It comes as no surprise that the majority of Christians in America, according to this recent study, believe that there are multiple ways to eternal life. I agree! There are many ways to “eternal life,” but only elect Christians will be spending it with Christ, and the others will be spending it with Satan.

Heaven is a Christian doctrine. According to the book of Revelation, heaven is an eternal state of worship. If you do not worship the God of Abraham in this life, why in the world would you want to worship him for eternity? You wouldn’t! That is why those that do not worship on this earth will not be going to the place where all of God’s people will be worshiping for eternity. Why people think that, for instance, non-Christians, would want to worship Christ for all eternity is just plain silly.

The question we should ponder is this: What is heaven? What does it consist of? From this we can determine just who will be there and who will not.

I remember watching a Twilight Zone episode once, where a thief was shot by the police and ended up in a place where he was handed riches all day long. He began to hate the situation very quickly. In fact, it was driving him mad. He later found that he was in Hell.

I’m not suggesting that Hell is what the Twilight Zone says it is, but I am suggesting that heaven is not what most people think it is, and that most people really DO NOT WANT TO GO TO THE TRUE HEAVEN.

If you do not want to  worship on Sunday (because this is the worship that we are referring to - not the Gnostic worship that most sectarian people think of), what makes you think that you want to go to an eternity of this sort? Think about it.

Are you interested in culture and just how it is to be structured through godliness? If so, here is a site that you may want to visit!

God calls us to spiritually claim all aspects of our lives, including our culture at large. To claim that the institution of marriage, for instance, is not an institution of the Church is simply ludicrous! This type of teaching is a prime example of Gnosticism. When, for instance, a man and a women cohabit together and raise a family outside of a sacramental context, the couple simply practices fornication. But when this lifestyle contains Christ-centered spiritual and ethical boundaries, lead by the Church, then this lifestyle ceases to be sin and begins to glorify God. The Psalmist teaches that we must practice holiness in everything we do, which would include our participation and leadership in culture:

Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy presence? - Psalm 139:7

When God created man, He gave him a task to tend the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:15). When man transgressed God’s law, God allowed him to fall into a curse (Genesis 3:14-24). However, man’s task to tend the garden was not abolished; rather, it was modified to the extent of becoming more laborious. God told Adam that he would have to “till the ground,” meaning that nature would no longer provide for Adam like it had before the fall. Tilling the ground did not mean that he would merely have to dig when planting crops; it meant that life would now become more laborious for him and all his descendents. Also, when God told Eve that she would “desire the [position of the] man” and “bear pain in childbirth,” this did not mean that women would have to keep quiet and pregnant their whole lives. The curses that man and woman brought upon themselves do not leave man in complete turmoil with very little to do in life. On the contrary! These curses were accompanied by a covenant of grace, which has enabled men and women throughout the ages to work in harmony for the sake of God’s kingdom - or “culture,” if you will.

Read the rest of this entry »

Christ commanded with clarity and demonstrated with humility that we should take part in humanitarian duties, such as caring for prisoners, the poor and the sick, and giving to the needy. He was completely adamant about getting involved with society - not just with teaching and preaching on an exegetical or expository level, but on a level of social need. And we need not be distracted by the liberals when studying this topic. Yes, liberals are very much into humanitarian causes. That is the whole of their religion. They do not believe in the conversion of the heart through the Church, and so they strongly embrace humanitarian work as if everyone were already saved but just in need of social redemption.

When we look at the story of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:33, we can see that Christ commands us to do good deeds for our society. But why? Isn’t preaching and evangelizing on an exegetical level sufficient for converts? No. The Word does not always need to be preached on an exegetical level outside the gathering of the saints. The good news of the gospel begins with the law of God, and what better way is there to show the law of God than through our own actions?  When we demonstrate God’s law through biblically ethical behavior towards others, we are actually humbling them for the redeeming power of Christ to take effect in them. Take a good look at the Proverbs Paul uses in Romans 12:20.

