What Accords with Sound Doctrine

Test the Prophets

2012-02-11T08:13:00.000-06:00

And any prophet who teaches the truth, but does not live according to his teaching is to be considered a false prophet. (Didache 11.10)

The final note is interesting in that it sets the actual walking of the Way as a test for anyone who acts as a prophet. The correct teaching is not enough in itself, it must be backed up by the correct form of life. The Didache has a bald statement intended as a test for the community to use to distinguish visitors in two groups: false and genuine. *

Visitors are not the only people who need to be examined: wolves, goatherds, and other self-promoters are a "dime-a-dozen." Fellow believers, do the hard work of discernment. Elders, do the hard work of guarding the flock.

* Thomas O'Laughlin, The Didache: A Window on the Earliest Christians, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 118

Jesus Suffered Injustice for the Unjust—You

2012-02-10T10:43:00.000-06:00

For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

He says not in the likeness of flesh, but in the likeness of sinful flesh, for he certainly received the human nature, but human sin he did not received—hence that which He thus assumed he calls not the likeness of flesh, but the likeness of sinful flesh, because though He had the same nature with ourselves, He yet did not have the same character or disposition. He means, then, that the law having been unable to bring to effect its own design—by reason of the weakness of those beneath its covenant, possessing as they did a mortal nature, and one answerable to infirmities and passions—the only-begotten Word of God, becoming incarnate, by that human flesh overthrew sin, fulfilling all righteousness and admitting no taint of sin; and by enduring the death of sinners, as though Himself a sinner, manifested the injustice of sin, in that it delivered up to death a body over which death had no just claim. And this then both overthrew and put an end to death: for in thus submitting to death through the unjust sentence of sin (while not at all answerable to it, in that He never committed sin) He became the price of redemption of those justly subjected to death, as one free among the dead.

Theodoret of Cyrus, "The Letter to the Romans" on Romans 8:3-4

Happy or Holy: What Does God Want for Us?

2012-02-09T17:30:00.000-06:00

Will Weedon has written a post that makes an important point. I give it here in entirety:

I've been hammering home at St. Paul's of late: the Lord doesn't want you to be happy; He wants you to be holy. "For this is the will of God, your sanctification." Last night Judy asked: does He want us to be both? I thought about it and replied: He wants us to be holy so that we may be truly blessed; and blessedness is even better than happiness. I'd stand by that: blessedness doesn't ride on the ups and downs of our emotions. It rises above them. And since God often uses adversity and trials to give us growth in holiness (yes, holiness is given you whole and entire in your Baptism, but I refer to growing up into the salvation that is yours), there are times of sadness that come our way on this path toward the fuller inner appropriation of that holiness which results in blessedness. Anywho, the big point is that our deceitful hearts way too often tell us that "God wants us to be happy" and take that to mean: "God can't mean that I shouldn't engage in this sin - because I am finding happiness in doing so!" Wrong. Just wrong.

In spite of what culture or others have taught, happiness is not the antithesis of holiness. Only walking in fellowship with the Father, as it is made available through the redemptive work of the son in the power of the Holy Spirit, can men and women be fully content, resulting in happiness as we see the Lord work in and through both us and others.

Doubly Free in Christ Jesus

2012-02-09T11:27:00.000-06:00

For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.

As [Paul] had just before called sin "the law of sin," so now he calls the life-giving Spirit, the law of the Spirit of life. His grace, says he, by faith in Christ has bestowed on you a double freedom: not only has it overthrown the power of sin, but also put an end to the tyranny of death.

Theodoret of Cyrus, "The Letter to the Romans" on Romans 8:2

The Main Thing!

2012-02-08T16:33:00.000-06:00

I regularly read biblical offerings from Bruce Collins, an evangelist here in Eastern Iowa. In this week's meditation, he begins:

Galatians 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

Preaching an accurate faithful Gospel is important to the Lord and it needs to be important to us. When we preach the Gospel we are dealing with the destinies of people for eternity. Who would want to mislead anyone on that that important matter? When we talk about the Gospel, we know we are talking about Good News. Sometimes we use the word to include all or most of the doctrines of the Bible and sometimes we limit the term to the need to trust in the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus to be saved for eternity. Whether we use the term in a broad sense or in a narrow sense, the end result is the same—we are preaching about the Lord Jesus Christ. But if those who are preaching the Gospel are all preaching the same Gospel, why does what I hear today often seem so strange to me?

This is a good question. Why do "Gospel" preachers have different messages? Are they not all working from the same basic text? If not, why not? They claim to be preaching the same message from the same text, but what comes forth is something entirely different.

There are various reasons why the message is not consistent, but I would dare say they are all rooted in pride and promotion of a local church, a ministry within the church, corporate vision of the church, the preacher himself/herself, or some combination thereof. The point is that the message is not Christ.

But even when relating the gospel one-to-one, we can fall into this trap—of speaking more about me or my church than what Christ has done for me. In the e-mail Bruce goes on to relate the result of an encounter in a Chinese restaurant:

She invited herself and her daughter to sit with me while she ate, and we had a nice discussion. I found out that this stranger that I had decided to help had been baptized by my own brother—she was friends with a lot of people that I knew though I didn't know her. It sounded like she had had a rather hard life, but she couldn't forget what the Lord had done for her. She didn't tell me about what she had done for the Lord, she told me about what the Lord had done for her.

Now that's what I'm talking about—not dwelling on me or what I have done but showing forth the Lord Jesus in simple conversation.

Rejoicing in Deliverance

2012-02-08T11:09:00.000-06:00

Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!

[Paul] calls it a body of death, as being born subject to death—that is, mortal, for the soul is immortal. Christ alone, he says, has freed us from this bitter bondage by putting an end to death, and promising us immortality, and that life which is without either labor or pain and apart from warfare or sin. The full enjoyment we shall receive in the existence to come, while in the present we are blessed with the grace of the thrice-holy Spirit, and thereby not only do we set ourselves against the passions but by the possession of such an Helper are enabled to triumph over them.

Theodoret of Cyrus, "The Letter to the Romans" on Romans 7:24-25

The Law Shows Us Our True Selves; Christ Is the Remedy

2012-02-07T08:00:00.000-06:00

Therefore God added the commandment that man might thereby learn to understand his own nature and to fear his Lawgiver. And we may certainly perceive the lovingkindness of that Lawgiver, for He did not add some Law which was difficult to heed but one which could have been easily kept. He allowed to [Adam] the enjoyment of all the trees, of one alone He forbade him the use; not that He envied him that one (for how could He do so, who had already given him power over all?) but in order to teach him the terms of submission and to render him well-disposed towards his Creator and provide a means for the exercise of his rational faculties. And if then, by not keeping the commandment he came under sentence of death, this can be no cause for blame to the Lawgiver but to him who transgressed the law.… But indeed the Lord God has treated with every possible consideration and kindness both Adam himself and all his race, and—to pass by all other and come at once to the heart of the matter—for him and his race the only-begotten Word became incarnate and put an end to the power of death, which from him had received its beginning, and promised the resurrection, and prepared the kingdom of heaven, and so He both foreknew his transgression and made ready beforehand the means of remedy to follow.

