Monastic living

What about monks? Why did monks like Antony (anchorites) pursue the solitude of the desert? Why did the coenobites like Pachomius prefer community? What monastic principles are helpful for present day non-monks?

Some Christians wanted to escape the contamination and distractions of the church and world so they became monks. The word “monk” derives from the Greek monachos, which means ‘solitary.’ There were two approaches to the pursuit of solitude. Solo monks wished to escape the bad and evilness of the world completely and hide in the desert to pursue holiness with God completely away with God and away from sin and man. The other method was that of the Coenobites who were monks that lived in community with one another. They also sought holiness and desired to be away from the world and its worldliness.

Both approaches do have their flaws. While I respect their purist for holiness I think that the monks miss the mark in other areas. For solo monks like Anthony, where does evangelism come into light? Whom is witnessing your relationship with God? Are we not called to live as ‘salt and light?’ Are we not to live “in but not of the world?’ Where does Jesus say flee this world completely? Yes we are to die to ourselves but not die of our fellow man. Also on that note, are we not also called to have fellowship with the body of Christ? Are we called to ‘continue meeting together? Is not the body of Christ dependent upon the other parts of the body?

For the Coenobites…the same questions that I just scrutinized Anthony with apply except the last two. Instead though I have replacement questions. In light of living amongst other monks, would not pride begin to set in once monks felt that they had arrived at perfection? Once they have gone out of their way to live without evil and sin, there is pride, a sin… Ironic, huh? Also even if this group was a decent group of monks, then all you really have is a group of monks who set themselves apart from the world. Again, aren’t we called to be a light to the world and not hide our light in the darkness of the dessert?
There are some excellent concepts and principles that non-monks, even Western Christians can learn from. While these monks may have error on taking pursuit and holiness too far, we today in America are in error on not having enough purity and holiness. We walk and sometimes enjoy crude Comedy Central humor. We accept half naked people dancing and displaying themselves in our “popular music” We are entertained by rated R movies were cursing, sex and violence are the acceptable norms. I am not trying to offer a solution to all this. I admit I am clustering a lot of things together just to make this simple point, but the point is that we also are called to “be holy, just as I am holy.”

Another principle of monastic living is the idea of surrender. The monks had to give up all their goods and submit to authorities before becoming a monk. They had to die to themselves daily. They had to fast two or three days a week. They had to sacrifice all of their time. They had a lot of surrendering to do. In America, all we think about is what can we achieve? What can we gain/profit? Especially during the holidays/Christmas… American Christians are trained to be materialistic even before they are Christians ( from birth!) So this is another difficult thing we must learn to control.
The concept of time and community of monastic living is something Western Christians really need to consider! The monks had quality fellowship and quality relationships with one-another. They had quality discipleship because they invest a lot of time and effort in their discipleship practices! America is so rushed that we are becoming a Bibleless Christianity. This country is so rushed to be productive and get everything else done that the Bible and spiritual faith is neglected. The early church and the church fathers spent time together in their process of making disciples. Making disciples requires time. When quality time is spent developing a disciple if that time is sent in the Word of God, then Sound doctrine follows. No post-modernism crap!
Another great concept that you do see in great American churches that we also saw in monastic living is the idea of entrusting others with ministry. A ministry is never one person’s, except the Lord’s. Part of discipleship is encouraging and helping others to reach their full potential. They will be able to use their spiritual gifts to continue the ministry.

How do we "do discipleship" with wit hall people?

I have a heart for certain people and I do not know how "disciple" them. The traditional ways of meeting with them on a regular basis to get into their life, to pray with them and read the Bible together does not seem to be attractive to them....


- People who do not care about spiritual things, who do not want to talk about faith (if they have any at all). How do you evangelize this person?
- Ty
-Dustin
-People who are way too busy.
-People who are not committed.
-People who are annoying and hard to love.
- People who have been rejected by the church before.


Should true discipleship be narrow (Jesus really focused on three and then 12 then the masses. He used "concentric circles" of those who wanted to be disciples....)


I love these people. I want to see them grow their respective faiths. I have tried to show them why getting into the Word together is so important, yet they always have excuses. Maybe they are too busy or have bad priorities but what can we do to help these kinds of people? (And the others mentioned above?)

Seasonal Work

Reasons for the employee to work hard:

Leave a good impression for future FT hirings
It is only for a season, I will get through it
Extra money! (If they like me they will keep me)
Setting a good example, being a good Christian

Reasons for the employee to not care:

It is only a seasonal "second job," I could call it off today...
It does not matter it is only a temporary job...who cares
Extra money! (I get paid by the hour)


Reasons for the boss to treat them poor:

They are just temps, who cares
This is there job, they do what I say no matter how ridiculous! Weekends are mandatory!

