God will prosper his people in Christ. I believe all things will work to our good. I believe throughout our lifetime that good is not necessarily material, but to form us into the likeness of Jesus. But I also believe that when he has finished doing so, he will share with us every good thing that belongs to him. We will lack nothing in him and we will prosper in every meaning and sense of that word in a perfect new creation with him. 

Yesterday, I wrote about how Romans 8:28 points us to a particular good to which all things are working for those who love Christ. These are not general goods, or wish-dreams that we have imagined, but the greatest good of being conformed to the likeness of Jesus. God has ordered everything in the universe with the specific intention of making his people like his Son.
As part of that, I said we often imagine goodness in a lesser form. We tend to think in terms of the goodness of health, wealth and happiness. Yesterday, I pushed away from that towards the truth of Romans 8:29 which insists the goodness of becoming like Jesus is a greater good than such things.
But it is hard to get away from the reality that health, wealth and happiness are good things. Again, even a cursory glance at the Old Testament shows you how such things are often built into the promises of God to his people. There is a reason why some assumed King Solomon was the one that God was going to send. His reign marked the high point of Israel’s history. They were wealthy, happy and enjoyed peace on their borders. These were part and parcel of what God promised his people.
Reformed people can get a bit funny about this stuff. It is a point Dale Ralph Davis makes so helpfully and graphically that I previously highlighted it here (and frequently think on it). He says:
We can say that 1 Kings 10 speaks a word of testimony, namely, that the prosperity of the people of God is always a gift of Yahweh’s goodness, which (I think) demands of us both gratitude (lest we idolize the gifts in place of God) and joy (lest we despise God’s gifts as though they were sinful). Some have difficulty with the latter response in 1 Kings 10. In spite of the positive tone of the writer commentators seem convinced that all that gold can’t be good and so feel impelled to emphasize the clouds on the horizon for Solomon’s kingdom. It reminds me of what missionary Don McClure once told about the Nuer people in the Sudan: ‘the Nuer believes that milk is a beverage for women and children, but he likes it so well that he cannot bear to see it all go to the women, so he makes a cocktail with a bite by adding cow urine, which makes it a man’s drink.’ That is, he can’t enjoy it unless he ruins it first. I wonder if we don’t do that with 1 Kings 10 – feel obligated to moan over ‘materialism’ and all that could possibly go wrong with such bounty rather than acknowledging that it is the blessing of the Lord that makes rich (cf. Prov 10:22) and being content to enjoy that should he give it. Must we, to stretch illustration into analogy, pour cow urine over the text in our panic to stay out of bed with the whore we call the health-and-wealth gospel?
Dale Ralph Davis, 1 Kings: The Wisdom & the Folly, Christian Focus, 2002, p. 104-5
Anything that smacks of the prosperity gospel – even if scripture expressly says it itself – must be shot down. We don’t want anyone thinking God might want them to actually be healthy, wealthy or happy do we? Well, that sort of thinking can end up making us deny what the Bible plainly says. Solomon’s reign being one such example.
What does that have to do with Romans 8:28-29? Because clearly that text does say that the good to which God works all things is conformity to the image of his son, Jesus Christ. It is right to say that good is higher than any other we might imagine. So, in what way might we do what Dr Davis tells us we ought not to do with this text?
Read More
Related Posts:

Most egalitarians and complementarians limit the debate over the involvement of women in public worship to 1 Timothy 2:12. However, Reformed theologians historically held that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is a parallel passage to 1 Timothy 2:12. The reason can be seen when the language of the two passages is compared.