 If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; and if your enemy is thirsty, give him water to drink; for in doing so you will heap coals of fire on his head. - Proverbs 25:21-22

 Romans 2:4 says, “The goodness of God leads you to repentance.”

From these pasages we can conclude that God’s goodness, which is demonstrated through His people, is drawing His people. Good deeds - demonstrated with love, of course - are what bring people to repentance.

We should be presenting the law not only through preaching and teaching but also through our actions in society. This means promoting ethical change wherever we can. This means going to work in business to show the fruits of the gospel in your business deals or going to work in the military or judicial system to show how to govern a society properly. Preaching the gospel through ethics means being an active Christian in society. God does not call us to hide in the wilderness and wait for a rapture. God calls us to engage society, both to show that the gospel and its fruits are profitable for a productive society, and to humble people so that they recognize the fact that they are sinners.

Tony Blair and now President Bush? Very interesting! I wonder why he does not like the Methodist church. Could it be that their rebellion against the Anglican Church has finally proven itself to  be a mistake?

Monday, June 16, 2008 11:05 AM

By: Jim Meyers

President Bush may follow in the footsteps of his brother Jeb and convert to Catholicism, several European papers are reporting.

In the wake of the president’s visit to see Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican, Italian newspapers, citing Vatican sources, said Bush was open to the idea of converting to Catholicism.

The Italian newspaper Il Foglio referred to such talk about Bush’s possible conversion and stated that “anything is possible, especially for someone reborn like Bush.”

Noting that Tony Blair converted to Catholicism after leaving office as Britain’s prime minister last year, the paper also stated that “if anything happens, it will happen after he finishes his period as president, not before. It is similar to Blair’s case, but with different circumstances.”

President Bush welcomed Pope Benedict XVI warmly when he visited the U.S. in April. And Vatican watchers noted that Bush met privately with the pontiff in the private gardens of the Vatican last Friday — an unprecedented place for the Pope to meet a head of state. Typically, the Vatican gardens are used by the Pope for private reflection.

A Vatican spokesman said the Pope used the unusual locale to reciprocate for the “warmth” Bush showed when the two met in Washington.

Though the Catholic Church has criticized the U.S. war in Iraq, Bush has been an ardent supporter of pro-life issues; he has staunchly opposed stem-cell research; and he opposes gay marriage — all issues important for Rome.

Currently Bush belongs to a Methodist church in Texas and attends an Episcopal church in Washington, D.C.

A friend of Bush, Father George William Rutler — who converted to Catholicism in 1979 — told the Catholic News Agency that Bush “is not unaware of how evangelicalism, by comparison with Catholicism, may seem more limited both theologically and historically.”

Below is this article in its entirety. It states how the Vatican has recently pinned the Protestant mess on fundamentalist hermeneutics. I find this very interesting considering the fact that I have had to experience much of the Protestant fundamental hermeneutic in my own personal journey. Most Protestants understand the Bible as some sort of magical rule book that can be understood outside of the greater context of the Church (see this post). This fundamentalist perception of the Bible only causes division within the Church (see this post). When I left the Roman Church as a young man, I was pulled into the Calvary Chapel (baptistic) movement in which this individualistic hermeneutic was taught. The Bible, to them, is to be understood in terms of how it speaks to you on a pietistic level; very literally leading one to think that, for instance, the end of the world is eminent. I think that the best way to describe the hermeneutic of Catholic Church (English, Roman and Eastern Church) in a quick snapshot is through the terms of the following categories:

1. Ecclesiology (Covenant and Church)

2. Sacrament

3. Spirituality (law, grace, forgiveness)

4. Eschatology

It is not until one understands how the Bible describes what God is doing with his Covenant people that one can then place themselves in the scheme of things. To apply the Bible to one’s life is to apply one’s life to God’s Covenant people. After all, isn’t that what God is currently up to? drawing his people to form and finish his Kingdom? Many fundamentalists do indeed attempt to study the Bible through a grid such as this, but again, it is attempted through a literalistic approach with no real concept of Sacrament, Covenant and eschatological freedom. One is bound to the current happenings in the newspaper when digesting the Scriptures as well as the overzealous desire to be exactly like the Church of Acts.

