tim. 2:10). As such, the salvation found in Christ is sufficient for all, but efficient only for those who believe.

Paul’s sense of salvation is always a past, present, and future event – each tense interconnected and interdependent on the other and always with the Cross of Christ in view. In other words, salvation is the act where God has saved, is saving, and will save those who believe on Jesus Christ.

Past: (Eph. 2:5, 8-9; Col. 1:13; Titus 3:5)

Present: (Rom. 1:16-17; 7:24-25; 10:10; 1Cor. 1:18; 2Cor. 2:15; 6:2; 7:10; Eph. 6:17; 1Thes. 5:8)

Future: (Rom. 5:9; 11:26; 13:11; 1Cor. 3:5; 3:15; Phil. 3:20; 2Thes. 2:10; 2Tim. 4:18)

Past, Present, and Future: (Rom. 8:24; Eph. 5:23)

Nowhere does Paul even allude to working to be saved, now working because we’re saved, or working to keep our salvation. In fact, he argues something altogether different! He argues that it is the ‘Cruciform’ (in modern terminology), the position of being “in Christ,” that one “works out their own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12). [See my blog, ‘The Cruciform’ for more details about the subject.]

The argument that one can lose their salvation for lack of use presupposes that the certain one was “saved” to begin with. If you were to say that a certain person lost their salvation because of continuous sin, I would argue that this certain one was not “saved” in the first place. Incidentally, how does one go about knowing the heart condition of another? How does one know another is saved or not, anyway? Someone will say, “We will know by their fruits.” To which I will ask, “Oh, so we are called to be fruit inspectors? And who has established exactly what good (saved) and bad (unsaved) fruit looks like?” [Notice that the real issue here is not whether someone can lose his/her salvation or not, but works; a completely different argument.]

While there are personal and emotional “reasons” (I use that term loosely) to believe such a thing, there is simply no logical or biblical evidence for believing that one can lose his or her salvation. I am not unaware that there are Scripture texts used in an attempt to support the view that one can lose his/her salvation, but in each and every case they are used out of context. A text used without a context is a pretext; in other words, this non-contextualizing is brought by one who wishes to induce, rather than deduce, an opinion.

In my denomination women cannot be in key leadership roles (such as deacon), but I know in yours they can (even pastors). How can I biblically argue in favor of women in leadership?

The belief, by a few denominations, that women cannot be in leadership is based on Old Testament culture and faulty hermeneutics (the practice of interpretation) concerning a couple of Scripture texts. As for the adaptation of Old Testament culture, I say that this is the twenty-first century of the Christian era. In fact, it is easily argued that, historically, the apostolic church (of the first century) had women in key leadership roles. In recent history it is certainly clear that, in ecclesiastical settings (church) women, for the most part, were marginalized and left at home. The Protestant Reformation brought some minor changes to this, but not until “modern times” have swift changes been introduced. This leads me to the second point, that of the contention brought by two leading New Testament texts.

First, we need to think it no small matter that the texts in question are of the Pauline canon. In fact, it would appear to be strictly Pauline letters that cause the most tension when dealing with matters between the sexes:

1 Corinthians 14:33b-35 – As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak at church. (NRSV)

1 Timothy 2:11-12 – Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. (NRSV)

Many years ago a Women’s Bible study not far from where I live refused to study the Pauline corpus because of these seemingly not too flattering texts. Upon meeting with one of the leaders of this study I pointed out the First Principle of the Christian faith – that of Scripture as the means by which one could call oneself a “Christian.” If we can disregard a New Testament principle because we don’t agree with it, what stops us from dissecting the Scriptures altogether and, thereby, making our belief system defy all known laws of logic? If we can remove a sub-principle of our First Principle, then, in effect, we have no First Principle and we are illogical.

I am normally considered a conservative theologian. However, in many circumstances I must part from the conservative interpretations (thus, call me what you will). For example, conservative theology dictates that all Scripture is axiomatic (universal in its applications). If that sentiment in and of itself is axiomatic, Scripture has become self-contradictive and, therefore, illogical.

Case-in-point: If the instructions in the above texts are universal and are of account across all time and space and, furthermore, assuming that the Apostle Paul wrote one if not both of these letters, then they flatly contradict other letters and texts that Paul supposedly wrote (rather, dictated). Even if Paul did not write any of them, they are still considered “Scripture” and, as such, cannot self-contradict.

