[Transcript represents full sermon's text]

       Today we continue our discussion on appendices and elaborations from Colossians 1 & 2. As stated last week, this will be the last message before breaking for the Holidays, and then the messages will resume in late January for Colossians 3 & 4.

       In Colossians 1, Paul appears to indicate a possible loss of salvation for the Christian. And from there were mentioned four different concepts of how election works, and how God chooses people. Let’s go ahead and expand on those a bit more, so as to gain further understanding.

       The verse in Colossians 1 being referenced here is 23, where Paul says, “if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard” (ESV). Of course, there are vast variety of opinions when it comes to verses like this one. There’s no doubt about that, and things can basically be summarized into four different categories. These are the perspectives of the Calvinists, Armenians, Molinists, and Open Theists. The most popular group in Evangelical Christianity does seem to be Calvinists. In fact, most of the prominent Bible teachers would identify as such or as a variation of Calvinism of some kind. You’ve probably heard of four point Calvinists, for instance (that would be a four point instead of a full five point). The second largest group would be the Armenians. Then everyone once in a blue moon you might meet a Molinists or an Open Theist, with the first group between these two probably being a little more prevalent.

       Different approaches could be taken in explaining these varying concepts, but let’s look at them from a sovereignty perspective. This will be a brief, brief summary to keep things moving along. Of course, with any of these much more could be said.

       1) For the Calvinist, God has meticulous providence over everything. As a result, he saves people by drawing them to himself. Therefore, God elects regardless of people’s free choice.

       2) For the Armenian, before the world existed, God looked into the future and foresaw who would choose him out of free choice. Those whom he saw had chosen him, he then elected.

       3) For the Molinist. God considers all the possible worlds there could be. He chooses the world that best suits his purposes based on people’s free choices, and then he elects them which ensures their salvation.

       For the first three, the traditional view of God’s sovereignty is accepted. For the final one, this traditional view is rejected.

       4) For the Open Theist, God has as much control as it is possible for him to have. He offers the Gospel to all, and those who make the free choice to believe are saved.

       To summarize, Calvinism emphasizes God’s choice, Armenism and Open Theism emphasize the individual person’s choice, and Molinism emphasizes both God’s choice and free choice. Of course, there is discomfort found in all four understandings by some. For Calvinism, some people don’t like the fact that it doesn’t truly take into account people’s free wills, the ability to choose. For Armenism and Open Theism, the reverse is true in that some people don’t like how the humans are the ones who actually choose, and God acts based on that. For Molinism, some people don’t like the seemingly complicated nature of it, how it is harder to understand. It should also be noted in regard to Open Theism, some people don’t like how it makes God so open to contingencies and literally allows for people to sway his hand from what he might otherwise have done.

       It could be true that none of these four are in fact correct. For the person who doesn’t like any one of these four ‘theories,’ if you will, of God’s sovereignty in relation to people’s free wills, there is actually a fifth option, believe it or not. The fifth option would be to take a whole different approach altogether. That would be through Dispensationalism, wherein it would be said that God acts in different ways toward salvation and individuals in different time periods. Such as, for instance, (and this theory was discussed somewhat at length last week), that God required faith plus works during Old Testament times, faith plus water baptism during the early, early church times, and then faith alone during Paul’s time and to the present day. This kind of comes at the whole issue, at least from a salvation and free will standpoint, at a whole other angle altogether. As far as God’s sovereignty goes, this approach would probably most closely align with Open Theism in that God keeps adjusting his program based on what humans do (namely the Jewish people), the choices they make.

       Moving along to the next area of discussion. It was discussed how God’s dealings with sin showed an attitude of love toward the world, and how this demonstrates the fact that Christians should have a more non-resistant attitude. What further can be said in regard to this, and how this is not so clearly demonstrated in general by the Evangelical church?