Theodoret of Cyrus, "The Letter to the Romans" on Romans 7:11-12

Death to the Law and New Life in the Spirit

2012-02-02T13:02:00.000-06:00

Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead. It would have been indeed in strict consistency with the example adduced to have said, "the law is dead," that is, has ceased, but in consideration of the spiritual weakness of the Jews, for they greatly exalted the law, and from a desire not to afford an opportunity of finding fault with it to the heretics who denounced the Old Testament, he avoids saying that the law has ceased, but declares that we have died to the law by baptism which saves us, and then rising again have been united to Him who has Himself risen from the dead, that is Christ. And as he had called the faith which is in the Lord a marriage and union, in keeping with this image he shows the fruit also arising from marriage, in order that we may bear fruit for God. What then is this fruit-bearing? That our members become the instruments of righteousness. And most aptly does he show that the law itself leads us to be joined to Christ, for it did not forbid a woman to be married to a second husband after the death of the first. And then he goes on to point out the difference.

For while we were living in the flesh, that is, according to the law (for the legal ordinances concerning the flesh, as of foods and drinks, of leprosy, and such like, are what he here calls the flesh), our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members. He says not "in" the law but by the law. For the law, which is good, does not itself bring about sin, but sin uses [it] for evil. Neither indeed do our members themselves bring about sin, but the inclination of the soul to the worse has brought its operations to effect by our members. And what then springs from this? To bear fruit for death.

In these words he has taught us that before the coming of [the covenant of] grace, while we were living according to the law, the attacks of sin to which we were subjected were the most powerful, in that the law showed indeed what ought to be done, but offered no help to do it. But now we are released from the law. He still continues in the same cautious mode of expression, and says not, "the law is made to cease," but we are released from the law, that is, it is inoperative as regards ourselves, we are no longer under its polity. And how are we released from it? Having died to that which held us captive. For when we were subjects of the law we came to baptism, and dying with Christ, and with Him rising again, we were united to our Lawgiver, and no longer need the polity of the law, for we have received the very grace itself of the Spirit, as what follows proves, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.

Theodoret of Cyrus, "The Letter to the Romans" on Romans 5:4-7

Being Subordinate

2012-02-01T12:44:00.000-06:00

Subordination gets a bad reputation because people imply the meaning of submission with someone else exercising authority over me. Western civilization bristles at this notion because it appears to run counter to a decidedly egalitarian philosophy. In actuality, subordination is necessary for any civil society. Its basis is understanding and practicing the particular role I have in order to benefit others. We see this in everyday life: goods and services are bought and sold; laws are enacted and enforced; knowledge is transferred from instructor to student, etc. We place ourselves in a position so that needs are met, whether yours or mine or both. The apostle Paul explains the importance of this concept nicely in Ephesians 5:18-21.

Be filled with the Spirit
He begins by commanding believers to be filled with the Holy Spirit. This is an odd request since the verb is passive. The requirement is only to receive, but how is that done? Backing up just a bit in chapter 5 we see:

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.… Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.… Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. (4:17; 5:1-2, 15-16)

And all this is lived out based on what has been given us freely in the Beloved upon our belief and confession of Christ (chapters 1-3).

Manifestation of filling
What are the manifestations of the Spirit-filled life? The apostle mentions four characteristics common to every assembly:

: Addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,
: Singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart,
: Giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
: Submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Be Subordinate
All these are important, but the last Paul expands by giving practical application in the family setting (5:22-6:9). All of these were common as families and communities turned to Christ from their false idols.

Wives: submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
Husbands: love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
Children: obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.”
Fathers: do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.
Slaves: obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free.
Masters: do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.

The emphasis here is to fulfill your place in the family in a godly way regardless of which role you are playing in the immediate relationship addressed. Being mutually subordinate in this way edifies the body of Christ and serves as a powerful witness of Christ's redemptive work.

Listen in Order to Love

2012-01-31T22:13:00.000-06:00

Dr. John Kleinig has a 14-week course on Christian Spirituality freely available here. In lecture 7a, while teaching on Deuteronomy 6:4-9, he refers to the first word (shema; hear, listen) as the most important noting it is an imperative verb. This is followed by the waw-consecutive perfect "you shall love the Lord … " He mentions that in these cases the waw-consecutive perfect can be imperatives or commands, so that the translation is as found in most English translations hear … love, but the more common force of the grammar indicates purpose, result, or consequence resulting in the translation hear … in order that you may love. This puts an entirely different light on the passage.

Previously, believers looked at this passage as needing to work with the greatest fervency that can be mustered knowing that it will never be enough because we certainly fail because of the old man still working in us. This new way of viewing the passage frees us because the emphasis for empowerment is God. We are on a continuously learning path of life if we remain close to his word and receive from him. Ours then is to accept what is freely given, walk in it, and pass it along to another so they might do the same. The love, then, becomes the natural outgrowth of this process causing the fervency and desire to increase. It is not manufactured by artificial or contrived stimulation but results from a life of obedience in the Lord.

Jesus taught this was the greatest commandment, but the second like it also mentions love—this time to our neighbor. Since he put these together, we can deduce that the same thought is in view: if we listen to the voice of God through hearing and reading his word, it results in our love for those around us. The Sanhedrin's problem was that the members had mostly closed their ears and minds to what God was telling his people through this special revelation.

Later in the Upper Room, Jesus would give his disciples a new commandment:

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:34-35)

Seen in the light of what we have reviewed, Jesus is not so much heaping on the demand for greater exertion or deliberation in the command to love but rather adding himself as the supreme example to follow—what I have done and will do, you do also—then reinforced what he said earlier by explicitly teaching:

This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. These things I command you, so that you will love one another. (John 15:12-17)

And there at the end Jesus comes full circle with a repetition of what was given through Moses to Israel: listen so that you will love.

A common plight in liberal churches is performing acts of "love" in order to gain merit in God's sight and somehow outweigh the lifetime of bad. Sadly, a great preponderance of evangelical Christians do the very same. Believing in Christ as their ticket to heaven, they try to gain a special sanctification status or build their heavenly treasure trove to overflowing, when in reality none of it is of ourselves. All we have materially and spiritually is from the Father who blesses us for Christ's sake. We live out what has been richly bestowed in the Beloved.

Having Been Baptized, Walk in Newness of Life

2012-01-27T15:18:00.001-06:00

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? You have renounced sin, and have become dead to it, and were buried with Christ; how is it possible then that you should allow this same sin? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. The very sacrament of baptism has taught you to flee from sin, for baptism carries in it the representation of our Lord's death, for in it you have shared both in the death and in the resurrection of Christ. It becomes you therefore to lead a new life, as it were, and one suited to Him in whose resurrection you have partaken.

Theodoret of Cyrus, "The Letter to the Romans" on Romans 6:3-4

How Great God's Love for Us!

2012-01-26T11:34:00.000-06:00

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die. For we reflect, that when we were yet transgressors, and suffering under the infection of impiety, the Lord Christ endured that death, which was inflicted on our behalf; and hence we learn the depth of His lovingkindness, because for a just man it might be that some might face death, but He, through the excess of His love, welcomed the death which was in behalf of sinners.