____________________

VATICAN CITY (RNS) A tendency to read the Bible through the lens of “fundamentalism” threatens to undermine Catholics’ understanding of Scripture, the Vatican said Thursday (June 12).

The statement appears in the agenda for the next general assembly of the Synod of Bishops, which will bring prelates to Rome in October to consider the “importance of the Word of God in the life and mission of the Church.”

The 86-page document released Thursday emphasizes the need to increase Catholics’ knowledge and understanding of Scripture. While encouraging the faithful to read the Bible either alone or in study groups, it stresses that all interpretation must be in light of church teaching.

“Fundamentalism takes refuge in literalism and refuses to take into consideration the historical dimension of biblical revelation,” the document states.

“This kind of interpretation is winning more and more adherents … even among Catholics,” the agenda’s authors add, quoting an earlier Vatican document. “It demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research.”

Fundamentalism in its “extreme form” exists in “the sects,” the document states.

The term “sects” refers to “marginal” Protestant churches that do not participate in dialogue with Rome, explained the Synod’s general secretary, Archbishop Nikola Eterovic, at a press conference to present the document.

Eterovic noted that representatives of several non-Catholic Christian churches will attend the October meeting.

Just how did St. Paul evangelize? Did he use evidential means of any sort? Or, did he preach as Christ did; that is, within the context of the elect people - Covenant and Kingdom?

We never see Christ, Paul, or any of the Apostles truly attempt to convince people into the Kingdom with external evidence. When they mentioned miracles to the people, it was done in a psychological manner (Proverbs 26:5). They were throwing the silly doubts and sarcastic questions right back at the people, convincing the people that their current philosophies stemmed from the true God, but with radical inconsistencies and with no authority! They were simply beating the unbelievers at their own game, answering them according to their own inconsistencies, leading them down their own paths.  

One of the most controversial passages regarding the apologetical tactics of St. Paul is in Acts 17. Here we can see that Paul was not trying to convince the Greeks that God is real through God’s creation, but he was trying to convince the Greek philosophers, in a very wise manner, that all true knowledge is in fact from God. St. Paul was throwing their own proclamation back at them, reminding them (in verse 23), that they have an altar “TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.” St. Paul goes on to say that the God they worship is the same God that Paul worships, but they just don’t “know Him,” as Paul puts it in verse 23.

Many teachers say that St. Paul is persuading through evidence by briefly proclaiming God’s attributes of creation, when in fact he is not persuading through evidence at all. According to St. Paul’s teachings in Romans 1:22-26, which make the point of showing how man sinfully defaults to worship creation, he would not preach a creation-based apologetic. In Acts 17, Paul was focusing on the Greeks’ authority. The Greeks had a material authority (statues and such), so Paul throws their own insignia at them. He challenges their authority by answering them according to their own folly - the folly of their insignia on the altar. They said they worshipped an unknown God, so Paul fills in the unknown part for them. He goes on in verses 24-31 to explain some of the attributes of God to which they were profoundly opposed, which included creation and resurrection of the dead. Now, of all things he could have mentioned about God, why did St. Paul mention these, considering that the Greeks were so opposed to them? Well, one thing is for certain, Paul was not appeasing them as many evangelists do today, and he was certainly not hitting their hot buttons for the close of the sale. In fact, he was touching on issues that were very sensitive to them, and in the last verse, Luke writes that some “joined him and believed.”

