By Constant Practice

The Insufficient Salvation of Catholicism, Part IV

2010-12-28T20:43:00.003-07:00

Here is another response to John O’Brien’s expression of the Catholic doctrine of the priesthood:

When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim.

Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man, not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.

Of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest who is thus privileged to act as the ambassador and the vice-gerent of Christ on earth! He continues the essential ministry of Christ: he teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ, he pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ, he offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ offered on Calvary. No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially fond of applying to the priest is that of alter Christus. For the priest is and should be another Christ. (John O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 255-256)

Today I would like to highlight the following phrase:

No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially fond of applying to the priest is that of alter Christus. For the priest is and should be another Christ.

“Another Christ.” Let there be no doubt about Catholic teaching on this point: the priest, by virtue of the fact that he “continues the essential ministry of Christ,” “pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ,” “offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement” as Christ, is to be regarded in his sacramental office as “another Christ.”

Don’t miss this. O’Brien is not just describing the office of priest; he is glorifying it. He starts the last paragraph gushing about the “sublime dignity” of the office; he marvels at the “power” of the priest, which he describes as greater than saints, angels, cherubim, seraphim, and even (from a Catholic, no less!!) the Virgin Mary; and he closes by calling the priest “another Christ.”

I’m not so dense as to conclude that Catholic theology is teaching that the priest’s office and work are the same as that of Jesus. But given O’Brien’s words above, it is impossible to deny that he is giving the priest “glory,” the very glory that Christ has earned for his work, and that the priest then deserves said glory because of his assistance and participation in the work of redemption and salvation.

The Bible, on the other hand, says:

For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it,
for how should my name be profaned?
My glory I will not give to another. (Isaiah 48:11)

In verse 9, just before, he explains that he is withholding judgment for the sake of his praise, so that his glory might not be diminished by his having to destroy his own people. Why is this important? God here declares that he is jealous of his own glory. He will not give it to another. He will not see it diminished or shared. It belongs to him alone, and his very administration of justice in the universe takes his glory as its reference point.

God’s glory is most precious to him, and it is his alone. This is why we worship only one God, not a pantheon, not other men, not nature – only God.

So it is amazing to see the New Testament describe Christ in this way:

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:9-11)

Jesus receives the glory and adoration of all men, every knee in heaven, on earth, and under the earth – spiritual and physical, living and dead. They all acknowledge Him as Lord, and so they should. As the New Testament teaches, he is God incarnate. And it is because of that fact, and that fact alone, that God the Father can share glory with Christ. Since that glory for Christ is worthy because of Jesus’ divinity, that glory redounds to the Father as well, who is God.

Christians have always confessed that Jesus had to be God in order to complete the work of redemption. One of the reasons why, however, is because God will not share his glory with another. Salvation belongs to the Lord (Jonah 2:9), and to no one else. Again, on this point, as in other areas, Catholic theology diminishes the deity of Christ.

No mere man deserves the praise O’Brien gives. No human office can bear the weight of that glory, nor should it. O’Brien robs God of what is exclusively his, according to Scripture, and gives it to men. This is the very essence of unbelief and rebellion against God.

- Jeff Jones

(Cross-posted from Cutting It Straight)

The Insufficient Salvation of Catholicism, Part III

2010-12-25T20:45:00.003-07:00

At long last, we resume! Here is our third installment on the Catholic concept of the priesthood as expressed by John O’Brien:

When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim.

Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man, not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command.

Of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest who is thus privileged to act as the ambassador and the vice-gerent of Christ on earth! He continues the essential ministry of Christ: he teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ, he pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ, he offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ offered on Calvary. No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially fond of applying to the priest is that of alter Christus. For the priest is and should be another Christ. (John O'Brien, The Faith of Millions, 255-256)

Today I would like to highlight the following phrase:

Of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest who is thus privileged to act as the ambassador and the vice-gerent of Christ on earth! He continues the essential ministry of Christ: he teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ, he pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ…

Let’s tease out the implications of this statement. By way of contrast, as usual, we go to the Bible, this time in Mark 2:1-12:

1 And when he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home. 2 And many were gathered together, so that there was no more room, not even at the door. And he was preaching the word to them. 3 And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. 4 And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him, and when they had made an opening, they let down the bed on which the paralytic lay. 5 And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” 6 Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, 7 “Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” 8 And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, “Why do you question these things in your hearts?9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your bed and walk’?10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic—11 “I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home.” 12 And he rose and immediately picked up his bed and went out before them all, so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, “We never saw anything like this!”

Rather than healing the paralytic right away, Jesus forgives his sins. What you need to notice is the indignant reaction of the scribes in verse 7: “Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

The Jews understood the true implications of Jesus’ words. By claiming the authority to forgive sins, he was claiming a divine prerogative. In other words, as the scribes implied in their indignation, no one can forgive sins but God alone. The healing that follows, then, has a point and purpose – to establish the legitimacy of Jesus’ claim to be able to forgive sins, and in so doing to authenticate his own divinity.

So the New Testament teaches that only God can forgive sins, and this is proper. After all, every sin is ultimately a personal affront to God. Every sin, whether it has a human victim or not, is a rejection of God’s rightful authority and holiness. Therefore, while a human being can forgive that aspect of a sin that offends him, he cannot absolve the sin entirely because God is also offended and alone has the power to forgive it completely.

Catholic theology denies this by delegating the authority to forgive sins to a human priest. There is no denying the force or implications of O’Brien’s statement: “he (that is, the priest) pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ”; after all, the priest is the object of the verb pardons. The priest is doing the pardoning, not God. He does so “by the power of Christ,” yes, but that merely reduces Christ to being an instrument. It does not change the essential nature of the act: it is the priest who acts, not Christ; the priest who decides in the individual case, not Christ; the priest who dispenses (or withholds), not Christ; and so, as is evident from O’Brien’s effusive praise, it is the priest who receives the glory, not Christ. (More on that in a later post).

The bottom line here is that Catholic sacramental theology takes a power that belongs to God alone and gives it to a mere, sinful man – along with all the glory that comes with it. In the process, it denies the uniqueness of Christ and diminishes his deity. A human being who claims to have the power to forgive sins, as the Jews rightly objected, blasphemes our Holy God. And so does the Roman Catholic Church.

(Cross-posted from Cutting It Straight)

Slapping Stupidity Between Two Covers

2010-09-14T22:05:00.002-06:00

“Needless to say, The Power is a bad book. A really bad book. It’s so utterly stupid, so unbelievably vapid, that it boggles my mind that anyone could read it and believe it. If you could package foolishness, if you could slap stupidity between two covers, you’d end up with The Power. Read it if you must, but as you do it, you’d better generate some good feelings toward brain cells; you’ll need to attract a few to yourself if you’re to replace all the ones that are sure to die as you give hours of your life to all of this drivel.”

Challies: Book Review - The Power

If you didn’t know:

The Power is the just-released 2010 follow-up [to The Secret] and one that immediately raced to the top of the New York Times list of bestsellers. The problems with the book are too many to catalog in a short review. It is almost mind-boggling how much unsubstantiated and blatantly contradictory nonsense Byrne manages to pack into just 250 pages, many of which contain little more than pictures and out-of-context quotes (from people as diverse as Gandhi and Jesus, Albert Einstein and Dietrich Bonhoeffer).

Oh, and while we’re on that note, the law of attraction just might not be all it’s cracked up to be. The Secret of Rhonda’s Success

Who knew!

When one can’t actually argue for his position…

2010-08-30T22:52:00.002-06:00

… he’ll resort to hypocritical ad hominem attacks. I recently encountered this myself, for actually saying what the Scriptures say, with the authority that the Scriptures say it, consistent with the history of the Christian faith. Those with whom I tried to reason actually tried to define me out of Christianity, presuming that they could invent the religion on their own terms, instead of submitting to the revelation of God in Christ. Indeed, I was actually blocked by two individuals on Facebook – though I never sent them personal messages, and only interacted with their comments in a comment thread in which they volunteered to write. I suppose that is the proverbial shove off the digital cliff… what a day we live in!

Anyway, I mention this because Steve Hays at Triablogue addresses (in his post Brotherly Love) the same sort of personal attack against the T-bloggers, which reads:

To the author of this blog: Wow. Is this what your brand of Christianity teaches you? It is hard to find as many bigoted and intolerant people in the world. Shame to see someone who supposedly calls himself "Christian" going off like you have. It is people like you who give Christians a bad reputation with so many people. I saw the Glenn Beck speech and I thought it was inspiring and his words sincere. Did you see it? Or were you too wrapped up in your own self righteous condemnation of everyone who doesn't follow the exact same tenants as you? If God sends a man like Glenn Beck to hell, then he is not a God of love or a just God, just a spiteful and cruel one. What we need is more brotherly love and unity in finding what unites us, not the kind of acrimony and un-Christian hatred that you displayed in your posting. I know that Mormonism features many tenants that are different from Baptist teachings, but if you look at the heart of what Mormon people feel and believe about Jesus Christ and living the gospel of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", they are essentially the same as those of other people who read and understand the words of Jesus.

Hays responds, in part:

i) Folks who can’t argue for their position fall back on first-shaking adjectives like “hatred,” “intolerance,” and “bigotry.” That tactic won’t work here.
ii) Whether or not Beck is sincere is irrelevant. Sincerity and veracity can lead separate lives, and often do.
iii) The commenter is typically blind to his own intolerance. He’s only tolerant of those who see things his way.
iv) The fact that he’d say God is spiteful and cruel for sending Beck to hell is a good illustration of folks who judge by tone and appearance rather than reality.
v) I’m all for brotherly love. But Beck is not my brother. He’s a lost soul. And he’s recruiting others to his false gospel.
…
viii) ”Do unto others” is not a slogan you can uproot from its Biblical soil and transplant wherever you please. For instance, mob families also live by the golden rule: you kill my boy and I’ll kill yours.

I cite this because the comment to which Hays responds is yet another example of the typical response of the modern pluralist, who proclaims tolerance, yet seethes hatred; who proclaims love, yet pours out insults; who decries exclusive claims, yet in a rather exclusive act condemns those who don’t agree with him.

In the words of Doug Wilson, idolaters are blind.

Make no mistake: one of the dangers facing evangelists is that they may be tempted to fail to communicate to a convert the cost of discipleship. Jesus spared no words. He said that allegiance to Him could get you killed. Thrown off a cliff, as it were. These words are seared into my mind – a servant is not better than his master. That is, since the world hated Jesus, they will hate His followers.

The corollary to the mistake of the evangelist, who fails to tell the convert to count the cost, is the mistake of the convert, who actually fails to count the cost.

If you are faithful to the Gospel, to Jesus, to the word of the cross, you will be personally attacked, you will be called wretched names, you will be called crazy, you will be socially ostracized. Many of those who claim to be tolerant and open-minded will gnash their teeth at you. They will despise you and avoid you. They will charge you with being unloving, despite your desire to see them saved from damnation, while they pour hatred upon you. The ‘open-minded’ of the day will ignore your messages. They will sever contact with you.

And that’s because many are only open-minded insofar as there is no claim made upon them. They are only tolerant insofar as others share that tolerance. And they are only loving insofar as that love rejoices in wrongdoing, and hates the truth.

Thankfully the word of God accomplishes all of His purpose. Because otherwise we would have absolutely no hope.

Careful that love for love does not turn into murderous intent

2010-08-28T15:11:00.001-06:00

Here is an excerpt from a discussion in which I’ve participated, part of which I blogged about here. Read that post first. I’m also discussing these issues at a depth afforded by a written forum. Again, I emphasize that in a normal conversation, one might need to stay a bit closer to the surface. Note that I have removed any names from the discussion, though the discussion is public.

I personally cannot think of a better reason not to seek the love and beauty of Christianity than by reading your responses here. You preach as though you're understanding is absolute. You rant on without have the slightest clue who you're preaching to.

The God I love is love itself. She is compassion, beauty, hope and most of all, love. He does not condemn me, sentence me, punish me, but instead, eternally loves me and holds me close in my time of need. The God I know is not in a bible where only one absolute truth can be gleaned.

I know of no braver and stronger individual than my friend... She is a reflection of God in action and her place in God's love is secure.

I wish you the best... The scripture from Matthew is beautiful.

My interlocutor wrote:

"I personally cannot think of a better reason not to seek the love and beauty of Christianity than by reading your responses here."

Which merely demonstrates that you just do not like God as He has revealed Himself. You like a god on your terms - a god of your own making. And this is turn confirms that my understanding of who I am speaking to is quite accurate: You don't like God, like everyone apart from God's sovereign saving work. Like me before someone told me the life-saving and pride-obliterating truth which I'm retelling to you, which I only accepted because for some reason God decided to open my cold, wicked heart to the truth.

Moreover, I surely wouldn't agree with your understanding of the 'love and beauty of Christianity', which apparently has little to do with the Christianity that Christ established. So I don't think it's a bad thing that MY responses cause people not to seek YOUR version of 'Christianity'. If they did, God help me.
"The God I know is not in a bible where only one absolute truth can be gleaned."
Then we agree that you just don't like Jesus. Which is what Christians expect of people apart from the grace of God.

As for speaking in absolutes, that's the thing about revelation. It provides an epistemological foundation upon which one can know the truth about reality.
Here are the absolute statements that you made in your reply alone.

"The God I love is love itself.”

"You rant on without have the slightest clue who you're preaching to."

"her place in God's love is secure."

I could go on. You preach as though your understanding is absolute.
The problem is that by denying God's self-revelation in the Scriptures, which you do here - "The God I know is not in a bible where only one absolute truth can be gleaned" - means that you reject any foundation upon which you could consistently make such absolute statements. I make absolute statements because they are grounded in God's self-revelation. You are simply saying things that you have made up. Why should I believe them? And why would you presume to challenge me for making an absolute statement when your condemnation of me is piled with absolutes? That seems a bit hypocritical. On what ground do you suppose that what you have said is more than just your opinion? My intuition tells me that you're wrong. Why do you claim that your intuition is absolute truth and mine isn't? And if you don't intend to make this claim, then you admit that what you say isn't binding on me, or anyone else. So why did you say it?

Another observation:

"I personally cannot think of a better reason not to seek the love and beauty of Christianity than by reading your responses here. You preach as though you're understanding is absolute."

This is an interesting statement. Apparently the goal is to get people to seek the 'love and beauty of Christianity'. Yet, speaking with absolutes doesn't do this. But making an absolute claim is really the only way to communicate the 'love and beauty of Christianity'. Otherwise, you're can't say it's true at all. So the only way to communicate the love and beauty of Christianity is to say that the love and beauty of Christianity may not really exist - 'I don't really know, it just feels good!'.

Unless, of course, the thought is that you should only say those things about Christianity which are nice to hear. But that's hardly credible, for Christianity, from both a redemptive historical and a systematic point of view cannot be carved into hermetically sealed chunks.

Not to mention such a perspective puts one into the category of those who tried to throw Jesus over a cliff in Luke 4. 'Love for love' can quickly turn into murderous intent.

Luke 4:21-29
21 And he began to say to them, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." 22 And all spoke well of him and marveled at the gracious words that were coming from his mouth. And they said, "Is not this Joseph's son?" 23 And he said to them, "Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, 'Physician, heal yourself.' What we have heard you did at Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well." 24 And he said, "Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his hometown. 25 But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land, 26 and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. 27 And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian." 28 When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. 29 And they rose up and drove him out of the town and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff.

Notice that others want me to speak nice, kind, gracious words, according to their terms. That's what those in Jesus' hometown wanted. "22 And all spoke well of him and marveled at the gracious words that were coming from his mouth." That's a tempting thing, the applause of men. But Jesus goes on to say some things that they just don't like to hear, such as God's refusal to assist starving widows in Israel, while he fed a Sidonian! So what do they do to Jesus? They quickly become enraged. The 'love and beauty of Christianity' does not come on their terms, so, "When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. And they rose up and drove him out of the town and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff."

All in the family

2010-08-28T15:06:00.001-06:00

One of the consequences of liberalism, modernism, and post-modernism has been the rise of religious pluralism even in the churches. Here is a recent conversation in which I participated, which serves as a tragic illustration of the sort of ‘lostness’ endemic among us. I hope my analysis might prove helpful to others. Obviously in a written forum one can go into more detail; I would suggest distilling this significantly in conversation. Stick to basic exegesis of the text of Scripture, and keep the main point in view. This conversation shows some of the contemporary difficulties evangelists face in presenting the truth claims of the Gospel.

I wonder...you have so much to say about scripture....and the Christian Faith...sometimes knowing ABOUT God is much different than knowing God....love is ALWAYS a subjective experience....one of the heart...not singularly the intellect..."

Regarding your comment on knowing about God versus knowing God: This seems to be operating on the odd presupposition that the more someone knows about God, the less he probably actually knows or has relationship with God. I mean, you haven't seen whether I live in accord with my profession. You just simply assume that I probably lack relational knowledge of God - but on what ground? Because I know things about the Scriptures, and I'm willing to say them whether people take offense or not? That's the implication of what you're saying. So the more I know about what God has said, the less I probably know God. How does that thinking make sense? The Psalmist treasures God's word in his heart, and Jesus said that it is those who abide in His word who are truly his disciples (John 8:31). His sheep know His voice, and they follow Him (John 10). The list goes on. In Scripture, knowing what God's word says is not a bad thing. It's absurd to think that you can know someone without knowing something about him. And to the degree that you don't know about a person, that will hinder your ability to know him. Cognitive knowledge isn't sufficient, to be sure, but it is necessary. The question becomes whether my life is consistent with my profession - does my life show that I am born again? - and to know whether someone's actions are consistent with his profession, you'd have to see how he lives. Without a solid profession, one isn't a Christian. But with a solid profession, it becomes a matter of fruit-bearing. And unless you can rightly assess fruitfulness, your artificial dichotomy has no support. It may feel good to frame things this way, but it's self-deceptive to belittle knowing about God. It may give you an out, but beware of being hoodwinked. Those who love God want to learn as much as they possibly can about who He is as He has revealed Himself. They want to know what God says about Himself. For example, "Great are the works of the Lord, studied by all who delight in them." (Ps. 111:2) Apparently you aren't really considering whether this could be my motive. And don't misunderstand - I'm not saying this in defence of myself. I am saying it because it has bearing on your revelation-diminishing perspective.

Keep in mind that even if I am a raging hypocrite, that's MY problem, not YOUR excuse. If what I say is true, irrespective of my own personal state, you have to submit to it, not because it's from me, but because it is the truth. No one will hide behind another's hypocrisy on judgment day.

"Like I said...I used to believe in the exclusivity of Christ...I just have a hard time believing that at this point...I also need to trust that God loves me in my frail faith and is not going to keep me on the wrong side of His gates because I struggle with this...that would be like a parent kicking their teen out because they asked questions...problem's not with the teen for asking questions...but with the parent..for not loving unconditionally.."

I can't say whether Jesus is his only revelation...I used to say that...but just can't anymore...having been so trashed by those who say they are the only one's who have a line to the true Father through Christ.....

Second, and I say this because (1) most people won't; and (2) I fear for you. I don't think you know how profoundly rebellious this comment really is: "Like I said...I used to believe in the exclusivity of Christ...I just have a hard time believing that at this point...I also need to trust that God loves me in my frail faith and is not going to keep me on the wrong side of His gates because I struggle with this...that would be like a parent kicking their teen out because they asked questions...problem's not with the teen for asking questions...but with the parent..for not loving unconditionally.."

You're simply presuming that you have a familial relationship with God. Yet God has made adoption into His family conditioned upon relationship with Christ alone (John 1:12-13). It's those who receive Jesus who have the right to become children of God. You can't presume on the familial relation with God if you do not have the legal problem rectified first - and our legal problem is dealt with at the cross and applied by truly believing in Jesus, by believing in His substitutionary death and resurrection, and by God counting us as righteous through faith. But when you deny that Jesus is the exclusive way, you're showing that you do not believe Him and His work. If you did, you would see that it is necessary for salvation. So you do not have the right to presume on a familial relationship with God. I don't like having to say this, but you're in grave danger here.

You have great reason to question whether you've received Jesus, because you explicitly disbelieve what He says. Your metaphor pictures an inquisitive teen. Putting aside the presumption that you're in God's family, the reality is that you're not wondering HOW something works; you're denying something, namely, that Christ is the exclusive way to salvation, precisely because you understand what this means - that everyone who doesn't believe stands condemned. It's not that you don't get that or understand it, it's that you don't like it. This isn't merely inquisitive. It's rebellious. God is Father of His children, but He is also King, Judge, Creator. Those who are not counted righteous in Christ are enemies of God.

If you knew God, you would never even think of impugning God's character by saying, "the problem is with the parent for not loving unconditionally". You define love the way you want it, and then you condemn God if He doesn't match up to your standard. That's the epitome of the clay talking back to the Potter. You turn things upside down. That's rebellion. For if you loved God, you would bow the knee, no matter how He chooses to express His love.

Please, consider what you're saying. You are defining God the way you want Him, and rejecting the parts you don't like. That's by definition idolatry. A rejection of God.

Jesus spoke to some people who apparently believed in Him, but they didn't like everything that He had to say. Jesus wasn't fooled (John 8:31-33). He tells them: "But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”" If you do not believe what Jesus said about Him being the exclusive way to the Father, Jesus Himself says that you are actually not of God. That's what these Jews here were doing - they were assuming that they would be ok without Jesus, while denying that Jesus was the only way: "31 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” 33 They answered him, “We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, ‘You will become free’?”" They were, like you, presuming that they were in God's family.

Jesus says that to reject God's word, to reject Jesus' words, means you're of the devil. It means that your father isn't God, it's Satan. "Because I tell the truth, you do not believe me." That's Jesus speaking. Not me. I didn't make this up. Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him." You need to be in God's family on His terms - otherwise, you're in a very different family

Can you bear to hear God's word? Check yourself at this point, because it doesn't look like you can. Jesus says that your perspective puts you in grave danger: "But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me." These Jews He spoke to here presumed that they were in God's family just because they were Jews. But Jesus defines God's family as those who believe what Jesus says and abide in His word. And sadly that just isn't where you stand. And you would even blame God for not receiving you! I'm not saying this to hurt you, but to call you to repent and believe Jesus for your sake. Jesus extends an offer of mercy. You need to embrace it. But you need to embrace it on God's terms, not your own. It's not a plea bargain or a conditional surrender. You need to bow the knee, put your hand over your mouth, listen to Jesus, and wholeheartedly trust Him.

"Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

"well, then, I guess I am in rebellion...
I'm wondering if you work...
Thanks for taking the time to try to save my soul.
I have been a "good girl' all my life, and tried so hard to follow the Christian way.
I'm just tired now,
and God knows....

and if I am not of God...well...I've done my best in my life to be of Him...
now...
well...we'll see."

“28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Jesus, Matthew 11:28-30).

As an addendum, it would seem that my interlocutor doesn’t actually understand Christianity, that being found to be pleasing to God does not involve working for God, but receiving from God. Also, being “of God”, in a Johannine context, basically refers to being born again from above. “I’ve done my best in my life to be of Him” seems to misunderstand at a fundamental level how one becomes of God – and it is not by doing and trying:

John 3:5-8
5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Even though the offer of salvation is a free gift, people do not by nature want to receive it.

The Religion of Peace

2009-10-19T07:01:00.001-06:00

Awww.... that's so cute!

The 17-year-old winner of a Qur'an recital and general knowledge competition organised by al Shabaab rebels in Southern Somalia got an AK-47 gun, two hand grenades, a computer and an anti-tank mine as prizes.

The runner-up in the month-long competition aimed at 10-25 year olds, a 22-year-old, received an AK-47 and ammunition at the ceremony, where the rebels urged parents to allow children to learn how to handle weapons and fight against the enemy.

You just can't make this stuff up!

Bottom line - compare this with the words of Jesus Christ:

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” (John 18:36)

Therefore, as the Apostle Paul put it:

3 For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. 5 We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, 6 being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete. (2 Corinthians 10:3-6)

Our weapon is the "Sword of the Spirit," which is the Word of God (Ephesians 6:17). Our weapon saves people.

(Cross-posted from Cutting It Straight)

The Insufficient Salvation of Catholicism, Part II

2009-10-12T21:14:00.002-06:00

I return to the quote from John O’Brien on the Catholic priesthood that James White posted some time ago:

When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim.
Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man, not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.
Of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest who is thus privileged to act as the ambassador and the vice-gerent of Christ on earth! He continues the essential ministry of Christ: he teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ, he pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ, he offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ offered on Calvary. No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially fond of applying to the priest is that of alter Christus. For the priest is and should be another Christ. (John O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 255-256)

Today I would like to highlight the following phrases:

…. he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar… The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.

We already saw that this notion of a “re-presentation” of Christ’s sacrifice is a denial of the sufficiency and power of Christ’s atonement, and goes against biblical teaching. Now let’s focus on the notion that the glorified Christ would bow “in humble obedience” to any man’s command.

The Bible says this about what has happened to Christ since his resurrection and glorification, by contrast:

8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:8-11)

Don’t miss what Paul is saying:

1) Christ bows to no man; every knee bows to him. No exceptions, Catholic priests included – every knee in heaven and on earth and under the earth; saved and lost, living and dead. Our Lord is LORD: He bows to no man.

2) And every tongue will confess He is Lord! a far cry from the confession given above, that places the priest as not just “another Christ” – as if this were not blasphemous enough – but actually as one to whose tongue Christ allegedly submits.

As Nebuchadnezzar, under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, confessed:

34 At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever,

for his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
and his kingdom endures from generation to generation;
35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing,
and he does according to his will among the host of heaven
and among the inhabitants of the earth;
and none can stay his hand
or say to him, “What have you done?” (Daniel 4:34-37)

I cannot state this strongly enough: what O’Brien says above, what Catholic theology truly teaches about the Mass and the priest’s role, is the worst kind of blasphemous and damning heresy there is. This teaching is anathema.

(Jeff Jones; cross-posted from my own blog, originally dated 24 September)

The Insufficient Salvation of Catholicism, Part I

2009-09-28T19:32:00.000-06:00

This was originally posted last week on my new blog, Cutting It Straight.
----------------------------

There is a trend nowadays, an ecumenical trend, among evangelical Protestants to look at the Roman Catholic Church as “just another denomination” – one with a pope and a bunch of funny rituals and odd outfits, but another Christian body nonetheless.

This attitude arises from a lack of familiarity either with the true Gospel, or with the real nature of Catholic teaching. I came across a quote on James White’s blog recently and thought it worth reproducing in its entirety for everyone’s benefit:

When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim.
Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man, not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command.
Of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest who is thus privileged to act as the ambassador and the vice-gerent of Christ on earth! He continues the essential ministry of Christ: he teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ, he pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ, he offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ offered on Calvary. No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially fond of applying to the priest is that of alter Christus. For the priest is and should be another Christ. (John O'Brien, The Faith of Millions, 255-256)

I will be dealing with this text over the next several days in a series of posts. Let’s compare this with Scripture, issue by issue:

1) he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man.

The Bible, on the other hand, says:

1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

5 Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said,

“Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,
but a body have you prepared for me;
6 in burnt offerings and sin offerings
you have taken no pleasure.
7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God,
as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’”

8 When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), 9 then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. 10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. (Hebrews 10:1-13)

Hebrews speaks for itself. The essential difference between the sacrifices of the Old Covenant and the sacrifice of Christ is that Christ’s was once for all. It is precisely because the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin that those sacrifices had to be offered again and again. Because Christ’s sacrifice can take away sins, it need only be offered once.

Catholic theology holds that Christ’s sacrifice is not sufficient in and of itself; rather, like the Old Covenant sacrifices, it needs to be offered repeatedly.

So no Catholic can say, with Paul:

1 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 3 More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.

6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Paul speaks of this justification and this reconciliation as being complete. Only if Christ’s sacrifice is complete and once for all is this even possible.

The Purpose of Prayer

2009-08-16T23:00:00.002-06:00

This post dates back to August 10, 2005, and continued my series (reproduced previously here) attacking the Word of Faith movement. Five years and a graduate degree in theology later, I've even less respect and time for the "Faith" movement now than I did back then, and that wasn't much. As John said of another group of outright heretics, such are deceivers and antichrists, and as they do not abide in the teaching of Christ, show that they do not have God. I hope this is beneficial still today.

What is prayer for?

Many Christians seem to regard prayer as a religious formula for getting what they want. The Word-Faith movement, in particular, views prayer as a formula to "make real" personal desires for health, wealth, and happiness. To a Word-Faith believer, prayer is essentially a spiritual "order form" where you "speak into existence" those things you want or need - provided, of course, that you have strong enough faith and that you don't "cancel" the process by making a "negative confession."

This is a very self-centred way to look at prayer. Assuredly, that is not how God looks at prayer.

Even many orthodox Christians don't have a disciplined prayer life. I have to confess that I personally have a lot to work on in this area, as well. Many of us find ourselves swept away by the cares and concerns of worldly life, and remember to pray only when things go wrong or we begin to worry. Consequently, we often treat prayer as a "Batphone" to call for help. Sadly, I've noticed that in my own prayer life, I often fall into this trap.

So what is a Biblical view of prayer and its purpose?

Consider the Lord’s prayer. How does it start? "Pray then like this: 'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.'" (Matthew 6:9-10)

Look also how Christ starts His great prayer in John 17:1-5: When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed."

The first thing Jesus does in these prayers is to praise and glorify God: "hallowed be your name," "that the Son may glorify you." Now, consider the words of Paul: "To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling and may fulfill every resolve for good and every work of faith by his power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ." (2 Thessalonians 1:11-12)

The first purpose of prayer is the same as our first purpose in life: to glorify God! Any request in prayer that does not have God and His glory as its object cannot be described as a prayer of faith. Look at Hezekiah’s prayer in 2 Kings 19 – in verse 19, he prays: "So now, O LORD our God, save us, please, from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you, O LORD, are God alone." God answered Hezekiah’s prayer, and the result – the destruction of the Assyrian forces – glorified God, not Hezekiah.

There are other purposes for prayer: to grow closer with God, to express our feelings to Him, to intercede for others, etc. Ultimately, all these things, properly done, glorify God. And so, if we are to ask God to listen favourably to our prayers, we must first ensure that they have God’s glorification as their object. Ask yourself: "Will what I’m asking God for glorify and increase God and His Kingdom, or is it primarily for my own benefit?"

I don't mean "ask for things that glorify God - because it'll make Him more inclined to say yes." Trying to "glorify" God as a means to our own ends is still selfishness - and that doesn't glorify God in anyway. No, God's glory is an end in itself. God doesn't have to give to be glorified - our honour for Him is NEVER bought, it is demanded by His holiness. We should humbly pray, asking that God be glorified, and know that even if He doesn't give what we request, He is still glorified in our humility before and dependence upon Him.

So what about God’s reasons for rejecting our requests? Is it only because of our own failings that He says no?

Previously, we looked at lack of faith and sin in people's lives in relation to prayer. We saw that even prayers of people of great faith are sometimes turned down, and calamities befall people who didn't do anything to directly deserve it.

So, what of God’s sovereignty?

God said to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." (Romans 9:15 - see Exodus 33:19) Paul also notes that "So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills." (Romans 9:18) In his rebuke of Job (Job 38-41) God speaks of His sovereign power, proclaiming that He alone rules the earth and that Job, a mere man, has no place to question Him. Job’s response is very instructive: "I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. 'Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?' Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know." (Job 42:2-3)

The overwhelming testimony of Scripture speaks of a Sovereign, Almighty God who answers to no one, who rules the earth, heavens and everything within them unquestionably and absolutely, who causes to happen whatever He wills, who cannot be thwarted, and to whom we owe everything. Our prayers to Him are worship.

And if prayer is worship, as indeed our whole lives are called to be worship, then there can be no entitlement - save only God's entitlement to our prayers and worship. Prayer is never, ever a demand or claim. Demands and claims assume that the one who demands or claims somehow has a "right" to what he seeks. A demand presumes one's entitlement to what is demanded. And what are we entitled to? What do we have, that God did not give us? What could we possibly deserve from God? In what way is He indebted to us?

Again, God owes us one thing, and one thing only: judgment and eternal punishment for our sinfulness. The only reason he spares some from their deserved fate is because of His love and mercy, through Christ's sacrifice at the Cross.