And he goes on to say, but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. God then makes manifest the greatness of His love toward us, in the death of Christ happened not for such as had been just, but for such as were yet transgressors. For now we have been justified by faith in Him, but, when He undertook that death for us, we were still subject to every kind of sin. The words, at the right time, mean at the fit time, in due time, and this he also says in his epistle to the Galatians, "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons."

Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. Having entered that accursed death for the ungodly and transgressors, it is evident that He will free from the future punishment those that believe in Him.

Theodoret of Cyrus, "The Letter to the Romans" on Romans 5:7-9

Apologist Barred from James MacDonald's Elephant Room 2

2012-01-25T13:40:00.002-06:00

Chris Rosebrough of Pirate Christian Radio, Fighting for the Faith, etc. today posted that his "entrance to the Elephant Room had been revoked" and was told to leave immediately or "be arrested for trespassing." He goes on to point out the irony of the situation as the Purpose Statement is designed to be inclusive of those who disagree, yet he was met and stopped by both security and an elder of the host church.

For those who are unaware, Rosebrough is a Christian apologist who critiques ministries and sermons according to the Word of God and reports the findings—both good and bad. If possible he travels to a venue to experience what is happening in order to get the full context. Assuming that Rosebrough had properly registered and not crashed the venue, what in the world is going on here? Why deny someone at the door? Certainly, James MacDonald has the right to deny entrance to anyone, but refusal should have been at registration time.

The larger question though is: what's up with James MacDonald? Once a committed Bible teacher intent on the truth of the gospel, MacDonald has taken unnerving steps away from theologically-conservative ties (resigning from The Gospel Coalition) toward accepting heretics in the name of Christian unity, notably by inviting anti-Trinitarian T. D. Jakes to be a part of the Elephant Room conversations and taking part. In addition one might question his recent participation in the Code Orange Revival (receiving from Chris Rosebrough the richly deserved designation 2012 Heresy Olympics) which featured speakers who elevated themselves, Elevation Church, and pastor Steven Furtick rather than the Lord Jesus Christ. (Matt Chandler also spoke, but he remained faithful to the biblical gospel. Check out his message here.)

It appears that James MacDonald is trying to avoid those who wish to move him back to sound doctrine and practice. Either that or he is covering for those joining in the Elephant Room sessions.

Update: Chris Rosebrough gives details about the incident for an interview on Issues, Etc.

Faith, Grace, and Promise Are Fulfilled in Christ

2012-01-25T11:12:00.000-06:00

[T]he God of all, foreseeing as God that he would hereafter gather together one people of Gentiles and Jews and extend to them salvation through faith, represented both in the patriarch Abraham. And thus then he calls him the father of the Gentiles, having shown that he had acquired, before his circumcision, the righteousness which is of faith, and after his circumcision, had not walked under the Mosaic Law but continued under the guidance of the same faith; in order that both Jews and Greeks, looking to him, might equally aim at his faith, neither the one anxious for his circumcision, neither the other his uncircumcision, for it is neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, but faith which the holy Scripture speaks of as righteousness.

Having thus shown faith was both older and more excellent than the Law, he now also shows that the Law was subsequent to the promise given to Abraham, in order thereby to make it manifest that grace was itself also prior to the Law: of this it was that the promises were given to Abraham. For the promise was that "in his seed all the nations should be blessed," which promise received its accomplishment in Christ.

Theodoret of Cyrus, "The Letter to the Romans"

Christ, Our Mercy Seat

2012-01-24T12:21:00.000-06:00

The mercy seat was of gold leaf, situated on the ark; on either side it had the carvings of the cherubim. From there God's benevolence was revealed to the high priest as he ministered. The divine apostle, then, teaches that Christ the Lord is the true mercy seat: the old one had the function of a type of the latter.… Whereas the old mercy seat was without blood, insofar as it was lifeless, and drops of the blood of the victim fell on it, Christ the Lord is God and mercy seat, high priest and lamb, and with his own blood worked our salvation, requiring from us only faith.

Theodoret of Cyrus, "The Letter to the Romans"

Losing Sight of Discipleship

2012-01-23T12:48:00.000-06:00

I have often lamented at the lack of discipleship in the church, especially in view of Christ's command to do that very thing in Matthew 28:19-20. Thomas O'Loughlin raises the same question and points fingers at the early church for initially "dropping the ball."

A far more interesting question is why Christians abandoned the notion of mentoring new members and the notion of there being need for an apprenticeship?… [A]s Christianity became more and more an accepted part of society, the notion that one needed an apprenticeship became less and less obvious—and what training there was became something that was more and more in the hands of religious experts rather than a common task of every member of the church.

Thomas O'Laughlin, The Didache: A Window on the Earliest Christians,

(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 21.

Of course, the fix is not to blame those who lived 1800 years ago for our inaction. Our call is to again be about the Father's business and make disciples.

The Reward of Lawlessness Is Its Penalty

2012-01-22T11:30:00.000-06:00

Lawlessness is related to impiety: just as [the impious] exchanged God's truth for a lie, so they turned the lawful enjoyment of desire to unlawful. Receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. Ignominy is the ultimate penalty for this passion: what no enemy ever attempted to commit against them they embraced with complete enthusiasm; and the penalty no judge ever awarded against them they inflicted on themselves.

Theodoret of Cyrus, "The Letter to the Romans"

God's Righteousness Is Revealed through the Gospel

2012-01-21T09:39:00.000-06:00

[Paul] means God's righteousness is revealed through the Gospel, not only the righteousness provided to us but also that shown openly in the very mystery of the divine plan. That is to say, it was not in power that he arranged our salvation, nor did he overthrow death's sway by command and direction; rather, he tempered justice with mercy. The only-begotten Word of God in person put on the nature of Adam, preserved it innocent of any sin and offered it for our sake, and by paying the debt of nature he canceled the indebtedness common to all human beings.

Theodoret of Cyrus, "The Letter to the Romans"

Faith Completes What the Law Cannot Achieve

2012-01-19T18:27:00.000-06:00

[Paul] neither extols the Law unduly, owing to Jews' impudence, nor does he provide the impious heretics with an occasion of criticism. Instead he shows it giving the necessary instruction and proposing the teaching of righteousness, though unable to achieve this on account of the weakness of those on whom the law was imposed. Then he teaches that faith put into effect the aim of the Law: what the latter was willing but unable to achieve, faith brought to completion through the grace of the all-holy Spirit.

Theodoret of Cyrus, "The Letter to the Romans"*

* Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Vol 1, (trans. Robert C. Hill; Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox, 2001), 43.

Glory of the Incarnation

2012-01-19T07:07:00.001-06:00

While the mystery of the divine Incarnation is something awesome and worthy of the deepest adoration by those who sincerely believe, manifestly instructing us as it does in God's lovingkindness, those who are beset by the gloom of unbelief and are yet to receive the illumination of light for the mind ridicule that which even the throngs of the angels fail to praise worthily in song.

Theodoret of Cyrus, "The Letter to the Romans"

Is Jesus Greater Than Religion?

2012-01-18T13:15:00.001-06:00

There is a viral YouTube video that identifies concerns and is worth watching because it addresses some of what has gone wrong in the name of Christ. The downside is that the author has done so by creating a false dichotomy between Jesus and Religion.