How did St. Paul lead them to belief? St. Paul, once again, was answering them according to their own folly (Prov. 26:5). Their folly of paralleling with Paul’s philosophy was his open door. They admitted that they did not know the god that they worshiped, and they also admitted in their poems that they are God’s offspring (verse 28). They knew there was a “higher power” but they did not know the basic deity of this higher power, which is crucial for conversion. St. Paul throws this point back at them so that if they were to disagree with him, they would have to recant their poems and altar insignia. Paul had complete control of the debate by showing their philosophy to be in line with Paul’s God rather than their own. He used their own words and folly against them while showing them that they were idolaters. That is what humbled them!

The Argument of the Resurrection as “Evidence”

 It is also argued that Paul was using evidence to persuade when, in verse 32, the people responded to Paul preaching the resurrection. But Paul did not preach the resurrection as proof. The resurrection was a powerful witness to both the Jew and the Gentile because it shows new life within Christ. General suffering on a cross could have been done by any one, but suffering on the cross, taking our sins outside the gate (Hebrews 13:11-12) to Hades (Acts 2:31), and resurrecting to proclaim this “taking off of sins” could only be done by the Messiah as a fulfillment of prophecy. The resurrection was notjust about Christ dying, and it also was not just about him performing a miracle of resurrecting (an evil generation seeks a sign).  The resurrection was about Him taking our sins outside the camp, which was the way the Jews understood atonement.

The only way Christ was able to proclaim this taking out of sins to Hell - as prophesied - was by resurrecting (Acts 2:27; Luke 24:44; John 20:17; 1 Peter 3:19; 4:6). The resurrection was part of Christ’s overall plan to show us that He brought sin out of the covenant AND THEN ascended to heaven. The reformer John Calvin speaks of Christ’s descending into hell as a key factor of Christ’s plan of atonement:

If Christ had died only a bodily death, it would have been ineffectual. No - it was expedient at the same time for him to undergo the severity of God’s vengeance, to appease his wrath and satisfy his just judgment. For this reason, he must also grapple hand to hand with the armies of hell and the dread of everlasting death. A little while ago we referred to the prophet’s statement that “the chastisement of our peace was laid upon him,” “he was wounded for our transgressions” by the Father, “he was bruised for our infirmities” [Isaiah 53:5 p.]. By these words he means that Christ was put in place of evildoers as surety and pledge - submitting himself even as the accused - to bear and suffer all the punishments that they ought to have sustained. All - with this one exception: “He could not be held by the pangs of death” [Acts 2:24 p.]. No wonder, then, if he is said to have descended into hell, for he suffered the death that, God in his wrath had inflicted upon the wicked!…The point is that the [apostles] Creed sets forth what Christ suffered in the sight of men, and then appositely speaks of that invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he underwent in the sight of God in order that we might know not only that Christ’s body was given as the price of our redemption, but that he paid a greater and more excellent price in suffering in his soul the terrible torments of a condemned and forsaken man.   (Institutes 2:16:10) 

The resurrection was not simply a great miracle, but it showed how we have a new life and how we will also, like Christ, have a bodily resurrection (Romans 6:5). This truth had to be preached to the Old Covenant saints as well as the Gentiles because the resurrection is the very hope of the gospel: that after death, we too will rise to eternal life. The Sadducees did not believe in a resurrection of believers (Acts 23:7-8), so Paul did everything in his power to conquer this heresy (Acts 24:21) including risking death (Acts 23:21). Paul never preached the gospel in a manner of evidence; rather, he used the resurrection to proclaim Christ’s promise of atonement and eternal life within an Old/New Covenant context. St. Paul was evangelizing through a kingdom perspective, just as Christ did.

 It is not through intellectual proofs and sophisticated excavations that a person is evangelized into the Kingdom of Christ, even if one is brought into the Church through these means. Granted, something spiritual can happen while the person is in the Church, of course. But this means that the new believer must unlearn, both mentally and spiritually, any heterodox doctrine/evangelization that brought him into the Church in the first place.

