I want to talk about the 10 commandments in this series of posts. As long as it has to do with Sanctification (growth in holiness after we’re justified), it’s a non-essential doctrine to me. What I mean is that there are Christians on both sides of this issue (on whether the 10 commandments apply to the Christian life) and while I have pretty strong convictions about this issue, it shouldn’t be something the divides the body of Christ. It’s therefore a non-essential doctrine in my opinion. However, if any Christian believes that we have to obey the 10 commandments in order to be saved - therefore this relates to Justification, not Sanctification - then that’s something serious. Serious enough that we should speak against such errors. Such teaching relates to an essential doctrine (Justification) we cannot compromise. But I don’t know any church or christian who believes such. However, I do think there are many sermons preached that are very confusing on this point and which give the impression that we have to attain some level of goodness (be it defined in terms of repentance or whatever) in order to be saved. But that’s something else altogether.
So this series of posts is going to be about the 10 commandments merely as it relates to Sanctification. While this is a non-essential issue to me, I would challenge my readers to think through this issue and have a fair discussion - I’m still learning too. But ultimately if others don’t agree with me, I’m glad to agree to disagree with those who differ. I will not call you names, nor will I think lesser of you as a Christian. I hope those who have similar views to me will not divide the body of Christ over this issue, just as I hope the same for those who disagree with me (and Christians like myself). Because, as I’ve said, this is a non-essential doctrine in comparison to other more important doctrines.
Most of what I’ve written above has nothing to do with the Ten Commandments (the title of this series of posts), but I guess this is such a controversial issue as it relates to New Creation’s teachings that I had to write the introductory comments above. New Creation has been unfairly criticized for their view of the Ten Commandments and emotions overflow when discussing this topic. See for example the comments that follow this post by Pastor Kong Hee. I respect Pastor Kong Hee greatly (and I’ve said many times here I think City Harvest is an awesome Church) but I would strongly disagree with many things he wrote in his post - especially his case that the Ten Commandments are for today. In this post and those that follow, I’ll state why I disagree with him by pointing to the views of other Christians, though not that of Pastor Prince, because there are many other Christians who hold to a similar view (maybe not exactly the same but more similar to his view than to the views of those who criticize New Creation on this issue) to him on the non-relevance of the 10 commandments to the Christian life. In fact, I learned about how we’re not under the 10 commandments as a rule of life from other Christians.
New Creation Church is well-known for its belief that the 10 commandments has no place in the Christian life, that the 10 commandments were not meant to be a guide for the Christian. Before I even heard of New Creation Church, I already encountered the debate about the relevance of the 10 Commandments for the Christian. I’ve always emphasized this when talking about New Creation’s controversial doctrines: even though I’m attending New Creation, I held to a lot of the doctrines that New Creation is criticized for even before I knew of New Creation Church. Pastor Prince and New Creation didn’t convince me about such doctrines. They have taught me a lot of things, but I learned about the most essential aspects of grace and also about the non-relevance of the 10 commandments for Christians years ago. It’s not as though New Creation is the only church that teaches such stuff. Regarding New Creation’s view of the 10 commandments not being applicable to the Christian life, I want to argue in this post that New Creation’s view, while perhaps not a majority view among Christians (hey, for us charismatics, let’s not forget that tongues being for church today was a minority view in the early 20th century!), is held by many Christians around the world.
Let me post a long quote by Douglas Moo, a very well-respected New Testament scholar. This is taken from his response to William VanGemeren’s view of the law in the book Five Views on Law and Gospel:
I do not think that the Christian is directly responsible to obey any part of the Mosaic law. Or, to put the matter differently, I think the Mosaic law as a whole was given to Israel for a limited time and purpose and is no longer immediately authoritative for the Christian.
…I want to make clear that I am not denying that the Mosaic law, especially the Ten Commandments, contains principles and requirements that reflect God’s eternal moral will. My point, rather, is that the Mosaic law is not identical with this eternal moral law. It is part of a covenant document entered into with the nation Israel and is therefore specifically addressed to Israel - and not to the new covenant community. Reformed theologians such as VanGemeren admit that the greater part of the Mosaic law was given to Israel and is no longer directly authoritative for the Christian - the “casuistic”, or the “civil” and “ceremonial” law. But they insist that part of the law is directed to the community of believers in every age - the “apodictic” laws or the “moral” law, which is found especially (or only) in the Ten Commandments. VanGemeren therefore insists on a continuity of the “moral law” within the larger discontinuity of the Mosaic covenant and its law. It is just this treatment of one part of the Mosaic law in a way different from the rest of it that I question.