There are two good responses I know of that help to balance out the discussion. The first is from Jonathan Fisk of Worldview Everlasting:

The second comes from Chris Rosebrough of Fighting for the Faith. Here is the program segment addressing the video: Fighting for the Faith - Jan 13, 2012 (approx 10 minutes). The full episode can be found here.

Our Offerings: Exaltation or Excrement?

2012-01-18T06:54:00.000-06:00

Man-made religious systems suffer from an ever-increasing depraved sense of what the being worshiped wants or needs with regard to offerings and sacrifices. Arnobius addressed this problem as he attacked the sacrificial practice of the pagans. Finally, he engages them with a reversal of roles.

Lo, if dogs—for a case must be imagined, in order that things may be seen more clearly—if dogs, I say, and asses, and along with them water-wagtails, if the twittering swallows, and pigs also, having acquired some of the feelings of men, were to think and suppose that you were gods, and to propose to offer sacrifices in your honor, not of other things and substances, but of those with which they are wont to be nourished and supported, according to their natural inclination,—we ask you to say whether you would consider this an honor, or rather a most outrageous affront, when the swallows slew and consecrated flies to you, the water-wagtails ants; when the asses put hay upon your altars, and poured out libations of chaff; when the dogs placed bones, and burned human excrement* at your shrines; when, lastly, the pigs poured out before you a horrid mess, taken from their frightful hog-pools and filthy maws?

The Case against the Pagans, Book VII, 17.1

The apologist wants to help these worshipers understand that just as animals might bring something pleasing to themselves but disgusting to humankind, the pagans' reaction would be anger and revulsion. This is only logical since the true intent of the sacrifice is to please self, not the supposed recipient who would consider the offering unpalatable and noxious.

Would you not in this case, then, be inflamed with rage that your greatness was treated with contumely, and account it an atrocious wrong that you were greeted with filth? But, you reply, you honor the gods with the carcasses of bulls, and by the slaughter of other living creatures. And in what respect does this differ from that, since these sacrifices, also, if they are not yet, will nevertheless soon be, dung, and will become rotten after a very short time has passed? Finally, cease to place fire upon† your altars, then indeed you will see that consecrated flesh of bulls, with which you magnify the honor of the gods, swelling and heaving with worms, tainting and corrupting the atmosphere, and infecting the neighboring districts with unwholesome smells.

The Case against the Pagans, Book VII, 17.2

If the gods to whom this supposed feast of meats and foods turned the tables and insisted the worshiper eat first, the truth of the slop and refuse offered would be manifest as the worshiper runs for cover and repents for daring to be so careless.

Now, if the gods were to enjoin you to turn these things your own account, to prepare luncheons and dinners from them‡ in the usual way; you would flee to a distance, and, execrating the smell, would beg pardon from the gods, and bind yourselves by oath never again to offer such sacrifices to them.

The Case against the Pagans, Book VII, 17.3

How has the Lord's people fared in this regard? Before giving the Law, God made definite statements concerning sacrifices.§ Then on Sinai, he specified exacting requirements to Moses in the Levitical code for offerings to be considered acceptable. Failure to adhere could and did have devastating results as in the fate of Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10:1-2). Even seemingly minor infractions tangentially related incurred God's discipline (2 Sam 6:6-7; 1 Chr 13:9-10) in order to reinforce that God's things are to be regarded as holy. After these strict and striking examples, the elect maintained proper reverence for a certain amount of time, though the fervor waned. The latent sin nature worked and worshipers grew lax and began to divert from what they had been taught. Eventually, apathy set in. The people either sought after other gods or approached the true God with unsuitable sacrifices.

God exposes the hypocrisy shown by the latter who know the truth but are apathetic. Through the prophet Malachi (1:6-8) he speaks:

A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If then I am a father, where is my honor? And if I am a master, where is my fear? says the Lord of hosts to you, O priests, who despise my name. But you say, “How have we despised your name?” By offering polluted food upon my altar. But you say, “How have we polluted you?” By saying that the Lord’s table may be despised. When you offer blind animals in sacrifice, is that not evil? And when you offer those that are lame or sick, is that not evil? Present that to your governor; will he accept you or show you favor? says the Lord of hosts.”

Someone will remark, “Surely Christians do a better job of this. We have the abiding Holy Spirit.” Such is not the case. Notable examples of Christians acting in unholy ways have resulted in death and sickness (Acts 5:1-11; 1 Cor 11:29-20; 1 John 5:16). The lack of similar instances serves more to demonstrate the Father's tender mercies than any idea of increasing levels of goodness in the elect.

Care is be exercised when seeking the Lord's presence in worshiping him. God holds his name in high esteem. What is practiced, whether or not planned and performed in sincerity, must accord with those things revealed about himself. This takes humble, yet dedicated, effort, but not doing so reveals that we have no regard for who he is. To that end I leave the final remarks—again given to Malachi (1:9-14):

For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts. But you profane it when you say that the Lord’s table is polluted, and its fruit, that is, its food may be despised. But you say, “What a weariness this is,” and you snort at it, says the LORD of hosts. You bring what has been taken by violence or is lame or sick, and this you bring as your offering! Shall I accept that from your hand? says the LORD. Cursed be the cheat who has a male in his flock, and vows it, and yet sacrifices to the Lord what is blemished. For I am a great King, says the LORD of hosts, and my name will be feared among the nations.

* Compare Arnobius' satirical device to the divine commands in Exodus 29:13-14.
† Lit., “under,” i.e., under the sacrifices on your altars.
‡ I.e., from the putrefying carcasses.
§ See Job 42:8.

Genuine Preaching Is Hard Work

2012-01-13T15:00:00.000-06:00

There are preachers who imagine that preaching is easy for them—and the longer they are in the ministry, the easier preaching becomes. They believe that if only they are careful to preach nothing but the pure Word of God—without adding any heresy—that must be enough. Such preachers have given in to a horrible and very dangerous error. Mere pious talk without any purpose or logical order is not genuine preaching.

Rather, only the Holy Spirit through His Word inspires genuine preaching. Accordingly, a genuine sermon comes about only after all the spiritual and intellectual energy of a truly believing preacher has been applied to the utmost, after passionate prayer, after all earthly cares have been chased from his mind, and after the preacher has been freed from all vain desires. This is a difficult task.

C.F.W. Walther, Law and Gospel: How to Read and Apply the Bible,

(trans. Christian C. Tiews; St Louis: Concordia, 2010), 272

The Locust Kings

2012-01-12T23:05:00.000-06:00

Tomorrow morning, the study I lead will take up the prophet Joel. As I was studying, I came across interesting commentary for chapter 1, verse 4:

What the cutting locust left,
the swarming locust has eaten.
What the swarming locust left,
the hopping locust has eaten,
and what the hopping locust left,
the destroying locust has eaten.

Both Jerome and Theodore of Mopsuestia equate the four locusts with four distinct kings that came against national Israel: Tiglath-Pileser, Shalmaneser, Sennacherib, and Nebuchadnezzar. That seems reasonable. My prior instruction on this passage led me to think that this passage described the destruction under the last king mentioned.