On Good Friday of 2005, I went with a friend to a Christian seminar where author and excavator Bob Cornuke spoke and presented his expedition and findings of Mt. Siani and Paul’s shipwreck (see Acts 27). This was a wonderful event that left me very inspired and excited. But there was a very disturbing part of the seminar. Rather than using the law of God for a call to repentance, Bob Cornuke attempted to use his archaeological findings as reason to “receive Christ.”  

We should not be surprised by this style of rhetoric. Within the last two centuries, the Protestant church has intellectualized the gospel to the point of presenting it as a system of belief, rather than a New Covenant (Church and Kingdom). When the gospel is systematized, it becomes a mere rhetoric. But when the gospel is presented as a Covenant, as Christ and the apostles presented it (Luke 22:20; 2 Corinthians 3:6), it becomes an actual movement and spiritual kingdom.

The gospel is a movement of people under the guidance of Christ. It involves a system of doctrine, but the doctrine is not meant to be used on its own, without the authority and nurturing of the Church. The gospel is not a philosophy of culture, but it is a philosophy of Covenant. When doctrine is separated from the authority of the Church, we begin to see this cultural rhetoric arise. This is a very pragmatic way to present Christ. If in fact someone answered a call through a means of evidence, the person would be left in spiritual deprivation with a constant thirst to be quenched from chasing intellectual proofs. If Cornuke’s findings would be presented as a finding of the Church, such findings/teachings would be a great encouragement. But since he refrained from even mentioning what authority he is under, the credit went to himself…but not without the modern retoric at the end, of course.

Has Christ not given the keys of the kingdom to the Church? Did he not say that the gates of hades would not prevail against the Church? And in regards to the actual doctrine the THE CHUCH is to be nurturing and evangelizing people with: Is the gospel a gospel of humility unto power of heart change? Or, is the gospel a gospel of proofs and formulas unto intellect?

Jesus said… “I thank you, Father, Lord of Heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes.  Matthew 11:25

Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it. Luke 18:17

Revelation Made to Humble…Not to Puff Up

The gospel message is an authoritative announcement that completely humbles a person, as Christ exclaimed, through becoming “childlike.” God gives us the gift of faith through a supernatural and Messianic accomplishment, not through a complex thesis of information - something inconceivable to a “child.”

In order for a person to be humbled to the point of surrendering his intellect to a faith in something that he cannot see, touch, or feel, the person must be brought to a surrender of his autonomy (idolatry). He must come to realize that his worldview and laws for living are without any authority but his own: something that he has been building upon for years - his own relativistic set of laws. His autonomy is revealed as we show him God’s authority in hopes of his surrendering to this authority.

We are brought to eternal salvation through the graces of the Church. This supernatural conversion does not come by any sort of natural revelation such as creation, compelling archeological evidence, science, eschatological hope, or the excitement of miracles. These are all attributes of God (those that are not marred by sin), but they cannot bring someone to salvation in and of themselves. Only the Church can - retreating from one’s idolatry to the authority of Christ. 

The teachings of the Church are not always the most intellectually stimulating teachings available. Take a look at 1 Corinthians 1:18-29.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.  For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.  Where is the wise?  Where is the scribe?  Where is the disputer of this age?  Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?  For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.  For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom ; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.  Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.  For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called.  But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty;  and the base of things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are,  that no flesh should glory in His presence. 

Notice how this passage explains that the gospel is not about intellect, but about humility! In the next chapter, Paul says that he did not even come to the people with great speech or knowledge, but he came to them preaching Christ crucified. This passage is completely antithetical to the Seeker-sensitive theology. In verse 18, Paul says that the message of the gospel is “foolishness” to those who are perishing. Then in verse 21, he says that it actually pleased God to present a message of foolishness so that the true elect - the true called - would come forward to eventually fulfill prophecy. In verse 24, he supports this by specifically stating that this message is understood by “those who are called.” Then, in verse 27, Paul says God presented this foolish message so that the “weak” men that were changed by it may put the unbelievers to shame.

The shame that St. Paul is speaking of is the shame that takes place when spiritual dominion and sanctification begins to manifest in the believer’s life. On a grand scale, this is done through the very institution of the Church! The Church, as Christ’s living body of believers, is to manifest his glory while here on earth as well as in heaven above.

Turning from one’s sin and becoming born again is not just a matter of psychological change, it is also a matter of existential change. As one is converted, one becomes a part of Christ’s living body - The Church. 

In all the confusion about who is in the Covenant and who is out, who is of God and who is not, we must not be tempted to draw a line based on our sins against man, as if people who practice a lesser kind of sin against man were in and people who practice a greater kind of sin against man were out. Regarding justification, sin is sin; all sin, no matter what the severity, separates us from God’s redemption. To determine who is in need of salvation and who is not, we must determine who or what a person is worshiping. We should not discern the need of salvation by a person’s degree of sin against man but by their degree of sin against God. The sin I’m referring to is idolatry. But is there a litmus test to determine whether or not a person is in a lifestyle of idolatry and not worshiping God?

The answer lies within the Tables of the Law and its ability to show us the importance of the Church and her relation to salvation. The Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer briefly explains that the Decalogue is divided into two parts. It states, ”I learn two things from these Commandments; my duty towards God, and my duty towards my Neighbor.” Why bother dividing the law into these two parts? We do so because that is how God set forth the commandments. He first gives us the foundation upon which all morality lies: His glory - worshiping Him in a corporate context (fourth commandment), speaking of Him properly (third commandment), worshiping him alone (second commandment), and putting Him first above all things (first commandment).

The gospel is not about us; it’s about God! The gospel is about turning from our autonomy to join God and His authority (Matthew 16:24). If through faith in Christ we obey the first four commandments - the commandments that are directly asking us to give up our autonomy, then the last six will follow suit. By looking carefully at the first four commandments, we can see that the first three culminate in the fourth. In other words, living out the moral implications of having no other gods before us, not turning to syncratism, and speaking of Him and His glory is shown and demonstrated by worshiping Him on the Lord’s Day and submitting to the ordinances of the Church. One will say, “But a person can just become a member of a church, attend worship, and then go out and live like hell the rest of the week.” No, they cannot.  Anyone who tries to worship on the Lord’s day in a catholic church, while living a life of carnality, will fall in the hands of church discipline - the weekly communion of the Eucharist. According to St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, God disciplines through the partaking of the elements. There is no escape! Where the Eucharist is present, so is the accountability of the Lord.

If we skip the fourth commandment of worshiping on the Lord’s Day, proclaiming that obeying the last six commandments shows that we are His, we display arrogance and self-righteousness. In doing this, we are proclaiming that our efforts to obey God are in no need of the teaching and hearing of the Word, the prayers of the saints, the sacraments, and singing: all the things that God has given the priests and deacons to institute during the worship service. This also coincides with Christ’s command to “love thy neighbor as thyself,” because when we submit ourselves to the authority of the worship service, we are indeed “loving our neighbor.” It surely is not love to reject the general calling of the minister and the unification of God’s Covenant community.

With no Church there is no gospel, and with no gospel there is no Church. Christ said that the enemy would never overcome His Church (Matthew 16:18). When one completely rejects the universal Church, one rejects the gospel itself!

According to the Christian Post, Obama believes that Christ is not the only way to heaven. This is no real surprise! He says that those who “live moral lives” go to heaven - not just Christians. The article does not say whose moral standard that these people must adhere to. Perhaps, in order to go to heaven they must adhere to the ethic of The American Emperor Cult, which is what the liberal party is attempting to create - a Unitarian form of religion/nation that holds to moral relativism and ultra-pragmatism.

