Sunday

Just in case any of you are interested in what I did today, here it is:

First off, I went to church. (Well, Duh!) In Sunday school, they’re still studying the chapter on sanctification in the Baptist Confession. I missed the first part of this two-part point, but I will try to communicate the general idea as best I can remember. It’s really hard because the format of Sunday school is a very interactive discussion, and I have no notes this week.

The thesis of this section was: At all costs, avoid Legalism, and at all costs, avoid Antinomianism. They are both death.

The pastor’s basic explanation of Legalism was as follows: Legalism is practiced when we take the “gray areas” of scripture, that is, areas that are not clearly defined in scripture, develop our own set of moral standards, and force them on other people or judge other people based on our own developed set of moral standards. He used examples such as what types of music we should listen to, how we should dress, whether or not we should go to a movie theater, etc. Developing our own moral standards and using them as a basis for how we judge other people is the exercise of Legalism and is death. I think he briefly touched on the other aspects of Legalism such as making our moral standards our religion and commonality instead of Christ, but I can’t remember all the details. (I.E. our music, dress, not drinking, not going to the movies, even home schooling, big families, and doctrine can become our religion and commonality instead of Chirst.)

Next, he discussed the opposite extreme of Antinomianism, often described as “lawlessness.” This position states the law’s purpose is to bring people to Christ, but once they are in Christ, they can exercise their freedom and disregard the law since they now abide under grace. Christ’s death abolished the law.

In reaching a resolution between these two extremes, he used St. Augustine's quote: “Love God and do as you please.” He pointed out the strength of the argument in the fact that true love will always and can only produce true works, but at the same time, he pointed out a problem with the quote: you. It may be true that true love will always produce true fruit, but we are still human and are not yet fully sanctified… Huh… Not quite sure how that tied into the conclusion (I don’t have any notes), but he basically came to the conclusion of Christ came to fulfill, not to abolish the law. In categories such as the sacrificial system, Christ is the fulfillment – the pinnacle the law pointed to. We are no longer set aside by externals, such as physical circumcision and dietary laws, but are now circumcised and set apart in our heart. We are now under the law of love which will always produce true works.

Huh… None of that seems very connected. Well, if nothing else, you can probably see the general ideas :-)

He also touched on exercising our freedom in Christ but not offending our weaker brothers who still hold to dietary laws, for example.

Oh, here’s a random topic that came up last time: If you believe the temple must be rebuilt and the sacrificial system reinstated, then doesn’t that mean that Christ’s death was either in vain or not sufficient?

After Sunday school, we studied the "Mercy" beatitude in church. He put a strong emphasis on, “these are the characteristics that will come out of true life.”

After church, a really nice family behind me invited me to their house for lunch. Uh, erk? Oh…

I’m really not used to having to interact as my own, separate entity. There’re no parents to do the talking, no siblings to hide behind.

As it turns out, the guy who invited me to lunch was in the Air Force. His work has brought him to live in all sorts of places – even Germany. I believe his last assignment was at the Pentagon, and he had just moved to Vegas last spring. His wife was really nice, and their two home-schooled kids, ages 3 and 5 were quite the characters. The oldest son spent a great deal of time showing me his box of airplanes. I think that kid is extremely bright. I was, frankly, astounded by his level of communication and understanding. After identifying which plane he took out of the box (This is an F-22 Raptor. I have two of them.), he would list notable features on certain planes. I, and the other lunch guests (two predator pilots and a wife) were in hysterics.

Air Force guys really seem to be a different breed. They were extremely polite and respectful. They had manners I’ve never seen people observe. They seemed like very wise and steady people. The wives seem to be able to live just about anywhere and seem to develop a really close community among each other wherever they’re stationed. They seem really proud of their husbands, share their husbands’ enthusiasm for aircraft, and after several years of marriage, act just as thrilled with their husbands as the day they married them. Maybe it was just the people I saw today. Who knows. (There, was that heart-warming? :-)

Fun was had by one and all, and I didn’t get back to my hotel room until 5:30.