Reasons for the boss to treat them well:

They are extra needed help
They like them, want to help them out

working on the Lord's Day

What do you think about working on the Lord's Day?

My brother, who may or may not kill me if he know I was using him as an example, although he never reads my blog anyways, always works for a pizza company on Sunday evenings.

I've never cared for him working on Sundays. I believe in resting and worshiping our risen Savior on Sundays. While my brother does rest and worship at church in the AMs, it is still working on the Lord's Day isn't it?

But then I would also be guilty when I choose to work on school projects and homework on Sunday evening also...right?

What do you think?

My "PC"

Most people who know me, know that I try not to be insensitive, (especially when it comes to race and 'diversity') but but when it comes to my faith and politics, I can be bold and blunt. Although today at work I was very politically correct(PC) and it felt weird...

At work they had "mandatory Saturday and mandatory Sunday." For one thing I was a little angry because when they hired me on, they knew that I worked at UPS Freight on Saturdays and that I go to church every Sunday (yes, one of those guys). Having Sundays off was "not a problem" for the person who hired me. And he made no mention of this "mandatory Saturdays and Sundays." Although apparently there was "limited" communications (hilarious inside job if you know where I am working) between the hiring staff and the actual managers. So I called off of work at UPS Freight so that I could be a good seasonal employee (besides the fact that I made more money and got more hours at the seasonal job.) While these mandatory weekend days are not every weekend, I was still shocked that nobody told me about this in advance!

Anyways..."My PC" event this morning to boss: "I will not be at work tomorrow (Sunday) because I have a leadership role at a spiritual institution that I am committed to...."

Could i have been any more vague? I knew that my boss could not deny a committed spiritual zealot from his service. And if he wanted to challenge the truth to the statement all he has to do is "google" my name - it will appear on my church's website, my blog/facebook - both which show the passion I have for my church.

Anyways in case my boss is reading this post. I will leave it at that. I just needed to reflect and thought that this political correctiveness on my part was entertaining, liberal, odd and not like me at all! I honestly feel weird abut that statement although it is true.

Do you watch Chad Vader?

I recently found out about Chad Vader, brother of Darth, from a new friend and I am addicted to this series. If you have never seen any of them you can watch all of them in under 2 hours, it is great!

"Light Duty "Irony

If you know of me in real life you know that I recently sprained my right ankle. It is fine now but at work my boss has not let me do any regular work since the doctor has put me on "restrictions."

This has been quite annoying, boring and challenging because the type of work I am doing is boring, annoying, not my regular work and actually painful. You see at UPS Freight, my job description is simple: move skidded freight from one door to another on a forklift as a dockworker.

My boss will not let me move freight while the doctor has me on restrictions so he has been making me sweep the dock, sweep the dock pad, pick up trash, fix the chains, check the fire extinguishers, pick up cardboard and generally clean the dock. In other words I have been on my feet and on my ankle for hours straight. (Instead of being on a forklift for hours.)

I do not blame my doctor really. He is helping my ankle heal by restricting me. I do blame my boss. I understand that he is protecting the company and attempting to obey the doctor's orders. Although hi honestly think he does not know what he is doing because I am on my ankle MORE these past weeks of "light duty" than I have ever walked on the dock at this job! It is ridiculous.

Being on my ankle a lot has been painful.

I have complained about it and told him straight up that I think that he is taking the idea of protecting the company too far and actually hurting my ankle/making it worse than if I was working normally.

My boss will say it is for the good of my ankle but it is not helping.

Baptists, Calvinists, Doctrine of Election (Bibliography and Appendix A)

Appendix A

Arminianism	Calvinism
1. The decree of salvation applies to all who believe on Christ and who persevere in obedience and faith.	1. Total depravity.
2. Christ died for all men.	2. Unconditional election.
3.The Holy Spirit must help men to do things that are truly good (such as having faith in Christ for salvation.)	3. Limited Atonement. (Christ's death for the elect.)
4. God's saving grace is not irresistible It is possible for Christians to fall from grace.	4. Irresistible Grace.
	5. Perseverance of the saints.

From:

Tangelder, Johan D. “The Doctrine of Election.” From the Pastor's Desk. (1989 - 1993). Retrieved from http://www.reformedreflections.ca/pages/pastor-desk-index.html accessed on July 29th, 2009.

Bibliography

Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids, Mi: Zonderzan, 1994.

Patton, Michael. “Introduction to Theology – Workbook.” (presented as part of class material at The Theology Program, Frisco, TX, November 2006), Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/IntroductiontoTheologyWorkbook-Jul-2006.pdf.