Many Christians recognize John the Baptist as the prophet that once initiated the systematic call to salvation - where a person must be able to recite a prayer, then be baptized…and behold…the person is saved for eternity. John was not giving a systematic, magic formula, which required a person to jump through certain intellectual hoops to be saved.  Like Christ in much of His preaching, John was giving a rebuke to God’s Covenant people (Matthew 3:5-9). Remember, the gospel was to “the Jew first.”

We should not be systematizing the rebuke that was given to God’s people in order to form a contemporary and phony ceremony (new Sacrament). Take a serious look at the New Testament and see that much of what we think to be God giving us a system to be saved was in fact God’s chosen Covenant people in need of rebuke. Salvation was not a new thing (Romans 4:3), but the New Covenant was and so John preached the New Covenant symbol of baptism to replace circumcision.  He also rebuked the Jews and commanded them to repent, because they were not accepting their own Messiah and His new covenant. He was not giving a new system, but rather, he was simply rebuking as a teacher would rebuke today.

As a people (Americans) that are very unfamiliar with custom, ritual, ceremony, and even culture, we can easily fall into the error of systematizing. When Paul and Christ said to believe, they were not giving an intellectual and systematic approach to salvation, they were rebuking and exhorting. They were rebuking the Jews so that they would stay committed to the Covenant of Abraham - and they were exhorting the Gentiles to believe through Christ to enter the Covenant. But entering the Covenant through baptism did not mean that one had to recite a prayer or make a public profession. Those who use Romans 10:10, where Paul says to “confess with the mouth,” forget that Paul was speaking about the Jews who were already covenant people and simply needed to repent of following false teachings. He was not necesarilly giving a prerequisite for baptism. He was rebuking and stating that all must believe through faith, and that it must actually manifest through their very speech; but not just once, as a new ceremony of coming forward to a stage to recite a prayer (what is made up to be the “altar call”). He was simply stating that a true belief involves a life of manifestation - as the rest of the Scriptures clearly proclaim - into the life of a kingdom.

There is no other way to enter into life but that this mother [the church] should conceive us in her womb, give us birth, feed us at her breast, and lastly keep us under her care and guidance until, putting off mortal flesh, we become like angels.   -John Calvin

The gospel is primarily about the unification and drawing of God’s people - through redemption, of course - to share the Covenant blessings of a regained paradise (Ezekiel 36:35). In other words, life itself and the pursuit of the gospel is not just a personal journey, it is a corporate journey. This is why we worship God in an ecclesiastical context on Sunday mornings. We gather together on Sundays not necessarily to fellowship with other believers; we can do that anytime. We gather together on Sundays not necessarily to serve; we can serve Christ and His kingdom anywhere. We gather together on Sundays to demonstrate to God that we are His people, united in faith (Ephesians 4:5) and built up as a holy temple (Ephesians 2:21) within the context of the sacraments, praise, and the Word.

When we become “born again” (John 3:3), we are born into the Church and her kingdom. Our new birth is not a birth into a mere personal relationship as many Evangelicals say. We are birthed into a relationship with Christ through the covenant community, into the church, into a community of life and peace with the saints.

When the author of Hebrews gives examples of true faith (chapter11), he specifically mentions the patriarchs’ commitment to the Covenant. He does not say that Abraham repented from his sins against Sarah and is now a godly husband after his encounter with God. The author says that Abraham took a step of faith to build God’s people in a land with which he was unfamiliar (verse 12), and that he was ready to offer a faithful sacrifice to the Lord (verse 17). The writer then goes on to speak about Moses and how his step of faith was a step into the Covenant people. He does not say that Moses made the step of becoming a better, less angry man but that he made a step of commitment to the Covenant community (verse 25) despite the hardship to which it was destined as well as the tempting, luxurious life of Egypt that Moses could have had. These were examples of a demonstrated faith of Covenant community, not a demonstrated faith of personal relationship.

The gospel involves a movement of people here in our time and space known as the church. The gospel is both ecclesiastical and eschatological.