In Romans 16:1 Paul commends to the Roman church “Phoebe, a ‘deaconess’ of the church at Cenchreae.” Regardless of denomination, a “Deacon” and its female parallel, “Deaconess,” are leaders in the Christian church.

Likewise, in Romans 16:2 Prisca and Aquila, a husband and wife team, are mentioned as leaders of Paul’s movement within the Christian church. Certainly, if the instructions in 1 Corinthians and 1Timothy were universal, Paul would have dropped Prisca’s name (the wife) from this text.

And again, in Romans 16:7, in the best ancient manuscripts, “Junia” (a feminine name) is the name given as actually being an apostle along with Paul (later redactions changed the name to “Junias,” a masculine name). Here again, a woman, not just in a place of leadership, but an apostle at that.

“Euodia” and “Syntyche,” two women mentioned in Philippians 4:2-3, are at least leaders in Paul’s movement; and there is even evidence that they were leaders (if not co-pastors) of the church in Philippi.

The Greek sentence structure and word and grammar usage in 1Timothy 3:11 speaks not of the wives of deacons, but of women who are deaconesses of the church.

Thus, we have apparent contradictions from one letter to another, which poses logical problems if these interpretations are to be considered universal. However, if these letters are written dialogically and circumstantially (in a specific time, to a specific place, to a specific people, addressing a specific problem, etc.), then contradictions evaporate.

For example, in the ancient Greek world it was unacceptable (as a rule) for women to debate and employ argumentation in public (not to mention to enter into public refutation with men). Could it be this cultural phenomenon to which Paul was speaking in both the Corinthian and Timothian letters?

It also warrants noting that it was only in Corinth and Ephesus (where Timothy was pasturing) that these instructions concerning women were directed. In no other letter are these instructions even mentioned. Also, back in 1 Corinthians 11:5 women are prophesying, which is speaking “for and forth God” (i.e. preaching), in worship.

Many scholars believe that, according to historical accounts, there were issues specifically in portions of the Greek speaking world where something equal only to the modern women’s movement was attempting to take hold. Whether this is politically correct or not today, it was not in the ancient world.

I should also mention that some scholars believe 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 to be later non-Pauline interpolations (texts added some time later than Paul’s original correspondence). I am not convinced that there is enough evidence for this belief, but the literary style of the passage does warrant questions. In verses 26-33 and 37- 40 Paul is giving instruction on orderly worship concerning speaking in tongues and prophesying, and this literary theme is interrupted by the instruction of women. The text would flow much more smoothly and evenly without the introduction (as if in a vacuum) of verses 34-36; not to mention that, the letter itself would not appear self-contradictive just three chapters apart. [Remember, chapter and verse breaks were not in the original manuscripts.]

While we can only speculate as to why the two texts in question are contained in the letters, we can conclude without a shadow of a doubt that there are issues of self-contradiction if the letters are to be understood axiomatically. Logically (and theologically) there are axioms contained in the letters (for example: Paul’s Christology, Ecclesiology, and Theology Proper, et. el.), but it does not necessarily follow that the corpus in general must be read universally. As we have established, this creates self-contradictions, which end-result is theological suicide.

I cannot fail to mention the eschatological (dealing with the ‘last things,’ or end times) prophecy of Joel 2:28, “Then afterward I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even on male and female servants, in those days, I will pour out my spirit” (NRSV, emphases mine) of which it is said to have been fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-21).Are we to deny that God is calling women to preach and be leaders of His church because it contradicts our own hermeneutics and self-understanding?

I will mention only briefly the fact of a certain evangelist named “Philip” (Acts 21:8) who had “four unmarried daughters who had the gift of prophecy” (Acts 21:9).It appears that, even early in the Christian movement, paradigms (both spiritual and physical) were shifting and God was gifting women as well.

I shall also remind us, since it is the Pauline canon of which we are mostly dealing, of Galatians 3:28 – “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ.” Having studied Pauline Theology for the past twelve years I can assure you that what Paul here speaks concerns his idea of being “in Christ” as a new creation; one that no longer sees people as “male or female,” but as an expression of the Person of Christ.

So, as we have evidenced, while there are a couple texts of which female leadership is brought into question, we have discovered that it is our interpretation of those texts (and not Scripture itself) that is the real question. It would appear as though we have arrested culture and status quo and elevated them to the level of authority by making them a part of our theology. A denomination and the people of it can decide who can and cannot be in leadership, but in this case they cannot reasonably point to Scripture as support for not allowing women to lead (and, as we have seen, lead as pastors or bishops).