Lessons Learned from Origen

2012-01-12T00:33:00.000-06:00

Newcomers to my blog quickly discover my penchant for interacting with the Church Fathers in any matter of Bible and theology. This is purposeful as most in my sphere of influence and association know there was a church 1500-2000 years ago but discard any material from that era as irrelevant. My desire is to demonstrate the practicality and applicability of those godly people in their circumstance and bring it to the present. Thankfully, I am not alone in this quest. From Benedictine College in Kansas comes this all-too-short post by Dr. Jamie Blosser on a few lessons we can learn from Origen's defense of the faith against Celsus.

The Law Works Condemnation and Contrition; The Gospel Works Love

2012-01-10T15:45:00.000-06:00

The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;

a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.

Psalm 51:17

The Law has only one single function: to lead people to the knowledge of their sins. It has no power to renew [people]. That power is vested solely in the Gospel. Only faith is active through love. We, however, do not become spiritually active through "love" [when that means] through sorrow over our sins.

On the contrary, as long as we are still uninformed concerning the fact that God has become our reconciled God and Father through Christ, we hate Him. An unconverted person who claims to love God is stating falsehood and is guilty of miserable hypocrisy—even though he may not be aware of it. That person is making a false claim because only faith in the Gospel regenerates a person. Accordingly, a person cannot love God as long as he is still without faith. To demand of a poor sinner that he must be alarmed because of his sins and that he must feel sorry for them—out of a love for God—that is a terrible way of turning Law and Gospel completely backwards.

No, this is what the Bible's teaching really states: Sinners should come to Jesus just as they are, even if they have to acknowledge: "I have only hatred for God in my heart. O God, what should I do? What can I do to be saved?"

C.F.W. Walther, Law and Gospel: How to Read and Apply the Bible,

(trans. Christian C. Tiews; St Louis: Concordia, 2010), 260

Peter Bender on Christian Service

2012-01-05T11:52:00.000-06:00

Peter Bender, Sussex, WI, was interviewed on Issues, Etc., 30 Dec 2011 and offered the following advice for unemployed individuals and the church at-large in response:

There is more to employment than simply earning a paycheck. … God has given us a work to do, which is to say: God has given us love to give. So the Christian who finds him- or herself out of work because of a downturn in the economy or so forth still has been given a faith and salvation in Christ, and therefore the call to live in love exists there. And so I would encourage the worker, on the one hand, to pray that God would give them suitable employment by which they can continue to care for their family, and in the meantime to engage in work that's of benefit to someone. … This is also then where, I think, unfortunately, Western society and culture has taken charity away from the church, and the church has willingly let that happen and abdicated it, so that the care for the poor or the care for the unemployed or the care for downtrodden, which used to be so much a part of the church's organized efforts for her own within the congregation and then those they were very closely connected with in their community, has been taken over by government agencies and so forth. That's unfortunate. I'd like to see … the recapturing of the church's work of mercy for those who are downtrodden, the out-of-work, and so forth.

Who Is the Superior In Worship: God or Me?

2012-01-02T14:20:00.001-06:00

Imagine being in your assembly's gathering place for a typical worship meeting. As things progress, what is happening? What is the expectation for decorum? Is practiced liturgy in keeping with stated polity? Now that you have a mental picture, ask yourself this: To whom is the attention given and why? The average person in the pew would likely answer this last question as all being given to God because he is the only one worthy. While this is a correct answer, it too often reflects the practice of the church as worded but not as enacted. One can readily look at a worship meeting and ascertain that though the stated purpose of the gathering is to exalt the Lord, everything happening between beginning and end are geared toward the preacher, musician(s), or pew-sitter. Message, music, and mood are set for the greatest interest of people, not God Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and Jesus Christ, his son, who died and rose for humanity's sin.

Let's examine more closely one facet I want to accentuate. When we come together to worship and are going about the customary acts with like-minded believers, what are we seeking to convey concerning God? Is what we do a response to his awesome glory and might, or are we instead seeking to somehow build up the Lord, lifting him up so that he is in some manner more worthy or glorious by virtue of our participation? The latter attitude has become the modern norm against which Arnobius taught as he considered similar conduct of pagan worship:

But all this conceding and ascribing of honor about which we are speaking are met with among men alone, whom their natural weakness and love of standing higher teaches to delight in arrogance, and in being preferred above others. But, I ask, where is there room for honor among the gods, or what greater exaltation is found to be given to them by piling up sacrifices? Do they become more venerable, more powerful, when cattle are sacrificed to them? Is there anything added to them from this? Or do they begin to be more truly gods, their divinity being increased? And yet I consider it almost an insult, nay, an insult altogether, when it is said that a god is honored by a man, and exalted by the offering of some gift. For if honor increases and augments the grandeur of him to whom it is given, it follows that a deity becomes greater by means of the man from whom he has received the gift, and the honor conferred on him; and thus the matter is brought to this issue, that the god who is exalted by human honors is the inferior, while, on the other hand, the man who increases the power of a deity is his superior.

The Case against the Pagans, Book VII, cap. 14

He points out that “mutual admiration societies” are common among humans but unnecessary in regard to deities. Men dole out honor for good performance and encouragement with the hope of return. If gods are indeed made more stately, honored or revered by the worshiper's act, then the worshiper must be considered the superior in the relationship. As the writer of Hebrews relates Melchizedek's blessing of Abraham: “It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior.” (Heb 7:7)

The question may be raised about the following example from Psalm 103:

Bless the LORD, O my soul,: and all that is within me,
bless his holy name!

Isn't David calling for man to bless God, exalting himself above his maker? In this and other cases, a blessing is being given in response to what the superior has bestowed on the inferior, as noted by the subsequent verses:

Bless the LORD, O my soul,: and forget not all his benefits,
who forgives all your iniquity,: who heals all your diseases,
who redeems your life from the pit,: who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy,
who satisfies you with good: so that your youth is renewed like the eagle’s.

David calls for returning the blessing that was first received. These and other acts of divine unmerited favor are recounted as suitable offerings of praise.

We see that the biblical response runs counter to the model espoused by the pagan worshipers. Kings, psalmists, prophets, and apostles bowed in abject humility before the Lord of glory realizing the they had nothing that could in any way add to the awesome splendor and grandeur of a holy, majestic God. These words and actions demonstrated an understanding of the Creator-Creation relationship—not one of reciprocation but of complete dependence. Today's assemblies need to follow the same example by setting aside any mission/purpose statements, programs, and practices that detract from God and his word.

How do we know if these things detract? Do a self-appraisal.

What is the purpose of the teaching? An eloquent speaker does not make a faithful teacher. This past Sunday we had a guest preacher who was somewhat dry in delivery but solid in content.* Which is more prized in your gatherings?

What is the content of the teaching? Practical application can be good and useful, but when application becomes the thesis, biblical context becomes lost. Contextual, expository teaching retains context and puts application in its proper place.

Who is the subject of the teaching and music? More times than not, when I point out portions of a song or message are unbiblical because it dwells on me rather than the Lord, people look at me like I belong in a carnival sideshow. Christ said that scripture points to him. If all things are "from him and through him and to him" (Rom 11:26), should not the subject of the presentation be about him and not me?

What ambience is being manufactured for the gathering? A gathering's program of events will be governed by formal or informal liturgical traditions.† Who or what is receiving the prominent place during the gathering: Is it the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, the participants, or perhaps those who are just sitting in the pews? Is this a performance directed to an audience, or a time for God's glorification?