       The truth of the matter is for many years, the speaker’s inclination in the Christian walk was not to be that non-resistant. In view of the cross, the whole aspect of non-resistance was not much focused upon. The position adopted was that of what seems to be the prevailing Evangelical view, which seems to be clearly demonstrated on the news wherein Christians resist, generally through the formulation of public policy and rallying behind certain political leaders or candidates, which seek to accomplish heated opposition to positions which they do not agree with. And it’s not necessarily that that is seen as wrong, but it’s more of the attitude. Indeed, when working in the news side of broadcast television for more than a year, these types of people were encountered. And resistant they were, almost to the point of verbal attack. And generally, they believed in conspiracy theories, that all the media was in on this grand scheme to indoctrinate the world and whatnot. Yet, the speaker was the one who had say, howbeit to a very limited degree, some of what was actually on the news, and even worked with the major parent network on occasion as regarded the news. The problem with these types of people was not that they were against whatever it was, but it was their attitude.

       People we see have the resistant attitude work through protests and legal disputes, whatever you want to name (i.e. the Evangelicals). In fact, it so happened that in the Springtime of this year, a visit was made to an Amish-Mennonite church in another state, and this church was a sister church, if you will, to the one that was currently being attended in Ohio. Nonetheless, following the service that Sunday, lunch was had at the home of one of the leaders of a prominent publisher in their world. And it just so happened that a woman was having lunch with us who had recently had, in just the prior week even, a centerstage seat in a large news story which was on the national level. The speaker had not been following this story, nor really any of the news all that much since the news department had been left behind months earlier, but he was surprised to find himself in such a front row seat in listening to all of this. A major news network would have loved to have been seated at this lunch-table that day. Regardless, in the course of the conversation the publishing leader fellow was discussing some of the legal wrangling of which some Evangelicals had been involved in the whole thing, and he made the comment that the Evangelicals really didn’t play fair—fair at all—with the Mennonites. There was a background unpleasantness or disparity that toned the whole thing.

       It was unfortunate, yet comforting at the same time, to see someone who was not an Evangelical himself confirm what the mind had been seeing with the eyes, to confirm the thought processes that had been flowing for sometime. The unfairness of the Evangelicals in question did not surprise the listener, not by any stretch. Indeed, it all stems from the common Evangelical attitude of resistance. And really the whole experience with the Amish-Mennonite church in Ohio, spending all the time with them that was spent, in seeing how the members operated with each other, the attitudes they displayed, and how they did their dealings, reshaped the thinking of the whole thing about non-resistance. Their actions displayed, their light shined, showed the speaker a different way of being, a different way of living. So, while there may be a time for the Christian to have a resistant action, the belief is now present that it is best, at least most of the time, to display a more non-resistant attitude. This is because it appears to display Christ’s love more, at a deeper level, and actually works toward forgiveness and healing in situations. It doesn’t seem all that possible to be a forgiving type of person if one is constantly holding a resistant attitude. And we know this whole area of forgiveness is very important to God, for he has forgiven us, and expects us to forgive others. He even tells us that special demonic access is granted toward us, or against us, if we do not forgive others.

       Continuing along. Church size was discussed a couple of times, and what is believed is actually the best size for the church. Is it bad then to be involved in a larger body of believers, say one that is over 250 people?

       Certainly, not at all. One needs to be mindful that being part of a large church, just as being part of a large high school class, one is, for starters, not going to know everyone. It seems as if it’s easier to get lost in the shuffle when the attendance is large, say over 250 people. For instance, there have been couple times that churches have been walked into and service attended, where, if not making any willful determination, the service could literally be attended without talking to a single soul. Walking in, sitting in the service, and walking out. This has actually happened a couple times. Of course, as stated, no effort was made to actually converse, but the point is that no effort was made either by others (of course, this was inadvertent). But the idea is that the larger the church, the more easily it seems people can get lost in the crowd. It seems the experience is richer the smaller the church actually attended. This has been found to be true even when visiting small churches. A person, or visitor, simply ‘sticks out’ more at a small church.