I understand the spirit of baptism, but what is the importance of the physical act of baptism?

Spiritual baptism is a personal thing, but the physical act is social and public. Baptism, therefore, is both Evangelical and Sacramental; that is, it both calls for salvation and gives witness to it. A sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. It is an act of God performed in the church and, thus, the active agent in a sacrament is God. A sacrament has three defining characteristics: First, it is ordered by Christ in the Scriptures; secondly, it has a physical sign attached to it and; third, a promise of God’s grace comes with it. John Wesley taught that baptism is a good gift from God to the church, a significant part of God’s plan for brining people to salvation. God can bring people to salvation without their having received it and simply having been baptized is no guarantee of anyone’s salvation.

Yet, at the same time baptism is a part of the lifelong process by which God works in our lives. The grace that comes to us in baptism must be responded to and accepted in repentance and faith, continually. While one is only initiated (baptized) into the church once, that one is nourished the rest of his or her life through the church (signified by the sacrament of Communion or the Lord’s Supper).

There are several New Testament metaphors which paint an intricate picture of the point and purpose of baptism; this experience, this baptism, concerns both the womb and the tomb. As we have established, baptism is “incorporation into the church”. When it comes to baptism, the apostle Paul is very egalitarian in his understanding:

1 Corinthians 12:13 – “For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body – Jews or Greeks, slaves or free – and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.”(NRSV)

Galatians 3:27-28 – “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male or female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (NRSV)

Regardless of age, nationality, color, culture, or gender baptism is the sign-act of entrance into the Body of Christ (“baptized into one body”) where true social equality is the norm. The Corinthian text also supports another metaphor at which we shall look, and that of “Reception of the Holy Spirit” for “Holy Living.”

Matthew 3:16 – “And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.” (NRSV)

1 Corinthians 6:11 – “…But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” (NRSV)

Acts 19:5-6 – “…On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.” (NRSV)

Acts 2:38 – “Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (NRSV)

The gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit may become visible spontaneously during baptism or gradually over a period of time after baptism, but the baptized can rest in assurance that with faith in Christ comes the love of God through the Holy Spirit. The Acts 2 text brings us to another metaphor of baptism, “Forgiveness of Sin.”

Acts 22:16 – “And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.” (NRSV)

1 Peter 3:21 – “And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you–not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…” (NRSV)

Hebrews 10:22 – “let us approach with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.” (NRSV)

The outer washing signifies an inward cleansing, and the dogma of the Nicene Creed affirms “one baptism for the remission of sins.” This washing of the inward parts carries us to the understanding of the “New Birth” or “New Life.”

John 3:5-7 – “Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be astonished that I said to you, ‘You must be born from above.’” (NRSV)

Titus 3:5 – “he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.” (NRSV)

There is regeneration (or new birth) and continued renewal of the believer in baptism. All of these metaphors, I think, are linked and over-lapped (as we have seen by the Scriptures texts) and a part of yet another, and perhaps most important: “Union with Christ.”

Romans 6:3-5 – “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For, if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.” (NRSV)

Colossians 2:12 – “when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.” (NRSV)

The death and resurrection of Jesus brings the possibility of our resurrection in him when we conform to his death through baptism. We are buried with him and then we die his death, and resurrect in our new birth; sharing in his resurrection.

The Baptismal Covenant is God’s word to us, proclaiming our adoption by grace, and our word to God, promising our response of faith and love. We may baptize by any mode of Christian means – sprinkling, pouring, and immersion, etc. (smothered, covered, and chunked). Baptism is an act that looks back with gratitude on what God’s grace has already accomplished and is here and now an act of God’s grace as it looks forward into the future to what God’s grace will accomplish. Persons of any age are suitable candidates for baptism because Christ’s body, the church, is a great family that includes persons of all ages. Baptism is not administered to any person more than once, for while our baptism vows are less than reliable, God’s promise to us in the sacrament is steadfast. [From the UMBOW]

And perhaps the most beautiful picture of the Sacrament of Baptism is in the many expressions of it seen throughout the Scriptures in God’s acts with His people. I think it is captured best in the Baptismal Covenant II liturgy: Prayer of Blessing in the United Methodist Book of Worship:

Eternal Father, your mighty acts of salvation have been made known through water – from the moving of your Spirit upon the waters of creation, to the deliverance of your people through the flood and through the Red Sea. In the fullness of time you sent Jesus, nurtured in the water of a womb, baptized by John, and anointed by your Spirit. [And] He called his disciples to share in the baptism of his death and resurrection…

Is suicide the unforgivable sin?

