Men, we’re in a battle. We need to "stand firm in the faith."
But this is not just a macho, baseless, ego-driven firmness. This is how so many men act—their firmness is mostly about proving something or defending their ego.
No, we must stand firm in the faith—the content of God’s revelation. The truth of God’s Word.
When we identify attacks against the faith, what do we do? We stand firm. We fight. We defend.
This is not the job of pastors alone. This is the job primarily of the men of the church. This is military language—stand firm—the language of men.
We stand to protect the women and children from the attacks of Satan, we stand as a pillar and buttress of the truth, we stand against worldly ideologies and pagan theologies that threaten the faith.
Of course, this requires that we know the faith we are supposed to defend. We must know our Bibles, we must know sound theology.
Men, commit yourselves to daily Bible study, read good books that can further teach you sound theology... You’ve got to know the faith in order to stand firm in the faith.
This stand is not out of some sort of puffed up egotism that has something to prove. We stand firm because we are jealous for God’s Word.
Oh how the church today desperately needs courageous, mature men who will be watchful and stand firm in the faith.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Many Christians, especially young men zealous for truth, see theological error and their first instinct is to go into “battle mode.”
But the Apostle Paul, facing down false teachers in Corinth, shows us a more excellent way. The character of our warfare matters. A thread.
Before Paul brings the hammer down in 2 Corinthians 10, he starts with a plea. He doesn’t lead with a declaration of war, but with an appeal: “I, Paul, myself entreat you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ...” (2 Cor 10:1).
He begs them to listen.
This isn't weakness. It’s a warning. Paul says he begs them so that when he is present he won't “have to show boldness with such confidence as I count on showing against some...” (2 Cor 10:2).
He’s saying, “Don’t mistake my compassion for cowardice. I will bring a rod if I must.”
Essentially the difference between eschatological views can be boiled down to an interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:25: "For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet." Let me explain:
Paul is defending the resurrection in 1 Cor 15. In so doing, he argues that "in Christ shall all be made alive" (22). But "each in his own order." Then he proceeds to present a threefold outline of the order of events in these last days:
1. First, "Christ the Firstfruits" (23a). 2. "Then at his coming those who belong to Christ" (23b). 3. "Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power" (24).
God intended for there to be one kingdom on earth, an expression of his sovereign rule over all things that was a union between man’s dominion over creation, that is culture, and man’s relationship with God, that is religion. However...
Adam failed the requirements to rule that one kingdom, and so between his failure and the Second Adam’s success, God separated the two aspects of his unified kingdom into two kingdoms.
God’s covenant with Noah in Genesis 9 reveals God’s plan to preserve humankind and creation until the Second Adam establishes his rule. In his covenant with Noah, God specifically repeats the blessings of Genesis 1:28, but he does not repeat the command to have dominion.
Adam's failure to exercise dominion over the earth is not our responsibility—The Second Adam will do it for us. A thread.
Adam failed to be the king/priest God commanded him to be, and since we were in Adam, we will never be able to be what he was supposed to be. We are not new Adams who are supposed to do what Adam failed to do by somehow exercising dominion over creation.
Christ is the Last Adam. He accomplished what Adam failed to do, and he will exercise dominion over all creation when he comes again.
Sometimes Christians today resist the idea that they need to confess their sins to God now that they’ve been forever justified by faith in the sacrifice of Christ.
They know that repentance is necessary for salvation, but now that they’ve been forgiven, do Christians really need to confess any longer?
Perhaps this resistance is one reason Christians today avoid singing the psalms that focus on sin and confession.
I once had a pastor tell me that he looked in his church’s hymnal for a song of repentance to accompany his sermon on the subject, and he couldn’t find a single one. We’ve been forgiven by the blood of Christ! Surely we do not need to confess our sin any longer, right?
“Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” by Harry Emerson Fosdick:
“Already all of us must have heard about the people who call themselves the Fundamentalists. Their apparent intention is to drive out of the evangelical churches men and women of liberal opinions. 1/
It is interesting to note where the Fundamentalists are driving in their stakes to mark out the deadline of doctrine around the church, across which no one is to pass except on terms of agreement. 2/
They insist that we must all believe in the historicity of certain special miracles, preeminently the virgin birth of our Lord; that we must believe in a special theory of inspiration—that the original documents of the Scripture 3/