…I am insisting that it means that we, as new covenant believers, no longer obey the law in the form it was originally given; we are not directly under its authority.
…The Mosaic commandments, then, are not directly applicable to us, but only as they are passed on to us by Christ.
…I am arguing, then, that the Sabbath commandment is a crucial “test case,” suggesting that the Ten Commandments, in their Mosaic form, were not intended by God to be eternally binding on all people everywhere. All ten were expressions of God’s will for his people Israel; and we know, from the New Testament, that nine of them state commands that continue to be binding on New Testament believers. They are binding on us not because they are in the Ten Commandments but because the New Testament makes clear that they are expressions of God’s eternal moral law.
…The “law” under which Christians live is continuous with the Mosaic law in that God’s eternal moral norms, which never change, are clearly expressed in both. But there is discontinuity in the fact that Christians live under the “law of Christ” and not under the Mosaic law. Our source for determining God’s eternal moral law is Christ and the apostles, not the Mosaic law or even the Ten Commandments. It is, then, the commandments of Christ and the apostles to which Paul is referring in 1 Corinthians 7:19 when he claims that “keeping God’s commands is what that counts”… This text is thoroughly consistent with the opinion that the Mosaic law does not apply directly to the Christian.
(Five Views on Law and Gospel, p. 84, 87-89)
We who don’t believe that the Ten Commandments are directly applicable and relevant to Christians as a guide in the New Covenant are not saying that Christians can sin all we want. We’re not saying that there are no laws or guidelines or rules that we should obey (not to gain salvation, but because we are already saved and we want to obey God). Yes, there are. Jesus and the Apostles have given us many “laws” - what could be termed as the “law of Christ”.
We’re also not saying that the Ten Commandments are bad or evil. A lot of the “laws” given to us by Jesus and the Apostles are not different from a lot of the Ten Commandments. As Moo said, both the Ten Commandments and the “law of Christ” are expressions of God’s eternal moral law. So, one may ask, why be so critical of those who say the Ten Commandments are for today? For one reason, the Mosaic law and the Ten Commandments were there for a specific purpose and a specific time in the history of redemption. It is not that the Ten Commandments doesn’t reflect God’s character. It does. But the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic law had a role to play and that role is over. In the New Covenant, the “law of Christ” guides us and is a more ultimate expression of God’s character and the eternal moral law.
What helped me to understand the above is what theologians call Biblical Theology. When theologians talk about Biblical Theology, it’s not just theology that is biblical. Rather, it’s a way of reading the Bible that takes into account the place of the passage we’re reading in the history of redemption. For example, many Christians sing the song “Create in me a clean heart” based on David’s words in Psalm 51. There’s a part that goes
Cast me not away from Your presence, O Lord.
And take not Your Holy Spirit from me
This is taken from Psalm 51:11. I don’t think it’s right for Christians to sing these lines simply because this was David’s experience in the Old Covenant and before the Holy Spirit had been poured out to dwell in every Christian. Something new and different actually happens in the New Covenant - that’s why it’s called “New”! Guess what: We Christians living in the post-death/resurrection of Jesus and post-pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost have it really good compared to the Saints in the Old Testament. The Holy Spirit dwells with us and never leaves us - that’s why our experience is different from David. Before the Spirit came at Pentecost, He didn’t dwell forever in the lives of the Saints. That’s why David could cry out to God for Him not to take His Holy Spirit away from him. Furthermore, David’s cry for a “clean heart” and “steadfast/willing spirit” (verse 10) shouldn’t really be the cry of the New Covenant Christian for in the New Covenant all Christians do have that (Ezekial 36:26-27, Heb. 10:2). Our experience as New Covenant Christians is thus very different from those who lived before. We now have a new/clean heart and a steadfast/willing spirit. And the Holy Spirit dwells in us and never leaves us. But of course that doesn’t mean we can take Him for granted. We are still to yearn to be filled more and more with His Spirit (Eph. 5:18).