Most of the debate today over the role of women in the church centers around 1 Timothy 2:12, where Paul prohibits women from “teaching” or “exercising authority” over men and instead commands them to “remain quiet.” Based on a variety of arguments, egalitarians conclude that 1 Timothy 2:12 does not prohibit women today from serving as pastors or elders or preaching to men. However, among those that hold 1 Timothy 2:12 does place restrictions on women in the church today (often called “complementarians”), there are differing conclusions.
Complementarian Disagreements
The narrowest complementarian position holds that 1 Timothy 2:12 only prohibits women from holding the office of pastor or elder, which would open the door to some women preaching. However, since Paul prohibits teaching and exercising authority and not just being a pastor, most complementarians understand Paul to prohibit women from performing tasks and not just holding office. Yet interpretations vary regarding which tasks are prohibited. The narrowest complementarian position here holds that 1 Timothy 2:12 only prohibits women from engaging in an “authoritative teaching” to men, and thus women may teach theology to men as long as it is under the authority of the (male) elders (the position of Tim and Kathy Keller, following the grammatical argument of egalitarian Phillip Payne).
But assuming these are separate tasks of “teaching” and “exercising authority” in 1 Timothy 2:12 (as Andreas Köstenberger has argued in Women in the Church), then it becomes a question of when and where the prohibition applies. It at least refers to women teaching or preaching in the public worship assembly. However, many complementarians argue that because the principle is rooted in creation— “For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:13)—this means women should not teach Scripture or theology to groups of men in any public forum, whether Sunday school or the seminary classroom.
Yet even among complementarians who make this broader application of 1 Timothy 2:12, there is still debate over whether women may read Scripture and lead prayer in public worship. This is because 1 Timothy 2:12 targets women “teaching” men, not reading or praying. In response, one may argue that reading Scripture is an extension of “teaching” Scripture and that both reading Scripture and leading prayer are forms of “exercising authority” prohibited by women in 1 Timothy 2:12. However, these arguments could be strengthened significantly by bringing in a similar passage of Scripture to the debate.
Bringing Back 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Do not get me wrong—debates over the meaning and application of 1 Timothy 2:12 are worth having. But they are hindered by the dismissal of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. This latter passage is often still mentioned, but not in relation to 1 Timothy 2:12. While egalitarians tend to argue either 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is an interpolation and not part of Scripture (Gordon Fee, Philip Payne) or Paul is quoting the Corinthians (Lucy Peppiatt), most complementarians have adopted the interpretation that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 only prohibits women from evaluating prophesy (promoted by D. A. Carson in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood). Thus, most egalitarians and complementarians limit the debate over the involvement of women in public worship to 1 Timothy 2:12.
However, Reformed theologians historically held that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is a parallel passage to 1 Timothy 2:12. The reason can be seen when the language of the two passages is compared:
…the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.(1 Corinthians 14:34-35)
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.(1 Timothy 2:11-14)
The similarities between these passages can be summarized as follows:

Both use the word “permit” (ἐπιτρέπω) with a negation—women are not permitted to “speak” in 1 Corinthians 14:34, while women are not permitted to “teach” or “exercise authority” in 1 Timothy 2:12.
Both require women to refrain from speaking—women are to be “silent” (σιγάω) in 1 Corinthians 14:34, while women are to remain “quiet/silent” (ἐν ἡσυχία) in 1 Timothy 2:11, 12.
Both require women’s submission—women “should be in submission” (ὑποτασσέσθωσαν) in 1 Corinthians 14:34, while women are to “learn quietly with all submissiveness” (ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ) in 1 Timothy 2:11.
Both place restrictions on women’s learning—women are to “ask their husbands at home” if they desire to “learn” (μαθεῖν) anything in 1 Corinthians 14:35, while women are to “learn” (μανθανέτω) quietly with all submissiveness in 1 Timothy 2:11.

Read More
Related Posts:

If we disagree with someone often, we can simply delete or not read their messages.  That is not the same as completely shutting them out or cutting them off.  They are our family, Christ’s family.  How can we even contemplate such unkind, thoughtless, and rude treatment of one Christ loved and died for as He has for us?