God owns us, and is entitled to do what he wills with us (Romans 9:19-21), and we have no place to question God’s purposes.

Therefore, God reserves the right to say "no" without explaining why. We may never know why He does not answer prayers that seem perfectly reasonable and God-honouring to us. But that is His sovereign prerogative. To deny that – to state that God must give us what we ask for, as long as we ask it properly – is to deny His Lordship over us. That is rebellion, and that is blasphemous.

Our hope and assurance is rooted in God’s perfection, and in the perfection of His will. God’s plan is perfect, and so we can trust Him that no matter what, God "works all things according to the counsel of his will." (Ephesians 1:11)

(Jeff Jones)

Pool of Siloam Found in Jerusalem

2009-06-22T22:55:00.002-06:00

We continue our series of criticism of the heretical Word-Faith movement with this post, originally written Tuesday, August 9, 2005. I've done some light editing since then for format.

____________________________________________

Again, archaeologists have confirmed details of the Biblical record! A sewer line repair team in Jerusalem found the Pool of Siloam last fall and called in archaeologists to take a look. You can read more here.

The Gospel of John records an incident that took place here:

As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him. 4We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world." Having said these things, he spat on the ground and made mud with the saliva. Then he anointed the man's eyes with the mud and said to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam" (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing. (John 9:1-7)

In typical fashion, secular scholarship had belittled John's story as merely a moral lesson with no basis in fact, saying there was no proof that the place even existed.

I'll also take the chance to tie this story into my running assault on the Word-Faith movement. Their doctrine of "positive confession" holds that if one says or believes negative things about one's own circumstances, this gives Satan the opportunity to move into one's life and cause evil (disease, financial difficulty, etc.) to happen. In short, the Word-Faith movement believes that Christians have a "right" to physical health, and that therefore no one should be sick. Illness is evidence of a lack of faith. Some even deny sickness exists, dismissing illness as merely a "spiritual symptom" sent by Satan to trick the believer into making a negative confession and thus open the door to a spiritual attack.

It's easy to see where this doctrine leads. Real, physical ailments are dismissed as a lack of faith, and often a trip to the doctor is seen by members of this movement as a "negative confession." The consequences of the Word-Faith movement's heretical theology has been deadly at times, as several people have died in the last twenty years by refusing treatment for sickness. If you doubt me, find and read the heartbreaking book "We Let Our Son Die," by Larry Parker (Harvest House, 1980, ISBN 0890812195). It's out of print, unfortunately, but it's a chilling account by a father who withheld insulin from his diabetic son thinking that such an act would be a lack of faith and prevent true healing.

See, the story at the Pool of Siloam utterly refutes the Word-Faith notion that human sickness and suffering is a direct result of one's own lack of faith. Jesus answers his disciples' questions by declaring that the blind man could not see because it was the Father's will that he be blind. God used the blind man as a means of demonstrating His glory and ownership over all creation, as well as Jesus' authority over even injury and disease. Now, we must recognize, of course, that all sickness and pain in the world is ultimately the result of the curse of the Fall, and thus of human sinfulness, but the Bible is abundantly clear that individual calamities are not always punishment. (Needless to say, Word-Faith teachers have a lot of trouble with the book of Job, and not many positive things to say about him).

John, in His Gospel, paints a clear and unavoidable picture of God's absolute sovereignty over all things. The Pool of Siloam was one of the stages for this glorious story. Praise be to God that this stage has been uncovered once more, and that those who oppose His Word have been humbled yet again.

(by Jeff Jones)

Prayer and the State of One's Heart

2009-06-19T17:20:00.005-06:00

This is the third in a series of posts brought here from my old blog, addressing the false teaching of the Word-Faith movement. This was originally posted August 9, 2005.
__________________________________________

How does the state of our hearts affect prayer? What factors in our lives are spoken of in the Bible as having an effect on prayer, besides faith? Though not exhaustive, here are a few thoughts to ponder.

One thing to consider when approaching Almighty God in prayer is our motive:

You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions. (James 4:2-3)

If there is one way to waste our time in prayer, it is by asking for things we have no need for. God did not create us for our own pleasure, or to glorify ourselves; He created us to glorify Him, in fellowship with and service to Him. No matter what the Word-Faith teachers claim, God is not glorified when we ask for Rolls-Royces for ourselves when a Chevy will do; He is not glorified when we build expansive houses for ourselves when others shiver in the streets. As James said, "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world." (James 1:27)

The Word-Faith idea that God will give us anything we want, because He is glorified in our earthly prosperity, is one that has become far more popular in the evangelical church over the past couple of decades. According to this view, God wants us to be materially successful, because we are the "King's Kids," and we are entitled to such benefits by virtue of our faith. As such, earthly blessings beyond measure are available to us - if we only claim what is rightfully ours! And so Word-Faith teachers and churches focus overwhelmingly on "positive confession" - that is, declaring with confidence that one will receive what he wants, and avoiding any negative thoughts or words about the matter. And many of the leading lights of this movement are incredibly wealthy (due primarily to the so-called "seed" offerings of their followers) and flaunt their wealth in their lifestyles and sermons.

But this greedy and materialistic worldview reduces God to the level of a cosmic vending machine, spitting out the tokens we want if we put in the appropriate number of "faith-filled words." In this view, God serves us, not the other way around. Many Christians do seek material wealth out of an honest desire to do good with it, but in far too many cases it turns out to be a subtle trap of the devil. Because of our sinful nature, it is far too easy to make that pursuit of success our god, instead of focusing on glorifying God Himself.

Another motive that offends God in prayer is pride:

"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you." (Matthew 6:5-6)

and:

He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.' But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted." (Luke 18:9-14)

In these two examples, Jesus heavily criticized those who pray for appearances. The Pharisees, Sadducees, and other religious leaders of His day made a habit of flaunting their piety. Jesus challenged His followers to be different. Praying in public can be edifying to others (1 Corinthians 14:13-17) but if done as a "show" to others, then our focus is no longer on God but on ourselves. And that is idolatry.

The second example also points to a self-righteousness in prayer. None of us deserves to call himself righteous before God; we are all sinners. God seeks humility in His children (Luke 7:7-10). Righteousness is our duty - that is, something expected of us; we deserve no special recognition or reward for doing what is simply our duty. And because, as sinners, we cannot even be righteous of our own ability, we should be all the more humble before Him who credits His own righteousness to us!

Besides our attitudes towards God, material things, and ourselves, our relationships with others have an impact on the state of our hearts – and thus on our prayer lives. Jesus told His disciples: "And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses." (Mark 11:25) We are to forgive others their sins – as the passage in the Lord’s Prayer affirms: "...and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors." (Matthew 6:12) Our relationship with God centres around his forgiveness of our sins, and God expects us to forgive others in the same way. If we do not, on what basis can we expect God to listen to our requests favourably?

One other thought relating to prayer may be found in 1 Peter 4:7: "The end of all things is at hand; therefore be self-controlled and sober-minded for the sake of your prayers." Paul alludes to two important concepts here. Sober-mindedness has to do with the fact that we are called to edify our mind as well as our spirit through prayer (1 Corinthians 14:15). Our mind is a gift from God; our capacity to reason and think is one of the things that sets us apart from the animals, and is part of the "image of God" that we reflect. Our spirits and minds are to be of one accord in worshiping God.

The other concept Paul speaks of in 1 Peter 4:7 is that of self-control, an idea that he, again, spoke of elsewhere in his writings. Paul speaks of self-control being a "fruit of the Spirit":

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. (Galatians 5:22-25)

Here Paul speaks of "walking by the Spirit," an idea that closely parallels the concept of "praying in the Spirit" spoken of in Ephesians 6:18: "...praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints..." Praying in the Spirit is also spoken of in Romans 8:26, 1 Corinthians 14:15, and Jude 20, and essentially means that a Christian who is right with God will be filled with the Holy Spirit, exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit in his or her life. That Christian will naturally seek, in prayer, those things God the Holy Spirit wishes him or her to ask of God the Father.

All of these factors and considerations may be summed up by one short verse, Psalm 34:15: "The eyes of the LORD are toward the righteous and his ears toward their cry." This verse is quoted in 1 Peter 3:12. We are called to righteousness in every aspect of our lives, including in prayer. God listens to the righteous.

And this is why prayer calls for humility: our righteousness, the very reason God listens to us and is inclined toward us, is not our own.

It is His.

(by Jeff Jones)

The Meaning of Christ’s Sufferings for Your Daily Life

2009-06-18T22:45:00.001-06:00

In light of Jeff’s previous posts on health and wealth teaching, I thought that I would share this short excerpt from the rough draft of the Bible Study notes. The study was delivered this evening (on John 19:1-22; and the Pilate’s trial of Jesus), June 18/2009.

_________________________________

John 19:1-2
Then Pilate took Jesus and flogged him. ² And the soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head and arrayed him in a purple robe. ³ They came up to him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" and struck him with their hands.

“The soldiers”; clearly having some license from Pilate to abuse Jesus, rough Him up. They put a ‘crown of thorns’ on Him and mock robe on Him. This crown of thorns probably served two purposes.[1] First, depending on where they got them, the thorns could be 12 inches long, and would be very painful.[2] Second, and this isn’t certain, the spikes are a mock imitation of the ‘radiant corona’, a crown portrayed on ruler’s heads at the time. The spikes represent rays of light (picture the Statue of Liberty). Either way, the point of the crown is to mock Jesus.

See, the soldiers are playing their twisted, vulgar games. They would play a game of “mock king,” scratchings of which are preserved on the stone pavement of the fortress of Antonia. Philo and other literature attest this game.[3] Mark describes it this way (Mark 15:18-19): “¹⁸And they began to salute him, "Hail, King of the Jews!" ¹⁹And they were striking his head with a reed and spitting on him and kneeling down in homage to him.” See, whenever they would go to bow down before the prisoner they would substitute a gift or kiss with a punch to the face.[4] Even the way they say, “Hail, king of the Jews” is formed in such a way that would only be used to address inferiors.[5] That is, it’s even phrased to deny that he’s a king.

Isaiah 50:6-7
I gave my back to those who strike, and my cheeks to those who pull out the beard; I hid not my face from disgrace and spitting. But the Lord GOD helps me; therefore I have not been disgraced; therefore I have set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be put to shame.

…

There is one particular application that I want to make from this [the mockery and abuse of Jesus Christ] . It is very important for our time.

1 Peter 2:20-21
… if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.

Christ left you an example. For what? So that believers might follow in His steps; Steps of suffering, a road of sorrows, of mockery, pain, suffering, reviling, and hatred from the world.

1 Peter 4:1
Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same way of thinking, for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin…

In context, Peter refers back to 1 Peter 3:14-18. The “way of thinking” is to be ready and willing to suffer for good and for righteousness’ sake, and so imitate Christ’s own way when He was reviled and when He suffered. Arm yourself with this way of thinking. Why? Because suffering for the sake of Christ cuts off the ‘nerve centre of sin’. This is why it is necessary. It isn’t optional. And in our day, when preachers will proclaim that material comfort and prosperity is your calling, this is an especially important message. If you are a child of God, you will suffer. If everything is comfortable for you, biblically speaking, it means that you are an illegitimate son.

1 Peter 4:13; 5:10
4:13 But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. …
5:10 … after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you.

Please take this to heart. It is for the good of your soul:

2 Timothy 2:3
Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.

So set your face as flint, and endure suffering, as Jesus Himself did.

[1] Carson (The Gospel According to John), page 598. The NET notes say, “The crown of thorns was a crown plaited of some thorny material, intended as a mockery of Jesus' "kingship." Traditionally it has been regarded as an additional instrument of torture, but it seems more probable the purpose of the thorns was not necessarily to inflict more physical suffering but to imitate the spikes of the "radiant corona," a type of crown portrayed on ruler's heads on many coins of the period; the spikes on this type of crown represented rays of light pointing outward (the best contemporary illustration is the crown on the head of the Statue of Liberty in New York harbor).” Morris writes that this idea of the crown of thorns is widely accepted, but not proven, and it well could be an instrument of torture (page 700, fn. 5).

[2] Kostenberger (John), page 532.

[3] Kostenberger, page 532.

[4] Morris (The Gospel According to John), page 701. The soldiers probably thought themselves witty, going up and paying homage, and substituting blows for gifts and dutiful presents.

[5] Citing Wallace; Kostenberger, page 532, note 56.

The Relationship of Prayer and Faith

2009-06-17T19:38:00.003-06:00

Last time, I posted an old post from my own blog (which has gone sadly dormant due to my neglect). That post recorded my disgust at a Word-Faith church service. The next day, it was still bothering me, and so I started a running series aiming to take apart the foundational assumptions of the Faith teachers. So here it is, for your edification.

_________________________________

I'm still grumpy about what I witnessed last night, and so I intend to devote a couple of posts to the subject of prayer, and why we don't always receive what we ask for. My aim here is to debunk the Word-Faith movement's doctrine of faith and prayer, in favour of the Biblical model.

In the world we live in, we are often faced with daunting circumstances. Our friends and family get sick. Problems arise at home and at work. Stress, injury, and fatigue take their toll on us. And in the face of these problems, the Bible calls us to prayer:

...do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. (Philippians 4:6)

So why do so many prayers seemingly go unanswered? We pray for sick people, and they still die – many good Christians among them. We pray for success in our endeavours, and they fail miserably. We pray for the salvation of our friends and family, and yet they continue in sin. Doesn’t God hear?

Many say that the reason prayers "fail" is because of a lack of faith on the part of either the person praying, or the person prayed for. Proponents of this view call on Biblical teachings about prayer for support:

"Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." (Mark 11:23-24)

And Jesus answered them, "Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea,' it will happen. And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith." ()
Matthew 21:21-22

Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praise. Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. (James 5:13-16)

So, the first question we must ask is: Do prayers fail for lack of faith?

Yes – they can, and they do. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus, James and others talked of the importance of faith in prayer. James had this to say:

If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways. (James 1:5-8)

Jesus did not perform many miracles in his hometown because of a lack of faith:

...and coming to his hometown he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works?... And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household." And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief. (Matthew 13:54, 57-58)

Mark 6:5, in fact, says Jesus could not do miracles there because of the lack of faith.

(Now, it’s important to point out here that Jesus was not unable to perform miracles, as if the faith of others somehow grants Him power. That is a blasphemous notion - one of the many reasons why the Word-Faith philosophy is heretical. God is NOT dependent on us in any way, unlike what the Word-Faith preachers claim - look at Acts 17:25 for proof. No, Jesus could not reward a lack of faith with a miracle in this case, because it did not suit His purpose.)

The Old Testament also speaks of the importance of faith and trust in God to answer prayer. In 1 Chronicles 5:20, God answers the prayers of the Israelites because of their trust in him.

So does this mean that, like the Word-Faith teachers believe, we can have anything we want, if we have enough faith? Is it true that faith is all that’s required?

Word of Faith adherents, as well as metaphysical cults such as Christian Science, the Unity School of Christianity, and the Mind Sciences would all say yes. But is this a biblical view?

What about Paul? He grappled with a "thorn in the side" for years, begging God in prayer no less than three times to take this affliction away (2 Corinthians 12:7-9). God refused to heal him – because His strength was made perfect in Paul’s weakness. That is to say, not only did it force Paul to rely more heavily on God, but it glorified God by showing His strength in supporting Paul through his trials.

Paul’s companions were by no means exempt from sickness. Timothy suffered from a stomach ailment that, presumably, had been prayed for but not yet healed; Paul prescribed wine for this condition! (1 Timothy 5:23) If faith were all that is required for healing (or any other answer of prayer) then why had the prayers of Paul, perhaps the greatest evangelist of the early church, or Timothy, clearly a man of great faith, been denied? Paul also mentions that he left Trophimus behind sick (2 Timothy 4:20) and mentions the sickness of Epaphroditus, who almost died! (Philippians 2:25-30) Surely a prayer with sufficient faith would have prevented the disease from reaching that point, would it not?

Or consider the following examples from Matthew 26:

And going a little farther [Jesus] fell on his face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will..." Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, "My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done..." So, leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words again. (39, 42, 44)

And going a little farther, he fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, "Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will." (Mark 14:35-36)

Here our Lord is praying to the Father to spare Him the suffering He was to undergo, if it were possible. Of all examples, our Lord and Saviour, the Son of God and God incarnate, Jesus Christ, surely would have been granted His wish – IF faith was all that was required. Who could have perfect faith, if not God Himself? Jesus could have had no less than complete faith in His Father. But God clearly said "no"; Jesus went to the Cross in accordance with His Father’s will.

So, it has been clearly demonstrated that Biblically speaking, "having enough faith" is by no means a guarantee for receiving what we ask for in prayer. God can and will say "no." He is sovereign - meaning, He owns all of Creation and may do what He pleases with it. And this is the very heart of the matter.

The Word-Faith movement would deny God His sovereign right to say no. Just read some of their literature - it's full of "claims" and "demands," declarations that they are entitled to things. But the only thing God owes to any human being, save His own Incarnated Son, is wrath and punishment.

Remember that. When you pray, ask God for things in all humility and thankfulness for the blessings you have already received. NEVER claim or demand, in the blasphemous manner of the Word-Faith movement. Yes, we can approach His throne with confidence - but that is no warrant for such impertinence. Biblical faith, in prayer, is a trust in God to answer according to His will, belief that Jesus' sacrifice has entitled us believers to approach God directly in prayer, and confidence in His power to grant our request - should He so choose.

(by Jeff Jones)

What A Disgusting Message: My First Exposure to the "Faith" Movement

2009-06-15T22:23:00.004-06:00

On August 7, 2005, I had just arrived home from an event hosted by a local church (not my own), and I was "grouchy." I was, in fact, so angry that I wrote an entire post on my blog to vent about the experience. What follows is what I wrote that night.

The whole experience left me with a bad taste in my mouth.

Turns out this event was hosted by one of the two "Word-Faith" churches in the Fredericton area. I didn't know that when I came, but found out upon arrival. As it was free, I decided to stick it out and see how things went.

First, during the worship music time, one of the musicians made a statement to the effect that the "old hymns" aren't great for today's worship. Now, that's intelligent - a hundred years from now, someone might disparage the music you're playing as passe.

I have no objection to writing and singing comtemporary worship music. Even Isaac Watts' great hymns were contemporary in his time, right? But this woman's comments betrayed a lamentable lack of historical awareness. The old hymns and anthems of the church represent a priceless trove of Biblical teaching and commentary. They are a treasure! We don't sing them enough these days - and the results are sad, as much of the music we play in church today is more shallow and simplistic than the Sunday School songs I grew up with. We could use more of the old hymns, I think - maybe the distressing lack of basic Christian theology evident in the church today might be alleviated somewhat.

That was just the beginning, though. The attendees were handed some papers when they came in - a flyer describing the sponsoring church, which included a "Prayer for Salvation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit," another flyer advertising an upcoming event, an offering envelope, and some other documents.

The period of singing ended, and the period of offering began. I say "period," because it took at least half an hour. The male head pastor of the church got up and held up one of the offering envelopes, asking us to turn to the packages we had been given. He declared firmly that the envelope was the most important thing in that package!

Now, anyone familiar with the Word-Faith movement knows its unhealthy obsession with money and "seed" offerings. It isn't called the "Prosperity Gospel" for nothing. But this is the most blatant and sickening statement of the like I have seen or heard. In that same package was a flyer with a "prayer for salvation" (I don't think it was a good prayer, but I'll get to that in a minute, and it's beside the point here) - a prayer that is designed to introduce an unbeliever to a saving faith in Jesus Christ, and yet that pastor dared state that the offering envelope was the most important document?

Absolutely shameful. If you're reading this, and you're not familiar with Word-Faith teachings, this is a great example. This "church" exists to spread the "gospel" of positive confession and worldly wealth, not the Gospel of salvation from sins. At least that's the message I get when the pastor places an offering envelope higher in importance than a salvation message.

The male pastor then handed over to his wife, his "co-pastor," who spoke at length about God's desire to bless us financially and materially, as well as spiritually and physically, and who promised that God WILL return our "seed" offering in blessings to us. Again, a patently unbiblical message. We give not in hopes of being rewarded - this would reduce God to a metaphysical investment package, or worse, a cosmic vending machine! - but in gratitude and humble recognition that everything we have is from Him. We give as a sacrifice - not to earn favour or buy God's affection, or to "plant seed," but as a lesson to ourselves that God deserves the firstfruits of EVERYTHING we do. We give as a regular reminder that God is the source of all blessing.

The last thing that really irked me was reading through the "salvation prayer," and hearing the pastor's call at the end for unbelievers present to be saved. The written prayer simply noted Acts 2:21 and asked Jesus to come into the heart of the one praying and be Lord of their life, followed by the reading of Romans 10:9 and a confession for the reader to state that Jesus was raised from the dead and that He is Lord. It then transitioned into a declaration for the reader that they are now Christians!

What's wrong with this? It misses the entire point of salvation - that is, being saved. What is the reader being saved from? The prayer doesn't say. There is not one mention of sin, or of iniquity, or wickedness, or wrongdoing - certainly no mention of hell and judgment! Not even a mention that Christ died as a sacrifice for sin! The prayer is simply a declaration that Jesus is Lord and then assures its reader that he is "born again."

One cannot put true faith in Christ unless he realizes that he is helpless and lost in sin; that he cannot save himself (again, this helplessness isn't mentioned at all); that Christ died in the place of sinners; and that His righteousness is reckoned to us by way of our faith. The prayer mentions that the reader is now "righteous," but it doesn't say how or why, much less why this is somehow a change from the reader's initial condition!!

You cannot, CANNOT, EVER preach the Gospel without stressing sin and the need for repentance. This "salvation prayer" falls far short of the mark. And sadly, this is not a problem confined to Word-Faith circles - it is endemic to the evangelical church today.

I'm tempted to take back what I wrote above - that offering envelope was probably far more useful than this prayer. Such a "prayer of salvation" runs a serious risk of giving assurance of salvation to a person who never has geniune faith or understanding of Christ.

I left shaking my head and lamenting the condition of the modern church. If this focus on the physical earth and its material blessings and prosperity is to become the norm in the church, and especially if the lack of a coherent Gospel message that induces awareness of personal sinfulness remains our evangelical focus, then we are to be ashamed. No doubt our Lord will hold us to account.

Kyrie eleison...

(by Jeff Jones)

“Human rights”

2009-06-08T21:56:00.001-06:00

Paul Grimmond writes:

There has been a concerted push in recent times for Australia to adopt a human rights charter. It's supposedly designed to ensure that “Australia joins the rest of the enlightened world by enacting comprehensive human rights legislation.” (see: humanrightsact.com.au). It is, of course, anything but a way of ensuring that human rights are preserved in Australia.

The reasons that it would fail are manifold, but the most significant one is raised by Carr in the end of his article. A human rights charter ends up legislating liberalism and allowing no room for conscience. Or in other words, it forces everyone to adopt exactly the same moral position as the authors of the charter.

Carr points out that under current laws, a nurse or doctor with a conscientious objection to performing an abortion is currently allowed not to perform the procedure. However, under the proposed charter, that freedom would be removed. The reason for this is that much of what passes for liberalism is in fact a front for dictatorial autocracy. The move is always from “let's allow these two opinions to co-exist” to “you are no longer welcome in our society if you believe that”.

If you've followed any of the shenanigans with the legal action being pursued by the Anglican Church of Canada against Bible believing pastors and their congregations in New Westminster, you'll know that it works exactly the same way in the church as it does outside. No one's allowing any room for conscientious objection to the Anglican Church of Canada's same sex marriage proposals.

Agreeing with the opposition

Keep reading if you want the Answer to the Problem of Evil

2009-05-15T23:51:00.004-06:00

In light of the last post regarding an inadequate answer to the problem of evil, I thought I would share the answer to the problem of evil.

When someone confronts you with the problem of evil, answer them with the Cross!

Tell them that the same God who permitted the fall is the God who died on the cross to do something about it (Acts 20:28).
Tell them that the same God who allowed all this evil, is the God who will wipe away every tear and make His creation new again (Rev 21:4-5)
Tell them that our God, somehow, will use all this evil for the good of those who love Him (Rom 8:28).

As my professor Michael Horton counsels: the problem of evil cannot be answered philosophically or ontologically, only historically!

Some initial thoughts on Nightline’s ‘Does Satan Exist?’ Face-Off

2009-03-28T15:06:00.003-06:00

I’ve watched part of the Nightline Face-Off Does Satan Exist? For those who don’t know, Mark Driscoll was on the program.

1) The great: Driscoll is repeatedly proclaiming the Gospel. That’s great. He’s arguing that the work of Christ is God’s solution and the victory over evil.

2) The not-so-great: But Driscoll also invoked the free will defence in explaining the origination of evil.

He said that there isn’t virtue without the possibility of vice.

The fundamental problem, if one were to give this some thought, is that God is not capable of vice. He cannot sin (James 1:13; cf. Hebrews 6:18). So, is God virtuous, or not? I take it that all Christians accept (rightly) that God is righteous, good, holy, upright, which is to say, He’s the definition of virtue. (I would also argue that the definition of divine righteousness precludes the possibility of God sinning). So if God is virtuous and yet cannot sin, this immediately undercuts the claim that God gave free will in man because free will is necessary for virtue (here free will is understood as that which includes the genuine actionable possibility of choosing evil, or the ability to choose otherwise), since it is evident that such a notion of free will is not necessary for virtue.

This is an inadequate answer for the problem of evil. Hence, don’t invoke it.

3) The humourous: On another note (and I mention it because I found it funny), Bishop Pearson, in railing against fundamentalism, just enumerated a list of rules that Christians add, in response to Driscoll and Lobert – as if that has any bearing whatsoever on Mark Driscoll! Clearly Pearson had no idea who he is debating. And that doesn’t make for a helpful interaction.

The Story of Jesse's Party

2009-02-19T11:27:00.001-07:00

A: Hey, how is it going?
B: Pretty good! What are you up to?
A: Oh, I’ve just been busy organizing a welcome home party for Jesse.
B: Really? That’s awesome! What do you have planned?
A: Well, everyone in town will be there, we’ll have a massive chocolate cake, get a couple bands to play, and have a dance in the evening. It will be so much fun!
B: Oh... wait a second. I think I am confused. Which Jesse is this for?
A: Jesse, the guy how had lived here years and years ago but then left to devote his life to humanitarian causes. Who were you thinking of?
B: Well, it sounds like the same Jesse– the guy who built the shelter and orphanage in town, did the humanitarian thing and is supposed to be coming back soon.
A: Yeah, we are thinking of the same guy. Why?
B: He would hate that party.
A: What are you talking about?
B: Err... let me take a step back. Did you know him before he left?
A: No, I learned about him afterwards from some people and I’ve looked at a few of the letters he has written and I am a huge fan of his.
B: So he hasn’t directly called you or anything else, right?
A: No... why?
B: Well, I am like you. I haven’t met him or directly talked to him but I’ve read all his letters and some of the stuff his original friends wrote and, quite honestly, he would hate everything about that party.
A: How can you say that? He would love it.
B: First of all, he is deathly allergic to chocolate!
A: Oh, come on, everyone loves chocolate cake and I know he would love it too! It wouldn’t be a party without it.
B: His friends, who wrote a biography about him, talked how he almost died as a kid from a chocolate chip!
A: Oh those are just rumours. That is not for sure.
B: Umm... His friends said he was allergic... why would they lie about it? And anyways, how can you know that he isn’t?
A: They probably just misunderstood what happened or you just heard it wrong. Everyone loves chocolate.
B: I’m not saying that he wouldn’t love chocolate, just that it wouldn’t want his birthday cake made out of it because he couldn’t eat any of it without dying a pretty horrid death!
A: Are you trying to ruin my party?
B: No, no, no, you are taking this the wrong way. It just isn’t what Jesse would like. I don’t want him to be upset with you. And even the fact that you are inviting everyone. Didn’t you hear about why he left town in the first place?
A: Yeah, it was because he wanted to help poor people elsewhere.
B: But there was more to it. He built the homeless shelter and the orphanage and some of the other buildings in this town but even with his work, most of the town drove him off.
A: Okay, now that is not true. Everyone loves him!
B: Look it up yourself! While he was helping out, people got really upset with him because all his volunteer work made them look bad. Then, when he used to hold the outdoor lectures, he almost had a mob go after him after he pointed out how selfish and arrogant they were. They drove him off!
A: I don’t believe you. If that was the case, why do so many people talk about him? Hmm? The town loves him!
B: They obviously haven’t read any of his letters! After he left, he wrote to some of his friends about how superficial and selfish most of the town is. He outright said that he hated how they acted. The whole town is still filled with the same types of people and it is pretty clear that he wouldn’t want to spend his welcome-home evening with them.
A: I’ve read some of his letters and he said nothing like that!
B: ... Okay, give me a second. Here, I have one of his letters in my bag to his friend Jeff, let me just take a look. Errr... yeah, right here: “... glad to see that they haven’t kicked you out yet. That entire town (you and our other friends excluded) is completely messed up. How they act is downright evil.”
A: Jesse would NEVER say that about anyone! How dare you say that!
B: Whoa! I’m just reading what he wrote to his friends. Look for yourself.
A: That is a lie! He would never say that. That letter must be wrong.
B: No, it isn’t. After Jeff got the letter, he copied it a few times and sent it to the rest of his friends. They then made their own copies and passed them around. I wanted to make sure myself, so a year or two ago, I checked my copy against a whole bunch of different ones and they all said the same thing.
A: Maybe Jeff changed it then, because I know Jesse and that is not something he would ever say.
B: Okay, wait a second. Jeff knew him; they were childhood friends. Even the friends Jeff sent the letter to first knew Jesse personally. If Jeff changed it, they would have said something.
A: Well, it got messed up one way or another. I know Jesse.
B: But how?
A: I know him. My friends all talk about him and that is not something that Jesse would say.
B: But your friends didn’t know Jesse personally, right? It is pretty obvious that your friends haven’t read his letters either...
A: Listen, if you can’t be nice about things then just leave. I didn’t ask for your advice anyways. And what does this all matter anyways? You know Jesse one way, I know him another. I just want to focus on how loving he is and celebrate that with the whole town. Can’t we just accept that we are both friends of his and leave this?
B: But you are friends with a person who doesn’t exist and from what you say, you definitely don’t like who he really is. If you read his letters, he talks about how he does love people but he also talks about how he hates those who do wrong and how they deserve to be punished.
A: That is just your interpretation of it. I don’t interpret what he wrote like that.
B: What? How can you interpret him saying those exact words as something else?
A: Like I said, that is just your interpretation. Anyways, I don’t want to talk about this anymore. I have a lot of work left to do to organize the party.
B: But the party is a party you would like, not what he would like. Do you even realize how absurd and asinine that is?

[posted by Warren Rempel]

Eternal life is knowing Jesus

2009-02-08T00:16:00.001-07:00

Apparently Meera felt that this comment was 'disrespectful', so I'm reproducing it here:

Hey Jacinda,

Just a heads up that Warren is very much aware of the idea of faith as knowing God. I'm sure he would agree with every word that I wrote here:

http://alwaysonenote.blogspot.com/2008/10/jesus-is-life.html

"From my study on John 13:33-14:6, delivered October 9, 2008:
Have you ever thought of the absolute and complete ignorance and foolishness of suggesting that someone can have eternal life apart from Christ? To make a statement like this, and I do not think that I am putting it too strongly, is damning. To say, “there is eternal life in Jesus Christ, and there is also eternal life apart from Him” is to completely and profoundly misunderstand the nature of eternal life. Eternal life is to know God, and to know Jesus. Jesus is the life. The quality of this life is whatever it means to know Jesus Christ. The definition of eternal life is to exist in intimate relation and communion with the Truine God. If this is not your idea of eternal life – if your idea of eternal life consists merely in a lack of pain and a lack of suffering and all of your comforts being met, but, like Don Piper in 90 Minutes in Heaven, your idea of heaven is devoid of the intimate knowledge of Jesus Christ, the Lamb who was slain - if your heaven does not have this as its chief all-in-all joy, then whatever you are imagining and whatever you are looking forward to is not eternal life. Joy consists in looking upon God for eternity. I cannot overstate how serious this really is. Jesus is the Way, and the Truth, and the Life, and it could be no other way, for He is the Way precisely because He is the truth and the life, and if it were not so, we would have no hope of eternal life – only misery and loneliness and suffering and vanity. "

So I would point out that our 'religion' is communion with Jesus.