There have been many opinions to what, exactly, is the so-called “unforgivable sin,” to the point that there would appear to be unforgivable sins (plural). Traditionally, yet irrationally, suicide has been considered such an unforgivable sin; but, there is no biblical principle for such a belief. Self-murder can be considered many things, but biblically it cannot expressly be the sin which cannot be forgiven. I say “expressly” because the killing of one’s self does not necessarily qualify when no other variables are taken into account.

Mark 3:29 speaks of the so-called “unforgivable sin” as blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. When Jesus was casting out demons the Scribes accused him of having the power to do this by the devil (to which Jesus rightfully points out the irrational self-contradiction – 3:23-26). Therefore, attributing the work of Jesus to the devil, according to the context of the text, is the unforgivable sin (VS 30).

Thus, one can somehow blaspheme the Holy Spirit at the same time as committing suicide, but the act of suicide alone does not qualify as unforgivable. In fact, under the given parameters of the “unforgivable sin,” suicide is “murder” of self, and murder carries no such penalty as being unforgivable.

We must also mention that, psychologically, there are far too many variables to assume suicide occurs in a vacuum. No one in their right mind kills themselves. This being true, then, a variable of mental incapacity comes into the equation, thereby canceling the vacuum affect. And if this mental deficiency is genetic or hereditary, we have yet subsequent variables, all taken into account by God (even if not by humanity).

On the other end of the spectrum we have those who hold to an understanding closer to the biblical account, but far removed from any practical application. These hold simply to the belief that any work of the Spirit attributed to the devil, regardless of ignorance or lack of knowledge by the individual, is unforgivable and punishable by “eternal damnation.” In other words, do not mistakenly assume anything is the devil, because it may be the Spirit, and you will pay unending torment for your error. You know, this belief has more to do with “you can’t tell me what I’m doing is wrong,” then it does with anything about the Spirit. It also gives way to the fear of being “wrong,” and always having to be “right.”

Concerning this belief: Paul says that he, in effect, contributed to the devil the work of the Spirit when he persecuted the church (1Tim. 1:13). If the former interpretation of the “unforgivable sin” is true, how did Paul become an apostle of Jesus Christ? Simply stated, ignorance is a variable to the blasphemy parameter according to the biblical account.

Incidentally, in a less psychological and more theological (and logical) sense, if one does not know Christ then that one cannot comprehend reality (John 1:1). But one who does know Christ would not, then, deny that reality or it could be argued that one did not in fact know Christ and, therefore, reality. So, what we are dealing with is one who really does not know the reality of Christ and does not deny what he/she knows is real, but what he/she thinks is myth.
The King James interpretation of Mark 3:29 is not accurate. “Eternal damnation” as the punishment is not in the Greek texts; it should be (and is properly rendered so in the newer translations) “eternal sin.” This, I think, gives evidence of exactly what is the “unforgivable sin.”

Jesus said in Mark 3:28-29 that, “people will be forgiven their sin and blasphemy; but whoever blasphemes the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of eternal sin.” Add to this Paul’s account of his own blasphemy and we should understand that there is a space and time continuum. When Jesus speaks of the forgiveness of sin and blasphemy, He is speaking of the “time” mark. When He speaks of never having forgiveness and eternal sin He is obviously speaking of the “space” mark.

When we speak of the space and time continuum, theologically, we are speaking of immanence (inside of time) and transcendence (outside of time). The word “never” and the term “eternal” speak of being outside of time. So, as long as one is inside of time he/she can be forgiven of sin and blasphemy (such as the case with Paul). But once one leaves “time” and enters “space” that one can never have forgiveness of sin and blasphemy, because he/she did not receive it in “time” (no pun intended).

Plainly stated, according to the biblical (and logical) evidence, the so-called “unforgivable sin” is dying without accepting Christ. More specifically we could say that it is to exit “time” (the temporal) and enter “space” (the eternal) without recognizing Christ as the source of life and living. [This begs the question of what happens at death, which I deal with in another essay.]

And finally, a point of confusion in the Mark 3:29 text is the assumption that Jesus implied that the Scribes were committing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Vs 30). Jesus made the comment contained in VS 29 because of what they said, but nowhere does He state that they had committed said blasphemy. It was a warning, what is called, “a teaching moment.”