What are the assembly's plan for the future? A plan may or may not have an immediate affect on the gatherings, but certainly changes will be made to align with short-term and long-term goals. Are those plans to exalt Christ or "make a name for ourselves?" (Gen 11:4) What is at the root? How is the plan being demonstrated in the worship?

These are but a few ideas. More could be asked. These factors need to be appraised regularly. Error creeps in slowly, and correction is painful. In the end, God must be exalted as the only one worthy to receive it. As obvious as this statement seems, many church groups state that God is prominent but in effect receives little more than a sidebar mention in the overall meeting.

How is your local church doing?

* The message was on judgment using the Christ's separation of the sheep and goats (Matt 25:31-46) as the text. It has been several years since I last heard a sermon on this theme—long overdue.

† All regular church gatherings have a liturgy of some sort. Those who adamantly state they have none will quickly reprimand any who might dare change the normal course of events. Just try it once.

Luther on Examining Ourselves for Communion

2011-12-30T15:49:00.000-06:00

My thanks to Scott Diekmann at Stand Firm for this content. What he posted from Martin Luther (as found in Logia, Vol I, No, 1) was too good not to share.

To examine one’s self means to consider well in what condition we are. If we find that our hearts are hardened, that we are not willing to refrain from sin, and that we do not fear its presence, then we may well conclude that we should not go to the Sacrament; for we are then no Christians. The best thing we could do, under such circumstances, would be to put a stop to such wickedness, to repent, to trust faithfully in the promises and mercy of God, and to unite again with Christians in the participation of the Holy Sacrament. If, however, we are unwilling to do this, we ought not to approach the Lord’s Table; for we would surely eat and drink damnation there. Let us carefully meditate upon what eternity has in store for us, if we thus fall under the judgment of God. If we are mindful of this, we will not be slow to repent, to put aside anger and other kinds of wickedness, and to make our peace with God in His Holy Supper. Again, if our hearts are contrite, if we confess our sins before God and are heartily sorry on account of them, if we believe that God in mercy, for Christ’s sake, will pardon us, then we are well prepared and can confidently say to the Savior: “O Lord, we are poor sinners, and therefore come to Your table to receive consolation.” If we approach the Sacrament in such a spirit, we shall be truly ready and receive the richest blessings. In behalf of such contrite and sorrowing souls the Lord’s Table was prepared, so that they might find there consolation and joy.

Why Do You Offer Your Sacrifices?

2011-12-29T08:00:00.000-06:00

The New Testament states that Christians are to offer up sacrifices with a spiritual character as acts of worship to God. Is that we we present our sacrifices? What is the motive?

Arnobius of Sicca was extremely critical of the sacrificial system set up amongst the pagans for their gods. Some have already been mentioned (see here and here), but now he asks if there are laws handed down from deities which would tell why and in what manner the sacrificial worship is to be conducted.

But neither do I demand … that I should be told what causes the gods have for their anger against men, that having taken offense they must be soothed. I do ask, however: did they ever ordain any laws for mortals? And was it ever settled by them what it was fitting for them to do or not do, what they should pursue, what avoid; or even by what means they wished themselves to be worshiped, so that they might pursue with the vengeance of their wrath what was done otherwise than they had commanded, and might be disposed, if treated contemptuously, to avenge themselves on the presumptuous and transgressors? As I think, nothing was ever either settled or ordained by them, since neither have they been seen, nor has it been possible for it to be discerned very clearly whether there are any. What justice is there, then, in the gods of heaven being angry for any reason with those to whom they have neither deigned at any time to show that they existed, nor given nor imposed any laws which they wished to be honored by them and perfectly observed?

The Case against the Pagans, Book VII, cap. 7

He raises an interesting question: If a deity does not give commands concerning proper conduct or worship, can that one be justly offended for unknown misconduct which would require a propitious sacrifice? This question has parallels for Christians since the Paul makes a similar argument:

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—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. (Rom 5:12-13)

Though death was a consequence of Adam's sin being meted out through his progeny, sin was not reckoned because no law was established. Where there is no law, no command statute has been breached, ergo no trespass which should bear the consequence of righteous indignation. If no offense is rightfully incurred, no propitiating sacrifice can be expected. This leads Arnobius to conclude:

It has been established that sacrifices are offered in vain for this purpose then, viz., that the angry deities may be soothed; since reason has taught us that the gods are not angry at any time, and that they do not wish one thing to be destroyed, to be slain for another, or offenses against themselves to be annulled by the blood of an innocent creature.

The Case against the Pagans, Book VII, cap. 9

This summary may be surprising for in that it appears that the Lord God of heaven and earth was wrong to require any type of sacrifice for sin, whether law was established or not. Such is not the case. With the giving of the Law, the Lord our God also gave in great mercy and justice the sacrifices which would atone for sin and transgression. Every bloody offering had an atoning aspect whether for the inadvertent wrongdoing or given as a freewill offering of worship or fellowship.

Within the pagan cultus, there was no category for atonement. All was given to try and influence the deities for that day and circumstance with no thought to walking in fellowship with them as a beloved or special people. Arnobius finally states plainly that the people are doing no more than bribing their gods to gain some selfish favor.

This point, however, because it would require too tedious and prolix discussion, we hurry past unexplained and untouched, content to have stated this alone, that you give to your gods dishonorable reputations if you assert that on no other condition do they bestow blessings and turn away what is injurious, except they have been first bought over with the blood of she-goats and sheep, and with the other things which are put upon their altars.

The Case against the Pagans, Book VII, cap. 12

So I return to my first question. Why do you and I present our sacrifices to the Lord Almighty? Are we trying to garner some favor for a business deal, difficult circumstance, wisdom in a decision; or are we humbly offering "spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ?" (1 Pet 2:5)

Putting the Lord First in Confession

2011-12-23T10:36:00.000-06:00

There is a spectrum of belief concerning the acts of confession and absolution as to who may hear a confession and to what degree absolution may be considered effectual when pronounced in God's stead. In an article addressing the confidentiality issues when someone hears confessed sin(s), Craig Meissner makes the following points.

If a confessor does not intend to keep the seal absolutely confidential, he is likely weak in faith, or his doctrine of justification is likely inconsistent, and so could easily likewise mislead or harm the faith of any penitent who would approach him. When a confession is not held in absolute confidentiality, any of the following is suggested to the penitent, however subtle:
    1. The word of absolution is not fully sufficient for forgiveness.
    2. Christ has not necessarily died for or perfectly forgives all sins.
    3. Certain sins and sinners are somehow more or less damnable before God.
    4. There is no authority or office for truly forgiving sins on earth, but that forgiveness is only something for which one may hope to have as a reality before God in heaven.
    5. That the church is made up of and led by only those who are morally superior.
    6. One believes one can and must be the actor in changing his or her own destiny, including his own fate before God eternally.
Similarly, if a penitent is required first to be willing to reveal his sinful intentions or actions to neighbors or other authorities before coming to confession, then confession and absolution is not understood as being the place where the ungodly are justified. If reporting sins to the government or other earthly authorities is first required before confession, this also suggests to the penitent that the government is a higher authority than Christ’s word and church also in regard to dealing with sin. *

My interest was stimulated by the high regard for the Lord and his word expected of the Christian hearing a confession. I say this because I know of many instances where absolution or forgiveness was not extended to the penitent until there was full restitution, a period of penance, or both: upon which the matter becomes public without the confessor breaking the trust of confidentiality. But where is the scriptural precedent for this requirement? If someone who has sinned makes confession, scripture plainly states that God "is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleans us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). Before God the sins are reckoned as forgiven. Before the wronged parties the same should be said, though we realize this is not always the case. Either way there should be no man-made precursor.

This does not mean that restitution should not be made or consequences not suffered. After confession is made before the aggrieved party or parties, the true penitent will set matters right to the best of his ability. It will be a natural response of the humbled heart before God. The confessor should instruct that action be taken as quickly as possible and not act as intermediary unless requested—and even then with much wisdom and discretion.

What of the person who admits he or she has sinned but refuses any attempt to make proper restitution and seeks to avoid the consequences? In this matter the person making an admission was in no way speaking out of a spirit of repentance. Forgiveness and absolution are neither actually expected by the so-called penitent or given by God. There is no obligation for the confessor to maintain confidentiality. The full weight of condemnation should be brought to bear on the matter with the hope that the person will repent and deal justly.

* Craig A. Meissner, "The Seal of the Confessional and Maintenance of Confidentiality in Pastoral Practice," Logia XX, No. 3 (Holy Trinity 2011): 25-33.

On a Personal Note

2011-12-20T06:52:00.000-06:00

Some may be wondering where I have been. Besides December being the busiest month for Sandi and me in social calendar, I have also been working from home each evening—a mixed blessing of the internet age. Two drafts have been started and others are swirling around in my mind, but there is no time for coherent thought along those lines.

Now if readers would just pay me to stay home and write posts . . .

Rejoicing in God as He Rejoices in Us

2011-12-13T11:30:00.000-06:00

Praise is, in fact, one of the sacrifices that please [God] most of all (Heb 13:15-16). What’s more, he has created the church as his choir to stand before him and praise him. He has appointed us as his praise singers for the good of the world and its people, for through our praise he reveals his glory and his grace to suspicious people in a fallen world. When we sing our songs of praise in the divine service we preach the gospel with the whole of our being to each other and the world. Our praises disclose the mystery of Christ, the incarnate Son of God, who reaches out to us in word and sacrament, to fill us with the Holy Spirit and give us access to God the Father. In praise the church not only announces that heaven has come to earth in Jesus; it also receives a foretaste of heaven as it gives thanks and adores the triune God. So then, by praising God we enjoy him and share our enjoyment of him with others. That’s why God is so pleased with our orthodoxy, our right praise of him. We rejoice in him as he rejoices in us.

John W Kleinig, "What's the Use of Praising God?" Lutheran Theological Journal 38/2 (2004)

Praise Transforms the Worshiper

2011-12-12T11:30:00.000-06:00

We are transformed as we praise the triune God. As sinners we are turned in on ourselves and seek our own glory. Like Narcissus we admire ourselves and boast of our achievements. But praise of God changes our orientation, the idolization of ourselves. It takes us out of ourselves and opens us up to the glory of God. As we contemplate and glorify our Lord Jesus, we too are glorified (2 Cor 3:18). We become what we are meant to be, people who reflect the glory of our Creator.

John W Kleinig, "What's the Use of Praising God?" Lutheran Theological Journal 38/2 (2004)

No Contribution Possible

2011-12-09T11:20:00.000-06:00

Justification takes place by grace through faith—not because of any good qualities inherent in faith. In justification, it is not the person's faith that is taken into consideration, but the fact that Jesus Christ has redeemed the entire world. Justification is based on the fact that Jesus has already done what was necessary as has suffered all that mankind ought to have done and suffered, and that people merely have to accept this. Therefore, the way to salvation is this: We contribute nothing—absolutely nothing—toward our salvation. Rather, Christ has already done everything for us, and we must merely cling to what he has done, drawing consolation from His finished work of redemption and trusting in it for our salvation.

C.F.W. Walther, Law and Gospel: How to Read and Apply the Bible,
(trans. Christian C. Tiews; St Louis: Concordia, 2010), 244

Judging the Judge

2011-12-08T11:30:00.001-06:00

Americans have a love-hate relationship with those who are called to adjudicate between competing factions whether on a sports field, stage, courtroom, etc. When a decision is made correctly, nothing is said because the person is acting according to the position of authority. However, if a decision or action goes awry from the expected, howls go up calling into question the arbiter's eyesight and/or intelligence. This is most often true of those who are removed spatially and chronologically from the action: the further removed from the decision, the greater the misunderstanding of facts and context resulting in negative criticism. Christians are not exempt from this behavior. Over the years, I have noted many comments about the failings of those mentioned in the Bible who purport to represent Almighty God in an official capacity. The further from an idealized conception of what that person should be and do, the more condemnation is poured on the target.

One of the most common recipients of misinformed assault is the judge Samson. Israel's downward spiral of decline – oppression – supplication – deliverance brought the nation lower and lower with each cycle, but God was always faithful to aid when the people cried out to him. Philistines had been oppressing the people forty years when the Lord visited Manoah and his barren wife and promised that a son would be born with two main distinguishing characteristics.

The first distinctive is that the boy would be a Nazirite* from birth. Normally, such a vow was intended to be temporary in nature, however in this case, Samson would be set apart until his death (Jud 13:7). He would never be released from this vow set upon him. In addition, Manoah's wife was to prepare for this future life and work by abstaining from appropriate foods while pregnant.

The second distinctive is his life mission: he will "begin to save Israel from the hand of the Philistines" (Jud 13:5). Samson was to begin the liberation process from his countrymen's oppressors. Notice that the Lord did not say that Samson would completely save Israel. This was never his to accomplish, which was borne out in the historical record. God had different timing involving other men.

Upon reaching adulthood, Samson began to be stirred by the Spirit of the Lord (Jud 3:25). He traveled to a neighboring city of the Philistines, saw a good-looking woman, and requested that his parents get her for his wife. His parents questioned why an Israelite woman was not good enough but relented.† God was using Samson's infatuation to provoke an altercation (Jud 14:4) resulting in the death of 30 from Ashkelon (Jud 14:19). Samson had violated his Nazirite lifestyle in eating honey from the lion carcass, but the Lord used it for deliverance.

When Samson later discovered that his fiancée had been given to his best man, he took vengeance by catching 300 foxes, tying torches to pairs of tails, and set them running through the standing grain and olive orchards (Jud 15:5). When the Philistines reacted by burning her and her father, Samson once again acts against the Philistines (Jud 15:8). Then when men of Judah came to deliver Samson over, he struck down 1,000 Philistines with a donkey's jawbone (Jud 15:14-15). After this he went to Gaza where an ambush was set, but he carried off the gate of the city (Jud 16:3).

Lastly, Samson was addled by his infatuation with Delilah, gave away the secret of his strength, and was enslaved. As a last act of mercy, the Lord allowed Samson to bring down the house upon the Philistine leaders so that "the dead whom he killed at his death were more than those whom he had killed during his life" (16:30).