By the way, as a really quick side note - the Bible does say that God hates people. It also never says that God loves every single human being in the same way. To illustrate this point from marriage, Christ doesn't love the rest of the world the same way He loves His bride. Just like a husband shouldn't love other women the same way he loves his wife.

The key idea for reconciling this is federal headship.

Thanks for your clarifying thoughts, though, they were helpful.

The exclusivity of Christ

2009-02-07T22:06:00.001-07:00

"From this point on there will be no turning back. Jesus is not giving his followers the option of simply adding his teaching to their already established religious beliefs. He is not inviting us to use his spiritual insights as a kind of seasoning to perk up our current bland religious diets. There is no room for syncretism, for blending a bit of Jesus with a bit of religious tradition as our path to God. Jesus invites the disciples to unplug from their religious identity so they can be fully engaged in their commitment to his new way.

This call to exclusivity is not unlike a marriage commitment. A single person cannot simply 'add' marriage to their already established life. Marriage, if it is to be properly understood and embraced, changes our lives in profound ways. Jesus does not function like a kind of spiritual consultant that we can hire to help us do a slightly better job in our current religious practices. He is a lover calling us to embrace him in an exclusive, committed, passionate relationship - a relationship with God himself that will make all other affiliations infinitely secondary. (pages 147-148)

...

Jesus intentionally puts all of us in a position of decision. Will we reject all systems of salvation in favor of trusting his irreligious way?" (page 149)

...

"The Bible labels our problem sin, and this is good news, because sin can be straightforwardly dealt with through something called forgiveness." (page 237)

"God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:21)"

"This message is called "the gospel," which means "good news." It is exactly that - good news. God has done the work of saving us from our own sin [egocentricity: self-centred rather than God-centred living (page 238)] and selfishness. He simply asks that we trust him on this - that we have faith in him (John 3:16-17)." (page 240)

Excerpts from The End of Religion, by Bruxy Cavey.

[side note: I do have significant issues with various parts of the book, so this isn't a blanket endorsement.]

...

2009-02-07T16:47:00.001-07:00

John 7:7
The world cannot hate you, but it hates me [Jesus] because I testify about it that its works are evil.

1 Corinthians 15:1-5
1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

1 Timothy 1:15
The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.

Matthew 1:18-21
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. 19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. 20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

Matthew 5:10-12
10 "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 "Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

John 15:18-23
18 "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. 21 But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 Whoever hates me hates my Father also.

James 4:4-5
4 You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. 5 Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, "He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us"?

John 7:7
The world cannot hate you, but it hates me [Jesus] because I testify about it that its works are evil.

Should we respect God-hating idolatry?

2009-02-06T00:22:00.004-07:00

I think Warren has covered some ground on this already. Here's some additional thoughts that I had.

Meera said:

I had the amazing blessing today of being part of a multi-faith workshop held on campus for grad students. It was a panel discussion by 4 of the chaplains (Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian), on their views of the link between academia and faith.
Much of what I know about God, I learned by working at the Multi-faith Chaplains' Centre on campus. One of my closest mentors, Kelly Johnson, was the head chaplain there for the Pentecostal tradition, and another friend/mentor named Paul Verhoef is the Christian Reform chaplain. Both of them are shockingly open-minded (for their respective traditions), and many would consider them liberal thinkers although they would describe themselves as conservative in practice. Paul happened to be the one representing the Christian faith in this panel today.

Just a side note: Speaking generally in theological/religious/spiritual terms, why is 'open-mindedness' a virtue? What if, say, 'open-minded' is really just synonymous with 'undiscerning'?

Something that many people ask is how on earth can so many people who are passionate about their faith's tenets work together when they have different (often exclusive) faith backgrounds?

Why would we want to work together, for one thing? Other religions fundamentally reject the Christ. And they have entirely different goals.

Animism, for example, couldn't care less about researching scientific cures for HIV.

Islam requires the submission of everyone on earth to its teachings. That's not an objective I share. Nor one that I intend to contribute to in any manner.

I certainly won't assent to the Christless presuppositions underneath the idolatrous religions of the world. I love Jesus. He's my King. My God. And He is the only way, demanding complete allegiance, and repentance from all idolatry. (Thankfully, He bestows salvation freely, even giving faith itself).

Not only do the chaplains work together, they have fun together. I could happily sit down and enjoy a cup of tea with Tim Sampson (Buddhist chaplain), and we could chat away. It's based on a mutual respect. Khadijah Chmilovska (Muslim chaplain) said that she believes in order to work together, one must be willing to be broad-minded and recognize that although there may be ways in which your faith differs from someone else's, the other person has every right to believe what they do and to express that belief.

No, people do not have an objective moral right to believe whatever they want. The Christ commands them to believe in Him and to worship the true God, Yahweh, distinct from Allah, etc. alone. That our government may afford a legal right to believe whatever you want (well, as long as you don't really believe it) doesn't at all mean that people have a transcendent moral right to believe what they want. And we know what John (Jesus, if you take this as a continuation of the quote in verse 12) said:

John 3:18
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Moreover, voluntarism is a farce. People don't believe what they choose. They choose according to their beliefs. Belief is involuntary.

And we're culpable for what we believe.

Oren Steinitz(Jewish chaplain) reminded us that not everyone from even his own faith would be able to sit and discuss religion together, and that an orthodox priest may not even be willing to hear what he had to say. This of course exists in all of the faiths. Intolerance is not only present between religions but also within religions. I think one of the things that turns people off of religion is not exclusivity but the disrespect shown between religions so often. How many times has war occurred along religious lines? War on a grand scale as well as on a small scale, between friends. Bruxy Cavey writes:

One could argue that factors like economics, resources, liberty, and land are much greater causes of war. Moreover, why should the truth respect a lie? That's absurd.

"When a Samaritan shows up in the role of hero, all bets are off and all expectations are shattered. The Samaritans were not only considered to be outside of God's covenant people (and therefore no "neighbor" to a Jew), they were ancient enemies." (The End of Religion, p.114)

I want to review Cavey's book at some point now, but let's go over this right now.

Some background: There were two ways to travel to Galilee from Judea; one way was through Samaria. Some people have posed that Jews avoided the region, and while that may be true for the strict Jews, this appears to be speculation. Josephus, the Jewish historian, records that the route through Samaria was faster (a person would not need to cross the Jordan river twice). It may be just as likely that ordinary Jews could not be bothered to make the longer trip. In fact, Josephus records that “it was the custom of the Jews to pass through Samaria when they went up to Jerusalem for the feasts.” (Morris, the Gospel According to John, 225) Moreover, Josephus uses the same expression for “had to” [that is, in John 4] when he says, that “for rapid travel, it was essential to take that route.” (ibid., page 226). But we can see that Jesus traveled through here with purpose, given the events that follow: He doesn’t seem at all to be in a hurry, but rather compelled by divine design to minister beyond Jewish circles. This passage communicates that the salvation that comes in Jesus Christ is for the world, not just the Jews. And it was necessary that this be demonstrated.

A brief history of the Samaritans is helpful. Samaria can refer to a city or the region. In 722-721 B.C., the Assyrians captured the area, and they deported many Jews (2 Kg. 17-18). Those who remained in the area intermarried with the foreigners. Indeed, this is the group who appealed to the Jews in the time of Ezra, when they were rebuilding the temple, saying, “for we worship your God as you do, and we have been sacrificing to him ever since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assyria who brought us here." But the reply is telling, “You have nothing to do with us in building a house to our God; but we alone will build to the LORD, the God of Israel” (Ezra 4:1-4). Around 400 B.C., the people of Samaria built a rival temple on Mount Gerizim. See, the Samaritans rejected the Old Testament, except for the Pentateuch, and there is some evidence that they may have had it in a somewhat modified form. From the Pentateuch, and given that they lacked any further revelation, they concluded that the place of true worship was Mount Gerizim, for reasons that we will not go into now. Now, if you read Deuteronomy you will notice a constant reference to the “the place that the LORD your God will choose, to make his name to dwell there.” (e.g. Deut. 26:2) The Samaritans thought this was Gerizim. So there was a rival idea of where true worship was to take place between the Jews and Samaritans, since the Jews believed (correctly) that worship was in Jerusalem. In the 2^nd century B.C., this temple was destroyed. But the Samaritans still worshiped there.

Jesus is breaking custom in a large way by asking a Samaritan woman for a drink. It is recorded in the Mishnah, which is effectively a rather questionable Jewish commentary on the Old Testament, that “the daughters of the Samaritans are (deemed unclean as) menstruants from their cradle” (Morris, pg. 229) This is a rather pointed way of expressing their ceremonial uncleanliness. Not only so, but some Rabbis even held that to teach a woman the Torah was equivalent to teaching them prostitution, which is a striking concept given that they considered this to be the “greatest good in life.” (Morris, pg 242-243, note 67) Indeed, an ancient prayer that survives today is, “Blessed art thou , O Lord… who hast not made me a woman.” And, they considered speaking with women, even one’s own wife, to be an unhealthy diversion from studying the Torah, which in turn could lead a man to hell (Carson, pg. 227, Pirke Abothe 1:5). Women were considered inferior in every way. So, we can see that Jesus utterly disregards these unscriptural concepts and proceeds into conversation with this person, who is in herself the embodiment of all that should be avoided, especially for a Jewish Rabbi!

Hopefully the context of the time then shows some of the surprise in the woman’s expression, “How is it that you, a JEW, ask for a drink from me, a WOMAN of SAMARIA?” She captures the situation quite well. Samaritans were unclean half-breeds. He was a Jewish man. She was a woman. Hence, the expression, which the ESV opts to render, “For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.” While this is a fair translation, it is not the only possibility. After all, there is evidence that Samaritans and Jews associated, and even ate together (although on Jewish property). Jesus’ disciples were off buying food in a Samaritan town at the very moment! Solid foods did not necessarily transfer uncleanliness, so this is quite understandable (Carson, John, page 217; Morris, page 229, note 13). The issue had to do with the request for a drink. See, Jesus doesn’t have anything to draw water (verse 11), and the well is quite deep. He has to use her utensils, and Jews did not use Samaritan utensils, since this was unclean. Jesus isn’t like other men – where a normal man is made unclean by touching a leper, in so doing Jesus heals him! She has no idea who He is at this point. He seems to her to be only a thirsty Jewish man.

Jesus converses with her gently and firmly: The address, “Woman,” is a polite and affectionate one (perhaps “Madame” is better). So don’t think that He is speaking harshly. But He is holding nothing back. Remember that the Jews and Samaritans were engaged in a rivalry over the place of true worship. The Jews worshiped in Jerusalem, and the Samaritans on Gerizim. Morris points out that this is exemplified in a dialog: “[A man] was going up to Jerusalem to pray. He was walking past a plane tree (by Gerizim) where a Samaritan found him. He said to him, “Where are you going?” He answered, “I am going up to Jerusalem to pray.” The former said, “Would it not be better for you to pray in this blessed mountain rather than in that dunghill?” So this is the theological point of discussion that this woman brings up. Why bring it up? She wants to deflect to a sure theological debate so as to avoid talking about her uncomfortable love-life. It is easier to do that, isn’t it? “While we are on the topic my adultery, what about the true place of worship? Abraham et. al. worshipped here!” It isn’t much fun to have light shining on your sin!

But Jesus does two things here. First, He adamantly sides with the Jews. He tells her that ‘You (Samaritans) worship what you do not know.’ Notice that this says, “what,” it is not just that they do not know who they worship, but that they do not even know what they are doing in terms of their system of worship. The Psalmist says, “In Judah God is known, His name is great in Israel.” (Psalm 76:1). But they do not have the rest of God’s revelation. The Jews do, they were given it (Romans 9:1-5), entrusted with the oracles of God. They know the true Object of worship. The Jews are the vehicle of salvation for the world. Salvation is FROM the Jews. Notice that it is not only FOR the Jews, but comes FROM them. There is no other source of salvation. If one is to be saved, it will be through the salvation that is brought about through the vehicle of the Jewish people, which, as we know, is Jesus of Nazareth. And here He is teaching this salvation to a non-Jew!

Second, Jesus transcends the whole debate. Worship is not a matter of a physical place -- anymore. It is a matter of spirit and truth. Because the nature of God is spirit (this is not saying that God is a spirit), and His essential being is spirit, and not corporeal or physical, and not created, worship must be a matter of spirit, from the inward heart of man, from the spiritual faculty of man. In Christ, who is the true temple or dwelling place of God, there are no physical restrictions on worship, as there were in the old covenant. True children of God may worship God anywhere because the Son of God is their true place of worship, and He dwells with them through the Holy Spirit (John 14:23).

Look very carefully: Jesus says that worship must be in truth. These are not disconnected ideas: The ESV renders this properly by translating it “in spirit and truth.” The word ‘in’ governs both terms, joining them together. Ignorant worship will not do. The Samaritans are the embodiment of ignorance, they worship the One they do not know in the way they do not know, and Jesus is telling this woman that she needs to worship God in spirit, not on Mount Gerizim, and in truth, and not in the pretense of their system of worship. This is the most immediate backdrop of what NOT worshipping in truth looks like. God requires worshipers who worship in spirit and truth; that is, God is concerned with the whom and the how of worship. This is contrasted to both the Jews and the Gentiles. This worship transcends race and geography. And more than that, God is actively seeking these worshipers. His love does not idly sit by, hoping for worshipers. His goodness and mercy pursue true worshipers. Psalm 23:6: “Surely goodness and mercy shall follow [pursue?] me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the house of the LORD forever.” Jesus has used the woman’s evasion to preach the Gospel. She attempts to avoid the topic at hand, but Jesus uses this attempt to reinforce her desperate need – she must worship in spirit and truth, because God is spirit and must be worshiped as He has said. Remember that Jesus taught that one must be born of water and spirit to see and enter the kingdom of heaven. It is necessary that man’s worship comes from a heart indwelled with the Holy Spirit, the living water, and in that way it is done in spirit and truth.

Now, as for us, we do not get to invent our own idea of worship! God must be worshiped for who He truly is and what He has truly done in the manner He has truly specified! So, you should be thinking, I should probably find out what this means. Indeed, seek after God according to His Scriptures. Test yourself, test your presuppositions, test your traditions, and test your actions and your worship and your conceptions by the Scriptures. Discard what is unbiblical. Embrace what is true.

False religions are quite unbiblical.

What are the stereotypes that the story of the Good Samaritan shatters? This story is often quoted as being a reason for getting up off our backsides and helping the poor. But it also directly targets inter-faith dialogue and religious intolerance. Christians are notorious for religious intolerance.

Given the commentary above, this is a bad application of the parable of the good Samaritan, because Jesus Himself confronted the Samaritans about their ignorance of the truth in John 4. He flat out tells this woman:

John 4:21-22
21 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.

Now, would you say to these other religious leaders in the interfaith movement that they have do not know what they are doing, and tell them that salvation comes from the Jews in Christ alone? Would you then point out that the direct contrast to this lack of knowledge is worshiping in "spirit and truth" (one governing pronoun, not in spirit and in truth)?

It might also be noted that people were trying to get out of helping their neighbour by asking what a neighbour is in this parable. That seems more analogous to the deconstructionist tendencies of certain postmodern thinking. For example, if you say, "Stop sinning," one might reply, "What is sin?" Indeed, Jesus is teaching something very concrete here, that you have to know to be in the right.

Continuing...

And it's sad, because we know about this crazy truth, but we're often so rude to other people that they can't hear it. There is a significant difference between friendships that develop an open-minded curiosity about each other's faiths leading to a mutual questioning and potentially a mutual understanding about God, and a friendship where one person knows they're right and the other person is wrong, leading to a power struggle and arrogance in discourse.

This is a tacit denial that true Christians are the light of the world, and unbelievers are walking in darkness. Don't you see that this insults and demeans the work of the Holy Spirit in the church of Christ?

Jesus was advocating for us to realize that we are not always right, and it's not only people from our religion that please God. Rather, there are things we can learn from people in other religions. Does this make Christianity any less true, or Jesus any less of the unique way to forgiveness? No, it means that we must recognize that our understanding of God is meager at best, and although we are privileged to know some things about Him, we cannot assume we know all things.

i. We're definitely not always right theologically, but how is that in any way the subject of discussion in the parable of the Good Samaritan?

ii. No one de facto pleases God. The only ones who are pleasing to God are pleasing to Him in Christ, having been counted righteous through faith in Him with the very righteousness of God.

iii. How do you square learning truth from unbelievers (we're speaking in a spirituo-religious context here) with, say, this?

Ephesians 5:6-10
6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not associate with them; 8 for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light 9 (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), 10 and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord.

Notice the contrast - darkness, light. Or how do you reckon with this?

Ephesians 4:15-18
15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love. 17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.

There is nothing humble about Christians pretending that they do not have the light of the world, and trying to learn truth from those "darkened in their understanding" who are "alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance in them." To suggest otherwise is to call the work of the Spirit in believers an abject failure. True believers have everything to tell the world, which is stuck in darkness and ignorance.

Moreover, that we don't know God exhaustively doesn't mean we don't know Him sufficiently. Besides, it is God who teaches the believer to come to Christ, who gives the believer his faith in the first place, who causes him to obey. This is a major part of the definition of the new covenant promise.

Moving along:

One of the old ideas made new that Paul [V] brought up again is the concept that all truth is God's truth. So when you learn something about science that contradicts your understanding about God, one of those understandings is flawed. You have to be humble enough to accept that it may be your understanding about God, and faithful enough to question that understanding, knowing that God is the one who created the earth and isn't about to lie to you either through science or through the Bible.

I've been discussing this elsewhere. It seriously begs the question to say that God wouldn't lie through science or Scripture: After all, one is theopneustos, God-breathed, wherein every word proves true, and the other is in a regular state of flux. This notion that modern science is inspired is absurd.

Moreover, if you have to reject the actual meaning of the biblical text because of science, there is a much more serious problem here. And those Christians who try to anachrostically adapt the text to fit their 21st century conceptions are committing a gross abuse of God's word.

This idea was echoed by Oren. Khadijah pointed out that for the most part Islamic teachings stick to morality and don't have a lot of common ground with science so there aren't a lot of areas where science contradicts religion. And Tim talked about how Zen Buddhism often embraces contradictions and doesn't see a need to resolve them.

Is this an endorsement of either of these two ideas?

For example, non-contradiction is an element of the character of God. To bring it to a real practical level, we depend on this for our very lives and salvation. If God has no problem with contradiction, He cannot be trusted.

Anyways, it was great to be back there today, I've missed the chaplaincy since I stopped working there and I am always so encouraged by the staff. I definitely believe there was value in hearing from all of the religious teachers today, and I learned something from each of them that instead of breaking down my faith, helped build it up. I believe that if the Church wants to be taken seriously, it has to embrace people not only by gender and race but also by religion, and learn to respect other traditions as having value to contribute also.

What does 'taken seriously' mean? We don't expect to be loved and received by the world. We expect to be hated, to be beaten, to be imprisoned, to be killed, to be rejected, to be scorned and mocked and insulted and considered fools.

So to which one will this happen? Will it happen to the one who embraces different faiths dynamically as he encounters them, looking for common ground and praising the good in them, and respecting them? Or will it happen to the one who proclaims the exclusivity of Christ and the world's desperate need for Him alone, and the damnation of those who follow other false religions?

Please try this: Go to the other faith-leaders in the office. Plea with them to turn from their false gods and believe in Christ Jesus for salvation from their sins; tell them that they do not know what they are doing, and that God has fixed a day when He will judge the world by Jesus Christ, and that if they do not believe in Him, the Son of God, the Christ, who died for sinners and was raised from the dead, and if they do not love Him and call upon Him to be saved, they will receive the fire of judgment and horrid eternal punishment. If they turn to Him, they shall find rest for their souls, eternal satisfaction and joy in Him, and an eternity gazing on the beauty and glory of God.

***

Jacinda said:

Wow, what a great discussion. To all interested I encourage you to listen to The Meeting House podcast on these topics of judgement, Heaven on Earth, Hell, and In the meantime. The series is called Beyond the Grave.
I think that a great point in this series is that we cannot judge others of their salvation. We can assure that Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father, but we cannot assure specific people of how they will be judged. That is not for us to do or even know. Only God has the infinite knowledge needed to judge. Only He can see our hearts AND our actions as well as our motives, minds, etc.

Jacinda, this isn't so much a great point as perhaps a distortion of truth.

First, what do you mean by 'saved?' Salvation entails a lengthy process with several key events, namely, regeneration, justification, which is followed by the process of sanctification.

Second, we certainly can assure people regarding how they will be judged, speaking generally. We can tell people that if they believe in Jesus Christ, believing that He is the Son of God who came in the flesh, who died for the sins of everyone who believes and rose again in victory, and is now judge and lord over all things, then they shall be saved - if they hold fast to the end to Christ. If they love the Lord Jesus Christ, as He is biblically revealed, they will be saved. If they do not, or if they turn from this, they are not, and they will stand condemned.

Third, in terms of specific professing believers: We know a tree by its fruit, as Jesus taught. Consider also John's teaching, wherein he told us how we might recognize false teachers, and false spirits: Notice that he's telling non-apostles to practice this. We are told the condition for salvation - persevering belief, which is abiding in Christ. True belief and a vital (living, nourishing) connection with Christ therein produces fruit as defined by the Scriptures.

The idea that we cannot judge someone's salvation doesn't follow from the fact that we do not know everything - or even if we know very little - if it is true that God has revealed clear conditions for salvation. And He has. If a person fails the condition - for example, belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, that He died and rose from the dead, which manifests in fruit-bearing and belongs to a heart with a supreme affection for Christ and the truth - then we know that this person is not saved. There are times when a believer is backsliding when they may not have cause for assurance. But this isn't to be the normative experience.

Even Paul spoke this way:

Philippians 1:3-7
I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, 4 always in every prayer of mine for you all making my prayer with joy, 5 because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now. 6 And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. 7 It is right for me to feel this way about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel.

Notice that Paul isn't appealing to some specific divine revelation in verse 5-7. He's looking at the conduct of the Philippians: Their continual 'partnership in the gospel', their partaking in grace, etc.

This is the same as with the Colossians. Yet, Paul hadn't been to Colossae when he wrote this:

Colossians 1:3
3 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, 4 since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love that you have for all the saints, 5 because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, 6 which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing--as it also does among you, since the day you heard it and understood the grace of God in truth, 7 just as you learned it from Epaphras our beloved fellow servant. He is a faithful minister of Christ on your behalf 8 and has made known to us your love in the Spirit.

Paul is writing this based on a report from Epaphras regarding the church. He made known to them their love in the Spirit. Paul heard of their faith in Christ and their love for the saints. Paul heard a report of a living faith, and concluded that they do indeed have a "hope laid up" in heaven.

He judged them by their fruit. We can too. If we see a professing believer who lacks fruit, who persists in unrepentant sin, we can tell him that he has no basis for assurance. He must turn to Christ.

Fourth, from a positive perspective, you may be implicitly denying the certainty and perspicuity of God's promises. God expected His people to understand promises that He gave to Jews thousands of years ago. The sword cuts both ways. If we have no way of knowing if a person is not saved, then we have no way of knowing that a person is saved. If the promises are not clear enough to cling to, and the fruit isn't clear enough to identify, how can we know how to be saved, and how can we test ourselves? How can we know when to admonish one another? How can we know to avoid false teachers?

How can we mere humans claim to know everything about the Creator? We should be thankful for the glimpses he gives us of our future in the New heaven and Earth.
His ways are not our ways. His ways are mysterious.

No one claims to know everything about God. That's a straw man. I've never met anyone that claimed that.

But this gets to the issue - sometimes it seems that those who erect this straw man seem to use the transcendence of God to deny His immanence. They use what we do not know of God to trump what God has clearly revealed of Himself.

That things are secret, and others given to us, is clear, and should be enough for Christians.

Deuteronomy 29:29
The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Paul picks up this principle by proclaiming the sufficiency (not exhaustiveness) of Scripture for our lives in 2 Timothy 3:12-17.

God's ways are mysterious in many ways, but they are also clear in others. He has, for example, revealed to us His purposes in the Son of God. Indeed, we trust His purposes when the particulars of a tough situation are unknown to us. We don't know exactly what He is doing everywhere at every time, but we know that He is, as one promise says, working all things for His purpose, i.e. the good of those who love Him, to the glory of God.

But God is also wonderfully predictable. He is a covenant God, a God who keeps His promises. A God who doesn't lie. Who cannot lie. A God who is wonderfully and predictably faithful to every word that He has spoken.

Later, you'll talk about relationship quite a bit, in fairly sentimental terms. But if you're going to relate, you have to know the other party in some degree. Do we know God sufficiently?

(I should note that, up to about the halfway mark in his book, I'm getting the impression that Cavey seems to think that we can know Christ sufficiently and clearly. It's his constant presupposition, in trying to undo religion. He's basing his whole argument on knowing who Jesus is in a very unmysterious manner. Indeed, in very propositional terms. e.g. Jesus is God. And he's said already that God is revealed in the Son. Ergo, you know the Son, you know God. Sufficiently. But maybe he'll change my understanding of his view in the last half of his book... that would, though, undercut his whole thesis.)

So can we trust God's promises or not? Is God so mysterious that He isn't predictably faithful to what He has said? What about the fact that the NT depicts the mystery of God as being revealed, namely, the revelation of God in Jesus Christ? You may well be diminishing this revelation. What if God is really a cosmic fiend, playing games with us? Is He such a mystery that we can't know? If we can't sufficiently know His character, then how can we have any hope? We'd be reduced to the caprice of Allah.

Repeatedly throughout the Old Testament we are told how things look from God's perspective, by the formula, "in the sight of the Lord" and the like.

So I think this 'mystery' is really a cop-out when it is used like this. Ask yourself - do you call things mystery when you do not understand them, assuming that there is no answer, and anyone who might say he has an answer is arrogant? Or,do you go so far as to call things mystery when you do not like then, things that, say, wouldn't gel with North American sensibilities - even when it is quite understandable?

This is a serious question for everyone. Mystery can become a license for godless unholiness in a big hurry.

There is a big difference between confidence in what is sufficiently revealed and speculations about what is not revealed. Determining the difference takes serious biblical study, and whether something has biblical and a reasonable basis determines what form our thinking will take.

I do not think everyone is EVIL. We are God's creation, and His favorite of all His creations. We bear both God's image (not evil) and sinful nature.

i. The Gospel is a command to all men everywhere.

Act 17:30
30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."

The command is to repent. Notice the result of failing to repent. Judgment in righteousness.

This presupposes the wickedness of every single person.

ii. Paul points out that all sinned in Adam's sin.

Romans 5:12-18
12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned-- 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. ...
18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

That "so death spread to all men because all sinned" means "in this way." In what way? In Adam's one sin. That's how death spread. Why? Because all sinned. How is that? Because they all sinned in Adam's sin. I can go into this in further depth if needed.

But the imputation of righteousness depends on this same federal headship, which is why Christ is called the second Adam. We are all damned sinners in Adam because He is our head, our representative. And he rebelled.

iii. Jesus called even His own disciples evil. And He said "no one is good but God."

Matthew 7:11
If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

iv. How sinful are we as individuals? The Bible speaks much on this.

Jeremiah 13:23
Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.

We have seen already that we are all evil by imputation. We are all accustomed to doing evil, since our every intention is evil all the time. Our hearts produce evil, and our desires lure and entice us to wickedness, and we willingly commit wanton evil. We are all accustomed to doing evil. We cannot change our skin color at will, nor can the leopard move or remove his spots. They are part of his being, he was formed that way. We cannot do good. It is impossible for us because evil is our nature. What a horrible plight! And this is not all!

After contrasting a wicked man against a man who trusts in the Lord, Jeremiah makes an assertion about the human heart.

Jeremiah 17:9
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

Do not read this and think that this is a sickness that can recover. The term ‘desperately sick’ means ‘incurable.’ That is the sense to perceive here, as the NASB captures, and the word ‘desperately’ is meant to in the ESV. Our hearts are deceitful, wicked, depraved, and know nothing but evil all the time apart from the work of God to give us a new heart. We are wicked from birth and incurable. We need a transplant.

The Teacher instructed us, in the midst of lamenting over the pointlessness of man, and the evil in the reality that both the righteous and evil meet the same earthly fate, regarding this topic.

Ecclesiastes 9:3
Also, the hearts of the children of man are full of evil, and madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead.

The Old Testament is not the only place that has teaching on evil.

Ephesians 2:1-3
1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience-- 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

I have read statements of faith at many churches that say mankind is ‘marred’ by sin. Such a term may be partially responsible (or representative, at least) for the underestimation of the human condition in most evangelical teaching that I have encountered. Most of it serves to elevate man, and in so doing diminishes God, by explicitly or implicitly reducing the impact of the Biblical teaching on the sinfulness of man, and for the sake of pragmatism and supposed ‘seekers!’

Paul did not say we are ‘marred.’ He summed up our unsaved condition in a single word: Dead. We are not spiritually marred, or hurt, as if we just need “healing.” We need a new heart, we need new life. To be dead in sin is to be unable to respond in any way to good. We cannot produce it – people who are dead in body produce no movement, no breath, nothing. So too is the condition of man apart from Jesus Christ. We are (were) all completely incapable of anything except that which is sin. We are as capable of goodness as a corpse is of life. We are as capable of being wicked as a corpse is of being dead. To be ‘dead’ in sin is, ironically, to ‘live’ in the passions of our flesh, and to follow continually, with our whole faculty of being, the desires that James spoke of. Living in those desires is the mark of spiritual deadness. Everyone who has not received mercy through Jesus Christ is dead together. We have seen that man’s intentions and thoughts are evil all the time. We have seen that we cannot do good any more than the leopard can change his spots. We have seen that we are totally dead in sin - and this is far from an extensive survey of the extent of the wickedness of man as taught by the Bible.

Our whole being has been touched by sin. However, we are not as evil as we could be, for God restrains our sin (cf. Genesis 20:6). We are not nearly as evil as we could be should our natures be left unrestrained: Every good and perfect gift comes from God, including the grace of what lateral (human to human) goodness we express (cf. James 1:16-18). In a sinful state, our problem is vertical evil – that is, our rebellion to God even in the externally morally upright things we do for one another. Serving the creature, but not doing so for the sake of the Creator, who is infinitely more valuable, is worthless and sinful before God. Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin (Romans 14:23).

When it is said that our whole being is touched by sin, it is meant that our mind, spirit, soul, and body are all perverted by sin. There is ample Scripture to demonstrate that all our faculties are affected, such that we are sinful to the core of our being.

The Universality of Sin: To tie things together, we can look to the apostle Paul’s teaching on man’s condition. In the greatest letter ever written, the book of Romans, Paul begins with a multi-chapter dissertation on the evil state of mankind. We find this in chapter 3:

Romans 3:9-18
9 For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they ave become worthless; no one does good, not even one." 13 "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips." 14 "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." 15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 in their paths are ruin and misery, 17 and the way of peace they have not known.", 18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes."

There is no one who has escaped sin. Everyone sins (cf. 2 Chronicles 6:36; 1 Kings 8:46). The language of this passage of Romans is unmistakable. Paul is emphasizing the human condition of sinfulness to demonstrate how, even while we are sinners, Christ justifies the believer through faith. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). The apostle John wrote regarding this:

1 John 1:8
If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

The extent of sin is this – this is the verdict: Every person is sinful, and beyond cure. Every human is dead in transgressions. Apart from God giving us a new heart and breathing into us new life, and causing us to repent and believe, we are doomed to destruction and eternal punishment. The universality of sin is not a new concept. Paul is in fact quoting several Psalms in this passage. There is still more:

Ecclesiastes 7:20
Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.

Psalm 143:2
Enter not into judgment with your servant, for no one living is righteous before you.

Proverbs 20:8-9
8 A king who sits on the throne of judgment winnows [disperse, cast away] all evil with his eyes. 9 Who can say, "I have made my heart pure; I am clean from my sin"?

Isaiah 53:6
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

The Psalmist rightly laments:

Psalm 130:3-4
3 If you, O LORD, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?
4 But with you there is forgiveness, that you may be feared.

We are in a lot of trouble. Unless God forgives us, we cannot stand before Him. Take note that forgiveness is granted that God may be feared. He does not forgive us as an end in itself for our sake, but for His name’s sake (cf. Psalm 25:11; 31:3; 79:9; 106:8; 143:11; Isaiah 48:9; 1 John 2:12; Romans 1:5, etc). That concept is not remotely in question.

So why is it that a North American Christian thinks that he can overturn 2000 years of church history and biblical teaching? Christians since the earliest time have recognized that every human being is evil by nature.

Jesus Himself taught this. The apostles taught this. The command for everyone everywhere to repent and turn to Christ presupposes this. The universal condemnation of man proves this.

Please, think about this - how far off track from Scripture are you willing to go?

Moreover, do you think you're not evil? I honestly don't think you'd say that. Who isn't evil, then?

I think that it's easy to think people aren't evil in a prosperous land. They can hide it so well. They have no desperate pressure upon them to forego societal conformity.

The real problem here, though, is a view that will in turn result, whether by implication or in time, in a low view of God, namely, a sub-biblical view of His holiness, which in turns depreciates the extent of His mercy and grace, and a high view of man.

I'm personally convinced that a majority of theological error comes from this very notion - that people are not evil.

I'm pleading with you to reject this teaching. You will undercut every teaching in Scripture with this, from the character and holiness of God to the reason that Christ came, to the necessity of the Gospel.

This isn't a game of words on a blog: It is life and death. I'm not joking. Please, please reject this and repent of it.

And by the way, I'm a firm believer in the Imago Dei.

Knowing Christ doesn't just come with being a Christian. It is a journey, its a relationship. When you fall in love with someone you desire to be as close as possible, to know as much as possible about them. How? You ask questions, you talk, you struggle. You find new perspectives, realizing new things that were unexpected, surprising. You think you know them then, smack, something totally different comes up, you work through that. You fall even deeper in love. But all the time learning more then you ever thought possible. The more you find out, the more you realize there's so much more you don't know yet. Is this not the same as falling in love with Jesus?

i. I don't think this description is accurate. I do believe that eternal life it knowing God - relationally speaking, not merely cognatively - and that one must love Him more than anything. But before we even get to that, there's a bigger problem. You deny the universal sinfulness of man, that all men everywhere are by nature evil. This is such a massive misapprehension of biblical teaching that your understanding of Christ is fundamentally distorted.

ii. Every person doesn't get their own "Jesus". If someone thinks he can know Jesus apart from Scripture, then he has invented his own christ. A false christ. All Christians look to the same Christ in the same way - as He has been revealed in the Scriptures. That all men are evil is an explicit biblical teaching. You need to reckon with it to understand Jesus and who He is and why He came and what He did.

Even Cavey makes this point [i.e. that you need to reckon with the Jesus of the Bible to know Him] over and over in his book. I have serious issues with his theology, but it is a vital point nonetheless.

I trust that you know that this includes obedience to the apostles, for they spoke the word of God, under the commission of Christ Himself.

iii. This is all empty talk unless you submit to what God has revealed to His church and what she has held throughout the centuries, such as the sinfulness of man, and so forth.

iv. Is Christ God? If so, is He knowable, or too mysterious? If He is God, and knowable, than we can clearly and sufficiently know God.

I should note that relational knowledge presupposes intellectual knowledge on a number of fronts. This is especially so when one party, namely God, makes known particular things about Himself. Especially since His teaching methodology was well formed for memorization.

I do believe in the living Jesus. The risen Jesus. The Jesus who perfectly reveals the Father and makes Him known. The whole life of Jesus is the revelation of the Father. Jesus did all and only the works of the Father and He said all and only the words of the Father, and He alone makes the Father known (there's a massive theme from John). I believe in and love the Jesus who said:

John 15:15
"No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.

God is not keeping His people in the dark. A view that God is so hyper-transcendence that He cannot be clearly known - and that doesn't mean exhaustively - is ironically more akin to second and third century gnostic teaching than anything else.

Knowing Jesus without knowing "Jesus"?

2009-02-05T17:08:00.001-07:00

Jesse said:

The name and essence of Jesus Christ goes beyond the the letters J-e-s-u-s. He is love, peace, joy, sacrifice, he is messiah, he is God. You think just because we know his enlgish translated name, we are his only sheep?
In Galatians Paul was urging his followers to stop retreating back to the Law of their previous lives. Today the name of Jesus Christ has been mutated into a new theology of law and works, instead of the hope it was intended to give.
Many may very well believe in Jesus Christ and have him in their heart. They may know his love, his peace, and his joy, but may not even know the five letter word.
I am not talking of a universalism where we are all saved, I am simply saying we do not know who his sheep are.
I am aware that the only way to understanding Christ is through the Word of God. But you may want to start thinking holistically about that as well.

Jesse said:

"Knowing Jesus without Knowing the words:

Warren Rempel said...
"Jesse, you suggest that someone who does not know Jesus can be his sheep"

No, I am suggesting that someone can know Jesus Christ, without knowing the linguistic word.
I have a friend named Jesus (Hesuez) who lives down the street. I do not worship him, nor do I think he is a false God who has come to deceive the world. He is just a dude with the same name.
Believing in who Jesus Christ is, what his name represents, and who we are in him (which is why I quoted Galatians previously) is what is important, not his specific linguistic name."

Jesse, what exactly are you trying to say here? Are you suggesting that someone who has never heard the message of salvation in Christ Jesus alone through His death and resurrection and His command to repent and believe in Him can be saved?

Let's run through this:

1) Everyone who believes (abides, to the end) in Christ has eternal life. That is, everyone who believes that Jesus is the Son of God, the Christ, dead and risen for sins, will have eternal life; i.e. he is saved.

2) Everyone who does not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the Christ, dead and risen for sins, everyone who does not believe in Him, is condemned already.

3) Whoever knows Jesus has eternal life because eternal life is to know Jesus.

4) Given (3) everyone who believes knows Jesus. Everyone who does not believe does not know Jesus.

5) No one can believe without hearing. Hearing comes from the word of God. The word of God doesn't come to a person without the word being preached.

6) Ergo, no one who has not heard and accepted the preached Good News of (1) does not know Jesus.

7) The Gospel is preserved to us in the Scriptures (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-6). Anyone who has not heard and accepted this message is condemned already. This message is composed of words.

Believing in the true Jesus presupposes assent and submission to the truth of who He is. We know who He is from the Scriptures. Rejecting some or all of the Jesus of the Bible means that one does not know who He is.

Jesse said:

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

"(Even those who do not know the specific name Jesus Christ)"

This passage speaks of what is sufficient to condemn a person. This knowledge here isn't enough to save. It doesn't provide the Gospel. The knowledge of Christ is sufficient to save, this passage is not giving that.

So what actually are you trying to prove from this passage? What are you saying?

Are you saying, in saying this...

"Believing in who Jesus Christ is, what his name represents, and who we are in him"

... that a person can believe in who Jesus Christ is without knowing intellectually anything about Him, can know what His name represents without having known the Jesus of the Bible or having agreed with the truth of the Scriptures? Can a person know Jesus while rejecting the Jesus of the Bible? Can a person just have some sense of certain gifts or attributes of Christ while caring nothing for His work and person and yet be said to know Him savingly?

Maybe that's not what you intend... Would you be able to clarify?

Thanks.

Abortion debates aren't an academic exercise

2009-02-03T17:00:00.001-07:00

I saw this comment posted on this:

I'm so very torn on whether or not this will actually go through, despite the fact that I am personally against the display and the tactics used by CPL.

I don't believe in scaring people or provoking them to see your point of view, it's just unprofessional and despite what they say, very unacademic.

But is this actually Freedom of Speech, or is it spreading hate?

I'm writing this because the tragedy of abortion cannot be overstated. It pains my heart greatly. Man does not have the de facto right to take the God-formed life of a person who has broken no human law and has done nothing to warrant the forfeiture of his life at human hands. Only God has the right to command the taking of life. There is probably no greater moral wickedness in the relations of mankind than for mothers and fathers to utterly invert their parental duty and take the life of their offspring because their children are burdensome. Abortion is fundamentally an affront to the Lordship of Christ and the holiness of God, as it is a rebellious act that presumptuously seeks to put oneself in the place of God as autonomous in authority over the life of another.

Here's some questions:

1) Do you think that anyone would get charged with trespassing for rallying opposition to, say, genocide in Rwanda, etc. by putting up gruesome pictures of what's going on?

2) Is it hateful to plea for the lives of people who can't plea for their own? Is it hateful to plea for the lives of people who are torn to shreds because they're an inconvenience?

Not that I endorse all tactics, but at what point did those who uphold the preservation of life and the defence of the weakest get slandered as hateful, while those who defend baby-slaughter were counted as loving?

3) Do you think this is just an 'academic' exercise?

Whether or not you agree with the method and its effectiveness, this is a matter of life and death. 43+ million people have been aborted in the United States since the 70's. Over 950+ million have been killed worldwide.

If you could ask them now, they probably wouldn't feel hated by the protesters. Though, they would certainly feel hated by someone.

The good news of the atoning death and vindicating resurrection of Jesus Christ commands everyone everywhere - all sinners - to repent, to turn from their sins, even sins such as abortion, and believe in Him for forgiveness and righteousness and eternal life. May the Gospel deliver our nations from this evil, draw us all in repentance to the grace of God in Christ Jesus, and may He give us the grace to present the redemption in Christ to the men and women who have either murdered their children or who desire to do so.

Oh that parents would not wish for the death of their offspring. May the women - and men - who have had their babies killed find rest for their aching souls in the forgiveness that is in Christ Jesus, flowing from a grace sufficient in its magnificent manifestation to propitiate and expiate and cover even this horrid sin.

And may the church preach that message.

Parents told to uphold genocide to save the planet

2009-02-02T22:10:00.001-07:00

HT: Be fruitful and multiply.

More tragic lunacy from the religion of environmentalism. From Time:

"Couples who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has warned.

Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population."

Abortion must be at the heart of policies to stop a (possible) ecological disaster?

Part of the solution to saving your planet and the human race is to... endorse the murder of your offspring? Or, as it practically works out, at least those who aren't chromosomally perfect, white-skinned, and generally male...

For some reason, I don't see these ~~priests of Molech~~ environmentalists leading the way to ~~salvation~~ planetary preservation by self-sacrificial example.

They wouldn't want to end their lives to save the planet, just the lives of the people who can't cry out for help themselves.

Why pay for bread when you can steal it from a child, right?

Science versus Scripture?

2009-01-12T22:29:00.002-07:00

I've commented over here (my apologies to the brave reader for the brevity/terseness, and general messiness of it... time is precious!):

Justin said:

“like what the church had to do when we learned the earth was not flat”

Umm, when and where was this? The ‘church’ largely accepted the common scientific view of a Ptolymean astronomy. That categorically eliminates a flat earth - and that view comes from the 2nd century AD. That and the circumference of the earth was calculated long before Christ was even born. People weren’t stupid. They could see ships disappear over the horizon, etc.

Moreover, goo-to-you evolution is hardly undeniable. Creation on the Web, Answers in Genesis, and even a number of Intelligent Design advocates have pointed to significant problems (such as irreducible complexity).

It relies on suspect interpretations of fossils and a massive and blind faith in the power of mutations.

Btw, I have a Bachelor of Science in Engineering from a Canadian University. I have no problem accepting the six-day or analogical view of Genesis. Even a mature creation view isn’t that hard to defend. I think the science is actually stacked in our favour.

” I do not think that a ‘humble’ Christian can reasonably discount evolution (note that I did not say neo-darwinism) using any argument other than intuition and I think that pitting science vs. scripture is a false dillema.”

Humility isn’t saying “i don’t know.” Unless you’re buying the new brand of epistemic humility. Humility is submitting to the Scriptures, and believing what God has said. The 6 day view and analogical view are exegetically tenable - and the others aren’t - and moreover, the doctrine of federal headship and our guilt in Adam’s sin precludes evolution.

Just wondering - are you a scientist? Do you work in a scientific field? Are you familiar with the sociology of science? How scientists actually go about, in practice, dealing with experimental data and how it relates to a thesis? Have you seen the arguments against evolution? They aren’t exactly mere ‘intuition.’ You seem to be speaking as though scientists are objective individuals who don’t make inferences beyond what the most minimal interpretation of the evidence requires, and therefore there is a mountain of undeniable evidence for evolution, because, well, scientists said so. Having graduated magna cum laude from a secular university with a science degree, I’m still not impressed. The volume of ‘approximations’, guesses, assumptions, and worldview informed interpretations is mind-boggling.

A Christian cannot, on both evidential and exegetical and theological grounds, reasonably do anything but discount evolution.

The strongest exegetical argument is that from Romans 5. If you deny that death came to man because man sinned, so as to allow for man’s evolution - which requires life and death - you deny the very foundation of Paul’s argument for how it is we are saved at Calvary. In other words, the book of Romans should be tossed to the side as a worthless lie.

That’s what’s at stake.

So I don’t see anything but arrogance in thinking that a person cannot reasonably discount evolution, because it rejects the Creator’s inspired word on the matter, which is utterly incompatible with it.

"Humility, when it comes to scripture, is realizing you are a fallen vessel whose interpretation is not infallible."

By this definition, Jesus was a fallen vessel: "And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." (I would add other passages, e.g. Matthew 21:5)

"Now, I will grant that it could have happened in 6 days, i'm not God, I wasn't there."

Right. God was. And He has said:

Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day."

This would have been understood by an Israelite as a day, defined by his work cycle - not clock time. More on that in a moment.

"But you are shooting yourself in the foot by saying it is tenable. Unless, of course, you mean it is tenable so long as you make up things that aren't expressed in the bible to help out."

Sure sounds expressed:

Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day."

"For example, the sun wasn't created till the 4th day, yet one might claim a 6 day creation. In which case, since there was no sun, there would be no 24 hour periods and the 6 day would be impossible if you are counting 24 hour periods."

1) You're ironically assuming a standard North American way of thinking. An ancient Israelite didn't think in clock time – a day wasn't a strict 24 hour period. A day was defined by cycles of work, etc. Could that be 24 hours, tick tick tick? Potentially. But not likely.

2) You're still assuming that light required the sun. But light was created on day 1. The sun and moon are set in place to govern the light and dark: "16 And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness."

Your assumption is that there cannot be light and dark, or a cycle, apart from these luminaries, which are God's instruments for governing them. Why is that? Only if you fall under the same sort of critique that Justin seems to bring against me – by denying that God works directly and indirectly, by direct involvement, and by means. Through direct command, and by upholding an instrument by His hidden word.

Indeed, this shows the supremacy of God over the sun and the moon. That these things depend upon God. Not upon His instruments, which are His means of upholding these cycles. [e.g. God governed directly before delegating natural means to do so and upholding those means by the laws of mathematics, gravity, etc]

"Morning and evenings would be impossible too without a sun."

Really? This expression delineates a work day. 'morning and evening' are the definition of a day – the start and stop of a work cycle (depending, of course, which point is the start, which can be either evening or morning). This is what this expression communicates here - a cycle of beginning work and ending work. cf. Psalm 104:23. It's an analog to a human day. If you asked an Israelite how God worked on creation, he would say, six days, and he would mean six days - not 24 hours - but with respect to his own daytime/nighttime cycle.

And I've already addressed the idea that it would be impossible. Only under mechanistic assumptions about the creation.

Is this strictly 24 hour? Could be, could not be. The text doesn't specify. It's not written in the context of clock time. So these are 'days' as understood by an Israelite. And there were six days, evenings, and mornings - six rhythms of work.

But the chronology of the creation account is quite deliberate.

Moreover, I already mentioned that I find the analogical view tenable. So why did you bother bringing up the 24 hour day issue – unless you aren't familiar with that view. And if this is the case, and you aren't familiar with even the basic issues around the interpretation of Genesis at this point, why are you so sure about evolution, and the interpretation of Scripture? It seems you simply accept evolution, and then the text just must fit it. And you didn't answer my question about your scientific credentials. Nothing wrong with having no credentials. But scientists disagree on a lot of things. Which ones do you accept? Which arguments from which scientists? How do you know which is right? Did you check the journals? Review them yourself?

I said: "A Christian cannot, on both evidential and exegetical and theological grounds, reasonably do anything but discount evolution."

You said: "And that statement, my friend, is the epitome of pride."

I suppose, then, that you apply this to your own statement?

"I do not think that a 'humble' Christian can reasonably discount evolution (note that I did not say neo-darwinism) using any argument other than intuition and I think that pitting science vs. scripture is a false dillema"

My reply is directed at this statement. You can make a claim that a humble Christian cannot reasonably discount evolution. I can make a claim at the same level. I can answer you on your own grounds. So it is humility for you, and arrogance for me? What makes it arrogant? Trusting that God spoke so that laymen could understand that He created in six days that are analogous to six days of their labour?

"When he mentions "death" don't be fooled into believing he means physical death. Paul is talking about spiritual death - the eternal separation from God (or as some believe, the presence of God's wrath)."

That's a part of it. But don't be fooled into leaving it at, as it brings in a world of problems.

1) What happened to all the many people who died before man sinned? Reincarnated? Did they go to heaven?

2) Genesis defines what this death entails:

"19 By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.""

That's part of the curse, and it is physical death. The curse was postlapsarian.

3) Our hope is a bodily resurrection. The problem of sin is what necessitated this resurrection. This resurrection is necessitated because we physically die.

"Sin is not the cause of our physical death. We know this because our Lord Jesus Christ, who was crucified and died for us never sinned a day in His life. Even those who believe in "original sin" will claim Jesus had none of it. Sin is the cause of spiritual death in the world."

Actually, you just proved my point. Jesus died BECAUSE of human sin, as a substitute for them. He died for us because He, who knew no sin, was made to be sin. (2 Cor. 5:21). His death was for our iniquities: Isaiah 53:8, 12.

So sin was EXACTLY the reason Christ died.

How do you take Adam, exactly? Is Eve the mother of all living? Is Adam? That doesn't work in an evolutionary scheme. Are we punished for a sin of a man who isn't our father? Or a metaphorical sin?

Hey Justin,

"Why do you try to put both of God's revelations at odds with one another by pushing special revelation above general revelation? Since both of them are revelations from God, they should be given equal standing."

1) I don't think that 'special revelation' and 'general revelation' are the best delineating terms. They're ok. But I think revealed speech and general/hidden speech is a better way of putting it. The former categories are a bit too hard to define. I can go into that more if you want. True science is the inference of God's hidden word to sustain and govern the universe by way of experimentation and observation.

2) There's a lot of suffering in the world. How do you know God isn't a cosmic fiend? Sitting there laughing at the suffering. How do you know that isn't the case? Experience shows us that a lot of people get hurt and killed - even those trying to do nice things. And the wicked get to live happily. One might infer God is just laughing away, enjoying the mayhem. That he just set it in motion - "watch the bugs burn!" Like a child with an ant under a magnifying glass.

So I ask you, how do you know this isn't the case? General revelation and special revelation have equal standing. What do I do with this apparent conundrum? Which has interpretive primacy? Where do you go to explain what happens in the world? General revelation? Or special revelation?

And moreover - who was God's special revelation revealed to? Who was His general revelation revealed to? And who at what times?

How do you interpret [general] revelation? What presuppositions? Categories of thought? Do you hear [general] revelation? What if someone sees differently?

"Special revelation shouldn't be held higher than general revelation. If we discover a truth in God's revelation, whether general or specific, we should humbly acknowledge it."

So if I see a hand of malevolence in the way creation operates – say, the fact that a cat will toy with its prey – how do I know that God isn't a cosmic fiend?

General revelation is on equal footing with special revelation. Both therefore have interpretive primacy. Both testify to the handiwork of God. But, isn't it relying primarily upon special revelation to establish that fact about general revelation?

Paul Helm has written well on this issue, since general revelation is frequently employed in apologetics: Design Arguments and Apologetics

You don't need a dichotomy - anymore than there is a dichotomy between archaeological artifacts and history. And history provides the context to interpret and understand the artifacts.

And you're implicitly denying sola scriptura. And I mean sola, not nuda. So don't make that objection. I understand sola scriptura.

"I really don't understand the trend in modern evangelicalism, specifically modern calvinism, of promoting special revelation above general revelation. A revelation of God is a revelation of God, whether it's written on paper, from the mouth of a prophet or in creation."

More avant-garde modern Calvinism finger-wagging?

The primacy of special revelation is nothing modern - don't blame them.

e.g. Hippolytus, 170-236: "There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source..."

Or Cyril (318-386): "Concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures..."

"Why then do you busy yourself about things which not even the Holy Ghost has written in the Scriptures? You who do not know the things which are written, do you buy yourself about the things which are not written? There are many questions in the divine Scriptures; what is written we comprehend not, why do we busy ourselves about what is not written? It is sufficient for us to know that God hath begotten One Only Son."

"Let us then speak concerning the Holy Ghost nothing but what is written; and whatsoever is not written, let us not busy ourselves about it. The Holy Ghost Himself spoke the Scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive. Let us therefore speak those things which He has said; for whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say."

Now Scripture directs us to outside sources. But if you go to God's general revelation, or general speech, how do you interpret it? If you say it is comprehensible human language, then why can't someone understand God to be a cosmic fiend from the knowledge he sees poured forth in creation?

Moreover, as I said, those aren't categories that I strictly like, although I won't debate the language when it isn't that germane to the discussion. I view the upholding of the universe and the Scriptures as both the speech of God.

1) There is plenty of patristic evidence in favour of the primacy of the Scriptures as determining what we believe.

2) Indeed, this truth was underneath the protestant reformation.

"Every significant biologist that actually studies God's general revelation in biology agrees with evolution and common descent. The only significant scientist who rejects neo-darwinism is Michael Behe."

I really hope you just typed that a little too fast. Your italics indicate otherwise, though:

1) It's patently false: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/download.php - I'm hoping that you just weren't aware of this, and you should drop this as an argument for evolution, and perhaps re-evaluate your certainty in the matter. Your statement on the flat earth was hasty, and so is this. If you were aware of this, you're either lying, or....

2) Unless laymen - do you have a science degree, Justin? - are of the ilk to say that creationist scientists aren't significant, and you define a significant scientist as one who accepts evolution. If surely hope this isn't the case. That would be rather circular. Begging the question, as it were. The antithesis of good science. Only those who agree with the current paradigm get to stay in!

Or do you mean the scientists who get media facetime? Somehow I don't think you mean that.

3) This is an argument from the majority - that's a blatant fallacy.

4) Do you understand how a paradigm shift works in science? Have you studied any Thomas Kuhn? Any other sociologists of science?

You seem to be operating on a real idealistic view of the reality of the practice and history of science.

"And if you read his latest book, he admits that most life evolved, the earth is old, and common ancestry [including humans] is true. He only rejects the power of genetic mutation to provide the necessary information to form microorganisms."

Yes, I know he affirms common descent/guided evolution.

This is rather self-defeating, though, the way you've put it.

If guided divine intervention is necessary for evolution - to add information, how is this divine intervention measured in experimentation? Secular scientists reject this intervention. They don't see it. Their studies don't produce it. So non-Christians recognize that it isn't there. You appeal to their capacity to recognize below. Are they right or wrong? If they don't see this intervention, are they bad scientists? If so, why believe them – they don't seem to competent - if this guidance is really so central? If this intervention isn't there, then is the argument for guided evolution wrong? It must be. If guided evolution is wrong, then is God the god of deism? Is this what general revelation is communicating? This argument is caught between a rock and a hard place.

And this brings us to the problem I mentioned before - how do you know which scientist to trust? And which argument of which scientist to take?

An unbelieving scientist may think your quasi-belief in evolution is laughable. And I'm pretty sure that there are more unbelieving scientists than otherwise.

Moreover, there is a difference between historical science and observational science.

You said:

"In a commentary on the book of Genesis, St. Augustine [the church father we can thank for almost every doctrine concerning Christ's work we now believe, including the one you were speaking about above] said this about general revelation:"

Really? St. Augustine formulated the Jesus we know today? Does Dan Brown know this - because that would help his case better than Constantine. Is this the correct Jesus? The work of Christ as we know it seems pretty important. That doesn't bode well for our faith - do we have the correct conception of His work? OR, did the first few centuries of the church have the wrong conception? No better off than the Mormons? Wrong beliefs in the work of Christ? We checked our beliefs with the Scriptures. Or do you mean that they never talked about the work of Christ before Augustine as we do?

I don't accept this assertion. I think that we have Paul and Peter and John to thank for almost every doctrine concerning Christ's work. That, and...

Mathetes: "As long then as the former time endured, He permitted us to be borne along by unruly impulses, being drawn away by the desire of pleasure and various lusts. This was not that He at all delighted in our sins, but that He simply endured them; nor that He approved the time of working iniquity which then was, but that He sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able. But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors! Having therefore convinced us in the former time that our nature was unable to attain to life, and having now revealed the Saviour who is able to save even those things which it was formerly impossible to save, by both these facts He desired to lead us to trust in His kindness, to esteem Him our Nourisher, Father, Teacher, Counsellor, Healer, our Wisdom, Light, Honour, Glory, Power, and Life (Mathetes, The Epistle To Diognetus, 9)

This is an early second century work (circa ~130 AD).

Substitutionary atonement: "He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us"

(and) Divinity: "Son of God" ... "the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal."

Imputation of righteousness: "For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness..." "the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!""

That's well before Augustine.

You said:

"We should think critically about his warning. How terrible it would be for Christians to attribute scripture as being in opposition to obvious truths that even non-Christians can recognize."

One could just as easily counter that for Christians to attempt to fit evolution into their worldview is embarrassing. You’re simply assuming you’re right. I don’t buy that assumption.

Careful with that argument. Appealing to things that 'non-Christians can recognize' can make it difficult to make a consistent argument later (as I showed above). Moreover, evolution could be an erroneous footnote in fifty years. Or is it dogma to you? Will you stake your life on it? Would you affirm it if someone put a gun to your head, and told you to deny it? You can only make this argument if you really think that it is an 'obvious truth.' And if you take scientific inquiry as the production of dogma, you have a very idealistic - almost naive - view of the way science operates.

If it is dogma, as Gregory of Nyssa would say: "We make the Holy Scriptures the canon and the rule of every dogma; we of necessity look upon that, and receive alone that which may be made conformable to the intention of those writings."

You would have me accept something like common descent goo to you evolution based on faith. I don't see evidence for it. Not even in the Ecoli experiment. And not in the fossil record. Should I accept it, then?

Justin, I do NOT think that there is a dichotomy between God's speech in upholding the universe and His revealed speech in the Scriptures. Indeed, you're asking me to reinterpret His revealed speech and disregard what I understand of His general/hidden speech, in asking me to accept evolution.

The evolutionist scientist reads the evidence with his worldview. A creationist scientist who denies evolution does the same.

You asked:

1)Do we have to deny reason and science to stay true to scripture? Are we actually stuck between a rock and a hard place?
2)Should we stay with the plain reading of Genesis and deny science or should we interpret Genesis through the scope of scientific knowledge?

The latter isn't an option because it involves imposing your North American modern view on the author of Genesis.

The former question prejudices the issue by simply assuming that reason and science actually support evolution. When there is dramatic debate over evolution right now, this 'thought initiative' is lacking.

[NOTE: In case it actually needs to be said, much of this is an internal critique. e.g. I know the same things applies to me - how can I know which science is correct, etc? My point is precisely that; for, given the open-ended nature of science, what reasonable Christian would reject God's revealed word - or tamper with it, rending it from its original context and the meaning as understood by the original audience - so as to capitulate to unproven scientific theories?]

Christ Our Mediator: He Cannot Fail

2008-12-27T12:22:00.001-07:00

Hebrews 7:20-25:

(20) And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath,
(21) but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, 'You are a priest forever.'"
(22) This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.
(23) The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office,
(24) but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever.
(25) Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

The mediatorial ministry of Christ in heaven is crucial for salvation, according to Hebrews. By his eternal life, permitting him to intercede forever on our behalf, Jesus Christ can “save us to the uttermost.”

What does that mean? Hebrews contrasts this with the Old Testament sacrificial system, and points out that while the former required frequent, daily sacrifices, offered again and again, Jesus made a once-for-all sacrifice (Hebrews 7:27). So, in contrast to the Jewish understanding, salvation is not something that needs repetitive and recurrent input from human beings to either accomplish or maintain.

This is what we call the doctrine of perseverance or of preservation: those who truly belong to God, those called and regenerated and justified, cannot be lost. In other words, since Jesus is the one who saves and keeps us, we who belong to him cannot be lost. Even we can’t screw this up, because it wasn’t our work in the first place.

This teaching is found elsewhere in Scripture. Jesus told the Jews that whoever came to him, he would never cast out (John 6:37). Why? Because he came from heaven not to do his own will, but the will of the one who sent him (that is, the Father) – John 6:38. And the Father’s will is that Jesus lose none – none! – of those the Father gave him, but raise them on the last day.

(John 6 certainly presents a pile of problems for the Oneness position, as well. How can Jesus say he came to do not his own will but the Father’s, if he is himself the Father? How can the Father “give” anything to the Son if there are no can be no meaningful personal distinction between them? How can the sovereign monergism (i.e., “Calvinism”) of John 6:44, 65 be compatible with the fundamental Arminianism (if not outright Pelagianism) of Oneness theology? But, provided he has the time, I’ll leave the detailed explication of these problems to my brother Mike, who’s spent a lot of time in John. I merely want to expand upon the problems that the doctrine of perseverance found in John 6, and Hebrews, raises for the Oneness worldview.)

See, Oneness theology holds that a believer must maintain himself in a state of holiness in order to retain his salvation. By observing strict codes regarding dress, haircuts, and the like, the person keeps himself “saved.” This idea, that the retention of one’s status as “saved” depends on one’s own effort, is antithetical to the teaching of Scripture. We’ve just seen Jesus teaching in John 6 that this preservation, this perseverance by the believer, is a result of Christ’s work in holding believers safe in his hand – work that is direct obedience to the Father’s will that no believer who has come to Christ be lost.

Now this does not mean that anyone who expresses and professes faith in Christ is therefore safe, as if they’ve “punched their ticket” and they are good to go no matter what they do. That’s easy-believism, and it ignores the fact that the Bible plainly warns that people can be deceived about the state of their souls (eg. Matthew 7:21-23). Only those truly regenerated by the Spirit, who have been moved to faith and repentance by the Father’s drawing and who have put a genuine trust in Christ, can be said to be secure. But mark this: they are secure because of God’s work, God’s promise, not because of human effort. A true Christian will do good works, certainly, and the lack thereof is evidence that a true change of heart has not happened; but these works are the result and fruit of God’s work in saving and preserving the believer, not the cause (immediate or intermediate)! So that is the role of good works: not to secure or preserve salvation, but to proclaim and witness to it.

So back to Hebrews. John 6 tells us the what of preservation: Jesus will not lose any the Father has given him. Hebrews 7 and on tells us the how. What preserves the believer after justification, what “keeps him saved,” is the continuing intercessory work of Jesus before the Father above: “he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them” (Hebrews 7:25). When we stumble, when we fall, and the righteousness and holiness of the Father is impugned, Christ pleads for us. He reminds the Court that the punishment for that sin was already paid. He reminds the Judge that those failings were laid on Himself, and that we are positionally and legally righteous because His own perfect, spotless righteousness are wrapped around us like clothing. Christ preserves us and keeps God’s grace flowing so that we may be picked up, dusted off, and cleaned up to continue growing in holiness.

As our Mediator, Jesus is able to save us to the uttermost. Not just get us into a state of salvation that we are then responsible to maintain through good behaviour; that maintenance is itself the result of Christ’s continuing work. But this is impossible in Oneness modalism, for at least two reasons:

(1) Since Jesus is himself the Father, we really don’t have a mediator in the Oneness perspective. The Judge and the Intercessor (or Defence Attorney) are the same person. This is hardly a situation that engenders confidence. Jesus’ mediation and intercession are reduced to a mere charade.

(2) In some forms of Oneness modalism, the mode or manifestation of the Son has passed to be replaced by the mode or manifestation of the Spirit. This means that our Mediator no longer exists. Hebrews 7 is a nice story, but cannot be real – at most a puppet show.

So therefore, it is not Christ who saves us to the uttermost in Oneness theology. He helps; he gets us started, or gives us the tools, but it is ultimately the believer who is responsible for salvation “to the uttermost.” And since it was our own thickheaded sinfulness that got us into the predicament of lostness in the first place, having our eternal salvation rest even in part upon our own performance is scary in the least – and downright foolhardy.

Oneness theology leaves no place for a doctrine of preservation or perseverance of the believer. In this construct, there is no eternal security. And without such security, assurance of salvation is utterly impossible. A Oneness believer can have the right baptism, speak in tongues, rigidly observe the holiness codes, and yet still be in fear of losing his salvation because, after all, who knows what moral catastrophe may befall him in the future? Who knows what spiritual stumble may occur just before death?

I’ll say it again. If Jesus is not in some eternal and personal way distinct from the Father whom he intercedes with, the entire idea of intercession and mediation is reduced to a mere charade. Charades are no ground for confidence, nor for the efficacy of one’s perseverance.

Christ As Our Mediator: Psalm 110, Hebrews, and the Oneness Position

2008-12-26T13:36:00.003-07:00

Psalm 110:4

(1) The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool."
(2) The LORD sends forth from Zion your mighty scepter. Rule in the midst of your enemies!
(3) Your people will offer themselves freely on the day of your power, in holy garments; from the womb of the morning, the dew of your youth will be yours.
(4) The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, "You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek."
(5) The Lord is at your right hand; he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath.
(6) He will execute judgment among the nations, filling them with corpses; he will shatter chiefs over the wide earth.
(7) He will drink from the brook by the way; therefore he will lift up his head.

This psalm has tremendous implications for the doctrine of the Trinity, and especially for the doctrine of Christ as our Mediator with God. As it is quoted in Hebrews twice in establishing the superiority of Christ, it is a natural place to begin when looking at Christ’s role as our Mediator.

Verse 1: Note here that the LORD, Yahweh, is addressing the king here. The cross-reference in Hebrews 1:13 makes plain that this statement is ultimately directed to Christ.

This raises two practical questions for our Oneness interlocutors:

(1) How can God address God, if He is not a Trinity? Would this not be rather schizophrenic? Now the Bible has plenty of references to Jesus addressing the Father, and speaking of (or sending) the Spirit. A Oneness advocate could explain these as Jesus’ human nature addressing his divine nature, but here in this passage that will not work. We have here the divine addressing Christ in a context that Hebrews clearly quotes to establish Jesus’ divinity. So this cannot be a case of addressing Jesus’ humanity alone.

(2) How can Jesus sit at the right hand of Yahweh if there are no interpersonal distinctions between the Father and the Son? I can’t sit at my own right hand. And I’ve already shown that this cannot be a case of separating the divine from the human natures of Christ.

Let’s move on, then, to verse 4, also quoted in Hebrews (7:21). This raises the same question for Oneness adherents. Hebrews clearly states that Jesus was made a priest without an oath, like the old priesthood was – the meaning here is that the old Jewish priests took an oath. Instead, Jesus was made a priest by the one who “swore and will not change” his mind – God. Hebrews’ entire point in 7:21 rests on that fact that Jesus made no oath, because God made the oath. How is this possible, if there are no personal differentiations within God?

I already debunked the idea that God could be addressing Jesus’ human nature, because the context of Hebrews 1 was concerned with asserting his divinity (the Hebrews being addressed had no problem with Jesus’ humanity). However, let’s assume for the sake of argument the Oneness position (not adopted by all Oneness believers, it should be noted) that God is addressing the human nature of Jesus here. Jesus Christ is then our mediator only in his human nature, not his divine nature. This has several devastating implications for Christian theology:

(1) it means that the one Mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5) does not, in fact, partake of both natures, and so removes a key plank in Hebrews’ case for the uniqueness of Christ as our mediator. After all, Moses, another covenantal mediator between God and man, was only human;

(2) it means that Christ’s ministry as high priest in the heavens (which rests on this foundation) is only as a human being and not as God. This is plainly impossible, because Christ as high priest offers himself as a sacrifice for our sins (7:27), and only a person who is infinite God could bear the full penalty for all he saves;

(3) it means our salvation is not fully “from the Lord” as Jonah 2:9 tells us, as a critical part of the economy of salvation is accomplished by human nature alone;

(4) it means that “the power of an indestructible life” that is the reason he became a priest must be something inherent to Jesus’ human nature alone. Therefore, perfect living is possible by human effort without contribution from God. This, by the way, would account for the Oneness priority on human living as an active contribution to one’s salvation.

Next time I’ll look more closely at Hebrews 7:25 and its implications for our argument.

A Reconciliation of the Genealogies of Christ in Matthew and Luke

2008-12-16T16:55:00.001-07:00

Posted on behalf of Jeff Jones.

INTRODUCTION

The two genealogies of Jesus Christ given in the Gospels have for centuries puzzled scholars and laymen alike. The obvious differences between the accounts of Matthew and Luke pose an important critical question and stand as staples of lists of biblical difficulties.[1] The genealogical issue has given occasion for enemies of the Christian faith to question the inspiration of the Bible and the true ancestry of Christ.[2]

For evangelical Christians who are committed to the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture, it would be inconsistent with their beliefs to simply declare the lists as irreconcilable. Furthermore, while there are biblical difficulties that must be simply accepted as beyond the ability of modern scholars to solve at this point in history, this is not one of those. Proceeding on the assumptions of the unity and infallibility of Scripture, this paper endeavours to demonstrate that the Gospel genealogies can be harmonized.

PRELIMINARY GENEALOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Before delving into the various approaches that scholars have suggested to solve the genealogical puzzle, it is necessary to first examine some pertinent issues that are necessary for a good understanding of the problem. First among these is the matter of the importance of genealogies in the Jewish culture of the first century. It is beyond doubt that the Jews of Jesus’ day attached great value to their genealogies, vital as they were for legal issues such as inheritance and marriage,[3] and so maintained detailed public registers. It was these registers that the Evangelists likely consulted when compiling their genealogies, though some have raised questions about whether the public registers were actually available to the Gospel writers. This doubt is based chiefly upon a statement by Julius Africanus, quoted in the church history of Eusebius, alleging that well before Christ, Herod, embarrassed by the circumstances of his birth, had the registers burned to prevent their discovery.[4]

However, Africanus himself threw doubt on this report, saying: “Whether this be so or not no one could give a clearer account.”[5] The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, writing well after Christ, makes absolutely no mention of the alleged Herodian destruction of the registers, and indeed cites them himself: “Thus have I set down the genealogy of my family as I have found it described in the public records.”[6] Furthermore, the repeated emphasis in Paul’s epistles on genealogical controversies (1 Tim. 1:4, Tit. 3:9) presupposes that the records were available as fodder for speculation. The existence of the registers can thus be considered an established fact.

Second, it must also be observed that, while Jesus’ legitimacy as Messiah was continually challenged by the Pharisees and other opponents, there do not appear to have been any serious questions raised about his Davidic lineage. This lineage in no way is dependent on the two Gospel lists, as plenty of other evidence supports the point. Jesus repeatedly allowed himself to be referred to as the “Son of David,” Peter mentioned his Davidic background in his speech at Pentecost (Acts 2:29-32), and Paul cites him as being a descendant of David at least three times (Rom. 1:3, 2 Tim 2:8, Acts 13:23). Fairbairn observes that one of the objections that was raised against Christ, that of his Galilean heritage, was due to the conviction that a descendant of David was expected to arise from Bethlehem.[7] Since Jesus’ home in Nazareth should have provided his “adversaries a prima facie ground to question [his Davidic lineage]… that these doubts did not find any audible utterance or assume a tangible form, can only be accounted for by the conclusive evidence which existed of His royal parentage.”[8]

Third, the Gospel genealogies, taken as they were from Jewish public records, can be expected to reflect certain idiosyncrasies common in Hebrew genealogies. For example, it was common that a man would be known by more than one name,[9] a fact that could account for some (though certainly not all, or even most) of the differences seen in the Gospel accounts.[10] This fact must be used with care, however. Gregory of Nazianzus attempted to argue that the two names listed as “fathers” of Joseph – Heli and Jacob – were one and the same man, but as Aquinas pointed out in response, the two are stated as descending from different sons of David.[11]

Another very important genealogical feature is that the Hebrews considered a descendant to be the “son” of even a distant ancestor,[12] meaning that genealogical tables could skip generations while committing no real error. We see this in Matthew’s table, where Joram is said to be the father of Uzziah, though from Chronicles we know that Joram’s direct son was Ahaziah, who fathered Jehoash, who fathered Amaziah, the biological father of Uzziah. In the case of Matthew’s list, his reason for passing by some is clearly to conform his list to a pattern of three fourteens.

Furthermore, differences between the lists may reflect a lack of standardization in spelling, the fact that written Hebrew of the time had no vowel points, and the subsequent translation of the names of the public registers into Greek. An example of this can be seen in Matt. 1:15 and Luke 3:24, where the name given in the second generation before Joseph is “Matthan” by Matthew and “Matthat” by Luke; there can be little doubt that the same person is meant.[13]

Finally, Jewish legal practice with regard to adoption and marriage would have impacted the genealogical lines. One outstanding example of such practice is levirate marriage, of which more will be said later. For now it is sufficient to cite the Old Testament example of Jair, whose lineage is cited in 2 Chron. 2, Num. 32:41, and Deut. 3:14-15. In Chronicles, Jair descends from Judah, but the Penteteuchal accounts both refer to him as a Manassite. The oddity is resolved by looking to 2 Chron. 2:22-23, which explains that Jair’s grandfather married the daughter of Machir, Manasseh’s son, and had Segub, who fathered Jair – who thus took his inheritance in Manasseh, while another grandson of

Hezron, Asshur, had his inheritance in Judah.[14]

Fourth, there appears to be some textual problems with both the Gospel lists. Luke lists a second Cainan between Shelah and Arphaxad (v. 36), who is not listed in the Hebrew genealogy (Gen. 10:21-24). Most extant Septuagint copies have the name, but not in the corresponding genealogy in 1 Chron. 1; the Septuagint used by Josephus, Theophilus of Antioch, and Africanus does not seem to have had the name; and Jerome, working from the Hebrew, omits any mention of Cainan in his commentary on that very verse.[15] Augustine, however, writing in the fourth century, had the name in both his Septuagint and copy of Luke, suggesting that “Cainan” entered the Greek textual tradition before that time – probably starting with a scribal error in a copy of the Septuagint and later incorporated as a correction to Luke.[16] The evidence seems to lean against the name having been in either the original Hebrew or Greek, of both Testaments, but it is impossible to be certain.

An easier textual problem is found in Matthew’s account, which, though it purports to present a genealogy arranged in three sets of fourteen generations, lists only 41 generations rather than the expected 42. It has already been observed above that Matthew omits generations (in the case of Uzziah’s forebears), and this is done intentionally to conform the genealogy to his intended three fourteens. It is unlikely that, with this intent, Matthew would have miscounted and dropped too many generations, and so there has likely been a name dropped somewhere in the process of transmission. The most likely place is in the generations of Josiah and Jeconiah, as Josiah is said to have begotten Jeconiah and his brothers around the time of the exile – a statement that is historically suspect.[17] Josiah, well before the exile, actually fathered Jehoiakim, who around the time mentioned by Matthew fathered Jeconiah (Jehoiachin). Jeconiah is listed at the beginning of the third set of generations, and this set, being not only the post-deportation set but also having only thirteen names if Jeconiah is not counted, seems to be the rightful place for the deported king. This, however, leaves the middle set with only thirteen if David is counted in only the first set. When one considers that the difference in the Greek between the two names is one letter (Jehoiakim is VIwakeim and Jehoiachin is VIwaceim), and the letters chi and kappa in the uncial (X and K) are extremely similar, it seems very likely that a scribe inadvertently dropped one name thinking them to be the same.[18] If Jehoiakim were added into the lineage after Josiah, all sets would have fourteen, and the total number would again be 42.

THREE POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

The early church fathers, like scholars throughout history, struggled with the genealogical differences in the Gospels. Ambrose, for instance, believed the two genealogies represented a kingly and priestly family of Christ.[19] His student, Augustine, building on Ambrose’ foundation, expressed the opinion that due to her relationship with Elizabeth, the wife of a priest, Mary was actually a member of the tribe of Levi. This, to him, was an allegorical clue that Luke’s genealogy was priestly, though he still believed it was that of Joseph.[20] This had the appeal of having Jesus’ lineage traced from both David as king and from Aaron as priest. From this supposition, Augustine, interpreting allegorically, saw Luke’s genealogy as being a “priestly” genealogy, as Aquinas explains:

“But in Luke's genealogy the washing away of our sins is signified," which is effected by Christ's sacrifice. "For which reason Matthew traces the generations downwards, Luke upwards." For the same reason too "Matthew descends from David through Solomon, in whose mother David sinned; whereas Luke ascends to David through Nathan, through whose namesake, the prophet, God expiated his sin."[21]

However, this is a rather fanciful interpretation, based as it is on Luke’s use of an ascending order and on a namesake! Augustine’s allegorical approach carries the weakness of subjectivity – one can find almost anything they want in the text. Interpreting the text from a grammatical-historical approach, one finds no foundation whatsoever for this perspective.

Lea and Black, in describing the genealogical issue, list three primary suggestions offered by New Testament scholars as potential solutions to the genealogical problem,[22] of which two will be examined in this section. The first of these is the idea that Matthew lists Jesus’ adoptive lineage through Joseph and Luke provides his biological ancestry through Mary.[23] Various scholars through church history have held this view. Calvin, though he rejected it, refers to this view and its adherents,[24] and Fairbairn, writing in 1858, lists at least seven of its supporters.[25] Gleason Archer advocates this view in his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties:

This seems to be implied by the wording of v.23 [of Luke 3]: “Jesus… being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph.” This “as was supposed” indicates that Jesus was not really the biological son of Joseph… It further calls attention to the mother, Mary, who must of necessity have been the sole human parent through whom Jesus could have descended from a line of ancestors. Her genealogy is thereupon listed, starting with Heli…[26]

However, this view poses another difficulty: how could Mary’s line have, after David, diverged from Joseph’s, converged in Shealtiel, and then diverged again afterwards? One possible solution is to assert that the Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in each account are different from the pair in the other, but having identical (very prominent!) names and generations in the same epoch of Jewish history indicates that they are indeed the same. Furthermore, Luke does not mention Mary in the genealogy at all, and it would have been abnormal in the cultural and historical context to trace a genealogy through the mother.[27]

Fairbairn notes that the “Mary’s genealogy” view seems to have been a Reformation-era development, as the early church writers were in general agreement that the two genealogies traced through Joseph, not Mary.[28] Indeed, one of the earliest to advance this view was Annius of Vitterbo around 1490.[29] Ambrose, stating that Mary’s lineage was included in that of Joseph’s, argued that Luke’s genealogy was that of Joseph and that Jesus, “being born according to the flesh, he must follow the usage of the flesh, and he who came into the world must be described in the custom of the world”[30] – that is, by his father’s ancestry. Hilary explicitly said, “…the origin of Joseph instead of Mary is recounted,”[31] and even Augustine stated the lists give two fathers (one natural, one adoptive) for Joseph.[32]

The next approach mentioned by Lea and Black is that of explaining the differences by reference to levirate marriage. This approach starts with the difference in the accounts about Joseph’s father – said to be Jacob in Matthew, and Heli in Luke. This raises the obvious question: how can a man have two fathers? The Roman emperor Julian the Apostate raised this objection as part of an overall attack on the Christian faith, holding it as evidence that the Bible was hopelessly riddled with contradictions.[33] The practice of levirate marriage holds a potential answer to this question. Essentially, levirate marriage involved one man uniting with the wife of a deceased and heirless man in order to produce an heir to continue the latter’s name. The Old Testament law laid down the parameters of these arrangements, and as seen above in the case of Jair, they were widely practiced.

This is an ancient proposal. The third-century writer Africanus, as cited by Eusebius, stated:

“Since the names of the families in Israel were numbered either by nature or by law; by nature, in the succession of legitimate birth; by law, when a man begat children in the name of a brother who had died childless… by following this kind of genealogy some succeeded in the legitimate order of father and son, but others were reckoned in name to one father though the children of another, the memory of both was retained, both of the actual and of the fictitious parents. Thus neither of the Gospels misstates, reckoning both nature and law.”[34]

Proponents of the levirate solution, beginning with Africanus, held that Matthew gave the actual lineage of Christ through Joseph’s biological father Jacob, and Luke gave the legal lineage through Heli.[35]

The problem with this view is that it explains too little. At best, it would account only for the differences in the postexilic period, because the two genealogies converge immediately after the exile. Both writers (Matt. 1:12-13 and Luke 3:27) give the same two names at the start of the post-exilic period: Shealtiel and his son Zerubbabel. There is little doubt that these are the same people, as this is the same Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, referred to repeatedly in Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah as the leader of the Jews returning from Babylon. A levirate marriage producing Joseph would, even if involving representatives of different families, still have these common ancestors. As observed previously, the pre-exilic genealogies are descended from different sons of David, and this theory will not account for this difference. In fact, a levirate marriage involving Heli and Jacob’s generation would go back no further, because as discussed above, the names previous to them in each genealogy – Matthat and Matthan, respectively – most likely refer to the same person![36] Therefore, the levirate idea fails to fully solve the problem.

A ROYAL AND A NATURAL DESCENT

So if Luke is not giving an allegorical account or the line of Mary, as the two accounts were both intended to give Joseph’s lineage, and if levirate marriage cannot account for most of the differences in the genealogies, how are they to be reconciled? Lea and Black give a third option, which they attribute to J. Gresham Machen,[37] that is a far more likely possibility. In this scheme, Matthew gives the legal ancestry of Jesus – that is, the Jewish line of royal succession – and Luke provides (generally speaking, as shall be seen below) Jesus’ natural descent.

Though attributed to Machen by Lea and Black, this view is actually far older than the twentieth century. John Calvin was one of the first to articulate this view. In his Harmony of the Evangelists, he refers to Africanus’ comments, and elaborates:

Matthew and Luke unquestionably do not observe the same order; for immediately after David the one puts Solomon, and the other Nathan; which makes it perfectly clear that they follow different lines. This sort of contradiction is reconciled by good and learned interpreters in the following manner. Matthew, departing from the natural lineage, which is followed by Luke, reckons up the legal genealogy… the kingdom, which had been established in the person of Solomon, passed in a lawful manner to Salathiel [Shealtiel – ESV].[38]

Thus Calvin, in referring to “good and learned interpreters,” does not take credit for this idea himself, but suggests that others either contemporary or prior to him held the same opinion. He goes on:

There is no absurdity in supposing, that Luke traces the descent of Christ from Nathan: for it is possible that the line of Solomon, so far as it relates to the succession of the throne, may have been broken off. It may be objected, that Jesus cannot be acknowledged as the promised Messiah, if he be not a descendant of Solomon, who was an undoubted type of Christ. But the answer is easy. Though he was not naturally descended from Solomon, yet he was reckoned his son by legal succession, because he was descended from kings.[39]

Calvin points to a critical assumption in this scheme: that since the two lists are derived

from different sons of David, there must have been a “failure” in the Solomonic royal line. Consequently, the royal succession passed to the descendants of his brother Nathan. The question is, when did this occur?

Calvin held that the break occurred with the death of Ahaziah when the kingship passed to Joash, who he believed to be of Nathan’s line.[40] He believed that the wicked queen Athaliah, who attempted to kill Joash, would not have done so if he was Ahaziah’s son, because she could have ruled as regent without interference, pretending to be his tutor.[41] Against this view, however, is the fact that the genealogies are still much different after this point, not converging until Shealtiel. Furthermore, there is no reason why Joash’s particular descent would have made any difference in Athaliah’s ability to serve as regent.

Fairbairn, following the same general scheme, offered a better explanation of the Solomonic line’s failure. Instead of locating the break at Ahaziah, he points to the judgment of God on the Jewish king Jehoiakim (Jer. 36:30):[42] “Therefore thus says the LORD concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah: He shall have none to sit on the throne of David, and his dead body shall be cast out to the heat by day and the frost by night.” Therefore it is extremely unlikely that Jesus is Jehoiakim’s physical descendant. If this prediction was indeed fulfilled, and there was a previous break in the royal line as Calvin believed, then there would have been two failures in the line of succession, resulting in the need for yet another adoption or levirate marriage to bring the genealogies together. It seems simpler to dismiss the idea of a failure at Ahaziah and accept the break as occurring after Jehoiachin, Jehoiakim’s son, who in Matthew’s line was succeeded by Shealtiel. As Shealtiel was also in Luke’s list as the son of Neri, the solution is obvious: Shealtiel was the biological son of Neri and the physical descendant of Nathan, and assumed the title to the throne when Jehoiachin died without an heir.[43] As such, Shealtiel (and later Jesus) was a legal, though not biological, descendant of Solomon.

At this point there is another issue to be resolved. In 1 Chr. 3:17-19, Zerubbabel is listed as the son of Pedaiah, Shealtiel’s brother. Whose son was he? One possible resolution is to follow certain Septuagint manuscripts that drop out Pedaiah, but the Hebrew texts are far more likely to be correct.[44] Machen’s solution is that Pedaiah raised up an heir for a presumably heirless Shealtiel in accordance with levirate law, and Luke then counted Zerubbabel as Shealtiel’s son on that basis.[45] This requires a modification of the hypothesis, as Luke does not rigidly provide simply a biological ancestry, but in a general sense gives the natural descent of Christ. Luke thus follows close family and adoptive relationships, while Matthew’s list “involved breaks where the scion of a more or less widely separated collateral line had to be taken into the succession of the heirs to the throne.”[46]

This view explains the differences in the tables up to Shealtiel in the post-exilic period. Yet the two lists depart from one another again, either after Zerubbabel or Abiud (Matt. 1:13) – who may be the same as the Joda listed by Luke (3:26).[47] They do not coincide again until Matthat (Matthan), Joseph’s grandfather. How can this be explained? If the hypothesis that Luke provides Jesus’ natural descent is correct, then the lines did indeed diverge between Abiud and Matthat. They came together again with Matthat, probably the actual son of Levi (Luke 3:24), as the royal succession came to him from Levi’s relative Eleazar (Matt. 1:15), who must have not had an heir of his own. Otherwise, there was perhaps a levirate marriage involved with Levi producing Matthat as an heir for Eleazar.

From here, the problem of Joseph’s biological parentage is easily resolved. Matthew’s Jacob, son of Matthan, and Luke’s Heli, son of Matthat, must in fact be brothers, sons of the same father.[48] Fairbairn postulates that Jacob may have had only daughters, and Joseph, being Heli’s son, married one of these – either before his marriage to Mary, or that she was herself Jacob’s daughter.[49] Joseph would then have become Jacob’s heir with respect to the kingly succession. Furthermore, if Mary was indeed Jacob’s daughter, she and Joseph would have been first cousins – a marriage arrangement hardly foreign to Scripture. As Fairbairn points out, this:

…perfectly accords with Jewish practice… It was the constant aim of the Jews to make inheritance and blood-relationship, as far as possible, go together. And it could not seem otherwise than natural and proper, that the daughter of the nearest heir to the throne of David, should be espoused to the next heir. Nor is it undeserving of notice – as, at least, negatively favouring the supposition respecting Mary – that, while we read of a sister, we never hear of a brother belonging to her; excepting Joseph, female relatives alone are mentioned. [50]

Thus the differences between the Matthean and Lucan genealogies are, quite simply, a matter of emphasis and intent. One of Matthew’s great concerns, as a Jewish writer, was to vindicate Jesus’ claim to be the promised Davidic Messiah who would fulfill the covenants with Abraham and David.[51] To that end, he provided his genealogy to show that Jesus was, through his adoptive father, the rightful and legal heir to the Davidic throne. Luke, on the other hand, was a Gentile writing to Gentiles, who lived in a culture steeped in philosophy that downplayed the importance and goodness of material and fleshly things. His concern, as shown in his list’s culmination in Adam, was to demonstrate Jesus’ relation to the whole human race,[52] as a real human being, with a real family, standing in the line of humanity from its beginning.

CONCLUSION

Apparent biblical contradictions may seem daunting at first, especially to the evangelical Christian committed to the unity and perfection of Scripture. Problems like the Gospel genealogies teach us that, inspired of God as it is, Scripture is also a production of the hands of men, reflecting the culture, priorities, and personality of human writers. They should not serve as a reason to question or abandon the faith – much less as a pretext to attack it – but rather as a humbling reminder that man’s wisdom is far below that of God. By submitting to the teaching of Scripture regarding its perfection and consistency, rather than dismissing it as inadequate in light of fallible human first impressions, Christians are forced to look harder and deeper at what God has inspired. In doing so, valuable lessons may be learned that would be otherwise missed. Such difficulties are a useful reminder that understanding God’s Word is a discipline that requires dedication and hard work, but which promises rich and lasting rewards to those willing to humbly search for God’s truth.

[1] Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982).

[2] Thomas Aquinas, Treatise on the Incarnation, in Summa Theologica, Third Part [book online]; available from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.TP_Q31_A3.html; Internet; accessed 19 October 2006.

[3] Thomas Lea and David Black, The New Testament: Its Background and Message (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003), 173.

[4] Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, vol. 1, trans. Kirsopp Lake (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1949), 63.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Flavius Josephus, The Life of Flavius Josephus, in The Works Of Flavius Josephus, vol. II, trans. William Whiston (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1974), 4.

[7] Patrick Fairbairn, Opening Scripture (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1858; reprint, Vestuvia Hills, Alabama: Solid Ground Christian Publications, 2005), 181 (page citations are to the reprint edition).

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid., 190.

[10] John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Vol. 1, trans. William Pringle (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981)

[11]Aquinas.

[12] Frank Stagg, “Matthew,” in General Articles, Matthew-Mark, The Broadman Bible Commentary, vol. 8, ed. Clifton Allen et al (Nashville: Broadman, 1969), 81.

[13] Fairbairn, 196.

[14] Ibid., 194-195.

[15] Ibid., 197-98.

[16] Ibid., 198.

[17] Ibid., 19

[18] Ibid., 199.

[19] Ambrose, “Exposition of the Gospel of Luke 3:12-13,” in Ancient Christian Commentary On Scripture, vol. III, ed. Thomas Oden et al (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 70.

[20] Augustine, “Harmony of the Gospels 2.3.5,” in Ancient Christian Commentary On Scripture, vol. 1a, ed. Thomas Oden et al (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 4.

[21] Aquinas.

[22] Lea and Black, 174.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Calvin, 80.

[25] Fairbairn, 187.

[26] Archer, 316.

[27] Malcolm Tolbert, “Luke,” in Luke-John, The Broadman Bible Commentary, vol. 9, ed. Clifton Allen et al (Nashville: Broadman, 1970), 41.

[28] Fairbairn, 186.

[29] Stagg, 81.

[30] Ambrose, “Exposition of the Gospel of Luke 3:4,” in Ancient Christian Commentary On Scripture, vol. III, ed. Thomas Oden et al (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 70.

[31] Hilary, “On Matthew 1.1,” in Ancient Christian Commentary On Scripture, vol. 1a, ed. Thomas Oden et al (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 4.

[32] Augustine, 4.

[33] Aquinas.

[34] Eusebius, 55, 57.

[35] Lea and Black, 174.

[36] Fairbairn, 196.

[37] Lea and Black, 174.

[38] Calvin, 85.

[39] Ibid., 87.

[40] Ibid., 86.

[41] Ibid.

[42] Fairbairn, 194.

[43] Ibid.

[44] J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1930), 206.

[45] Ibid.

[46] Ibid.

[47] Ibid., 205.

[48] Fairbairn, 196.

[49] Ibid.

[50] Ibid., 197.

[51] Stagg, 80.

[52] Tolbert, 41.

The importance of the Trinity

2008-12-12T18:28:00.001-07:00

Sadly, there are surely many professing evangelicals who do not understand the Trinity in even a cursory manner, and when asked to explain the doctrine, fail miserably. It is no surprise, then, that those who reject it often misconstrue it, and invest their time into assaulting straw men. Even those who accept it cannot articulate it. I have myself heard it explained wrong many times, and in the past I have held a view that was, in my ignorance, contrary to the revelation of Scripture. Thankfully, grace abounds, and my God and Savior opened my heart to receive the truth of His nature with joy.

Let us briefly examine the motivation for learning this doctrine accurately.

First and foremost, it is absolutely necessary that we hold in our minds the true image of God. The fact is that we make idols out of everything. And when we try to understand concepts, we relate them to things that already exist. There is no way around this - think of how often we try to describe something by relating it to something we already know. We do this same thing with God, in various ways. We try to relate Him to us, and in that way we 'humanize' (anthropomorphize) Him. We try to relate His nature to objects in reality. While this can be helpful to understand a particular aspect of God's nature, pushed far enough or analyzed thoroughly enough, the analogy will be inadequate and flawed - simply put, wrong.

The sin of idolatry is to make a false image of God. That is, every human who has elevated an idol or a concept to the status of god believes to some degree that this representation is accurate, and in many cases, that this representation is true. This includes the postmodern concept of ambiguity - holding an image of a God that is indiscrete, thoroughly foggy and ambiguous is itself an 'image.' So then, it is fundamentally important that we hold in our minds the true image of God, or else we worship a false representation of Him. James White articulates this clearly:

True worship must worship God as He exists, not as we wish Him to be. The essence of idolatry is the making of images of God. An image is a shadow, a false representation. We may not bow before a statue or figure, but if we make an image of God in our mind that is not in accord with God’s revelation of Himself, then we are not worshipping in truth. Since sin and rebellion are always pushing us toward false gods and away from the true God, we must seek every day to conform our thinking and our worship to God’s straight-edge standard of truth, revealed so wonderfully in Scripture. We must be willing to love God as He is, and that includes every aspect of His being that might, due to our fallen state, be offensive to us, or beyond our limited capacities to fully comprehend. God is not to be edited to fit our ideas and preconceptions. (The Forgotten Trinity, p. 18).¹

Secondly, it is important for obedience and relationship to God to understand these truths precisely as the Scripture has taught us. Some think that these 'theological details' are only for theologians. This assertion is ridiculously self-contradictory and absurd. Let's quickly examine why.

We are commanded to love God. We are also commanded to love our wives (spouses). As a human being, it does no good for me to say I love my wife, and not care to understand her desires, needs, fears, weaknesses, strengths, etc. In fact, none of you would feel loved if you were with someone who did this, and rightly so. He or she demonstrates an apathy in caring for you, as you would if you did this. Moreover, if my wife has made an effort to tell me about her desires, her fears, and she has invested in causing me to know her and put effort into the relationship, then I am doubly guilty of failing to love her.

This is how we love. We love when we joyfully exist to make much of another with all our heart, strength, and mind.

So if we are told to love God, and we talk so much about a relationship with Him, as is the modern evangelical speak, then is it not absolute lunacy and gross hypocrisy to say "I love God" and make little to no effort to know who He is in every way we can, especially since He has revealed so much through the written Word in Scriptures? In order to have a living faith, in order to have a relationship with God, you MUST know Him as He has revealed Himself to us. It is my strong suspicion that many use the 'mystery of God' concept (which, incidentally, is completely removed from the Biblical concept of the mystery of God) as an excuse for their own apathy and unwillingness to invest in knowing God through the Scriptures. Knowing anyone is hard work, and it requires a great deal of self-sacrifice to love someone. How much more, then, is needed to love God? Jesus demanded absolute self-denial - it is no wonder so many supposed Christians wallow in ignorance willingly: To pursue God means to lose oneself - and many love themselves to much to do that.

Now that I have discussed the importance of knowing truths like the Trinity for our relationship with God, let us look at how it relates to obedience.

1 Peter 3:15
14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled,15 but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you;16 yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.

Simply put, it is a command from God to be prepared to give a defence, an argument, an apologetic for our hope - motivated by an unwavering perception of the holiness of Jesus Christ. We have all, I am sure, failed to do this many times. In order to give a defence for our hope, we need to understand our hope, and we need to understand the God on whom our hope rests: Then we can give the reason why our hope is true - because it is promised by the certain and unchanging Word of the one, true, Creator of heaven and earth; the Triune God. Basically, if you do not understand the God of the Bible, and you do not care to know Him, you demonstrate clearly how much you love Him, and you will fail to be able to give a coherent, consistent, and truthful defence to those who ask you the reason for your hope, and you will find yourself the willing tool of disobedience, working against the very hope and God you claim to love.

For this reason, I think a series on the Trinity would be beneficial, and I am in the process of preparing one.

Notes
1. James White's book, The Forgotten Trinity, is a solid, biblical overview of the doctrine of the Trinity, and well worth picking up. I found it quite helpful in my own past studies, and in producing the document upon which this post is based. You can find it here: http://www.aomin.org/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=47

Modesty And The Excluded Middle

2008-12-11T19:32:00.003-07:00

It seems that my quotation has raised a bit of a ruckus. Scott thinks I'm advocating sexual licentiousness. Let's talk about this for a minute.

Scott said:

"Do you want to know what is actually taught, or do you feel more comfortable saying what is believed while actually not knowing."

I always study carefully before asserting something about another position. I've read Oneness writings, listened to debates with Oneness advocates, studied the testimonies and reflections of former Oneness Pentecostals, and, yes, interacted with Oneness believers.

If you think something I've said is unfair, make it plain. Say, "I don't believe that." And if you don't, or if it can't be shown to be a reasonable conclusion from your stated beliefs, I'll concede that. But you haven't done so yet.

Scott:

"The idea of modesty and nakedness specifically is not relegated to "Pentecostals"."

I wish you'd remembered that before writing your screed.

Scott:

"In fact most denominations 60 years ago believed and looked the same way. Women had long hair, wore dresses and there was a standard for modesty. Now to even state that there should be some modesty is "Legalism"?"

No, and that's not what I said. Modesty is not legalism. Modesty is dressing in a manner that demonstrates discretion and respect for God and one's own body.

Prescribing a specific dress standard (i.e. long dresses) and then threatening adherents with loss of salvation if they do not comply, however, is not modesty, but legalism - because it makes a certain kind of human performance necessary for salvation. In fact, insofar as it represents a temptation to think you are "better" or "more holy" than others, it can potentially be the exact opposite of modesty.

Scott, I have a wife and a daughter. Modesty is of great value to me. I have no problem with long hair and long dresses. And I know our culture is hypersexualized and has a far lower threshold of what is "acceptable" than should be the case. As a husband and father, that scares me. However, I don't see how the fashions of the 1950's are the biblically prescribed answer. You keep talking about denominations some forty years ago. Why only go back that far? Why not go back to the 17th century and hoopskirts? Why not dress like the Inuit in furs from head to toe? What about burqas? What is your standard, Scott? What sets a certain outfit apart as modest, over and against what is immodest? Why does your dress standard please God, over and against, say, the hijabs of fundamentalist Muslims?

I do have a problem with mandating a specific cultural expression of modesty from a specific time period as the only acceptable expression of modesty – and I really object to the aspersions cast upon those who still dress conservatively and as fits their gender as distinct, but who don't see the dress of rural America in the 1950s as being the only way to glorify God in modesty. And when it becomes a test of salvation, that's a big line to cross. You now have to prove not that modesty is a Gospel issue, but that long dresses, segregated swimming, and the like are Gospel issues.

Scott:

"So, we should feel free to walk around virtually naked, save for a fig leaf over our private and frolick in public with the knowledge of Grace and Love, because lust and impure thoughts never enter the mind of a grace effected person."

Now here is a textbook example of "the fallacy of the excluded middle." Because I think that making boys and girls swim at separate times and in full body swimming suits is excessive, I am obviously advocating that they swim together, and naked. This statement is ludicrous, and insulting.

But it underlines my point: the UPC's entire approach to this issue commits the same error. There are two stark alternatives: nakedness, or total separation and full body suits. What makes this legalistic is that it prescribes a law – say, men and women can't swim together - that the Bible never explicitly states (which should matter to you, Scott, since you're fishing for an explicit Biblical verse defining the Trinity) and makes it binding on the conscience. Why stop there? Why not separate the men and women in worship, like Orthodox Jews? Why not separate them in the marital bed, like the Shakers? Where's the line?

This example was cited not because I approve of G-strings or other sexually titillating swimwear (I most certainly don't), but because it represented an extreme reaction in the other direction. UPC theology leaves no room for wisdom and discernment, but sets up a series of laws instead. It may keep a person safe from sexual sin – but it encourages trust in the rules to keep one safe rather than developing Christian discernment and judgment.

And this is a Gospel issue. The foundation for our salvation is the finished work of Christ, alone. What saves us is not the proper mode of baptism, but a living and repentant faith in Jesus Christ (itself a gift bestowed by God). What keeps us saved is not our own efforts, but that same finished work of Christ pointed to again and again by our Advocate and Mediator, Christ, before the throne of the Father. In your theological system, since Father and Son are essentially the same, you have no mediator, and so salvation is something you have to "maintain" by your own efforts. You have to "stay saved." Thus, rules and regulations that focus on behavior while neglecting character, that point to the law instead of to Christ and what we are called to be in Him.

Scott:

"I will endevour to put something together to demonstrate for you what specifically I believe how works and faith function together."

Looking forward to it. Please explain, as part of this, how it is that Christ can truly be called a "mediator" and the Holy Spirit "intercede" with the Father, if they are merely parts that God plays.

Scott:

"I do think your writing demonstrates a complete lack of Biblical understanding in the rank and file of evangelicals in the area of basic ideals of modesty, because the pulpit has been silent so long, there is not even a memory of what these same pulpits have said on these issues just a few decades ago."

I'll be the first to say that modern evangelicals are forgetting their heritage. And many an evangelical church has capitulated to the culture in the area of modesty. But conceding that's a far cry from proving that I am now advocating boys and girls swim naked together!

You'll have to show me how it is that the dress standards of rural America from the 1950's are the only biblically acceptable expression of modesty. You'll have to show me why, biblically speaking, boys and girls can't swim together. You'll have to show me why, biblically speaking, pants of a conservative fit can't be acceptable for women, but dresses are (I don't know if that's what you believe, but many UPC people do, so let me know). What are your criteria for discernment? What are the explicit biblical teachings for these things, like the ones you want for the Trinity? And if your convictions are based on a "whole-Bible" theology, just why can't such an approach be adequate for proving the Trinity?

Scott:
"amazing."

Indeed. I must go - my darned wife is putting a diaper on our daughter, and I won't tolerate any of that clothing stuff for my kids....

I'm praying for you, though. Soon I'll have a bit more on the concept of Christ as Mediator.

God Is Not An Actor

2008-12-10T22:32:00.002-07:00

The Grim Consequences of Legalism

A classmate of mine wrote me the following some time ago, and I thought it an instructive testimony about the devastating impact of Oneness theology:

“We have a close Christian friend who was very mixed up by the United Pentecostals. His theology is just BAD. The worst part is how badly it messed up his children. We visited his adult daughter on our holiday, and she broke down and told me how hurt she had been by the rigid belief system, and restrictions as a child her father demanded, although she loves him, and he is a very loving man... I believe this doctrine of the Oneness movement to be very damaging. I remember that when they went to UPC summer camp as children, they put black plastic around the pool fence, and the boys and girls swam at separate times, in full body bathing suits! This kind of legalism shocked me.”

Theology matters, and bad theology can have horrendous consequences. In the case of this family, the legalism required by UPC beliefs disrupts even a loving family. It’s not for no reason that Paul warned the Colossians that legalism and observing outward regulations is of little value (2:23). Indeed, such obsessive law-keeping is a sign that one has not truly died with Christ to the world (Col. 2:20).

A Distorted Picture of God

But why does Oneness theology tend in this legalistic direction? Put simply, Oneness theology has driven a wedge between, on the one hand, what God “really is” in Oneness theology, and on the other, what God inconveniently “appears like” in the New Testament (and I would argue the Old as well). This dichotomy means that all of the New Testament teaching showing God as an interpersonal being – showing the Father relating to the Son, the Son mediating between the Father and mankind, the Spirit interceding with the Father on our behalf, showing love and affection between members of the Godhead, etc. – is all really just a “show.” These are nothing more than mere “modes” or “manifestations” appearing to relate, to feel, to communicate, to interact.

So while God reveals himself as three temporary and illusory “masks” or “faces,” the reality behind the mask, the “who” of God, what God really is, is still elusive and shrouded. And as one former Oneness Pentecostal put it, “When one’s God is hidden, one must grab onto gods more tangible.” And so the UPC and other Oneness denominations present a God obsessed with appearances and performances, who then gathers a people similarly obsessed with outward appearances. This is a deity who, because he is ever hidden behind the masks he shows to the world and is ever acting like something other than what he truly is, expects (and gets) the same from his people.

It Doesn't Depend On Us, Actually

What a contrast from the gracious (and revealed!) God of the Bible and of Trinitarian theology. The gospels offered by Trinitarians and modalists could not be more different. In the Sabellian modalism of the UPC, God saves a person based ultimately on their own performance. In Trinitarian theology, God saves a person based upon Christ’s performance. The Father sends the Son to redeem the world; the Son submits to the will of the Father and offers himself as the victim of the Father’s righteous wrath against sin; and the Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son to apply this salvation to human hearts as an act of adoration and exaltation toward Christ.

The Trinity Matters

2008-12-09T22:16:00.002-07:00

The "Oneness" God: Obsessed With Appearances

I was exposed to the Oneness Pentecostal movement when still juvenile in my faith, and that helped sharpen my conviction about the absolute necessity for the Trinity in Christian faith. Put simply, Oneness Pentecostals (like the United Pentecostal Church) are modalists - Sabellians. They believe in three "modes" or "manifestations" of God but reject any personal or eternal distinctions within God's being.

The sad thing is that this reduces God, in biblical revelation, to a mere actor wearing masks. What's more troubling is that the entire thrust of Oneness theology has been fatally tainted as a result. They believe in a God who is ever changing faces, or who is ever revealing a different face - a God who, in short, is extremely concerned with appearances. It's no coincidence that these denominations then require strict dress codes (in some places in Atlantic Canada, the term "Pentecostal" implies not so much tongues and passionate worship as it does floor-length patterned dresses and hair back in a bun) and threaten their members with loss of salvation if they do not comply. Their stress on "Jesus only" baptism as being required for salvation is a further mistake derived from this foundational error.

We Have No Mediator?

The most devastating effect of modalism, however, is that since the Father and Son are identical in person - the same person simply playing different roles - it therefore strips the Christian of his or her Mediator before God. In orthodox theology, while we stand before a Judge being accused by Satan, we also have a Divine Mediator who can argue on our behalf and point to His own work as a basis for mercy toward us. In Oneness theology, there can be no such distinction between Judge and Mediator - the Mediator is the Judge, and thus we have no mediator. Consequently, the believer is left to argue his own case before God without intercession on his or her behalf by either a distinct Christ or a distinct Holy Spirit. It's no wonder, then, that the UPC and other Oneness denominations functionally deny justification by faith alone, adding requirements like Jesus-only immersion baptism, long dresses, short hair on men, tongues-speaking, avoidance of TV, and other "works" or "performances" as requirements for salvation. Without an Advocate before the Father, they have to prove their own worth.

This is just one example of why the Trinity is so critical for Christianity, and why orthodox Christians have held that a denial of the Trinity is heresy. One need not understand the Trinity to be saved - as if any of us ever could - but an informed denial of it is tantamount either to a belief in multiple gods or a denial that we need a Mediator between God and man and an Advocate before the Father. The Trinity is non-negotiable.

Not A Fringe Movement

And just in case anyone reading this thinks that this is just a fringe movement, it's not. It's actually quite influential even in evangelical circles. TD Jakes is one example of a modalist "evangelical leader." The CCM group Phillips, Craig, and Dean are all UPC pastors and all teach Sabellian modalism, and yet their music is all over the Christian airwaves and sung in our churches. I personally think it terrible how low evangelical discernment has fallen. We'd never put music by Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses on Christian radio, precisely because of their Trinitarian heresies (polytheism for the former, subordinationism for the latter). Why, then, are PCD embraced as evangelical Christians when their very conception of God is so radically different from (and incompatible with) ours? Why are UPC pastors, who not only accept but are required to teach salvation by works, embraced as theological role models for evangelical kids?

If we think the Trinity matters, brothers and sisters, it has to matter not only in our classrooms but on our radio stations (and church worship sets) as well. Does it?

The Summarator

2008-11-10T11:16:00.004-07:00

I've moved the daily blog update off this blog so that we don't rapidly bury our own content.

If you look to the top-right corner of the blog, you'll see a section entitled The Summarator. Daily blog summaries are posted there.

You may want to subscribe to the RSS feed.

Confusing Regeneration with Eternal Life?

2008-11-09T21:02:00.001-07:00

Did this presenter just confuse regeneration with eternal life?

2. Irresistible grace reverses the biblical order of salvation. (This is the most serious.)
a. Which comes first, regeneration or faith? R.C. Sproul quoted to demonstrate the Reformed view that regeneration precedes faith. Jesus words in John 3 concerning the serpent lifted in the wilderness and those looking to the serpent living, proves that John 5:40: coming to Christ precedes having life. John 11:25, the believing precedes the living. b. Which comes first the Spirit’s regeneration or is regeneration commensurate with justification?
c. What comes first repentance and faith or regeneration? John 20:31, the believing precedes the life [other texts cited].

This argument is so absurd that it MUST be a misquote. This can’t possibly be what he’s arguing.

Regeneration isn’t eternal life.

In John, eternal life is intimate communion with the Godhead - life at its scarcely imagined best. It is the present possession of all who believe, for those who believe have relation with God.

Being born again is the fulfillment of Ezekiel 36, the promise of the new heart. That’s the clear referent in John 3.

John 3 makes even seeing the kingdom of God conditional upon regeneration. Is he saying that you get eternal life before seeing the kingdom of God? It can be argued that the clearest referent for the kingdom of God in John is the concept of eternal life. Here's my study notes on this:

While we have no question, we see that Jesus cuts right to the heart of the matter. The man is seeking something, evidence, information, assurance, and Jesus, in a single sentence, summarily dismisses the entire approach of the Pharisees, Nicodemus included. Entrance to the kingdom of God, which for a “Jew with the background and convictions of Nicodemus, ‘to see the kingdom of God’ was to participate in the kingdom at the end of the age, to experience eternal, resurrection life.” [1]. It makes sense that Jesus would begin here. Nicodemus would have taught for years that it is through personal obedience, righteousness, purity and adherence to the Law that one would be good enough to see the kingdom. And now, Jesus says something entirely different.

Let’s look at the kingdom of God for a moment. It is in [at least] three senses that we may speak of the kingdom of God from the Scriptures. The kingdom of God is, in a creative sense, the entire realm of creation. God is Creator, the whole earth belongs to Him, and therefore His rule and realm is all of Creation, since He is sovereign over all things. Second, in an eschatological sense, the kingdom of God is often spoken of as something that is yet to fully materialize, that is coming at the end of the age. Like many concepts in Scripture, the kingdom of God is partially seen now, and will be fully realized at the day of judgment when Christ is put over all things. Finally, the kingdom of God is the rule and authority of God in the hearts of believers. It is in this sense that we understand passages such as that of Luke 17:20-21, where the kingdom of God is said to “be in the midst of you (plural).” [I would add that the kingdom of God is the fulfillment of the whole of God's promises]

Perhaps most important, however, is that John only uses this expression here, and he records an allusion to it in John 18:36, when Jesus explains to Pilate why the disciples do not fight to free Him. John is chiefly concerned with the expressions “life” and “eternal life.” Surely the reference to the kingdom of God is this, especially given the connection in verse 15. To see and enter the kingdom of God is to have eternal life.

Jesus reply is thus shocking: To even see the kingdom of God, one must be born again. This word “born,” Greek γεννάω (ghen-nah-o) can refer to the action of the father (‘to beget’) or the mother (‘to give birth to’), which both communicate the concept of generation or regeneration [2]. The reference is to the individual, that is, no one (male or female), can see the kingdom unless he (or she) is born again. We shall see that this concept of rebirth is not at all foreign to the Scriptures.

What is to be understood here? First, one can never “evolve” into the kingdom of God. A total and complete recreation of the being is required for entry into the kingdom. This obliterates any notion that one could upon his own merits enter the kingdom. It is simply not possible. A rebirth of the being is absolutely necessary.

[1] Carson, John, pg. 188.

[2] Carson, John, pg. 189: “Predominant religious thought in Jesus’ day affirmed that all Jews would be admitted to that kingdom apart from those guilty of deliberate apostasy or extraordinary wickedness (e.g. Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1). But here was Jesus telling Nicodemus, a respected and conscientious member not only of Israel but of the Sanhedrin, that he cannot enter the kingdom unless he is born again. The verb rendered ‘to be born’ (gennan) can refer to the action of the father (‘to beget’) or the mother (‘to give birth to’): the common ingredient is ‘generation’ or ‘regeneration.’ The coming of the kingdom at the end can be described as the ‘regeneration’ of the world (Mt. 19:28, NIV ‘renewal’), but here what is required is the regeneration of the individual before the end of the world and in order to enter the kingdom.

Does this presenter even understand Arminian¹ teaching on this stuff? Considering his scholarship, this is a fair question.

Let's be clear here: The options he presents are:

Regeneration->Faith? or Faith->Regeneration?

Presupposed: Living/Eternal life=Regeneration

So, the options he presents are:

Believing->Living/Eternal life/Regeneration?

Or:

Living/Eternal life/Regeneration->Believing?

Only when you smash clearly distinguished biblical concepts together like this can you not only come up with binary mutually exclusive options, both of which are wrong, but you end up refuting a straw man, as well as contradicting your own position.

The biblical teaching is:

Regeneration->Faith->Justification->Eternal life

Where:

Regeneration=new heart/born again from above

Faith=Receiving Christ and trusting Him, believing the truth that He is the Son of God

Justification=Counted righteous (by faith)

Eternal life=Life that never ends, life at its scarcely imagined best, intimate relation with the Father and Son.

These are all different concepts.

Eternal life presupposes justification. Justification is necessary to commune with God. Justification presupposes regeneration.

At any rate, I, for one, am still a Calvinist.

Notes
1. e.g., John Wesley on John 17:3 - "To know - By loving, holy faith, thee the only true God - The only cause and end of all things; not excluding the Son and the Holy Ghost, no more than the Father is excluded from being Lord, 1 Corinthians 8:6; but the false gods of the heathens; and Jesus Christ - As their prophet, priest, and king: this is life eternal - It is both the way to, and the essence of, everlasting happiness." Compare to Wesley on John 3:5 - "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit - Except he experience that great inward change by the Spirit, and be baptized (wherever baptism can be had) as the outward sign and means of it."

LDS Temple Announced For Calgary, Alberta

2008-11-08T20:16:00.003-07:00

This is rather old news, but the Mormons will be building a new temple in northwest Calgary. Some details can be found at an LDS temples site, among which is the fact that it will be next to the Royal Oak chapel and that the building will be finished in about three years.

Dramatic Increase In LDS Temple Construction

The Mormons have certainly been on a temple-building tear over the past few years. Back in 1965, there were only ten temples built or under construction worldwide, and only one of those (the Cardston temple) was in Canada. Under the presidency of Gordon Hinckley, temple construction increased dramatically. Much like Herod the Great, Hinckley will be remembered as a man of buildings. When he assumed the LDS presidency, there were only 47 temples worldwide, and when he died in January, there were 124 - an increase of 77. While it took the first 120 years of LDS history to see the first 50 LDS temples built, the second 50 were dedicated within a span of just 3 years. In 2000 alone, 34 of these structures were dedicated.

Hinckley was succeeded in January by Thomas Monson, and the fact that since his assumption of office less than a year ago the First Presidency has announced no less than 8 new temples seems to suggest that Monson aims to be as much a "builder" as was his predecessor. Calgary's temple will be the eighth Canadian temple, but it likely will not be the last.

Implications For The Gospel

Alberta is certainly a hotbed of LDS activity, and the Mormon population of the province might well be the highest concentration of Mormons outside the United States. The LDS church has obviously been preparing for this temple for some time, having acquired the extra land in Royal Oak four years ago. This newest announcement needs to be understood as a particularly prominent reflection of the growth of Mormon influence in Alberta.

And in that light, Christians need to sit up and take notice. The LDS church is extremely well organized, has tremendous financial resources, presents a highly controlled public image, and has an aggressive outreach program in its missionaries. Christian evangelism in Alberta and in the Calgary area in particular needs to take the Mormon challenge into account. Christian churches and pastors need to understand and recognize Mormonism as the heresy that it is, and prepare their flocks to be "ready with an answer" to uphold the true Gospel with them.

What can Christians expect? First, the LDS church will milk this project for all the public relations value it can get. The initial announcement was carried in both Calgary daily papers, and as construction commences we can expect more attention to the Mormons in the secular media. This affords the LDS the opportunity to spread their message in response to obvious questions: what is an LDS temple for? what is the difference between a Christian church and an LDS temple? There will be a groundbreaking ceremony, probably well-attended by city officials and media; there will be a public open house for the community, during which ordinary Calgarians may tour the temple before it is dedicated (accompanied by a helpful and evangelistic Mormon missionary, no doubt); there will be a dedication ceremony, which will provide yet another PR opportunity to proclaim the Mormon message.

Second, as a means of increasing their evangelistic impact, we can expect the LDS to downplay the differences between themselves and evangelical Christianity. This has certainly been a recent trend with the Mormons; one outstanding example was the recent publication, by the evangelical Christian publisher Eerdman's, of a book defending the Mormon conception of Jesus Christ by a prominent Mormon scholar - and justifying their conception of their theology as being "Christian." A similar trend can be seen in Mormon temple architecture. Where before, new temples tended to have a very distinctive and even "alien" appearance, more recent temples built in North America have taken a strange turn toward resembling Christian cathedrals. While not all North American temples are following the trend, there are many good examples, including the Rexburg, Twin Falls, Oquirrh Mountain, and Vancouver (Langley) temples, and even the proposed design for the recently announced Gila Valley temple seems to imitate the pattern.

So one thing to watch: when the LDS unveil the design and artist's rendering for the Calgary temple, don't be surprised if it looks rather familiar.

Bottom line is that this new temple represents a statement by the LDS church that they intend to strengthen their position in the Calgary area and in Alberta at large. Now, perhaps God in His wisdom will put a halt to this building project; He's done it before, and not every temple announced by the LDS actually gets off the ground. So we should be praying for God's mercy in this regard.

But in case in His sovereignty He permits this to go ahead, what is less obvious but still present is the opportunity it presents for the true Church and the real Gospel. The very confusion in secular society about what Mormons believe and how they differ from mainstream Christians will present many private and public opportunities to clarify and thus proclaim the real message of salvation to unbelievers.

Let's pray for wisdom, brothers and sisters. And let's not waste this opportunity.

2008-11-07

2008-11-08T10:44:00.001-07:00

This post contains summaries of various blogs.

Interesting short fiction by Hays. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/11/i-will-wait-till-my-change-comes.html

This describes the significance of Obama's election from the particularly from the perspective of an African-American. "For me, the emotion of this moment has less to do with Obama than with the nation. Now I know how some people must have felt when they heard Ronald Reagan say "it's morning again in America." The new sunshine feels warm on my face." http://www.joshharris.com/2008/11/the_deep_significance_of_obama.php

Piper gives a tribute to Billy Graham. Graham "told students in 1964 at Harvard Divinity School… "I used to think that in evangelism I had to do it all, but now I approach evangelism with a totally different attitude. I approach it with complete relaxation. First of all, I don't believe that any man can come to Christ unless the Holy Spirit has prepared his heart. Secondly, I don't believe any man can come to Christ unless God drives him. My job is to proclaim the message. It's the Holy Spirit's job to do the work, period."" "He is famous for saying that he preached too much and studied too little." Then a description is given of his forbidable study habits. [Perhaps the work in Graham is not to be underestimated, all things considered]. http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1484_A_Tribute_to_Billy_Graham_at_90/

Bayly says that it appears that Driscoll has followed Tim Keller in, "an woman can do anything an unordained man can do." http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/11/another-one-bites-the-dust.html

Phillips rails on the Lord Jesus mandated requirement to go to a local church, an assembly of believers; contra those who despise the 'institutional church,' which Phillips diagnoses as a hatred for authority. Christ gave to the church her pastors and teachers, and He commanded people to go to the assemblies of believers, and you think yourself smarter than Christ even while disobeying Him if you do not do so, in addition to tacitly admitting that you despise the accountability of church. http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-you-need-to-be-in-church-this.html

If you don't read the Bible [and therefore like to hew out cisterns that don't satisfy], Turk points you to some worldly advice on how to be happy over the weekend. http://centuri0n.blogspot.com/2008/11/if-youre-happy-and-you-know-it.html

Perkins writes: "there is an inverse relationship between dreaming great visions and faithfulness in the little things. The people who have the grandest, most sweeping plans and strategies for the future are likely to be unreliable and untrustworthy in the smaller, short-term tasks and responsibilities." 1) Ministry is about godliness, not gifts. 2) Our only judge is Christ Himself, not man. Remember that it was Christ who proclaimed rewards for faithfulness over the little things. http://solapanel.org/article/doing_the_little_things_well/#When:22:00:00Z

Dan Wallace responds to the CBMW critique of an older post wherein he wrote "that I could not go against my conscience and that, in my view, egalitarians were doing exegetical gymnastics." He argues that CBMW misrepresented him, on account that they read him as saying the exegesis was certain and he just didn't like it [I will say that I independently read Wallace's post before CBMW posted and took that general sense from it too...]. I think what he's saying here is that what he meant is that he's uncomfortably complementarian on account that he thinks the Scriptures teach it so he cannot go against it but it isn't that clear. "I did not say that egalitarianism was clearly unbiblical." http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/11/cbmw-and-dialogue/

Phillips goes after the "fine Christian blogs and writers are jumping immediately to what I think of as the "I, for one, welcome our new ant overlords" approach." [read previous summaries; some are mentioned there]. He argues that it is unbiblical: "Leaping immediately to theologized "Oh-wells" is a miserably poor and un-Biblical pastoral (or otherwise Christian) approach." By this he refers to blowing off the disastrous implications of Obama's election for many unborn on account of God's sovereignty. Scripture is clear that there is a time to mourn and that we are to weep with those who weep, not theologize them. Not only so, but he points to the example of the OT prophets when there were wicked rulers in the land. "So all that to say: it is appropriate for Christian patriots to mourn. It is appropriate for Christian patriots to weep. It is appropriate for Christian patriots to ask, "What happened? Why? Are there transgressions to repent of, that we might find mercy?"" http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2008/11/reflecting-on-lament-for-america.html

A series of posts is coming on the importance of verbal aspect in Greek. "So if you're a Greek professor, Greek student, or just a Greek nerd be sure to check back and weigh in on Verbal Aspect. " http://zondervan.typepad.com/koinonia/2008/11/verbal-aspect-in-biblical-greek---series-of-posts-1110---1114-by-constantine-campbell.html

David Bayly isn't moved by the 'historic moment' of a black man becoming President. For, as he points out, this is the anti-thesis of the fulfillment of Martin Luther King's dream. Obama's election was racist to the core. America is congratulating itself on electing a black man, despite the evident baby-killing bankrupcy of his character. "The content of his character? That's had absolutely nothing to do with the election of Barack Obama to our presidency, and white and black Americans who care about justice and mercy are one in being sickened by the hypocrisy of it all." http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/11/hold-out-for-the-real-deal.html

At the John 3:16 conference [odd name considering the text teaches particular atonement for believers], the Arminians, huddled safe and sound, work to stop Calvinism, tarring James White as hypercalvinist, even while it is James White who is currently preparing to proclaim the Gospel to Muslims - not them. http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2955

The mood at the John 3:16 conference is said to be that of those looking for exegetical refutations of Calvinism (not vitriolic or panicked), who think that Calvinists have drawn the wrong systematic and logical conclusions from the text, rather than being based directly upon Scripture [now, apply that thinking to John 6]. http://www.challies.com/archives/liveblogging/john-316-conference-attendance-and-mood.php

This is the substance of the arguments at the John 3:16 conference against irresistable grace. [the confusion between regeneration and eternal life in the 'most important' point categorically eliminates it from the biblical realm.] http://www.challies.com/archives/liveblogging/john-316-conference-message-on-irresistible-grace-by-dr-steve-lemke.php

Ok, this is just funny. In response to liberal upheaval at Coultier's comment, "In the spirit of reaching across the aisle, we owe it to the Democrats to show their president the exact same kind of respect and loyalty that they have shown our recent Republican president," Pike says, "Fear not, Conservatives aren't liberals." http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/11/fear-not.html

Franklin Graham confronted Obama regarding his views on homosexuality and abortion, stating clearly to him that they cannot back down on these issues. [the Grahams are doing well today!] http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BaylyblogOutOfOurMindsToo/~3/445827167/franklin-graham-doses-the-lovefest-with-truth.html

The global warming aside - they say that the onset of human civilization was 5000 years ago? You know, I've seen a number like that somewhere before... http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/07/climate-change-warming.html

The new book Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics by Richard A. Burridge apparently defends an inclusivistic system NT ethics. (e.g. Burridge seems to come close to equating non-acceptance of homosexuality with apartheid in South Africa.) http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/2008/11/burridge-on-inclusivist-nt-ethics.html

Ascol, following up on Taylor's critique, writers of a recent publication by Lemke: "I am confident that Dr. Lemke has no desire to misrepresent anyone's theological position nor any historical record. But he has." (this is the speaker on irresistable grace at the John 3:16 conference) http://www.founders.org/blog/2008/11/justin-taylor-on-steve-lemkes.html

2008-11-06

2008-11-06T22:39:00.001-07:00

This post contains snippets and summaries from various blogs.

Phil Johnson responds, given his arguments about the wrongheadedness of seeking political remedies to every form of human depravity, to Klusendorf's idea that, "Well, I'm all for preaching the gospel, but why should anyone suppose that political efforts aimed at protecting human life detract from the biblical command to go make disciples? Why can't pro-life Christians do both?" He points out how Klusendorf doesn't really seem to be doing a 'both-and' by all accounts, and that "I think he (like most evangelicals) is blinded by starry-eyed naïveté if he really believes the three-decades-long effort to harness the church's political clout has done nothing to damage our collective testimony as the church of Christ or mute the gospel in the message we have communicated to our culture." Johnson also says, "I think he is tacitly acknowledging that if we inject the gospel into the political apparatus of the pro-life movement, we will undermine the ecumenicity that holds the movement together. I've been saying that for years. It's the main reason both/and is not the simple proposition Klusendorf sometimes insists it is." [I will note that there is a difference between calling out for repentance from the evils in our culture and political activism - and Johnson is right, pro-life efforts at the cost of the Gospel (such as ecumenicalism) have priorities completely backwards]. http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/11/familiar-can-of-worms.html

A hispanic writes in about what he thinks is really happening with race and the politics. He says, " White Americans may view this as a large step towards a less racist and more tolerant society, but I think in general black Americans think of this more as black victory and progress.... It has been a mystery to me how people can proclaim black power or brown power and view white power as being uniquely wrong. Don't get too hopeful about the future of race relations." [it seems to be something of a past-suffering justifies equivalent retaliation, namely, racism (against whites), mentality] http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/11/from-other-side-of-fence.html

This post points out the inherent racism and confusion in taking pride that America elected a black president. "Should Americans be proud that a biracial man has been elected US president? Surely that’s no reason to be proud. A man’s ethnicity or skin colour ought to be strictly irrelevant to whether he’s the right man to serve as president. Wasn’t that the point all along? So to take pride in his election on that basis is just another form of racism." http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/11/american-pride.html

Peter Enns rehashes an old debate over the Enuma Elish and Genesis 1, as if the arguments are new. This post has a few short quotes relating to the distinctions of the two, and how there is not a dependency. [Triablogue has addressed this ad nauseum - see the archives] http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/11/gen-1-enuma-elish.html

Hays briefly goes after lazy proof-texting in applying Romans 13 to the current political affairs. The text has been quoted and applied in all manner of ways throughout history. He quotes Jewett's commentary on Romans: "“The form of the final lines in this pericope is compressed, succinct, and correlative. In each of four examples, governmental obligations are paid to those who qualify. Helmut Merklein aptly refers to the ‘conditionality’ of this formulation. Instead of absolute subservience, obligations are to be met if they prove legitimate. The formulation leaves space for assessments of appropriateness made by the community,” http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/11/rom-13-then-and-now.html

A Pelagian tries to use Ezekiel 18 to deny imputation of Adam's sin to all. But the Law says four times that God holds people accountable for the sins of their fathers. Rather than assume God contradicts Himself, ask how it is that God can say what is in Ezekiel 18, and how it would be received by those who received the Law as God's word. Ezekiel 18 is teaching that if they repent they will not be held accountable, and that they sin is proof of their agreement with their fathers. The Pelagian is arguing for infant salvation, and inadvertently proclaiming two ways to be save. [cf. Romans 5] http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/11/pelagian-dualisma.html

The critique of Romanism as committing 'Mariolatry' is an external critique. http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2952

Working human brain cells are produced from embryonic stem cells. [i.e. the strongest people can kill the weakest people so as to use their bodies to replace their own failing components.] http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/06/brain-cells-stem.html

Challies writes more on Compassion International's work with children. "Have you ever looked through the photos of children at Compassion's site or at a table at a concert and wondered why sometimes five or six girls are wearing the same dress? It's not a school uniform and is not a particularly nice dress, so why are several of the girls wearing it? Today I found out why. With tears of shame, even fifteen years later, Julia (pronounced "HOO-lia) sobbed her story. She had been born in such poverty that when, at age five, Compassion had taken her photograph in the hopes that they would be able to find a sponsor for her, she had no clothes she could wear in that photograph. And so she huddled in a bathroom naked with eight other girls while they waited their turn in the dress. One by one they put it on, faced the camera, and then took it off and returned to their tattered clothes." http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/challies/XhEt/~3/443827252/dominican-republic---gods-hidden-gifts.php

Turk relates the discussion on abortion between Tony Jones and Klusendorf: "Jones' view [in support of Obama] is that if there are fewer women below the poverty line, there will be fewer abortions -- because in his view, poverty causes abortion. Fear of not having money, or not having enough money, causes abortion. And Klusendorf rightly pointed out that there are socialized countries in the world with heavy support for the poor which have exactly the same rate of abortion as the US, so that argument is a little lame." Now, single women account for two-thirds of all abortions, and half of those getting abortions state that a lack of a male counterpart for stability is the reason. What is happening in the real world (contra Tony Jones) is that women are having sex with men they would consider to be problem relationships, and they don't want the baby making this problem relationship a bigger problem. http://centuri0n.blogspot.com/2008/11/tony-jones-on-wotm.html

This asks some decent questions about the church is more able to perform her duties under capitalism vs. socialism, if it really matters, and whether the church is in any danger from a hard left change in American government. http://manspeak.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/is-god-socialist/

Phillips laments over America; Bush, the MSM, the Voters - and particularly the "Quislings," the professedly Christian enablers of Obama's infanticide. "These are the hand-wringing, conflicted souls who just can't figure out whether or not it's a good thing to sweep aside thirty-five years of hard-fought, hard-won advances in the pro-life cause. Who just can't agonize themselves into seeing that they have a clear-cut moral obligation to stand athwart the most remorselessly, unrepentantly vicious pro-death advocate ever seriously to seek the White House." ... "You want to keep insisting that you did the right thing? Can't help you. Won't try. After January 20, you go to the dumpsters behind abortion clinics and explain to the sad, tragic, forsaken contents just how deep and nuanced you are." ... "And you pastors who could not find it in yourselves even to say, from the pulpit, that life is an important consideration when voting... I don't know what to say to you. I know some very fine men are absolutely convinced that all politics should be kept out of the pulpit. But is life politics? Is the stewardship of one's vote politics? Are we really called to give no guidance whatever for the pressing moral issues of citizenship?" http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2008/11/lament-for-america.html

McKinley argues that God's plan for the world runs through the church, not capitol hill, and thinks we've all come to just give lip service to the idea that Jesus is not a Republican. http://blog.9marks.org/2008/11/on-politics-and.html

David Bayly think that Obama's greatest opponents will be jaded congressional democrats. He also asks what constitutes being an American black, since Condi Rice, Ken Blackwell, Alan Keyes, and numerous others aren't considered "truly black" by the black community. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BaylyblogOutOfOurMindsToo/~3/443759002/election-thoughts.html

Graphic depiction of abortion. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BaylyblogOutOfOurMindsToo/~3/444456693/by-schisms-rent-asunder-by-heresies-oppressed.html

German Christians were scrupulous about social dancing... not so much about killing Jews, though. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BaylyblogOutOfOurMindsToo/~3/444544696/german-christians-were-scrupulous-about-social-dancing.html

Just more indication that university is hardly a matter of higher education or critical thinking anymore. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/foow/posters-and-pin-ups

Statistics show that a scant number of people (~4%) are actually atheists. Turns out that the prophets of atheism were wrong, and religion has not died, even in nations where atheistic indoctrination was the norm [mind you, this is happening now too]. The new atheism is a particularly nasty and angry form of atheism that reeks of desperation. Rodney Stark’s says this about the New Atheists’ attempts to stamp out religion: “To expect to learn anything about important theological problems from Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett is like expecting to learn about medieval history from someone who had only read Robin Hood.” There is an overrepresentation of new atheism in the media. With all this said, there is much Gospel work to do. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ParchmentAndPen/~3/444466427/

"This is a map, courtesy of someone at the University of Michigan, of the election results by county, graded on a scale of "Strongly Obama" (bright blue) to "Strongly McCain" (bright red), with variations measured by shades between blue and red." http://centuri0n.blogspot.com/2008/11/how-to-measure-landslide.html

A CD of the worship at Together for the Gospel is out. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/blogs/worshipmatters/~3/444663474/

Homosexuals call for violence against Christians on account of Proposition 8. http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6081 [Note that the incitement to violence on their part indicates that they care nothing for tolerance or democracy] HT: Phillips news of the day: http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2008/11/hither-and-thither-11608.html Phillips also writes: Pastor Tim Bayly makes me look like a tepid tea-drinker.

Read this: "The emoting over Obama's blackness is cloying hypocrisy. If an African American ascending our Imperial Throne means anything, its meaning is bound up with the end of the oppression of a group of persons formerly declared not full persons under our Constitution due to the color of their skin. Instead of learning the lesson of his skin color and descent, though, Obama glides into office on the blood of an entire generation of souls, red and yellow, black and white, who aren't enslaved, but slaughtered. In numbers that, each year, dwarf the oppression of slavery." http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/11/meet-the-new-boss-same-as-the-old-boss.html

This article points to a parallel between what happened in Stalin's days in Russia and what is happening now in South Africa. It points to a Darwinian worldview as the basis for Stalin's rabid pragmatism. "Stalin’s henchman Trotsky called for ‘an end once and for all to the Papist-Quaker babble about the sanctity of human life,’ in the Communist campaign of terror in order to impose Marxism on the Russian people." Also, "historians tell us that many of the same social circumstances evident in early 20^th century Russia prevailed in both Great Britain and France in the 18^th century. Why did France end up with bloody revolution, anarchy, the Reign of Terror and eventually the tyranny of Napoleon, while in contrast, just 30 miles across the Channel, their perennial enemies underwent a quite different revolution? ... These same historians conclude that it was the Christian revival under men such as Wesley and Whitfield that made the difference between the murderous revolution in France and the benevolent transformation in Britain. Not that Christianity was perfect or all-pervasive in Britain..." http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6051/

This article discusses the effect of humanism on all people, including Christians, and suggests a 'test for authority' to see whether humanism or God's truth is the foundation of things we encounter. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/the-authority-test

This article offers an answer for the 'contradiction' in that Rahab lied to protect the spies. The bottom line is that Rahab was justified by faith, righteous on account of Christ, not on the basis of her deeds. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/11/03/contradictions-a-righteous-lie

Obama promised change. "read this and ask yourself, "it is really 'change' if the primary attribute of a potential SCOTUS judge is their sex or race? Is that the kind of change we're really after here?"" Could it be people really hate Bush because he's not a sexist racist? http://centuri0n.blogspot.com/2008/11/absentee-ballot.html

Looks like these might be some good tips on email management (probably extensible to other areas). http://www.whatsbestnext.com/2008/11/how-to-get-your-email-inbox-to-zero-every-day/

2008-11-05

2008-11-05T22:44:00.001-07:00

This post contains summaries and quotations from various blogs.

Turk brings to mind the complaint of God against the Israelites in Malachi, and their 'complaint,' "how have you loves us?" Israel had a covenant with God that should have set them apart, but instead they wanted to be like the nations around them. God begins this complaint with 'I love you,' and the solution is that they need a round of the refiners fire, particularly for those who do not know what that means. See, they should have had hope. We too, in the church, should have hope. We should act like the beloved, not throw our hands in despair because of the state of the political sphere. We should remember and live like God loves us. Not be like the ungrateful Israelites. http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/11/hard-act-to-follow.html

Every Christian should take this quiz. Whether your candidate won or not. http://www.founders.org/blog/2008/11/post-election-analysis-true-of-false.html Also here. http://www.founders.org/blog/2008/11/post-election-analysis-true-of-false.html

Challies continues to write about the Dominican Republic, noting in particular the tragic scenario where Haitians are lured out of Haiti with the promise of work at a plantation, resulting in a loss of Haitian citizenship and an inability to attain DR citizenship, which results in a sort of impoverished quasi-slavery. He then notes the work of Compassion International there, which appears to be actually doing some pretty beneficial stuff. Read it. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/challies/XhEt/~3/442628296/i-must-have-met-100.php

McKinley encourages pastors in cities to get to know each other, make efforts to this end, and so on. After all, they're on the same team. http://blog.9marks.org/2008/11/meeting-other-p.html

Josh Harris: "On Sunday I told my church that after the election half the country would be elated, confident that all would be right in the world because their candidate won; the other half dejected and sure that the world had ended because their candidate lost. But Christians should realize that both sides are wrong. If you voted for Obama, he isn't worthy of your ultimate hope. And if you didn't vote for him, don't despair as though Jesus isn't reigning over the world. " He concludes with the reminder to pray for Obama. http://www.joshharris.com/2008/11/praying_for_president_elect_ob_1.php

This is kind of funny - Turretinfan's bright side of the election result: http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2008/11/bright-side-of-yesterdays-election.html

"Should Christians buy Apple products when Apple contributes $100,000 to defeat the anti-homosexual marriage ballot initiative in California? Interesting to note in this article that Microsoft has stopped contributing to pro-homosexual causes even as Apple trumpets its commitment to homosexuality. Of course, in the end, we can't judge every purchase by underlying corporate ethics, but this seems an especially noteworthy and egregious case...." http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/11/christians-and-apple-computer.html

Mohler points to the change in the political landscape in the USA. While this is a step forward for blacks who now feel they have true influence, the anti-abortion movement, among other moral issues, has been hit really hard. This is a life and death matter too, not just heated politics. "Will the Republican Party decide that conservative Christians are just too troublesome for the party and see the pro-life movement as a liability? There is the real danger that the Republicans, stung by this defeat, will adopt a libertarian approach to divisive moral issues and show conservative Christians the door." Finally, there is again the reminder that we are commanded to pray for Obama. http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=2715

McCain got 55 million votes. [Obama got 62,947,206]. That is a big number - against Obama. "There is fear that Obamessiah will try to institute many of his radical ideas. The media, who failed to do basic journalism and were so in the tank for the Chosen One from day one, engineered a victory for a man with some of the most questionable associations, statements, and beliefs ever elected. We’ve seen O lie about public financing, promise to bankrupt coal companies, and continue to lower the dollar cut-off for whose taxes will be raised upon." But those votes stand against him. The message to the republicans is this: Moderate Republicanism will lose. If the Republicans want to win, don't nominate a moderate, don't nominate someone who no one really likes. But that someone still got 55 million votes. What would happen with a real candidate! Moreover, Conservativism is build on logic. But logic isn't really taught in public schools anymore, so Convervatives need to argue for their positions, not assume that the general public will make the appropriate critical connections. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/11/now-is-our-time.html

This is a bit disconcerting: http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/the-latest-post/2008/11/4/can-someone-explain-this-to-me.html

Turk continues with his critique of atheist critiques of theism on the basis of suffering by pointing out that while the atheist calls God evil for not creating a universe without suffering, the atheist will choose the lesser of suffering to reduce greater suffering - that is, choosing suffering can in his thinking be a means to a good end and therefore justified. But then why does the presence of suffering impugn God's character, if the atheists uses this defence himself every day? "See: the atheist can look at this, and even imagine it, but in his mind the only way to judge this is to say, “if that’s so, God must be evil. Any God which requires suffering to make His objectives into reality is a cruel God who somehow enjoys our pain." The problem is that the atheist, in saying this, credits God with less than the atheist would credit himself with. " http://centuri0n.blogspot.com/2008/11/is-evil-problem-6.html

Patton observes that people may be much more tolerant about religion than politics in conversation simply because religion may not affect them - its 'personal'. He then goes on to describe that it is indeed God who has placed Obama in the presidency, and that it is God who will turn his heart wherever He wills. Remember it. Don't gloat over Obama's failures. Rather, pray for him all the way. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ParchmentAndPen/~3/443393683/

This is a worthwhile post by Hays - definitely worth the read. Some points of note: There is a constant battle between good and evil. This isn't hyperbole. And evil issues of the day require battle. And indeed, God does indeed take sides in moral issues. There will be finger-pointing over this great loss. But this is good, as it will help weed out mistakes. "But whether you vote or don’t vote, vote for an electable candidate, or cast a protest vote, that’s a moral decision, a moral action. And it’s either consistent with Christian values or inconsistent with Christian values. In some cases, there’s more than one morally licit option open to you. " This quote is worth repeating: "There’s a danger in getting what you wish for. The liberal media did it’s best to suppress his real views and checkered career. But that won’t go away. That’s going to dog him throughout his first term. What was suppressed will be peeled away, a layer at a time. _And Obama has another challenge ahead of him. He’s been coasting to victory on rose-strewn path of flowery rhetoric. Now he has to turn the briar patch into a rose garden. Transmute his fragrant words into hard, tangible reality. " http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/11/triumph-of-evil.html

Various post-election comments. Of note: "Byron York says that black voters in California supported Proposition 8 (undoing homosexual "marriage) by a ratio of 70% to 30%. Black voters. That would be the voters who supported Obama by a ratio of 493% to 0%. Barack Obama. That would be the man who will stack a judiciary with a philosophy of "empathy" over law. Which will, in other words, overturn Prop 8. Which blacks supported, 70% to 30%. Got that?" http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2008/11/dont-miss-these-11508.html

This points to why there was reservation about McCain. The article concludes: "Should Sen. John McCain be elected as the next president of the United States, he will not be a champion for the life of the unborn. While he recently stated that he believes life begins “at the moment of conception,”^[25] based on his past record and statements on the life issue, Sen. McCain will not actively seek to overturn Roe v. Wade; will appoint pro-abortion judges, if he deems them otherwise qualified; will continue to support embryonic stem cell research; and will seek to undermine the Republican Party Platform’s pro-life plank which opposes abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. In sum, those who cherish human life should not trust Sen. John McCain to represent them on this issue." http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BaylyblogOutOfOurMindsToo/~3/443508996/obama-didnt-just-win-mccain-also-lost.html

"According to the Click here: The Rapture Index Obama's election hasn't even merited an update! On November 3, the index moved up one point, from 158 (the low for the year) to 159. The high for the year is 170." http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/the-latest-post/2008/11/5/the-best-measurement-of-the-impact-of-the-election.html

How the pro-life movement could succeed. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BetweenTwoWorlds/~3/443526079/can-pro-life-movement-succeed.html

Anthony Carter reflects on the meaning of a black family in the White House forty-five years after four black girls were killed in a school bombing. Nevertheless, the plague of abortion remains. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BetweenTwoWorlds/~3/443559870/anthony-carter-poetic-providence.html

Ligon Duncan on how to pray for Barack Obama. http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2008/11/some-initial-thoughts-on-prayi.php

This letter laments the young Christians who voted for Obama, given his abortion position. "What I can't get over is the complete disregard for the value of life that is represented by Obama and how a Christian can support that..." "On taking care of the poor...who gives more...liberals or conservatives? Who puts their money where their values are...and who wants to take care of the needy with other people's money. It doesn't take much research to answer that question. And God's command is personal, not societal. When the government takes more of my money, it becomes harder for me to obey the Lord's command to give...because Uncle Sam has taken everything...and I have a family to provide for as well." (ellipses original) http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BaylyblogOutOfOurMindsToo/~3/443615958/the-morning-after.html

Interesting article that argues that we might be misusing 'your will be done' in our prayers as a sort of insulation from disappointment - a pre-emptive receiving of a 'no.' This article points out that the command in the Lord's prayer refers to the moral will of God, not His secret will (which is presupposed). Thus, we should earnestly be praying for those things in line with God's moral will and then that God's moral will would be done. In other words, the object of this statement should not be the secret will of God. e.g. “God I want to be healed, and I know you want that for me as well. Please, let your (moral) will be done in this matter.” [I wonder if perhaps the usage isn't patterned after Gethsemane? But maybe the prayer in Gethsemane is in the usage of this blog, since Jesus was going to the cross to obey the Father, hence, the moral will of God.] http://blog.harvestbiblefellowship.org/?p=807

Hays notes the well-meaning bloggers (see citations above, to which I think he alludes) that quote Pauline and Petrine passages concerning Caesar with respect to Obama. This blog lists some caveats, noting the difference in applications, as well as certain questions of the legitimacy of Obama's campaign and right to the presidency. Hays isn't trying to overturn the vote here. His point is: "when bloggers assure me that Obama is my president, and dictate the attitude I’m supposed to adopt, the legitimacy of his claim to be the duly elected president is germane to my attitude." Hays points out the difference between attitudes and actions, and defers to John's treatment of Rome in Revelation as an example. "At the same time, John is not fomenting a Christian insurrection. So this illustrates the difference between actions and attitudes. " Or consider the imprecatory Psalms. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/11/rendering-to-caesar.html

It appears that three states, California, Arizona, and Florida, approved constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman yesterday. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BetweenTwoWorlds/~3/443658990/states-on-marriage.html Also here: http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/genderblog/~3/443728628/President-Elect-Obama-and-the-Defense-of-Marriage

A letter to Obama. http://girltalk.blogs.com/girltalk/2008/11/dear-president.html

2008-11-04

2008-11-04T22:39:00.001-07:00

This post contains summaries and quotations from various blogs.

Phillips contrasts the federal election of the president with the divine election of the elect. This is a good read, and certainly takes the focus from a transient election that makes some difference to an eternal election that makes all the difference. http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/11/election-day.html

Hays quotes some thoughts on who to vote for, whether to vote third party, and the freedom of Christians to have some ambivalence on the war in Iraq. Nevertheless, we have no freedom as regards abortion and sodomy - we cannot support these things. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/11/penultimate-thoughts-on-election-day.html

Turns out that once you account for inflation, it doesn't really look like the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/11/widening-gap-between-rich-and-poor.html

Some links are here provided to (among other things) a paper on when life begins, and another that tackles it from a scientific perspective. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/11/piper-politics-and-abortion.html

Piper gives three observations on why to be pray for government. We are to be thankful, for even wicked government restrains wickedness, for anarchy would mean the unbridled reign of man's corrupt nature. We are to seek by prayer peace as opposed to anarchy from our leaders, and that we might not frivilously waste the peace we have. We are then to use this peace for radical godliness and evangelism. http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1478_Grateful_for_Almost_Any_Government/

Mohler gives ten things to pray for with respect to the election and the candidates and the voters. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/DGBlog/~3/442175875/ See also here: http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BetweenTwoWorlds/~3/442502489/prayer-for-america-on-election-day.html

Bolt meanders about, pointing out that the amorphous entity we call culture includes food, dress, music, etc. etc. What is culture? "And yet I am supposed to be multicultural, cross-cultural, subcultural, culturally aware, culturally sensitive, and, yet, I am told, I am probably culture-bound. Culture-bound: that doesn't sound good. Culture blinkered. Culture inescapable. Cultural slavery." Then, he suggests that culture may be a vehicle for the elementary principles of the world, which say, 'do not touch,' 'do not taste.' The Gospel is to liberate us from these regulations and this slavery. http://solapanel.org/article/the_new_principalities_and_powers_6_culture_clashes/#When:22:00:00Z

Pray, then vote, then pray again. You can pray more than once, you know. Then resume life as a disciple. http://centuri0n.blogspot.com/2008/11/vote.html

Abide in Christ by faith, not by your own efforts, even in sanctification. This quote by Andrew Murray exhorts Christians to consider the implications of 'the just shall live by faith' with respect to union with Christ. "As you came to Jesus, so abide in Him, by faith." (cf. Col. 2:6-7) http://www.joshharris.com/2008/11/andrew_murray_abide_in_christ.php

Despite how he doesn't like him that much, Phillips writes about why he is voting for McCain. Simply math. "Obama's position on abortion is monstrous. You vote for him, you are complicit. You have no excuse. You can never look back at Hitler's Germany and scold those who assisted his Hellish designs. You're them." To undecideds, he says: "vote for the only man who can can actually prevent Barack Obama from opposing virtually every distinctive value you hold as a Christian, and very possibly your right to express opposition or protect your family; the man who will lurch our country in the direction of child-killing extremism." http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-im-voting-for-gulp-mccain.html

Something to consider in light of the arguments of even Christians against voting on the basis of abortion: "in my talk the other night I drew, as an analogy, the complaint made by the historian J. G. Randall over the performance of Lincoln and Douglas during their famous debates in 1858. His complaint was about the unwarranted prominence that these two men were willing to give to that vexing moral issue of slavery...." http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BetweenTwoWorlds/~3/441423234/lincoln-and-douglas-werent-there-more.html

Some things learned by one person from the 90 years of Billy Graham's life. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BetweenTwoWorlds/~3/441606022/billy-graham-90.html

Generally, writers can help more members of the congregation worship by writing songs that everyone can follow, and avoiding unpredictable changes in melody, etc. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/blogs/worshipmatters/~3/442301514/

A letter from Touchstone magazine describes the subtle subversion of Christianity by the process of making Christianity immoral that is at work from the Democratic party. The democratic party is practical atheism. Bayly prefaces it: "The Gentiles, even--or perhaps especially--the religious ones, have not changed their opinions about people who regard them as morally unclean, nor will they fail to punish them for it when they gain sufficient power." Some quotes from the letter: "One of the most common defenses for Democratic loyalties is to assert the moral equivalence of the two parties, to claim that their respective errors leave the Christian to vote for the one he thinks most Christian, or least unchristian. If the Democrats endorse abortion, sodomy, and the like, Republicans cut social programs for the poor. This is a plausible and attractive argument except for one thing. We know with certainty that abortion and sodomy are evil, but we do not know with any certainty whether any particular disbursement of funds for the poor is good or bad or mixed... " It goes on to describe the manner of subtle subversion, saying "... Enlist dim and compromised Christians by representing to them that the party standing for all these things is the party of Christian charity because the public resources it uses to assist in killing some children are used to feed others. Do these effectively, and one can talk as much about God and be as religious and true-blue American as one pleases. ..." In the conclusion: "Our call is not to vote Republican, but to think and act like Christians in the political arena as much as any other. We doubt this can be done in cooperation with the Democratic Party any more than it can be done with Nazis or Communists, for we recognize little substantive difference between explicit and practical atheism. " http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/11/to-self-professing-christians-who-vote-democratic.html

Five (relevant) myths about the great depression for those interested in the current economic crisis and such parallels: http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/11/five-myths-about-great-depression.html

Some perspective on now from life several decades ago. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/11/when-i-was-boy.html

There are an estimated 950 000 000 abortions to date. Bayly debunks some claims of an emergent writer regarding the claim, 'legalizing abortion will reduce it.' Of note, Brian McLaren is apparently spokesman of the Matthew 25 network which, along with their refusal to proclaim biblical truth, endorses Obama. [has anyone else noticed that for emergents, it isn't that 'Christians have been too partisan' that is the real issue for them, it's that they want to vote Democrat as rabidly as certain others would vote Republican. They are as politically driven as any 'fundamentalist.'] Bayly also briefly explains the experience of women who stand outside abortion clinics and offer the mothers help, such as paying for food, shelter, etc: "The mothers accompanying their daughters into the House of Baby Slaughter are tough as flint and hate the women of our church who carry on this ministry. But these dear women do their work faithfully, despite being punched and kicked and spit on and cursed for their kindness and compassion." http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/11/barack-obama-rocks-xxiv-consider-her-sources.html

This post quotes a black woman who will vote for Obama because he's black - 'I think that Obama’s election will help to change the appalling view that most white people have (including white Christians): that black people are idiots who can never be anything'. Ironically, this projects a racial stereotype that she hates used on blacks onto whites, Obama's academic achievement is by his own admission a product of racial tokenism, so such voting actually reinforces the thing this commentator hates, and the notion that blacks need to prove themselves before whites is reflective of a racial inferiority complex. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/11/affirmative-action-president.html

"The new study is the first to link those viewing habits with teen pregnancy... Teens who watched the raciest shows were twice as likely to become pregnant over the next three years as those who watched few such programs.... Still, U.S. teen pregnancies were on a 15-year decline until a 3 per cent rise in 2006, the latest data available. Experts think that could be just a statistical blip. ... the downward trend occurred as TV shows were becoming more sexualized, confirming that "it's not the only influence."" http://www.medbroadcast.com/channel_health_news_details.asp?news_id=16636&rss=67&rid=999999&channel_id=1020&rot=3

The MSM may well call the polls early (probably to dissuade late voters). http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2008/11/dont-miss-these-11308-election-edition.html

Phillips targets the all-too-common fluffy Calvinist talk that is really fatalism under the hood - that God is sovereign, His will will be done, voting, etc. doesn't matter. Phillips rightly points out that this is patently unbiblical thinking. Biblical logic is fight, knowing God's will is going to be done. Our part is to take action. Not, because God's will is going to be done, don't do anything. http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2008/11/btw-why-am-i-not-making-fluffy.html

This points to an article that argues that Darwinian evolution is the basis of the Nazi regime's legal system, as they saw themselves as a progressive people acting in the interests of evolutionary science. Moreover, Nazi Germany is a perfect illustration of what can occur when a regime declares itself free from God's laws. http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6148/

"Should you take your children to Walking with Dinosaurs? While the animatronic dinosaurs are spectacular, there is a deliberate agenda to indoctrinate young people and their moms and dads in evolution and millions of years of earth history." This article points out some equivocations, debated assumptions, and so on in the Walking with Dinosaurs presentation. The paleo-actor in the program is named Huxley (see previous links). "At the Creation Museum, we admit up front that we are presenting the history in Genesis as true, but we do even more. We also teach people how to think about the issue of origins—not just what to think. The museum lets children and adults actually know what evolution is and help them walk their way through this topic in such a way that they learn the problems concerning trying to interpret the past in relation to the present world." Once again, it is noted that it is the evolutionists who mostly refuse to engage in scientific debate with creationists. That is telling. [I'll note that there is a parallel with Islam, where most Muslims refuse to debate with Christians]. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/11/04/staged-evolution-walking-dinosaurs

Jean Williams reflects on the comfort in God's total sovereignty, and then points out four things that seem to work against the "God is sovereign, but not totally sovereign," including pastoral, theological, biblical, and philisophical aspects. http://solapanel.org/article/just_how_sovereign_is_god/#When:22:00:00Z

An egalitarian attempts to subtly influence her nieces and nephews with teaching contrary to the example set by their parents so as to advance her feminist agenda through what this article dubs, "theological kidnapping." http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/genderblog/~3/442597182/Parents-Beware-of-the-Auntie-Model

Obama is president, and this post is a reminder that Christians are called to "pray for Barack Obama (1 Tim. 2:1-2)," "to thank God for Barack Obama (1 Tim. 2:1-2)," "respect Barack Obama (Rom. 13:7)," "to honor Barack Obama (Rom. 13:7; 1 Pet. 2:17)." http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BetweenTwoWorlds/~3/442760107/president-obama.html

2008-11-03

2008-11-03T23:00:00.001-07:00

This post contains summaries and quotations from various blogs.