Yarnell III, Malcolm B. “Assessing the ‘TULIP’ of Calvinism.” SBC LIFE. (2009). Baptist Press. Retrieved from http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=22971 accessed on Aug. 1st, 2009.

MacArthur Jr, John. “Is the Doctrine of Election Biblical?” Adapted from The Body Dynamic. (1996.) Christian Art Distributors. Retrieved from http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/GTYW02.htm accessed on Aug. 1st, 2009.

Towns, Elmer L. “WHAT SHOULD SOUTHERN BAPTIST DO WITH CALVINIST?” The Baptist Banner, March 2009, Vol. XXII, No.3.

Tangelder, Johan D. “The Doctrine of Election.” From the Pastor's Desk. (1989 - 1993). Retrieved from http://www.reformedreflections.ca/pages/pastor-desk-index.html accessed on July 29th, 2009.

Patterson, Paige. “Happy Southern Baptists and the Tricky Track.”SBC Today. (2005.) Retrieved from sbctoday.com/files/trickytrack.pdf accessed on July 20^th, 2009.

Thompson, Philip E. "Baptists and "Calvinism" : discerning the shape of the question." Baptist History and Heritage, Spring 2004. (April 01, 2004). accessed July 11, 2009.

Hinson, Keith. "Calvinism resurging among SBC's young elites." Christianity Today 41, no. 11. (October 06, 1997): 86. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed August 1, 2009).

Walker, Ken. "TULIP Blooming." Christianity Today 52, no. 2. (February 2008): 19-19. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost(accessed August 2, 2009).

Hansen, Collin. "Young, restless, reformed : Calvinism is making a comeback--and shaking up the church." Christianity Today Sep 2006. (September 01, 2006). Christian Periodical Index, EBSCOhost (accessed August 1, 2009).

Jones, Jim. "Tiptoeing through TULIP." Christianity Today 53, no. 4. (April 2009): 13-13. Religion and Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed July 11, 2009).

McKibbens, Thomas R. “Disseminating Biblical Doctrine Through Preaching.” Baptist History and Heritage Spring 1984. (April 1984).Accessed on July 11, 2009.

Weaver, Douglas and Finn, Nathan. “Youth for Calvin: Reformed Theology and Baptist Collegians.” Baptist History and Heritage, Spring 2004.Accessed on July 10, 2009.

Nettles, Thomas. “SOUTHERN BAPTIST IDENTITY: INFLUENCED BY CALVINISM.” Baptist History and Heritage, Oct. 1996.Accessed Aug. 1, 2009.

Wood, Ralph. "What Ever Happened to Baptist Calvinist?” Review and Expositor, 91 (1994).

NASB (New American Standard Bible.) La Habra, CA: Lockman Foundation, 1995.

Sproul, R.C. “Double Predestination.” Ligonier Ministries: renewing Your Mind. Retrieved from http://www.the-highway.com/DoublePredestination_Sproul.html , Accessed on Aug. 10, 2009.

Handy, Robert T. "The Baptist family : a heritage of faith." Review & Expositor 84, no. 4. (Fall 1987): 589-598. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 11, 2009).

Secondary:

Richards, Wiley W. “SOUTHERN BAPTIST IDENTITY: MOVING AWAY FROM CALVINISM” W. Baptist History and Heritage, Oct. 1996.Accessed Aug. 1, 2009.

Briggs, John. “The Influence of Calvinism on Seventeenth-Century English Baptists.” Baptist History and Heritage, Spring 2004.Accessed on July 10, 2009.

Elwell, Walter. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2^nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mi: Baker Academic, 2001.

Baptists, Calvinists, Doctrine of Election (8)

Conclusion

Baptists are free to be Arminian, one-point Calvinist, or even five-point Calvinists. Baptists have the free will power to choice. When it comes to the doctrine of election, Baptist can find reasonable Biblical grounds to the idea that God desires to save all men and also Biblical argument that God only saves “an elect.” Like the other 4 points of Calvinism, there is some wiggle room in-between the two extremes of “human free will” and “double predestination.” In fact, the Bible advocates a modest, middle ground.

Throughout Christianity’s history, people from both sides of the argument have inspired division and conflict because of this man-made argument. "[T]he greatest tragedy is when adherence to TULIP leads to division in churches and prevents them from cooperation and urgency for, a passion toward fulfilling the Great Commission.[1]" Young Calvinists value theological systems far less than God and his Word. It is more important to evaluate the Word of God and let it speak for itself. "Southern Baptists are first, last, and always followers of Jesus Christ, not John Calvin."[2] Let each man evaluate the Word of God for himself and decide according to God Word. After fair Biblical treatment and in light of grace, one will come to decide that the Calvinistic doctrine of election is the most Biblical one.