       So what about the large churches we see in and around town? Should they break up into smaller churches? It doesn’t seem that such a model as this idea is one of which is being followed by many, if any. However, it does in fact seem that for a group that is large, let’s say 1,000 people, that it would be interesting if instead of the church building a new building where more and more people can be seated, if instead they split into smaller, say 250 people sized churches. So, one 1,000 person church becomes four 250 people churches. That would be interesting. It seems like when a body of believers grows and gets bigger and bigger, they build a new building to seat and host more. But why not try this other approach? One issue could be if the church has been built around a popular minister, one who is well-spoken. But certainly there have to be other well-spoken ministers within the congregation, or those who could become ministers. Perhaps they could be chosen by lot even (ah, trouble is coming here), Let’s move on to the next area.

       A lot is discussed of knowledge in Colossians 1 & 2. Is it simply a matter for the Christian of having Biblical knowledge or knowledge about God, or do other things matter just as much, such as works and even faith?

       There is no question about the fact that Paul talked a great deal about knowledge, and having the correct knowledge. It mostly revolved around Christ. Knowledge is important. A lot of churches are good at this, at preaching and teaching this Christian knowledge. Some churches, perhaps those which are overly charismatic, do actually de-emphasize knowledge, and that obviously is a problem. But Paul would say, on another occasion, speaking to another church (we remember this), “[I]f I… understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:2, ESV). So, with the Corinthians, Paul clearly showed that knowledge wasn’t everything. It can’t be everything. It wasn’t knowledge that took Jesus to the cross, but it was love. Knowledge is more mechanical, where as in love is the actual life. It’s not that understanding isn’t important, for love without proper knowledge isn’t real love. Love without knowledge leads to sinful decisions and actions. So, that’s not right. God doesn’t operate in love without knowledge.

       As far as works go, we know that in The Church Age that works are not required for salvation. And really, they may never have been required for salvation, even in the Old Testament times. But, works are still important for us because they demonstrate both to ourselves, and to others that we are really seeking to please God with our lives. It would be of concern to the mind if life was being lived without any kind of works that demonstrated a faith in God. It is a concern to the mind when others, who profess faith in Christ, do not demonstrate any works whatsoever. That’s always a concern because it causes the mind to doubt whether that person is truly born-again, or at least being pleasing to God with their life. Works in character and in external actions need to exist, to some degree, in order for an individual to really be pleasing to God. That’s just the way God has set up things. Now if a person doesn’t have works are they really saved? Well, James said, “So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead” (James 2:17, ESV).

       So what is faith? It seems best to describe two kinds of faith. There is faith that one has in believing in God and Jesus Christ to begin with. This is their ‘faith’ in the Gospel, in the Christian religion. There is also faith in that one believes God is with them no matter what, that God will provide what they need on a daily basis. It’s more of a faith in God’s provision. It is like when Jesus said to people, “Your faith has made you well.” The error comes in faith when one believes that simply because God can do something, that that means if one has faith, he certainly will. Just because one believes God will do this or that, it ultimately is up to God whether or not he will do it. We can ask God for something in the form of prayer, believing he will do it, and sometimes he will. James said, “The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working” (ESV). Great power is found in prayer, and God does a lot, but it doesn’t mean that God will always do what we want him to do. If he did, he himself wouldn’t have free will. Not to mention that sometimes he cannot, because in answering the prayer, he might be violating another person’s free will. He can try to encourage them to do this or that, but he cannot send his power into their mind and get them to do what he wants.