Scientists argue for the youth of the grand canyon (still on geological time scales, though). http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/03/grand-canyon-age.html

Doug Paggit misrepresents the pyromaniacs. http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/11/kids.html

A study indicates that teens with the most exposure to sexual content on TV are twice as likely to be involved in a teen pregnancy as those with the least. (the study is caveated by [rightly] pointing out that there are complex factors). Statistic: "Nearly 1 million young women between the ages of 15 and 19 become pregnant each year in the U.S., and they are more likely than other teens to drop out of high school and live in poverty...." It is pointed out that TV rarely depicts the consequences of sexual activity. Engwer adds that those who study this in the secular world grossly misdiagnose the consequences themselves, as a condom isn't going to prevent them all. [Though not in the post, the hyperlink is telling - a condom won't 'protect' you at the judgment seat of God]. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/11/protected-by-condom-at-judgment-seat-of.html

Hays points out the double standard in Romanist argumentation for certainty, pointing out that both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism have significant problems in establishing certainty, such as the need to establish an infallible list of infallible councils, an infallible determination that one of them is the one true church (R), the lack of an official canon in the EO, the need for infallible criteria for an infallible council to obtain an infallible canon, a list of infallible teaching and infallible and true popes, the need for a papal hotline to (ex cathedra) confirm any private interpretation. He then sources Metzger, who writes about the uncertainty at trent, the minority majority vote (hardly 'certain!'), and the fact that Trent included parts of Scripture in its proclamation that are seriously questionable textually. Hays then concludes by resting in providential certainty. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/11/catholic-fairly-tales-for-overgrown.html

Piper prays that people would vote, but that they would look heavenward even in so doing, exalting Christ and seeking godly wisdom, remembering that America will pass away. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/DGBlog/~3/440711317/

There are many naysayers in Christendom regarding America - as if its spiraling 'out of control' - but believers must remember Romans 8:28, which teaches that, among other things, God is working both the good and the bad times for our sanctification and glorification, and that He is completely in control, so that whoever is elected is put there by God for our good. http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/11/03/the-election-in-light-of-romans-828/

In light of the debate between systematic and biblical theology advocates (the latter "tend to argue (with variations of emphasis) that the text as it stands alone must provide its own product-in some cases whatever the result might be"), this post asks what the proper place of logic is in studying Scriptures, and to gain some insight quotes Owen, who points out that the derived consequences of biblical truth - those things included therein and which may be collected - are divine revelation themselves. http://reformedbaptistfellowship.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/truth-and-consequences/

JT has a criticism of Piper [I didn't listen to the Piper presentation that he is critiquing]. His general thrust seems to be that Piper seemed to indirectly imply a fatalism with regard to the election, and in so doing - at the same time as pointing out that it is unbiblical for a woman to lead the army - seemed to diminish the importance of abortion in this election. "[Piper] [formerly explained in an article] that "No endorsement of any single issue qualifies a person to hold public office. . . . [But] Everybody knows a single issue that for them would disqualifya candidate for office" (my emphasis). Here's the thesis: "I believe that the endorsement of the right to kill unborn children disqualifies a person from any position of public office." Piper ends by saying that his conviction is "never to vote for a person who endorses such an evil—even if he could balance the budget tomorrow and end all taxation."" So Taylor's critique is something along the line that Piper was a bit inconsistent here. Taylor goes on to point out that much progress has been made in terms of abortion (and he lists it) and this next election could undo it all. He wants to highlight the importance of this, and gently remind Piper of his own words. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BetweenTwoWorlds/~3/441057710/piper-politics-and-abortion-few.html

Regarding the BBC article on Sinaiticus, "as Wheaton's Nicholas Perrin points out: "You cannot position yourself as one of the most reputable and responsible news organizations in the world and at the same time go public with a piece like this one."" [given the secular religion behind the MSM, sure you can.] http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BetweenTwoWorlds/~3/441091379/bbc-annoying-nonsense-and-codex.html

Turns out Tony Jones is no longer "national coordinator" of the emergent village because the 'emergent friends' are wary of 'institutionalization,' preferring a 'grass roots relational network' [aren't these the ones so on about the 'missional kingdom?' Isn't a kingdom an institution?] http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BetweenTwoWorlds/~3/441102906/tony-jones-no-longer-national.html

Phillips reports the goings-on: "Barack Obama is a novice, hasn't the political courage to do the right thing, and the existence of phone banks for Obama in Gaza is a huge political issue. The kicker? All that comes from a congressional Obama-supporter! (See further here, here, here, andhere.)" He also calls the JT post mentioned above 'brilliant.' Turns out that Obama isn't the only one who has used 'righteous wind' - Mao did too - the righteous wind of socialism. http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2008/11/dont-miss-these-11308.html

It is amazing the racist stuff you find on the internet... http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/11/lynching-for-jesus.html

The age of the earth question, rather than evolution, is increasingly being employed in an attempt to discredit creationists. [As a regular reader of discovery channel blog, I, for one, am trembling in my boots at the might of their arguments.] http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/tunnel-vision-and-election

The revenge of the left? Watch how you vote. http://centuri0n.blogspot.com/2008/11/my-last-commentlink-before-election.html

While Darwin seems to have tried to avoid controversy, 'fearing execration as an atheist,' for the Origin of Species, Huxley, who came to be called Darwin's bulldog, was not so shy. He avidly promoted Darwin's theory, although he disagreed on many points (Phillip Johnson points out that evolutionists are united in their faith in naturalism, not so much agreement on concrete scientific propositions). He 'had little time for Christians who compromised their position by supporting the anti-biblical belief of evolutionary naturalism' (rightly) pointing out that they are in a most untenable position, and he used Scripture to show that such compromise is ridiculous. http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6019/

This article contains a brief description of some of the complexities around figuring out the exact day of the crucifixion of Jesus, but they agree that He was crucified on Friday: "His crucifixion, most likely AD 33, which occurred on a Friday. So, the beginning of the Jewish Friday (which is Thursday evening for most of us) is when Jesus ate the Passover—then was betrayed, beaten, put on trial, and ultimately crucified. This occurred on the Preparation Day, which was also the Passover that year and immediately before the Sabbath—a High Sabbath because it fell during Passover week." The article then proceeds to argue from the usage of 'three days and three nights' in the OT, NT, and patristics, that it is an idiom for 'on the third day.' Hence, there is no problem with Jesus being crucified on Friday and rising on Sunday. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/10/31/feedback-a-matter-of-days

Hays looks at the question of whether Jude used extracanonical materials and mistakenly thought they were true. (It's not that Jude uses extracanonical material that would be problematic for canonicity.) First, he goes after Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox epistemology briefly, and then turns to address the issue. He makes the point that Protestants admit a fallible tradition, and therefore are able to be corrected should they hypothetically be wrong about something (e.g. canonicity of Jude) - he is only saying this to point out how its a bigger problem for, say Roman Catholicism. "if Catholicism made the wrong call on Jude, then that falsifies its claim to a divine teaching office." He then reminds us that we know precious little about Jude and therefore must be careful about jumping to conclusions about his view of extracanonical documents. As for solutions, he lists several. Of note, Jude seems to be careful. Both references are backed by canonical Jewish Scripture, at least implicitly. Some solutions involves viewing them as haggadic or ad hominem - answering others on their own grounds with the quotations (this solves the problem of inerrancy even if the quotations are not referring to true events). Moreover, it could well be a literary reference as opposed to historical reference. Thus, whether the quotes are true or false depends on Jude's view of them. "Does Jude equate the literary Enoch with the historical Enoch? From his statement alone, you can’t tell if he identifies one with the other. How else would he refer to the literary Enoch?" Organic inspiration is also a resource. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/11/jude-obscure.html

Mounce writes about his experience in Nepal and India. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/typepad/pQHu/~3/441304094/my-trip-to-nepal-and-india-monday-with-mounce-13-by-bill-mounce.html

In light of a new high school for homosexuals, CBMW reminds Christians to boldly proclaim the sinfulness of our culture so as to point people to the free offer of the mercy of Christ. It is only through the work of the Spirit that we shall come to a hatred of our own sins. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/genderblog/~3/441327167/Cough-Syrup-for-Throat-Cancer-Only-the-Gospel-Can-Remedy-the-Sin-of-Homosexuality

Frank Turk has reservedly responded in the meta to JT's post criticizing Piper. Turk wants to point out that the mission of the church doesn't change on Wednesday morning, that the fruit of the Spirit are still legal, and that we (the church) should not put our hope in the election (which he thinks is Piper's main point) but rather put our hope in the power of the cross and attempt to overcome sin with the Gospel rather than put our hope in overcoming the government via the ballot-box. http://centuri0n.blogspot.com/2008/11/for-jts-blog.html

Hays says that eventually the cumulative mistakes catch up to a nation - like a gambler who tempts fate, so to speak, for long enough. While he doesn't think it will happen in his lifetime, he fears for our children. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/11/fishing-in-troubled-waters.html

Kenyans are excited about Obama... http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/03/africa/03kenya.php

Bayly writes about Obama's amorphous position on Iraq, Iran, etc., and then makes the chilling statement: "Senator Obama will stand by our families as Adolph HItler stood by the families of Germany, only worse. Hitler denied the personhood of Christians, homosexuals, and Jews, and he presided over the slaughter of ten million for the sake of the motherland." http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/11/barack-obama-rocks-xxiv-take-a-quiz.html

Here's bullhorn guy and bullwhip guy. Bayly is using NOOMA videos (and their satiracle rebuttals) as predictors for the election. http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/11/barack-obama-rocks-xxiv-whos-really-pro-life-anyway.html

A child's letter to Obama: "I am 9 years old. This is not a school project or parents word or idea. I'm writing this on my own. Back in the day, people thought blacks like you were not human. I hope in the future people look back to us and say: "Back in the day, people thought baby's were not humans" as silly as we talk about slavery now. W(e) don't go through a metamorphosis. Flip (page) We start human and stay human." http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/11/barack-obama-rocks-xxvii-let-isaiah-have-the-last-word.html

Those who think the Bayly's might be partisan should read this: http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/11/john-mccain-or-chuck-baldwin-we-shall-see.html

This paper is an excellent and essential read: "Yes, my friends, this has been the genius of the Obama campaign: to convince faithful Christians that he is one of them, to trumpet his evangelical credentials while denying the Gospel, and to hoodwink them into believing that in his left hand a man may allow the sword to slaughter the souls of the unborn, all the while holding high in his right hand the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God he has rejected." http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/11/josh-congrove-on-our-presidential-election.html

Challies writes about Compassion International's work in the Dominican Republic, and his short experience on the ground there. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/challies/XhEt/~3/441564514/dominican-republic---not-all-is-paper.php

2008-11-02

2008-11-03T16:45:00.001-07:00

Turretinfan points out the anthropentric view of what is good in Loftus' objection against theism on the basis of suffering. Suffering exists because we are sinful and God is just. For Loftus, any and all suffering is de facto 'not good,' as he thinks God is either incompetent or does not care if there is suffering. http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2940

Spurgeon warns against 'Confederacies of Evil' that are passed off as "Christian Unions" - the 'unity' that is found with apostates, false teachers, and so on, by God's people as they begin to compromise the truth. http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/11/unity-at-all-costs.html

Engwer thinks that most Americans aren't liberal, but Obama's liberalism is within their tolerance. Conservatives are a minority. And that such liberalism is tolerable is indicative of something: "One of the reasons why issues like abortion, homosexuality, marriage, and judges are so weightless to so many voters is the weightlessness of God in their lives." http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-liberalism-as-acceptable-option.html

Piper argues that it exalts a flawed pattern of womanhood for a woman to run for (vice) president. Culture should be shaped by the creation order design of man and womanhood, not the other way around. "Therefore, I am not able to say that God only speaks to the role of men and women in home and church. If our roles are rooted in the way God created us as male and female, then these differences shape the way we live everywhere and all the time. " Manhood and womanhood are note mere social constructs. He believes that it is acceptable to vote for a woman, however: "In my view, defending abortion is far worse sin for a man than serving as Vice President is for a woman. " [he's not a soft complementarian - e.g. roles limited to church and home - I generally agree with his position here]. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/DGBlog/~3/440075476/

Payne points out that the problem with saying God is mysterious isn't so much the fact of it, which is true, but that it can be mis-used. Liberal, emergent(ing), etc. don't assail doctrines by disproving them but by consigning them to ambiguity. This is what has happened with the serious egalitarian error. We should not overreact by overstating what is clear and bold, but the solution isn't to get lost in the dust they've kicked up. [I will interject to say that the liberal and emergent pattern here is analogous to that of Satan in the garden, and from a meeting a while back over egalitarianism, it was this very pattern that was used by the egalitarians.] http://solapanel.org/article/nervous_about_the_mystery/#When:22:00:00Z

In his characteristic tongue and cheek style, Bird says in the midst of election predictions, "Sadly the only choice the yanks have is between war mongers and baby killers. God bless America, they need it!" Ouch! http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/2008/11/election-in-usa.html

This is an excellent read: Phillips writes on third party voting, heavy on the 'it's a dumb idea' side. Of note: "I'm a grownup. I want to make a difference, not a gesture (i.e. "sending a message"). I don't know if there has ever been a more stark nor consequential choice in my lifetime. One candidate has a sterling pro-life voting record, and an even more persuasively pro-life running-mate. The other never met an unborn child he wouldn't just as soon see dead, and even in the most gruesome way imaginable. He thinks spreading abortion is the most important thing he can do. " "Obama allies himself with terrorists, Marxists, racists. That's his posse. That's the sauce in which he has marinated his soul. And that's what he brings to the White House." http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2008/11/go-third-party-or-dont-vote.html

This article points to Nazi Germany as social Darwinism and eugenics, and they point to Mein Kempf to show how evolution permeated Hitler's thinking. They also point to the tragic suffering of the Lebensborn children after the war. "Indeed, if Hitler and his Nazi associates had fully accepted and consistently acted on the belief that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve and so are equal before the Creator God, as taught in the Bible in both the Old Testament and New Testament, neither the Lebensborn program with all of its pain, nor the Holocaust with all of its horrors, would ever have happened." http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6111/

Thabiti finds an insight in an unlikely place - Hybels points out that his church was suffering because people were more committed to their particular sub-ministry than to the greater body. http://blog.9marks.org/2008/11/agreement-in-un.html

2008-11-01

2008-11-02T00:38:00.001-06:00

This post contains summaries and quotations from various blogs.

The apostate (and atheist) Loftus asks why, if God did the greater deed of punishing His Son for people's sins, He doesn't do the smaller deed of at least trying to help everyone believe? Bridges responds, pointing out that this says nothing to Reformed theology, that John 3:16 is a text that teaches particular redemption since it says that Jesus died for all who believe (not everyone), that the world is already condemned, which is why Jesus didn't come to condemn it, but to save a group of people in the world and by that save the world, and that John 3:16 is an explanation of the illustration of the serpent being raised up, which saved everyone for whom it was raised up, since those for whom it was not had died already. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/10/success-rates.html

Piper asks, how can God do this to us? - that is, how can He not swallow up our cities in earthquakes, and give us foretastes of heaven, though we are greatly wicked? http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/DGBlog/~3/438852001/

Christian graffiti vandalism, a priest makes a book about how Jesus wasn't God... wow. http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/the-latest-post/2008/11/1/political-prognostications-and-other-interesting-stuff-from.html

"while 4,300 people may be leaving the church every day in Europe and North America, 16,500 are coming to faith each day in Africa alone.” Areas like Africa understand the revolutionary and bold message of the Gospel, and these people have been suffering and have been persecuted. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/typepad/pQHu/~3/436071140/living-on-the-seam-of-history-african-christianity-part-7-towards-a-missiological-and-theological-renaissance.html

Walton comments on the distinction of the verbal forms with respect to the blessing of Abraham, suggesting that the hithphael promises that the nations will seek to ingratiate themselves into the nation of Abraham and seek its favour and blessing as they would God's, and that contextually this is conditioned on obedience, while the niphal form is found in a context that is not conditioned on obedience, and speaks to God's favour upon people channeled through Abraham. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/typepad/pQHu/~3/438080060/hebrew-corner-10-the-blessing-of-abraham-on-the-nations-by-john-h-walton.html

Some recent archaeological finds accord, as expected, with the history of Israel recorded in the Scriptures; evolutionists have to push back when people learned about fire (in their model); given the discovery of opal on Mars, "for creationists, this further evidence that Mars was once covered in water is just that: evidence that Mars once had surface water." Also, two psychologists write that empathy has little to do with doing good (that is, inner goodness), but rather authority does, and religious authority (e.g. an omniscient God) can be replaced by cameras, etc. It is pointed out against their findings that personal experience does not accord with this, in that empathy and authority are complementary. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/11/01/news-to-note-11012008

Women drivers ... j/k. Sorta. ;-) http://girltalk.blogs.com/girltalk/2008/10/friday-funnie-3.html

This article describes how the flood may cause an ice age. "Two particular aspects of the Flood were instrumental in causing the Ice Age: (1) extensive volcanic activity during and after the Flood, and (2) the warm oceans following the Flood." The Flood provides the water and atmospheric conditions necessary for an ice age. It is estimated to have lasted 700 years; 500 to accumulate, 200 to melt. "Based on what we know about the impact of the global Flood on the continents, sediments, and climate, it is clear that an ice age would not require hundreds of thousands to millions of years, as stipulated by evolutionary beliefs." http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/setting-stage-for-ice-age

A borderline irrational rant is directed towards theonomists, to which Turretinfan responds. He points out some distinctions they hold, like the tripartide division of the Law, and makes some good points, like the unity of the OT and the NT, and the fact that justice doesn't change. The accuser even claims that Calvinists "just love to persecute, however, and convert by threat of death or injury, because they are Judaizing scum on the worst sort," which is particularly absurd considering that this is precisely the opposite of what Calvinists think will bring about conversion. He makes the aside that Federal Visionists at least formally deny perseverance of the saints. [I wasn't aware of this nor can I confirm it at the moment.] http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2008/10/response-to-anonymous-diatribe-against.html

An explanation of the tripartide division of the OT law. Moral is enduring and immutable; ceremonial is fulfilled in Christ, and done away with; concerning civil he writes: "There are moral aspects of the civil law of Israel, and these moral aspects remain significant. There were circumstantial aspects, and these aspects necessarily vary under different circumstances. Finally, there were ceremonial aspects, and these aspects have been fulfilled or supplanted in the New Testament." Turretinfan then summarizes four errors, and conclude: "We must be careful to observe to do all that God has commanded us, and yet we need to be careful not to bind men's consciences beyond what the Word of God states. Excess in the first regard leads to legalism, excess in the second regard leads to antinomianism" http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2008/10/old-testament-law-tripartite-analysis.html

TF continues with a clarification on a previous post concerning an analogy he used to describe the sufficiency and efficiency of the death of Christ. He points out that ransoming prisoners isn't the only metaphor biblically used; that penal substitution is as well [and he adds the covenant of grace as well]. In other words, Christ's death was for the sins of the elect, but it also had merit, where the "merit of his suffering and death is representable by an equation in which there is, on the one hand, the penalty received (suffering and death) and a multiplication factor (if you will) of the dignity of the victim." He rejects a "this much for that many" pure commercial view of the atonement. Here is a statement which may help clarify all this: "The merit of Christ's suffering and death was infinite, not finite. It would have been necessary if Christ had wanted to save only one sinful man, and it would have been sufficient if Christ had wanted to save every sinful human." [note that the premises used in this post are from a rather developed superstructure of Reformed theology]. http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2008/10/clarifying-atonement-analogy.html

Turretinfan addresses what he thought might have been a joke post that claims that theonomists employ a Barthian-like rejection of the Reformed doctrine of natural law by showing how standard theonomy accords with the WCF's teaching on natural law. http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2008/10/r-scott-clark-on-theonomy-and-reformed.html

Commenting on extravagent Christmas pagents: "Let me be clear: we should strive for excellence for the glory of God. But competing with the world’s production standards should never be our ultimate goal. The world will almost always “out-WOW” the church in terms of production quality." "In our effort to be fruitful, rather than faithful, are we becoming so much like the world that people can’t tell the difference?" http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/blogs/worshipmatters/~3/438147635/

Wayne Grudem writes come commentary on the biblical principles of wealth and possessions. Some notes: A view of the early church as a form of socialism or communism is unsustainable as the text expressly prevents the understanding that this giving was compelled by rule or regulation or community. Giving was voluntary. The Scriptures speak of inequality of authority, stewardship, responsibility, and reward, and that this equality is good and necessary where many tasks, which have different needs are to be accomplished. 2 Cor. 8 speaks to fairness, not equality. There are sins which plague both rich and poor, and there is unacceptable disparity. The concern in the NT is for poor Christians, a concern that should exist with any who are born of God. The rich are commanded to help others and to not set their hopes on riches, and the self-indulgent rich are condemned. The poor are commanded to be content, and to work, and everyone is to be able to sustain himself, ideally. But being rich is not wrong, and inequality of possessions is not wrong. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/challies/XhEt/~3/438982977/inequality-of-wealth.php

In speaking on history and dogma (or versus, cf. 19th century), Helm points out that if theological superstructures (e.g. dogma) based or predicated upon a resource base of narrative and history, then as a simple matter of logic the theological results will be dogmatically impoverished and substandard. From what is the case it is logically impossible to determine what must be the case. "Christian dogma embodies statements about what must be the case; statements about natures and essences and necessities. History alone does not give us dogma." That something is does not entail that is must be. Dogma therefore comes from interpretation, which come from "the non-narrative parts of Scripture, or from parts of the narratives being taken in non-narrative fashion or interpreted in the light of the non-narrative parts." He calls this open-eyed proof-texting. Dogma comes from history as the normative statements happened in history, but is more than history. [Those normative statements are inspired, which sets them apart from other historical normative statements.] "They are not simply events, or opinions, they are God-given judgments, including God-given judgments about God. As such they are elevated beyond mere narrative, opinions of Paul about what must be the case in respect of Jesus of Nazareth, to what (without qualification) must be the case in respect of Jesus of Nazareth." http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2008/11/analysis-20-history-and-dogma.html

White documents the errors in a Steve Ray presentation regarding the distinction in the terms used in the NT for the offices in the church. http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2931

"The key point is this: one cannot objectively balance all of the evidence for creation or evolution, then arrive at a fair conclusion, because the evidence itself is interpreted according to what you already believe." This article gives a dozen reasons why the 'majority rules' is not a good practice when determining whether creation or evolution is true. One point that needs to be stated and restated: There is a difference between observational science and origins science. Expertise in one does not confer expertise in the other. "origins science, which for evolutionists means making up untestable stories about the past to describe where fossils and rocks came from and using philosophical uniformitarianism to extrapolate how old the earth is. These tales can’t be experimentally tested, though that doesn’t stop scientists from building on layers of interpretation and spinning the result as “scientific fact.”" http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/10/24/feedback-majority-rule

I quote this letter to James White from someone only because of this key statement: "From the very beginning it became clear that Bryson was having a tough time and so the moderator of the debate decided to join and debate against you (?!) What I heard in those few hours was one of those defining moments in one's life. There was the Bible Answer man being questioned about certain verses in the Bible (John 6, Gen 50) and he was DODGING THE BIBLE! Now I've told you before I didn't like you after that interaction, but I had to give the debate to the one who was faithful to the scriptures." http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2919

"Back in 1999, terrorists on the daylight-saving West Bank built several time bombs, delivered to co-conspirators in Israel and scheduled to explode at a set time. Problem was, Israel had just switched back to standard time, so the only people injured were the terrorists themselves when the bomb detonated an hour earlier than they expected and killed them all." http://www.joshharris.com/2008/11/daylight_savings_kills_terrori.php

2008-10-31

2008-11-01T11:46:00.001-06:00

This post contains summaries and quotations from various blogs.

Luther saw salvation from the Scriptures, not from all the councils and fathers that he studied. And he saw this free gift of righteousness through faith. This rested upon the sufficiency of Scriptures. Sadly, Rome did not see this and still does not, and Romanists even try to prove the insufficiency of Scripture from Scripture - and their efforts serve to implicitly prove that there is no way you can get the Romanist religion from the Bible. Satan's original lie was to denigrate the word of God, to say it wasn't enough, that it wasn't clear. Now, Rome, Pomoisms, emergents, charismatic excesses, whatever, still, in line with Satan's purpose, displace the word. Faith comes through hearing the word, and every effort is made to stop this. http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/10/bedrock-of-reformation.html

This quotes the declaration of the assumption of Mary as divinely revealed dogma, and then goes on the quote Cyprian and Jerome, who say, "they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles...But with respect to the refutation of custom which they [the Roman church] seem to oppose to the truth, who is so foolish as to prefer custom to truth, or when he sees the light, not to forsake the darkness?..." and "And as if it were too little to have disturbed everything here, it [heresy] introduced a ship freighted with blasphemies into the port of Rome itself. " http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/10/november-1-1950.html

Luther wanted to debate indulgences with his fellow university professors, so he posted his 95 thesis in Latin, but another translated them to German and took them to the printing press, and it went far further than Luther had imagined. Luther wrote that the whole posture of the Christian life is to be one of repentance, and from first thesis to last words, lived at the foot of the cross. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/DGBlog/~3/437737154/

Mohler has a series of radio programs looking at various considerations for voters in the coming election. This is probably worth a listen, especially for Americans. (JT has an easy to read summary here: http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BetweenTwoWorlds/~3/438083084/how-to-pick-president.html) http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=2693

This article looks at Rob Bell's claims that he is part of the tradition of Luther and the reformers, and his equation of repainting to reforming. [This, incidentally, was one of my chief concerns with the book, and this article takes it on] http://gospelcenteredmusings.com/2008/10/31/reformation-day-article-velvet-elvis-compared-to-the-wild-boar/

Luther is an example of how flawed sinners may be used of God - it is nothing in man that is needed - and it is remarkable how unhinged Romanist apologists become at the mention of Luther [as a follower of Swan's blog, he's not making this up]. http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2008/10/happy-reformation-day.html

This is a snippet of a confession from an alleged insider to the Obama propaganda machine - she claims they flood blogs, sites, around the clock. the "campaign idea is to twist, distort, humiliate and finally dispirit you" ... "We pay people and organize people to go to all the online sites and “play the part of a clinton or mccain supporter who just switched our support for obama”. "Sarah Palin is a huge threat, and our campaign has feared her like you can’t imagine. If it seems unfair how she has been treated, well its because she has had a team working round the clock to make her look like a fool." http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2008/10/confession-of-obama-blogger.html

This recommends a recently released in-depth textual commentary on the NT by Phil Comfort. http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2008/10/new-work-by-philip-comfort-now.html

The war over deaconesses in the PCA continues. This links to a series that articulates an argument against it. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BaylyblogOutOfOurMindsToo/~3/437644968/ron-gleason-tim-keller-and-woman-deacons.html

Bayly shows the parallels between emergent teachers and Obama/liberals. He writes about the death of a constitutional United States at the hand of Supreme court judges who have no regard for the first or tenth amendments. He also writes: "Since Submergent hucksters are all about avoiding persecution, they won't last. Yet they have much to teach us. Have you noticed the stunning resemblance between these men and Barack Obama? It's magnificent. Take Rob Bell for instance: Both Bell and Obama sell nothing but themselves. They're all about appearance which makes them wildly popular among the young and those who are older and hate discernment. They speak in the sentimental jargon of our effeminate age. Having taken the measure of their respective congregations, both men salt their patter with emotive placeholders such as "hope" and "faith" and "compassion" and "change" and "values" and "authenticity" and "story." If nothing else, their vacuousness must be acknowledged to be absolutely authentic. It's who they are way down deep." The messiah complex intrinsic to Obama's style is also noted. Bayly points to sources citing the emotional approach of the liberals, which appears to be working. Sounds pretty emergent: "One Democratic candidate pointed out how important narrative is for the new technique: "If we communicate it through our stories and our real-life examples, if they don’t agree with you then they can at least understand where you come from.”" This is striking: "The sobering task is how to preach the Gospel when the men trading in Jesus' Name who claim to be masters of contextualization are actually denying the Gospel and selling only themselves? Yes, they understand the culture, but they use their understanding to gain riches and greater adulation for themselves." Rob Bell is a genius in removing the offense of the cross. Bayly also points out that the NOOMA video he saw is among the most evil things he has seen. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BaylyblogOutOfOurMindsToo/~3/437639051/pomo-politicians-and-preachers.html

Clint writes a humourous post depicting Luther's struggle with justification by faith and the imputation of righteousness as a hockey brawl between him and Paul. Of note: "Luther seems to point to a change in in his syntactical understanding of the 'Righteousness of God' from being a subjective genitive (God's righteous character manifested in judgement on sinners) to an objective genitive (a righteousness which is directed toward God das the object). This latter understanding presumes that the righteousness that is acceptable before God is supplied by God, and which Luther notes, is a gift by faith alone in Christ." http://cowboyology.blogspot.com/2008/10/exegetical-hockey-fight-when-luther.html

I have a question - is the difference in mtDNA between this ice man and modern humans the same or comparable to that of Neanderthals? http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/10/31/oetzi-genetic-legacy.html

Apparently, there is a doctrine of a double standard in the Romanist church, perhaps informed by past writings of Augustine and Aquinas. It teaches that there is a bare minimum that Christians must do, e.g. ten commandments, but you if want to be perfect (this is optional) then do things like Matthew 5. "It appears a typical Roman Catholic needs to try and at LEAST keep the outward law. But, if you'd like to go a bit further, then work a little bit on your heart. " http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2008/10/counsels-for-perfect.html

A review that points out that The Shack is right about one thing - we need to actually get to know the Triune God, as He has revealed Himself in the Bible. If western Christianity had not become so obsessed with felt needs, they might have recognized the Shack for the empty shell that it is. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BetweenTwoWorlds/~3/438138039/we-need-more-shack-time.html

Audio and Video lectures by Tripp on parenting. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BetweenTwoWorlds/~3/438107080/tedd-tripp-on-parenting.html

This Christian molecular biologist points out the the 'cross-shaped laminin' is a poor argument for the faith, since it is not only based on a structure which we may determine is different in five years, but it elevates an external 'sign' as proof of the truth of God's word (he goes into an illustration of the unbiblical subjectivism and sign-seeking that is used to confirm all sorts of decisions by young people). Not only this, but Ebola has the shape of a shepherd's hook... http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/laminin-and-the-cross

More on the death of journalism in the MSM leftist bias, the Obama campaign kicking out reporters from outlets that don't endorse him, and so on. http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2008/10/dont-miss-these-103108.html

A new commentary on 1/2/3 John boasts special attention to every significant variant in the epistles. The author is quoted as saying that with this research accomplished, there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the epistles or that they contain the author's writings. http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2008/10/yarbrough-on-johannine-epistles.html

· Here's a new blog defending the life of the unborn: Ending Pregnancy by Terminating Life: Pre-Birth, Intra-Uterine, Homocide, by Eric Telfer, MD. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/10/speaking-on-their-behalf.html

In answering a two-kingdom viewpoint, Turretinfan asks the hypothetical; what if natural law points us to the use of the moral law? Moreover, he expressly states that he holds to the tripartite division of the law, which is "the "Confessional" position and different from the novel position espoused, it seems, among "two kingdoms" folks that the civil law was essentially ceremonial and consequently fulfilled in Christ." http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2008/10/what-if-natural-law-teaches-theonomy.html

A feminist claims an Obama loss would spark the next civil war - sounds jittery! http://centuri0n.blogspot.com/2008/10/election-eve-jitters.html

Could it be that men and women are intrinsically different?? http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/10/31/men-women-election.html

Reasons why McCain or Obama might win. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/10/and-winner-is.html

Does increased welfare spending or pro-life legislation reduce abortion. "My analysis of their data indicates that welfare spending only has a marginal impact on the incidence of abortion. Additionally I find that both public funding restrictions and informed-consent laws are effective at reducing state abortion rates. This adds to the body of research which finds that pro-life laws are effective. Hopefully this sizeable body of work will inform ongoing discussions among Catholics, pro-lifers, and others who are deciding how best to cast their vote on Election Day." http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/10/does-increased-welfare-spending-or-pro.html

The Shi'ite practice of mutah, temporary marriage, is viewed by some Muslims as a means to spread Shi'ite - in other words, they've made a virtue out of fornication. Why would this appeal, especially over the free grace in the Gospel? Because the legalist and the licentious person are the same person - they both want a toothless legal system to justify them without it having any claim on their morality or behaviour. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/genderblog/~3/438481870/What-Relationship-Exists-Between-Islam-and-Adultery

An exhortation to not blast your people with everything you know, but to preach the Big Idea of the text with simplicity [i don't think the implication here is to dumb things down], as Luther is quoted as advising. http://solapanel.org/article/remembering_the_reformation/#When:22:00:00Z

"Sowell's main idea is that the ideological origin of political struggles and worldview is a conflict of competing visions about humanity. These visions provide the answers to our worldview questions: e.g., whether or not we are generally selfish, the value and limits of human reason, the role of planning in societal growth, whether we should prefer "trade offs" or "solutions," whether we should prefer "procedural fairness" or "results-based fairness," etc." http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BetweenTwoWorlds/~3/438241898/thomas-sowell-on-conflict-of-visions.html

This article notes various ways that evolution has held back science; in response to a letter claiming that a creationist publication helped a man save his cow from superbacteria (by injecting ordinary bacteria, which out-compete superbacteria, and then killing the ordinary bacteria with antibiotics). The article is thankful for the letter but skeptical: "One should also not overlook the possibility that the simple act of injecting the udder might have contributed to the cow’s natural defences being able to overcome this, perhaps by relieving pressure or allowing builtup infection to drain in some way." Not only this, but the author points out the serious danger of such a practice. Regarding 'evolution' in HIV: "Veronica Miller of Goethe University in Germany experimented by ceasing all antiviral drug treatments to a patient. Then the few surviving original (‘wild’) types easily out-competed the vast numbers of resistant forms. She said this was a risk, because the wild types were also more dangerous, more efficient. The superior efficiency and reproductive success of the wild type implies that the others have acquired resistance due to a loss of information somewhere. This should not be surprising, because the same is true of many examples of antibiotic resistance in bacteria." Evolution is erroneously equated with natural selection. http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6127/

Education is inseparable from religion and philosophy because religion and philosophy determine what is important and unimportant in education, and therefore what should and shouldn't be taught. This is why competition is good - so that parents can choose the teaching that teaches what they want their kids to learn. Evolution is inseparable from a purposeless existence, as Darwin, Dawkins, Gould, and so on have recognized, although many still entertain the dream of 'progress.' Education is pointless in an evolutionary worlview, and evolutionists have a cognative dissonance here - a superstructure with no foundation. Education and modern science were "founded on the presupposition that life, the universe and everything was the result of the creative genius of a personal Creator." But once morality is done away with, why should we be surprised by teen suicide rates, prostitution, etc? If you teach kids that life is pointless, why be shocked when they off themselves? http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6139/

Dinosaur footprints in the Navaho sandstone indicate that this was not a huge desert; and can be explained with flood geology (briefly exposed sediment hypothesis), whereas the desert hypothesis has this contradiction, as well as other problems, to overcome. http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6123/

The formation and location of water-smoothed gold nuggets (some quite large) on hilltops and even mountain tops is puzzling to many. "Secular geologists may explain that the gold-bearing wash is due to an ancient river bed upheaval. The problem with that theory is that rocks and gravel found in river beds today are generally totally smooth." A theory of gold formation and geological upheaval during the flood is summarized here, and the flood does provide a mechanism for water-smoothed gold to appear at high locations. http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6043/