---

[1] Malcolm Yarnell III, “Assessing the ‘TULIP’ of Calvinism.” Pg. 1.

[2] Collin Hansen. "Young, restless, reformed,” pg. 38.

Baptists, Calvinists, Doctrine of Election (7)

Biblical Solution

Elmer Towns is honestly on to something. There is room for middle ground. Christians need to be cautious of any extreme view. The most Biblical solution is not an extreme view of hyper-Calvinism or the complete concept of “free will”. These are man-made concepts. Within the five-points of Calvinism there is a lot of wiggle room. Any given person who is seeking a “biblical solution” for Calvinism may decide to agree with Calvin on one point to a small degree and then completely disagree with another one of his points completely. While another person might decide that the most “biblical solution” is complete acceptance of all five-points in Calvinism! It is a false dichotomy to leave only two options: Calvinist or Arminius.

God elects people to salvation by His own sovereign choice and not because of some future action they will perform or condition they will meet. BUT... Election does not exclude human responsibility or the necessity of each person to respond to the gospel by faith. Admittedly the two concepts don’t seem to go together. However, both are true separately, and we must accept them both by faith. We may not understand it, but rest assured—it’s fully reconciled in the mind of God[1]. Both are biblical! Calvin is correct saying that God takes the initiative to save sinful sinners who cannot save themselves. The point of argument is to what degree do man work with God?

John Piper brings an interesting point to the table. "You may never feel the weight, you will never feel the wonder of grace, until you finally relinquish your claim to have any part of your salvation," he said. "It's got to be unconditional."[2] If man is fallen and can only be reconciled by God, meaning God takes the imitative for salvation (Arminius might not agree with me up to this point[3]) then it follows that election and grace are unconditional. God chooses who He pleases. It is a free gift. Man did nothing to earn it, in fact, man is the one who chose to be fallen, man chose to sin.

Some objections that come up are: Is election fair? Think about it this way. Sin is punishable by death. All men deserved death and punishment. The fact that God chooses to save even some of us is demonstration of His grace. Secondly, who are we, mere humans, to decide if what God does is fair? If God ultimately decided to create some creatures to be saved and others not to be saved, then that was his sovereign choice. Ultimately, grace is not fair either.[4]

Another objection is that God wills to save everyone, right? While it is true that God desires to save everyone according to 1 Tim. 2:4 and 2 Pt. 3:9, there is one thing that God desires even more than that, His glory. God will do what most glorifies Himself. Men might not ever understand or know what brings God the most glory.[5] Arminians ask, “If God chooses to save some people from the beginning of time, why do evangelism?” But this question can be turned right back at them, “If God wills to save everyone, why do evangelism?” here in the Arminian argument, it sounds like God is going to do all the work, magically everyone will be saved. This sort of thinking leads to universalism. Karl Barth turned the doctrine of election into a thing of joy when he discovered that the entire world, no matter what religion, was elected in Jesus Christ.[6]

With a complete Biblical and moderate, not extreme, understanding of Calvin’s teachings many of these objections go away. "I felt like Calvinism was more than abstract points of theology," said Cochran, 25. "I felt you would get a much bigger view of God if you accepted these things, an understanding of justice and grace that would so deepen your affections for God, that would make you so much more grateful for his grace.[7]" For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.[8] It is not about what man can do or does. Man does not earn salvation. God gives it by grace. This Calvinist and Biblical way of thinking, in the context of a personal relationship with God should spur evangelism. It is this understanding of grace in light of the doctrine of election that Baptists need to get back to, much like the when J. T. Daggs wrote his Manuel of Theology.

---

[1] John MacArthur Jr. Is the doctrine of election Biblical? Adapted from The Body Dynamic. (1996.) Christian Art Distributors. Retrieved from http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/GTYW02.htm accessed on Aug. 1st, 2009, pg. 1.

[2] Collin Hansen. "Young, restless, reformed,” pg. 37.

[3] Which is ironic, in my own personal opinion, I am not sure how Arminius does not see that. –He chooses not to! The one who advocates “free will” cannot understand that free will got us into total depravity and in need of reconciliation. But this is another argument for another paper on Total depravity!

[4] Wayne Grudem. Systematic Theology. Pg. 681

[5] Ibid, pg 683.

[6] Ralph Wood, "What Ever Happened to Baptist Calvinist?,” pg. 597.

[7] Collin Hansen. "Young, restless, reformed,” pg. 38

[8] NASB. Eph. 2:8,9.