       What is a good way faith can be increased, like when the disciples asked Jesus, “Increase our faith!” (Luke 17:5, ESV). The best way that has been found to increase one’s faith is actually to give up the wantingness, or wanting-feeling, for whatever it is that is desired. It is the ability to say to oneself, “It is okay if I get what I want, and it is okay if I don’t get it.” It’s the surrendering of desire. And someone might immediately ask, “Well, doesn’t that imply I don’t have faith, because I am saying, “It’s okay if I don’t get what I want.”? Actually, it rather implies faith because having a strong desire for anything implies that you don’t have faith. Think about it. If you have a strong desire for something, and you pray to God for it, and you hope for it, and you continue to have that strong desire, isn’t that underlying energy a sign that you are afraid you’re not going to get what you want? Isn’t the actual desiring of something a form of worry? It appears so. However, if one has given up the desire, surrendering it totally and absolutely, this allows God to be free to give whatever is desired if he decides to. Surrendering something totally doesn’t mean that one will automatically get what they want, but it definitely increases the odds since they are not being too demanding of God, while at the same time being too full of worry that they won’t get what they want.

       Colossians 2 seemed to talk about rules. How should a church, a person for that matter, decide what rules are appropriate for themselves, and how does one know when it has gone too far?

       This is an interesting one, and one of which churches and individuals vary greatly on. Before we dive into churches, we know families and individuals vary on what their own, personal rules are. Paul’s point in the passage seemed to be that rules don’t accomplish all that we think they will. As talked about, he told Timothy basically that they can have some value. We know that’s true. Rules can and do help out in varying situations. But rules, in and of themselves, do not stop the rebellious child from doing what he or she wants to do, even if it is in secret. People can always do whatever they want in secret, and no one, not the parent, or even God himself, can stop people from doing what they are going to do in secret.

       It seems best to understand rules a matter of the heart. Do the rules actually help you become closer to God, or do the rules take you further away from God? Indeed, this is what was asked of the speaker when having lunch with a non-denominational pastor while attending the Amish-Mennonite church, a church that had clearly spelled out rules. And a good and perfect question it was, seeing that it drove right to the heart of the matter. That’s what every church should ask, whether their church rules bring the person closer to God or not. It’s not that rules should be in place due to fear, per se. Usually not. Nor should they just be following rules as a result of what tradition is, or what the leader or group of leaders want to do. Rules are present for a reason, to actually help us, and not to hinder us or make life more difficult than it needs to be.

       If a group of people wants to have a certain set of rules, that seems fine, so long as they say those specific rules don’t have to be followed for one to be saved from their sins, to avoid Hell. If one is saying the church’s custom rules have to be followed to avoid Hell, then the Gospel of that body has become a faith plus works Gospel. That’s bad. We don’t want that kind of Gospel because it brings bondage, it brings extra labor that isn’t necessary. Now, if the Gospel being presented doesn’t include the cross, doesn’t include one becoming born-again, then it’s a totally false Gospel. But each group of believers needs to decide for themselves what rules they are going to follow, and the members should follow those rules if they are a member of that church. There are many churches to pick from. If one wants to be part of that church, the rules should be honored. But if they don’t like the way things are done, they can go elsewhere. They should not join the church and then try to change that church. That’s not right.

       Coming to mind is an experience had at the Amish-Mennonite church, where, one Friday night, the church met together to play volleyball in a local gymnasium across town. It had been years since volleyball had been played—probably 20 years or so. Since high school. So, there was concern about the performance that would be given. Yet, the task was at hand, and the game was to be played. Most of us playing were between the ages of 20 to 40. And one of the responsibilities of the server, when one was up for the turn, was to keep track of the score. This was the rule—assumably that which they had created. Perhaps it is this way everywhere. Anyway, upon arriving at the turns, and serving multiple times, and the ball being in play multiple rounds, score kept being forgotten to be kept by you know who. The gameplay was being so intensely focused on that it kept escaping the mind. A sister, who is a schoolteacher, explained the error on the speaker’s part and how it is to be done. She then later on, probably ten minutes later, had to explain it again. But then, a third time, the score was asked for again, and the speaker hadn’t been keeping count. The speaker could see her inner-anger mounting. Indeed, a fear arouse that the speaker was going to be scolded for his iniquities. She was right, however. The game had agreed to be played, and it is was the responsibility of the server to do the right thing in keeping the score. Thankfully, she later got over it, and didn’t hold it against the rookie player.

- Daniel Litton