Today, Christians deal with many challenges never imagined by those believers who lived in the past.  For one, there are many ideologies infiltrating churches that undermine biblical principles and teachings.  Yet they are somewhat subtle and sentimentally popular in the world that they receive a fair share of sympathy and acceptance by Christians who have not quite or yet conquered biblical apologetics that reveal the falsehoods inherent in them.
However, and most unfortunately, there is another challenge that might be as equal in detriment to Christian testimony related to love and unity to that of false ideologies.  That challenge is social media.  Social media includes the proliferation of Facebook, blogs, e-mail, and more.  They also involve interactions, discussions, and debates.  Just as society has been affected by a coarseness and rudeness in interrelations, so social media has also been greatly affected.  The world around us is less friendly and tolerant of disagreements.  And some of the reactions and responses represent coarseness and rudeness that involve name calling, vulgar language, malice, sarcasm, and even viciousness.  But a more subtle reaction is to block, unfriend, or reject any communications from one another.
I can’t say I’ve seen any Christian respond with vulgar language, malice or viciousness, but I’ve seen and even experienced being blocked, unfriended, or all communications being rejected.  What does this say about Christians who completely cut off other Christians from any communications?  It is impossible to see any of these as positive responses to Christ’s command, “Love one another as I have loved you.”
Such actions are done abruptly to some without any explanation.  Was there something said or done that caused such a reaction?  If so, wouldn’t it be more in keeping with God’s Word to communicate any such concern that caused one to react in such a radical manner to cut off all communication with another believer?  Wouldn’t that allow for perhaps an apology, a change of heart, repentance, and reconciliation?  Was some unforgivable offense committed?  If this is the case, do we remember how much we have been forgiven by our heavenly Father through Christ?  Can we recognize that completely cutting off communication with another believer is indicative of some terrible offense?  The question is in such a case, which is the greater offense and who is the true offender?  Could the greater offense and real offender be the one who fails to love another Christian as Christ commanded us to love them?
I recently read where some Africans questioned African Christians why they should become Christians when they didn’t treat other African Christians Christianly?  It caught my attention, as it goes beyond Africa.  Blocking, unfriending, and cutting people off abruptly and completely is happening among American Christians.  What a poor testimony to the world!
Remember the song, “They Will Know We Are Christians by Our Love?”  How we treat one another is revealing to the world around us.  The Apostle Peter clearly states what we should be known for:
“Since you have purified your souls in obedience to the truth fora sincere love of the brothers and sisters, fervently love oneanother from the heart, for you have been born again not ofseed which is perishable, but imperishable, that is, throughhe living and enduring word of God.”  1 Peter 1: 22-23
Cutting people off or shutting them out contradictorily relates to “fervently love one another from the heart.”
In another passage, Jesus states: “But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return . . .”  How can one love one’s enemies when one fails to love fellow believers by cutting off any and all communication?
As Christians, our standards come from above and not from social media or the world.  There is never a need to completely block, unfriend, or reject communications from another believer, even if we cannot totally agree with them.  We must also resist any possible envy of the well-acceptance of believers to others we might not experience.  If we disagree with someone often, we can simply delete or not read their messages.  That is not the same as completely shutting them out or cutting them off.  They are our family, Christ’s family.  How can we even contemplate such unkind, thoughtless, and rude treatment of one Christ loved and died for as He has for us?
Perhaps it’s necessary to address pastors who receive communications from their congregants.  Do you remain open to all in your flock?  Hopefully, you do.  They need to know you care about them as their shepherd.  Even Judas was not cut off or shut out by Jesus.  What a lesson for all shepherds.
We’re living in a different world today from yesterday.  As Christians, our home is elsewhere, and we are just passing through.  The laws of God are higher than the laws of the lands and societies we pass through.  To the natural heart, mind, and spirit, it’s impossible to keep those higher laws.  But God the Holy Spirit is here with us in our trekking through social difficulties.  He fills us with the fruit of the Spirit, which is “love, joy, peace, patience. kindness, faithfulness, goodness, gentleness, self-control . . .” (Galatians 5: 22,23) Possessing His fruit is what enables us to never give up on one another and to “fervently love one another from the heart.”
Let’s obey Christ’s second great commandment to love one another as He has loved us and never allow social media to affect or diminish our Christian behavior either technically or spiritually.
Helen Louise Herndon is a member of Central Presbyterian Church (EPC) in St. Louis, Missouri. She is freelance writer and served as a missionary to the Arab/Muslim world in France and North Africa.
Related Posts: