Fred R. Lybrand earned his B.A. in English Literature from the University of Alabama and his M.A.B.S. from Dallas Theological Seminary. He is currently pursuing doctorate studies at Phoenix Seminary. Fred is the Founding Executive Director of the newly formed Free Grace Alliance and the senior pastor at Northeast Bible Church in San Antonio, TX. He is the author of three books: Heavenly Citizenship, The Absolute Quickest Way to Help Your Child Change, and About Life and Uganda. Fred’s email address is fredlybrand@yahoo.com.
Introduction
Although eternal life is by faith alone in Christ alone, Christians will gain or lose eternal rewards based on their personal faithfulness (1 Corinthians 9:24–27). But is individual merit the only basis for eternal rewards? Could Christians also receive rewards based on their association with a local church? Before exploring these questions, it is necessary to consider the state of the doctrine of rewards.
The New Testament emphasizes the fact that doctrine (teaching) is essential for every Christian’s walk with God (cf. John 17:17). [1] Religious belief underlies all—even erroneous—religious action. Consider, for example, how much of today’s terrorist activity links to the false doctrine of attaining glory in the afterlife through religious war. If the false promises of reward motivate terrorists, how much more should the truth of rewards inspire Christians? How much has the church’s neglect of this doctrine dissipated Christian action and impact? What might happen if the true teachings of attaining eternal glory reached the masses of Christians?
All is not lost. A number of scholars and pastors such as Radmacher, Lutzer, Wall, Dillow, Hodges, and Wilkin have recently spotlighted the issue of eternal rewards. These thinkers frequently invite criticism for their fresh and honest appraisal of the text, since discussions of eternal rewards suffer from an undercurrent of chronological snobbery—a logical fallacy which asserts that the older the quote, the truer it is. For example, many rely on Jonathan Edwards as the final authority on the subject. Though Edwards was a brilliant thinker, he confused eternal rewards with eternal salvation.
By the merit and righteousness of Christ, such favour of God towards the believer may be obtained, as that God may hereby be already, as it were, disposed to make them perfectly and eternally happy. But yet this does not hinder, but that God in his wisdom may choose to bestow this perfect and eternal happiness in this way, viz. in some respect as a reward of their holiness and obedience. .. . Believers having a title to heaven by faith antecedent to their obedience, or its being absolutely promised to them before, does not hinder but that the actual bestowment of heaven may also be a testimony of God’s regard to their obedience, though performed afterwards. [2]In this explanation of the relation between rewards, obedience, and justifying faith, Edwards equates salvation (or heaven) with the believer’s eternal reward. He argues that the one who believes in Christ has the final guarantee of “eternal happiness,” which will be preceded (if not produced) by holiness and obedience. In other words, Edwards claims that believers will receive the “just reward” of heaven based on actions resulting from their initial faith in Christ. The impact of Edwards’ understanding of rewards as the believer’s final state may explain the modern confusion over eternal rewards.
Why address this confusion? Simply because if eternity is a reward, then it must be earned; and if it must be earned, then eternal salvation by “grace through faith alone” (Ephesians 2:8–9) cannot mean that one is saved by faith, and faith only. Eternal rewards, by definition, must be deserved or earned. If an individual thinks his eternal reward is merely his eternal state, then he will assume that he must work to gain eternity. The confusion between belonging to the family of God by faith and being rewarded in eternity for faithful Christian service stems from one false assumption: that the believer’s right to be in eternity with Christ is a reward rather than a gift of God.
Individualism: An American Hermeneutical Virus
Some assumptions can be as deadly as viruses. The false assumption that heaven is a reward is equaled only by one other—that the individual is the ultimate priority or, in the case of the Bible student, the individual is the supreme hermeneutic. A driving individualistic assumption tempts the reader to interpret every passage as individualistic in meaning, orientation, or emphasis. This faulty hermeneutical bias results from the trilogy of instinct, culture, and errant theology.
The Instinctive Cause
Biblically, man is innately selfish. Sometimes self-centeredness receives formal indictment, as in Judges 21:25: In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes. Today such thinking appears in clichés like “to each his own.” The Word of God views this human tendency as antithetical to God’s will, since it elevates one’s opinion to the level of God’s truth. Not only does this bias cause misinterpretation, it invites chastisement from Him who has no equal.
However, the Bible does not always indict the individual for a self-oriented bias. Awareness of one’s existence as separate from the Creator and His creation is an obvious part of the divine design for humans. This separateness allows for relationships, and God appeals to it for both salvation and eternal rewards. In these areas it might be called an appropriate self-interest rather than selfishness. Hebrews 12:2 describes Christ as the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Christ Jesus endured the cross for His own joy. Since man is made in the image of God and Christians are to grow in the likeness of Christ, it stands to reason that an appropriate personal self-interest exists by design and the will of God.
Appropriate self-interest has a biblical basis, and always stems from an accountable relationship to God. Instinctive selfishness, however, leads to defending one’s biases rather than discerning God’s truth.
The Cultural Cause
The cultural causes of individualism are speculative. Pluralism—a defining trait of the American society—inherently emphasizes the individual. Merriam-Webster defines pluralism as “a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain an autonomous participation in and development of their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization.” [3]
Our culture battles over whether the individual or the society will rule. It promotes conformity to a social ideal (or “correctness”) but also celebrates the individual in a continual oscillation from one extreme to the other. Despite the pressure to conform socially, an American still feels like the “captain of his ship and master of his fate.”
Robert Wuthnow, in his book Sharing the Journey: Support Groups and America’s New Quest for Community, describes the training Americans receive to think as individuals. His preface begins:
For as long as most Americans can remember, our society has been described to us as being composed of individualists. As children, we were taught to be independent. We learned about rugged pioneers who went off by themselves to seek their fortunes. Later, we learned that our social fabric was breaking down, that families were eroding, that communities were dying, and that more and more people were facing life on their own, heroically insisting on their independence and remaining uncommitted to anybody but themselves. Having learned these lessons so well, many of us are therefore likely to be surprised by the results presented in this book. [4]Wuthnow then describes the importance of community for the individual’s spiritual health and vibrancy. Community is his antidote to the isolation that accompanies the dominant cultural motif of individualism.
Robert D. Putnam adds his lament over the individualization of America’s culture in Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. A summary of his observations appears on the jacket:
Once we bowled in leagues, usually after work; but no longer. This seemingly small phenomenon symbolizes a significant social change that Robert Putnam has identified and describes.. . .
Drawing on vast new data from the Roper Social and Political Trends and the DDB Needham Life Style—surveys that report in detail on Americans’ changing behavior over the past twenty-five years—Putnam shows how we have become increasingly disconnected from family, friends, neighbors, and social structures, whether the PTA, church, recreation clubs, political parties, or bowling leagues. Our shrinking access to the “social capital” that is the reward of communal activity and community sharing is a serious threat to our civic and personal health. [5]Cultural individualism affects one’s thinking and hermeneutics, making interpretations that concern the individual more attractive than those that concern the corporate whole.
The Theological Cause
Individualism’s theological cause stems from the now clichéd observation attributed to Abraham Maslow: “When the only tool you have is a hammer, you treat every problem as a nail.” Scriptures say much about the individual’s standing before God and his relationship with others. Many rewards passages focus on individuals. Matthew 25:1–30, for example, specifically holds each virgin and each steward accountable.
Perhaps the most prominent of the rewards passages, 2 Corinthians 5:10 (For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad), underscores the accountability of the individual Christian for his labors on earth. The phrase each one insists that the individual gains or loses rewards based on his actions.
The individual focus of this summary passage has led some to understand the doctrine of eternal rewards as individual accountability. If one allows a single text to dictate the meaning of all similar passages in the Scriptures, then the analogia fidei becomes the anvil on which to reshape and force-fit a desired meaning without regard to context. Understanding each passage of Scripture must precede the question, How does it fit?
The subject of eternal rewards especially has suffered from an overarching instinctive, cultural, and theological bias toward reading the Bible through the glasses of individualism.
The Individualistic Virus at Work
Example A: John 17
Imposing individualistic biases onto corporate passages has spawned misinterpretation. In corporate reference, the author focuses on a group, not the individuals. For example, in John 17 Christ specifically reveals the object of His prayer: I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours (John 17:9).
Christ stated that He was praying for His disciples whom the Father had given Him, and not for the world. Missing this fact could allow for an interpretation that bypasses the point of the passage. Knowing that Jesus was praying for His disciples, and not for the world, clears a path for accuracy in interpretation. Christ further said, I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me (John 17:20–21).
He expanded the object of His prayer further to include those who would soon believe through the testimony of the disciples. Once again, He contrasted this group of believers with the world. Clearly dividing the “world” from “believers” leaves no room for misunderstanding. In the same way, ignoring the referents increases the probability of error.
Example B: Philippians 1:6
Being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ.People often argue from this passage that God guarantees that He will bear individual believers along toward maturity. But is this an individual reference? One needs no commentary, no knowledge of Greek, and no guru to answer this question. The English Bible is more than sufficient. The following are the referents in the context of Philippians 1:6:
To ALL THE SAINTS in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the BISHOPS AND DEACONS (1:1); Grace to YOU. .. (1:2); I thank my God upon every remembrance of YOU (1:3); Always in every prayer of mine making request for YOU ALL with joy (1:4); for YOUR fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now (1:5) [emphasis added].Paul addresses the entire church in Philippi along with its leaders. In verses 7 and 8, which follow the passage (1:6), Paul adds the following corporate references:. .. it is right for me to think this of YOU ALL, because I have YOU in my heart. .. YOU ALL are partakers with me of grace;. .. YOU ALL with the affection of Jesus Christ [emphasis added].
The passage does not support the idea that God completes the good work in them as individuals. Paul addressed the local church in Philippi. Any further inquiry into this epistle will quickly unveil both his commendations and concerns for the church as a whole.
Example C: 1 Corinthians 3:16–17
Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.This is the most telling example of mistaking an individual reference for a corporate one. If this passage addresses the individual, then it insists that God will destroy the believer for mistreating his physical body. Many use this passage to explain suicide as a sin of unpardonable dimensions, a sin that assigns one to eternal destruction, thus making eternal salvation an issue of works rather than faith.
But does this passage refer to an individual? An individual defiling the temple is in view in the context of gain or loss of reward in the Day of evaluation before God. But the crucial word here is temple, which verse 9 equates with the Body of Christ rather than with one’s physical body. Individuals collectively build this temple with good (gold, silver, and precious stones) or bad (wood, hay, and straw) (3:10–12). Destroying or defiling the temple is an explicit reference to how individuals will suffer for destroying the church—in this instance, the local church in Corinth. Understanding the word temple as a corporate reference causes the entire chapter’s concern with disunity and partisanship to burst into clarity. If temple is misunderstood as a reference to one’s physical body, then Paul appears to give a sudden, and strangely random, warning to the individual about taking care of himself.
Example D: Ephesians 5:18
And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit.Perhaps no verse has been more popularized for Spirit-led living than this one. If taken as an individual reference, it does not help understand the passage. But if it is a corporate reference, then the “filling of the Spirit” speaks of something believers do together, most likely when gathered for worship. The cultural parallel with alcohol in pagan worship also illuminates the meaning if this is a corporate reference. [6] Greeks in biblical times commonly worshipped Baccus (Dionysus) through drunken “enthusiasm.” Enthusiasm, or εν θεος (“god within”), occurred through a drunken state as a proof of the “gods’” attendance at the worship-feast. Paul’s instruction not [to] be drunk with wine makes sense when the pagan practice is contrasted with how God’s Spirit leads in worship.
Does the context treat this as a corporate reference? Ephesians 5:19 says, Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord. The reference to the heart is individual, but the expression as a whole concerns togetherness. The passage certainly does not imply that one believer, when filled, is to telephone another believer (or dash to his home) and serenade him with a heartfelt rendition of “Amazing Grace.” No, the result of being filled, or allowing the Spirit to dominate and permeate the worship gathering, is a true corporate sharing in song. Sadly, this insight for worship is instantly overlooked if an interpreter fixates on his individualistic assumptions when he considers the passage. [7]
Corporate Rewards
Can an individual believer in Christ be rewarded simply because of his corporate association? Does the church one attends matter to God? Logically, and biblically, the answer is “yes” because one’s associations affect the individual. The Bible affirms the impact of others on the individual: Do not be deceived: “Evil company corrupts good habits” (1 Corinthians 15:33); As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens the countenance of his friend (Proverbs 27:17); Though one may be overpowered by another, two can withstand him. A threefold cord is not quickly broken (Ecclesiastes 4:12).
It is easy enough to prove that Christians are influenced by their companions. It stands to reason that those who affect a believer will affect his rewards. If a Christian associates with those who slight God and His word, what is the long-term probability that he will stay the course? Unfaithfulness is contagious. The issue of corporate rewards, however, looks beyond influence. It concerns what believers accomplish or fail to accomplish together.
By way of analogy, the National Football League each year “crowns” a team the Super Bowl Champions. All team members receive, among other things, a ring commemorating their participation on the championship team. Whether or not they actually played in the last game (or any game), all are rewarded. All that matters is that each player was on the team. Of course, it is hard to imagine a player who does not contribute in some way to a championship team, especially as the whole group embraces its quest together. Corporate rewards, as a possibility at the Judgment Seat of Christ, will mean that some of the believers’ rewards (or loss of rewards) will be based on the corporate faithfulness and works they all accomplished (or neglected) together. This in no way compromises individual responsibility. Indeed, a “most valuable player” exists in the Super Bowl analogy. Individuals can be rewarded for both their own efforts and the entire team’s results.
This understanding of corporate rewards faces two challenges. First, since the doctrine of rewards in general has been neglected by the church, it can boast few ancient supportive references. Thus, chronological snobbery, [8] rather than biblical interaction, is a common response to it. Second, the individualistic hermeneutical virus hinders exegetes from seeing the text objectively. The Scriptures need thoughtful reconsideration. If the idea of corporate rewards is biblical, then believers should reclaim the balance of corporate efforts as the context for individual labors.
Do corporate rewards have a basis in the Scripture? Since this view offers a new aspect concerning eternal rewards, there is admittedly further thought and study required. Two passages, however, stand out as prime support for corporate rewards.
Support A: Philippians 4:14–19
Nevertheless you have done well that you shared in my distress.Now you Philippians know also that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church shared with me concerning giving and receiving but you only. For even in Thessalonica you sent aid once and again for my necessities. Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that abounds to your account. Indeed I have all and abound. I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things sent from you, a sweet-smelling aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well pleasing to God. And my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus. (Philippians 4:14–19)Paul wrote to the church in Philippi as a group. At the very least, this passage demonstrates Paul’s conviction that God would bless the Philippians corporately in this life. God often blesses and rewards groups of people for their faithfulness in this life; Israel is the most obvious example. But why would death remove God’s inclination to bless all those in a specific faithful group, and especially in light of the promise of future eternal rewards (2 Corinthians 5:10)?
First, Paul made it clear that he was speaking to the church membership as a whole: YOU Philippians know also. .. no CHURCH shared with me. .. but YOU only (4:15); for even in Thessalonica YOU sent aid once and again (4:16) [emphasis added]. It is such an obvious point that it is easy to overlook. Paul refers to the individuals who made up a corporate group: the Philippian church. He uses the second person plural form of you, thanking them as a unique group of supporters. Paul states that these collections or gifts were from the entire church. He uses endearing terms toward the whole group. He says nothing about who in the church gave most or least. Rather, Paul joyfully accepted the gifts from the whole church and commended them all.
Even today, believers do the same by giving toward missions or community needs. Uganda now has six new churches because of the efforts of the author’s previous home church, Midland Bible Church. As it is impossible to name all of the participants (about eighty Midlanders have gone to Uganda over the past four years), it is inaccurate to say that they alone established these new assemblies. The great majority of the members of Midland Bible Church have in various ways contributed to the effort. Planting these African churches involved the entire local church, not just a few members. The energy, funds, and faithfulness must be declared a successful effort of the whole church. Do all participate? Not equally. Do all share in the effort? In some way, the entire membership is affected by their collective labor.
First Corinthians 12:26 says, And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. The connection Christians share with one another is the New Testament norm for local churches. The efforts, successes, and failings all have a corporate emphasis. Christianity at its biblical core is both a collective and an individual endeavor. Displacing one emphasis with the other misses the point and promotes a limited and unscriptural paradigm for Christian life and impact.
Philippians 4:17 is crucial: Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that abounds to your account. If the context refers to the whole church in Philippi, then the phrase your account (singular) must refer to the whole church as well. If Paul was seeking fruit, or benefit, for the church as a whole, then the benefit here cannot be individualistic. The faithful care for Paul by the Philippian church resulted in benefits or credits accruing in that church’s account. Given Paul’s emphasis on eternal rewards (e.g. Romans 12:10–12; 1 Corinthians 3:5–15, 9:24–27; 2 Corinthians 5:9–10; 1 Timothy 6:17–19; 2 Timothy 4:6–8, etc.), this account is a future benefit for those who partnered in the work at Philippi. The epistle itself shows that Paul had eternal rewards in view, since the context of his final comments in Philippians 3:12–21 speaks specifically of eternal existence and rewards. References to the prize, our heavenly citizenship, and the transformation of our lowly [earthly] body underscore this. Paul’s reference to the Philippian church in 4:1 as his joy and crown is another potent hint that eternity and rewards were uppermost in Paul’s mind.
Perhaps Paul had only a temporal reward, such as certain immediate blessings on the Philippian church and its membership, in view. However, even if this were true, the basic fact of a corporate reward remains intact. In either case, the reward is for the church from God and is based on their corporate faithfulness.
Support B: Revelation 3
The letters to the seven churches in Revelation also support the doctrine of corporate rewards. However, most overlook this evidence. Clearly, these letters address separate churches. Revelation 1:4 defines the audience: John, to the seven churches which are in Asia. Church or churches appears seventeen additional times in these three chapters.
John carefully distinguishes between you (singular) and you (plural). When he addresses an individual church (whether it be in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, or Laodicea), you (singular) refers to an individual church. On the other hand, you (plural) refers to all of these churches. On occasion you (plural) may also refer to a group of individuals within a church as in Revelation 2:10 (the devil is about to throw some of you into prison); however, the singular consistently points to each church and its attending “angel.” The fact that each church is addressed as the singular you demands that some of the rewards be corporate, or collective.
The letter to the church in Ephesus (Revelation 2:1–7), with its famous declaration that the Ephesian Church had left its first love, warrants consideration. The Lord then explains that repentance and a return to their first works is the remedy. How do we know that He addresses the church rather than just individuals? First, to address the church is to speak to the individuals, though the emphasis is on the church as a unit. Were there no church members in Ephesus who still maintained their first love? Likely there were, though most had abandoned their first love. Second, John’s use of the pronoun you throughout chapters 1–3 treats each church as a collective whole (and Revelation 2:1 and 2:7 explicitly state that the audience is the church). Revelation 1:4 uses the second person plural pronoun: Grace to you and peace. Again, Revelation 1:9 uses the second person plural: I, John, both your brother and companion. In these instances, you refers to the many, since he was addressing all seven churches (1:4). Of course, if John had written to a single church, he would have been expected to address that church with a second person singular pronoun, which is exactly what he does.
Revelation 2:2 begins, I know your [singular] works, your labor, your patience. In fact, John refers to every church in these chapters with the singular form, addressing each church as a single unit. A notable exception is Revelation 2:24, where he shifts to the plural you to address all the individuals in the church of Thyatira.
Does not Christ, in warning each church as a unit, indicate that an individual may receive (or forfeit) reward based on his association with a particular church? In Revelation 2:5 the Lord states that He will remove the church’s lampstand unless there is repentance. Clearly, the lampstand is the possession of the church and not of an individual. The consequence must therefore fall on the whole church, not just upon those individuals who fail to repent. Further, if the church as a whole repents, then the lampstand will remain. Revelation 2:14 shows this corporate accountability, since Christ holds all in the church responsible because some hold the teaching of Balaam.
In Revelation 3:10–11 the Lord states:
Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth. Behold, I am coming quickly! Hold fast what you have, that no one may take your crown.Christ again uses the singular form to refer to the church in Philadelphia. The church corporately was called to persevere, or perhaps more accurately, was commended for already persevering [9] and was promised to be kept from the hour of trial. This church also had a crown (singular) which could possibly be removed.
Finally, in Revelation 3:15–18 the Lord says to the Laodicean church:
I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish that you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. Because you say, “I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked—I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see.The grammar and common sense support the view that the Lord speaks to this church as a whole. Lukewarmness is a corporate disease with a consequence even more severe than the removal of a lampstand: namely, being vomited or spit out of the Lord’s mouth. The warning is to the church, not simply to individuals. The situation comes alive, however, when one sees the Lord’s advice: I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed. . . (3:18).
Again, in this context the counsel is given to a specific local church. The pronouns are singular, and every you points to the corporate whole. The idea of corporate eternal rewards is evident here, since John has stated a few verses earlier that these garments are rewards to be received after this life.
Revelation 3:4–5 states:
You have a few names even in Sardis who have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with Me in white, for they are worthy. He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.Interpreters almost universally affirm that the overcomers will be rewarded in the next life and describe the white garments as a reward for being an overcomer. But applying the meaning of overcomer to individuals ignores the context and reads a subjective opinion into a passage about the church.
Instruction in this passage were given to a specific church, which was rebuked as an entirety and was further instructed to seek a reward. A reward delivered at the Judgment Seat based on one’s affiliation with a church is justly named a corporate reward. Will Christians be rewarded or suffer loss because of the “team” they were on or the affiliations they had? The text strongly suggests it, and it is hoped that the church will rethink the implications of believers’ collective, as well as individual, labors.
Conclusion
The church has mistakenly ignored rewards as a doctrine, largely because it has defined eternal rewards as nothing but eternal existence earned through obedience and holiness (caused by faith). Today’s dominant bias toward individualism tempts readers to infuse every passage with an individualistic meaning, orientation, emphasis, or application.
What would including corporate rewards in today’s teaching and preaching offer Christianity? First, it would offer truth and insight as the saints begin to see the corporate nature of many texts. Second, one’s choice of a church would become a decision of paramount importance for one’s eternal impact and standing. Third, church leaders and members alike could begin to take stock of their church’s anemic condition and renew themselves to follow the Lord’s will with the hope of hearing “well done” together, as well as individually. If rewards matter to Christians personally, they can also matter to Christians corporately. Corporate rewards could be a warning signal and a new motivation to stem the tide Wuthnow describes so well:
Observers of American religion also believe the turn inward has been encouraged by the pluralism and relativism so widely evident in our culture. With a thousand and one different denominations to choose from, it has been easy for many people to conclude that all churches must be alike. Just going to one that you like is the important criterion. But it is an easy step from there, once you become dissatisfied at that church, to say that it doesn’t make much difference whether you attend at all. [10]Notes
- Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from the New King James Version (Nashville: Nelson, 1997).
- Jonathan Edwards, “Justification by Faith Alone,” in The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 4, ed. C. Goen (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1972) [article on-line]; available from http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/justification.htm (accessed March 3, 2005).
- Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed. (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Wesbster, 1996).
- Robert Wuthnow, Sharing the Journey: Support Groups and America’s New Quest for Community (New York: Free, 1994), ix.
- Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), jacket.
- Cleon Rogers, Jr., “The Dionysian Background of Ephesians 5:18, ” BSac 136 (July 1979): 249–57.
- Editor’s Note: An alternate understanding of the passage is that the filling by the Holy Spirit is individual, just as the singing and making melody in the believer’s heart are individual. However, this individual filling also results in quality corporate worship and mutual submission.
- The definition of chronological snobbery is given on p. 13.
- For an alternative view of Revelation 3:10, see John Niemelä, “For You Have Kept My Word: The Grammar of Revelation 3:10 (Part 1),” CTS Journal 6 (January–March 2000): 1–25.
- Wuthnow, Sharing, 39.
No comments:
Post a Comment