My point in all of this is that it’s important to understand each passage in terms of where it is situated in the history of redemption. If we understand this principle, we’ll better understand why many Christians see that the Mosaic law (and Ten Commandments) existed only for a certain time in the history of redemption. Of course, not all people who appreciate Biblical Theology would come to the same conclusion on the Ten Commandments as me or Moo, but many do.
I’m not concerned about getting Christians to believe as New Creation or I do on the Ten Commandments. I’m more concerned to see Christians acknowledging that the above interpretation of the Ten Commandments is a viable position with good biblical support. In every doctrine, there will always be disagreements. But it’s sad to see people criticize New Creation (and Christians who don’t believe the Ten Commandments are relevant to Christians today) as though we’re trying to twist Scriptures or are ignorant of Scriptures. I think only the truly ignorant would think absolutely nothing of the arguments that theologians like Douglas Moo make. By the way, Moo has taught in two of the most moderate Christian/theological institutions in the evangelical world: Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Wheaton College, both arguably the best evangelical seminary and best evangelical college in the world respectively. So he’s by no means a radical!
In the end, we really only disagree as to where we go to see God’s will for our lives. Whether Christians believe that the Ten Commandments is or isn’t directly relevant to the Christian today, we are all still united in agreeing that obedience is important for the Christian. That’s why, for me, this is a non-essential doctrine not worth dividing the body of Christ over. And I hope Christians of both views will stop being overly critical of, and stop demonizing, the other side.
There’s this old joke about a man who, wanting directions from God from Scriptures, opened his Bible randomly to see what God wanted to tell him. First, he read that Judas “hanged himself” (Matt. 27:5). Another random opening led him to “Go and do likewise” (Luke 10:37) and finally “What you do, do quickly” (John 13:27). The moral of the story is about the importance of reading Bible verses in context. That is, we need to know what the original author’s intention was in writing those words and can’t expect God to speak to us through such a manner of just randomly flipping open the Bible.
Related to the above, I came across a chapter in Bill Johnson’s Secrets To Imitating God (formerly entitled Dreaming With God) entitled “Celebrating the Living Word” (Chapter 8). As some readers would already know, I love Bill Johnson’s ministry. I’ve read almost all of his books and in the same way I’ve gained so many insights into Scripture through Pastor Joseph Prince’s teaching/preaching ministry, I’ve experienced the same through Bill Johnson’s books.
I’m quite cautious of flaky charismatic ministers. I know there are so many flaky charismatic leaders out there. However, I want to be careful not to be too critical of them - that’s why I have defended Todd Bentley (to a certain extent) in this blog in the past. I think flaky charismatics tend to be very anointed in many ways, though also open to deception. We ought to be wary of deception, yet recognize the anointing and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think Benny Hinn, for example, is greatly anointed in healing. However, I probably wouldn’t agree with a lot of his other stuff (like some of his theology, his lifestyle or even the style of his meetings).
Through Pastor Joseph Prince’s sharing through the years, one can tell that he too is very cautious of flaky charismatics and charismania - in my opinion, to the point of over-reacting sometimes. A sad result of flakiness is that charismatism has gotten such a bad name and non-charismatics (and even some charismatics) throw the baby (authentic charismatism) out with the bathwater (flaky charismatism).
And all this is why I appreciate Bill Johnson’s ministry so much. I think John Wimber would probably be remembered as the most respected and balanced charismatic who has ever lived. Wimber’s with Jesus now. Perhaps the most respected and balanced charismatic alive today is Bill Johnson.
I don’t think Bill Johnson is a great theologian. And that’s perhaps a plus point. Great theologians are somehow seldom good at the practical charismatic stuff. You have people like John Piper and Wayne Grudem who are great theologians and both very open to charismatic stuff, but I don’t think they are good at the practical charismatic stuff. And you have people like Benny Hinn who is greatly anointed in healing, yet you wouldn’t want to trust a lot of his theology. It’s hard to find someone who is both well grounded theologically and yet greatly anointed in doing the charismatic stuff. I think Bill Johnson is probably the closest to that - though perhaps leaning more to the practical stuff.
The fruit of Bill Johnson’s ministry is simply undeniable. You just have to respect the guy. And while the fruit of his ministry doesn’t validate every single thing he says or teaches, here’s a guy that I know I have so much to learn from. Yes, I’m uncomfortable with some stuff he says. But for a left-brain Christian like me who loves good theology and lacks in the areas Johnson is gifted in, that probably isn’t such a bad thing.
And with that long introduction, I quote a portion from his book for your consideration:
Often I would come to the Bible with a need and God would address it clearly from His Word, again and again. There were times when He spoke so clearly from a verse, yet I knew that what was ministering to me wasn’t what the writer originally intended. But it was a living word, a sword, ministering to the very need of my heart.
…The God who speaks through circumstances and unusual coincidences wants to talk to us again through the pages of His Word, even when it appears to be taken out of context or is not exactly in line with what appears to be the author’s original intent.
…In studying the Old Testament prophecies quoted in the New Testament, it doesn’t take long to realize that Jesus and other writers of Scripture took many Old Testament passages out of context to prove their point. The common thought today is that the Holy Spirit worked that way for the Scriptures to be written, but it is unacceptable to do this today because the canon is complete. How could it be wrong to use the same principles used to write the Scriptures to interpret the Scriptures? That rule is designed to keep us from creating doctrine by experience and contradicting orthodox Christianity. While the reason is noble, the rule is not biblical
…How is it possible to set a rule of Bible interpretation that the Holy Spirit Himself did not follow in inspiring the Bible? And to say that it is no longer allowed because the canon is complete has little merit as the Holy Spirit is with us, and He knows what He meant when He wrote it. This is potentially dangerous because of the bent of some toward creating unholy and/or inaccurate doctrine, but it does not justify removing a necessary tool of the Spirit that He uses to speak to His people. There is danger, but there is also great treasure. This is the necessary tension. (p. 141,143, 145-146)
What struck me first about what Johnson wrote was his belief that God could speak to people through Scriptures even though what spoke to them may not have been what the biblical writer originally intended. He appeals to the fact that even the NT writers took many OT passages out of context to prove their point. I thought this was very interesting. I’m no NT scholar (and I may be getting a bit out of my depth here) and I hadn’t heard of this line of thinking before but I recently read that what seemed out-rightly ridiculous (i.e. the fact that NT writers took many OT passages out of context to prove their point) was actually something of a debate in academic circles. While Graeme Goldsworthy wrote that “contrary to what is sometimes suggested, the New Testament writers were not in the habit of quoting texts without reference to their context” (Gospel and Kingdom, p. 19), other scholars, however, would probably agree with Johnson. An example would be Richard N. Longenecker who wrote that “It is my contention that… Christians today are committed to the apostolic faith and doctrine of the New Testament, but not necessarily to the apostolic exegetical practices as detailed for us in the Next Testament” (see G. K. Beale’s The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?). Maybe here too is a defense of the charismatic distinction between a Logos and Rhema word? Just a spontaneous thought that needs to be developed further…
Moving on, in that same chapter, Bill Johnson acknowledged how in one occasion his church and him heard wrongly about a healing/resurrection - “…we didn’t actually hear from God and missed it with all our prophetic pronouncements” (p. 149). I greatly value his honesty here. Being in charismatic circles for over a decade, I’ve heard too many prophecies which have missed it and very few charismatics are humble enough to acknowledge they could be wrong and apologize when they are wrong. Charismatics need to adopt more humility when it comes to the prophetic. Yet the existence of lots of situations of hearing God wrongly doesn’t invalidate the fact that God speaks and it shouldn’t prevent us from seeking to hear correctly. One thing I’ve read over and over again is that we have to be prepared to fail if we want to succeed. If we’re too afraid to fail, we won’t try. If we don’t try, we won’t learn. People constantly refer to this when talking about entrepreneurship - an entrepreneur always takes risks and a successful entrepreneur is one who has failed many times. And the same for succeeding in healing (i.e. when praying for someone) and hearing God’s voice. As Bill Johnson wrote:
It is obvious and easy to assert that those who try to hear God from the pages of Scripture will not always hear clearly. Some of us will make huge mistakes and claim to have heard from God when it wasn’t Him at all. Yet, to succeed, one must be willing to fail. (p. 148)
I was in the midst of writing a long post on an important issue regarding grace (which has been brewing in my head for some time - actually, over 10 years!) then decided to make this a series of shorter posts, which would hopefully progressively build on each other and interactions with my readers.
