One In Jesus

If faith working through love is the only standard,
then what keeps us from … ?

In a classic argument for the Regulative Principle, Kyle asks,

Alright, if we can do this with instrumental music, to what else can we apply this “better hermeneutic?”  What other things (that the Lord has said nothing about) can I add to worship?  Shall we dance in worship?  Shall we have wrestling matches?  Where do we draw the line?  Why is it so hard to imagine that if God was pleased with something in the First Century, He can be pleased with it now?  I suppose I just don’t understand.

The argument proceeds from the false dichotomy that silences are either permissions or prohibitions. But, of course, it’s entirely possible that some silences are permissions and some silences are prohibitions — that is, that the standard isn’t about authority or lack thereof but something else entirely. Who decided that the pivot-point must be authority? Who decided that New Testament worship is about what is and isn’t authorized? Continue reading →

Faith only?

Kyle argues —

The original text doesn’t say “only.”  Just as Ephesians 2:8 doesn’t say “through faith only.”  Yes, faith working through love is the heart of the gospel, but can we take this to the extreme?  Can I murder someone in faith because I felt I was acting through love? Of course not!  But why?  Because Scripture defines love, just as Scripture defines faith.  What is love for God?  Jesus said, “If you love Me you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15).

Let’s look at the original text. Continue reading →

Two days ago, I posted an article by Kyle Pope, challenging positions I took regarding the interpretation of Galatians at New Wineskins. I want to respond to some of his points, but I have to begin by thanking Kyle for allowing his article to be posted here at One In Jesus. It’s courageous to state your views on such controversial topics in an open forum. And I need to express my appreciation for Kyle’s respectful tone. Not all Christian dialogue is even polite, much less respectful, and I appreciate the tone of his work.

Of course, I disagree on several points, but I also enjoy the opportunity to dig more deeply into the material and to hear other perspectives. Either I’ll learn or I’ll teach — and both are good and fun.

I’ll post my reply in three parts, although all will be posted today. Some of the materials will be familiar to long-time readers, but some will be new. Kyle raises some points that were raised by others in comments here and at New Wineskins, and so I’ll spend the most time on those issues. Continue reading →