- Joined
- May 27, 2023
- Messages
- 5,347
- Reaction score
- 3,685
- Points
- 113
- Faith
- Christian/Reformed
- Country
- US
- Politics
- conservative
Before I present the questions I have, let it be known that I am aware that this chapter in Ezekiel has direct historical application for Israel at the time the prophecy was given. But as is the case in many of the writings in the OT, I believe that it also has application in the NT, and in that sense is not restricted to only national/geographic Israel, but is looking forward to God's redemptive purpose which He brings to the world through Israel.
IMV this is shown strongly in verses 23-24 And I will set over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd. And I, the LORD, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them. I am the LORD; I have spoken.
This idea of the shepherd of God's people is picked up in Jesus declaring Himself to be the shepherd in John 10, where He also says that He has other sheep who are not of geographic Israel, He knows them, they will hear His voice, and follow Him. And we see also in the writings of the apostles the leaders of congregations being called shepherds of God's flock, placed there by God, to teach and lead.
In addition, I also believe that the New Covenant people have the same mission as did the Old Covenant people did, to the world, but that the administration of this mission is different, and the the old leads to the new. The old was one nation bearing witness to God as the only God and as the redemptive, falial God (Father). The new, having every obligation of the Law and that relationship met in Christ and this righteousness of His, counted as ours through faith, justifying us before God. Our mission and purpose is still to bear witness of God, but as having completed that work of redemption in Christ, though its fullness has not yet come. Christ has completed the work on the cross, and His covenant people carry this gospel to the world.
Regarding Ez 34, is it possible that, not negating its historical meaning, it would also apply to Christ's church, considering the mission of spreading the redemptive message is the same. There is one God, who created all that is, and is sovereign over all that is. And that through Christ and His substitutionary sacrifice, God is restoring that filial relationship with mankind, (God with us. I will be your God and you will be my people) that we were created for, and had in the Garden of Eden before our fall. And if that is the case, is the modern church of Christ as guilty in the new covenant as the stewards of the flock, as the priests and kings, were in the old covenant? Which brings to the surface a few other questions.
Rather than go into all the ways in which leadership has failed, and as a result the flock has scattered and strayed and are left lean and hungry, and fail in living lives that represent Christ, I will just say there is now scarcely a speck of unity within the body. And unity here does not mean all people must believe everything in the same way, or know all things, and certainly it does not mean acceptance of all things. It is unity of purpose, unity in Christ. And that does require a sound doctrinal base, at least in soteriology.
I contend that there is a break in soteriology to some degree, and that very break we have today is a result of that first break. It occurred in the so called age of enlightenment when the embers that were lit burst into flame with Charles Finney denouncing the doctrines of grace in Calvinism, and the advent of methods of stirring up the people emotionally so they would answer an altar call to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior---then pronounce them saved and carve another notch in their belt.
My following questions---which I am asking with thoughts on the matter to be sure, but no clear answers are as follows:
How far is too far? The promises given in Ez 34 have come to pass after all, in Christ. And He will continue to gather His sheep unimpeded, until He returns. And the gates of hell will not prevail against His church. So, does it matter that His people are scattered and not fed by the shepherds entrusted with the flocks? Is it maybe that God receives glory from the very fact that He saves those He intends to save in spite of all that is wrong in the church? And that He keeps those who are His even in the midst of the deceptions they are living under. That it just becomes harder for us to distinguish between the wheat and the tares. That sometimes a congregation may be more tares than wheat.
To move ever so slightly into a different lane----I have a question too on why, in my experience anyway, many Calvinist/Reformed today, began in the Armenius camp in one form or another. They began thinking they made a choice, said a prayer, answered an altar call, and that is why God saved them. Most often this "new idea" that they did not choose God but He chose them, is met with outright denial and hatred. But with some it is like they were handed a glass of living water by Jesus Himself, and all the missing puzzle pieces that were hidden are now there. What is needed to put it together is available. And God has been seen in His rightful place as well----awesome.
What makes the difference in the two reactions, if one can be saved without knowing or believing that salvation is monergistic?
IMV this is shown strongly in verses 23-24 And I will set over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd. And I, the LORD, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them. I am the LORD; I have spoken.
This idea of the shepherd of God's people is picked up in Jesus declaring Himself to be the shepherd in John 10, where He also says that He has other sheep who are not of geographic Israel, He knows them, they will hear His voice, and follow Him. And we see also in the writings of the apostles the leaders of congregations being called shepherds of God's flock, placed there by God, to teach and lead.
In addition, I also believe that the New Covenant people have the same mission as did the Old Covenant people did, to the world, but that the administration of this mission is different, and the the old leads to the new. The old was one nation bearing witness to God as the only God and as the redemptive, falial God (Father). The new, having every obligation of the Law and that relationship met in Christ and this righteousness of His, counted as ours through faith, justifying us before God. Our mission and purpose is still to bear witness of God, but as having completed that work of redemption in Christ, though its fullness has not yet come. Christ has completed the work on the cross, and His covenant people carry this gospel to the world.
Regarding Ez 34, is it possible that, not negating its historical meaning, it would also apply to Christ's church, considering the mission of spreading the redemptive message is the same. There is one God, who created all that is, and is sovereign over all that is. And that through Christ and His substitutionary sacrifice, God is restoring that filial relationship with mankind, (God with us. I will be your God and you will be my people) that we were created for, and had in the Garden of Eden before our fall. And if that is the case, is the modern church of Christ as guilty in the new covenant as the stewards of the flock, as the priests and kings, were in the old covenant? Which brings to the surface a few other questions.
Rather than go into all the ways in which leadership has failed, and as a result the flock has scattered and strayed and are left lean and hungry, and fail in living lives that represent Christ, I will just say there is now scarcely a speck of unity within the body. And unity here does not mean all people must believe everything in the same way, or know all things, and certainly it does not mean acceptance of all things. It is unity of purpose, unity in Christ. And that does require a sound doctrinal base, at least in soteriology.
I contend that there is a break in soteriology to some degree, and that very break we have today is a result of that first break. It occurred in the so called age of enlightenment when the embers that were lit burst into flame with Charles Finney denouncing the doctrines of grace in Calvinism, and the advent of methods of stirring up the people emotionally so they would answer an altar call to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior---then pronounce them saved and carve another notch in their belt.
My following questions---which I am asking with thoughts on the matter to be sure, but no clear answers are as follows:
How far is too far? The promises given in Ez 34 have come to pass after all, in Christ. And He will continue to gather His sheep unimpeded, until He returns. And the gates of hell will not prevail against His church. So, does it matter that His people are scattered and not fed by the shepherds entrusted with the flocks? Is it maybe that God receives glory from the very fact that He saves those He intends to save in spite of all that is wrong in the church? And that He keeps those who are His even in the midst of the deceptions they are living under. That it just becomes harder for us to distinguish between the wheat and the tares. That sometimes a congregation may be more tares than wheat.
To move ever so slightly into a different lane----I have a question too on why, in my experience anyway, many Calvinist/Reformed today, began in the Armenius camp in one form or another. They began thinking they made a choice, said a prayer, answered an altar call, and that is why God saved them. Most often this "new idea" that they did not choose God but He chose them, is met with outright denial and hatred. But with some it is like they were handed a glass of living water by Jesus Himself, and all the missing puzzle pieces that were hidden are now there. What is needed to put it together is available. And God has been seen in His rightful place as well----awesome.
What makes the difference in the two reactions, if one can be saved without knowing or believing that salvation is monergistic?