The title of the original long post was meant to be “More radical than Joseph Prince?”. This is in relation to the issue of grace, and yes, the title hints at the blasphemous thought that maybe Joseph Prince isn’t radical enough on grace, in particular when, in my opinion, he says some things which is maybe said in (too much) concession to his critics.
OK, don’t crucify me yet for saying the above :) We’re all still learning (myself definitely!) and I’d love your feedback throughout this series of posts. I think it’ll be a very thought-provoking, and practical, series. Practical because theology is always practical and I’ll touch on how some of these uneasy questions about grace actually affect the lives of some of the readers I’ve communicated personally with.
To start off, here are two quotes from this article (quoting and paraphrasing Joseph Prince’s teaching in his Unmerited Favor book). A simple question: Is there any contradiction between the following two paragraphs? If so, why? If not, why not?
1) “My leaders have no qualms about confronting people who attend our church but insist on living in sin. They do not back down from the gospel of grace even if these people argue that they have the right to continue living as they please because they are ‘under grace.’ In fact, my leaders would tell them outright that they are not under grace, because according to Romans 6:14, if they are under grace, then sin shall not have dominion over them!” (emphasis mine)
2) Explaining his teaching, he related the story of one of his church leaders who for a time stopped attending church services because of marital and drinking problems, hoping to resume church attendance after he resolved his difficulties. But, just as people take a bath to clean themselves rather than clean themselves up before taking a bath, so people with problems go to Jesus Christ to resolve them rather than attempting to solve their problems first, the pastor told his member. Today, he said, that member is a happily married, has a beautiful family and is one of his trusted, key leaders.
Continuing on from Part 1, here’s a beautiful passage from Elyse Fitzpatrick’s Because He Loves Me (p. 110-111) on the relationship between the indicative and the imperative and how the latter is grounded in the former. It’s worth reading in its entirety:
[The relationship between the indicative and the imperative can be] summarized in the simple phrase ‘Be who you are.’ When theologians talk about the two categories we’re about to discuss, sometimes they use these words: the indicative and the imperative… When I use the term indicative I’m talking about what has already been indicated or declared about you. The indicative informs us of an accomplished fact. Here’s an indicative statement: “God in Christ has forgiven you.”
On the other hand, the imperative comes to us in the form of a command or direction. In Ephesians 4:32, Paul gives us this command: “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another.” The New Testament is filled with the imperative: we’re commanded to live changed lives.
The beautiful balance between the indicative (who you are in Christ) and the imperative (who you’re becoming in Christ) is perfectly demonstrated in the verse we’ve been considering. The entire verse reads, “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.” Can you see how the imperative, “Be kind, tenderhearted and forgiving,” is firmly anchored in the indicative, “you’re forgiven in Christ”? This verse demonstrates a beautiful synergy that not only tells us what to do, but also plants within our souls the only motive that will empower God-pleasing compliance: what God has already done. We’ve already been forgiven in Christ. So many of us cavalierly gloss over what he has done and zero in on what we’re to do, and that shift, though it might seem slight, makes all the difference in the world. Our obedience has its origin in God’s prior action, and forgetting that truth results in self-righteousness, pride, and despair.
In some cases, the New Testament writers couple indicative statements with both negative and positive imperatives, in other words, commands to stop doing one thing and to start doing another. For instance, we might read this kind of a statement: Because such-and-such is true about you (the indicative), you should put off this kind of behavior (the negative imperative) and put on this kind of behavior in its place (the positive imperative). Let me give you an example of this from Colossians 3:
If then you have been raised with Christ [the indicative], seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above [a positive imperative], not on things that are on earth [a negative imperative]. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory [the indicative]. Put to death therefore what is earthly in you [a negative imperative]. . . .Put on then [a positive imperative], as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved [the indicative], compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other [a positive imperative]; as the Lord has forgiven you [the indicative], so you also must forgive [a positive imperative]. (vv. 1—5, 12—13)
Through the use of this indicative/imperative paradigm, I trust that the relationship between who you already are and how he has called you to live has become clearer to you and that it will be a tool you’ll be able to use as you study Scripture in the future.
(In this series: Part 1, Part 3)