In all this Samson is usually portrayed as a ladies' man who scorned his life mission. There is no denying his conduct—going after Philistine women, one of whom was a prostitute, and breaking the Nazirite vow at least twice. He was a sinner who was used mightily by the Lord. Could he have done more by being obedient, or been more productive in how he judged Israel those 20 years (Jud 15:20)? Perhaps, but he accomplished all that the Angel of the Lord had promised—the beginning of deliverance.

What we know for certain is that this flawed man is given a brief mention as one who acted in faith (Heb 11:32). This surprises us because our heroes are not supposed to be flawed. They are to be inhumanly perfect, so that we can dream of emulating though falling short. We cannot bear our heroes to be normal because their shortcomings become apparent and remind us of our own fallen humanity.

Maybe our heroes need to change. Notice those who are mentioned with Samson in Hebrews 11—Gideon, Barak, Jephthah. This is hardly a Who's Who list by any worldly standard, yet all are regarded by the author of Hebrews the same way. They acted in faith as witnesses to God's faithfulness, but they are not the epitome. Only Christ is the one suitable for following. He, who knew no sin, bore our sin on the cross. That is true heroism. That is true victory over an enemy. We can never accomplish the like, but we can with other sinners saved by grace "press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus" (Phil 3:14).

* See Numbers 6:1-8 for laws concerning the Nazirite vow.
† There was no direct prohibition against this union: Canaanites, Amorites, Jebusites, et al were under God's ban, though a case can be made that Philistines were as wicked as can be seen with what happens to Samson's betrothed (Jud 14:20; 15:6).

Holy Spirit: Equal in Power and Counsel

2011-12-07T08:07:00.000-06:00

Today the church remembers Ambrose.

For the Spirit Himself is Power, as you read: “The Spirit of Counsel and might” (Isa. 11:2). And as the Son is the Angel of great counsel, so, too, is the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Counsel, that you may know that the Counsel of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is One. Counsel, not concerning any doubtful matters, but concerning those foreknown and determined. … And that we may know more completely that the Spirit is Power, we ought to know that He was promised when the Lord said: “I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh” (Joel 2:28). He, then, Who was promised to us is Himself Power, as in the Gospel the same Son of God declared when He said: “And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” (Luke 24:49)

Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit, II.20-22

Adoration of God Gives Us a Foretaste of Heaven

2011-12-06T09:55:00.000-06:00

All thanksgiving ultimately leads to adoration of God (2 Cor 4:15). When we stand before him and discover what he is like, we cannot but adore him. That’s what the angels do as they surround him and serve him in heaven (Rev 4:11; 5:12; 7:11-12). They sing: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty” (Isa 6:3; Rev 4:8). As they stand before him and see the glory of his Son, they sing: “Glory” (Ps 29:9; Rev 5:13). Ever since the incarnation of our Lord they invite us to stand with them before God the Father in the divine service and join with them in giving glory to him (Luke 2:13). Our adoration of God therefore gives us a foretaste of heaven. As we adore the triune God we begin to do on earth what we will do forever in heaven; we begin to enjoy our God who is so good and great that we never come to the end of our enjoyment of him.

John W Kleinig, "What's the Use of Praising God?" Lutheran Theological Journal 38/2 (2004)

Angels Assist Us in Praising the Triune God

2011-12-05T11:10:00.000-06:00

Since Christ has become incarnate and is now present with us to bring us peace and make us holy, we adore him, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, by singing these songs together with the angels and the whole communion of saints. The angels, who have been appointed as liturgising spirits to serve us, assist us in our adoration of the Triune God (Heb 1:14; 12:22).

John W Kleinig, "What's the Use of Praising God?" Lutheran Theological Journal 38/2 (2004)

Praise Plants God's Word Deeper So To Praise Him More

2011-12-04T11:30:00.000-06:00

Paul speaks about this kind of praise-full proclamation [of God's goodness] in Colossians 3:16 and explains how it functions in the church. He says: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you and hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.” The last clause could also be translated: “as you sing about God with Spirit-produced psalms and hymns and songs with grace in your hearts.” Praise begins with Christ himself. Through his word, the message of the gospel, he teaches us God’s grace and speaks that grace to us. By his word he gives us the reason for our praise and its content. And more than that, he actually produces our praise by giving us his Holy Spirit through his word. So then, the more Christ’s word dwells in a congregation, the richer and fuller its praise. This affects us corporately and personally. On the one hand, by the use of songs that are inspired by God’s word and full of the gospel we teach and admonish each other to take in God’s grace and to praise him for his grace. We therefore proclaim the gospel to each other in our songs of praise. On the other hand, as we sing the psalms and hymns and songs that the Holy Spirit generates, Christ plants his word deeper and deeper into the hearts of each person. The sung word imbeds God’s grace there, so that it can bear its full fruit in our lives. That grace produces thankfulness, a sense of overwhelming gratitude at the generosity of God. That, in turn, issues in greater praise.

John W Kleinig, "What's the Use of Praising God?" Lutheran Theological Journal 38/2 (2004)

Praise Communicates God's Goodness

2011-12-03T07:54:00.000-06:00

God does not need us to flatter him, but he does want us to tell others about his goodness, so that they too will put their trust in him and enjoy his good gifts. And that is what we do when we praise him in songs that proclaim his goodness. In fact, most psalms of praise do just that. They do not address the Lord, but address the congregation and anyone else who cares to listen. They sing about God and his goodness. These psalms have three main parts to them. First, they name the Lord and announce his presence in the divine service. Second, they praise his goodness and speak about the good things that he has done. Third, they invite their hearers to join with his people in receiving his gifts and praising him for his generosity.

John W Kleinig, "What's the Use of Praising God?" Lutheran Theological Journal 38/2 (2004)

Faith Naturally Produces Fruit

2011-12-02T16:30:00.000-06:00

A fruitful tree does not produce fruit because someone ordered it to grow fruit but because, as long as there is still some life in it and it is not dried up, it cannot help but produce fruit spontaneously. Faith is like that tree. If it fails to bring forth fruit, it is obviously withered. In the same way, the sun does not need to be told to shine. It will continue shining until the Last Day—without anyone commanding it to do so. Faith is like the sun.

C.F.W. Walther, Law and Gospel: How to Read and Apply the Bible,

(trans. Christian C. Tiews; St Louis: Concordia, 2010), 231

Jesus Leads in Songs of Praise

2011-12-02T12:06:00.000-06:00

Jesus leads the church in its songs of praise. He does not just proclaim his Father’s name to those who are his brothers and sisters; he invites them to join with him as their lead singer. He teaches them to praise by giving them his word (Col 3:16) and his Holy Spirit (Eph 5:18-20). The church then sings its songs of praise together with Jesus. This amazing result of the incarnation is expressed in a number of different ways in the New Testament. Both individuals (Rom 1:8) and the church (Rom 7:25; Col 3:17) give thanks to God the Father through Jesus. They give thanks to him in the name of Jesus (Eph 5:20). Jesus is also the leader of the church in its performance of doxology. As people who serve with Jesus in the heavenly sanctuary we give glory to God through Jesus (Rom 16:27; 1 Pet 4:11; Jude 25) and in Christ Jesus (Eph 3:21). So, since we have Jesus as our great high priest who is physically related to us and able to stand in for us physically with his heavenly Father, we are to offer a sacrifice of praise to God through Jesus (Heb 13:15).

The church then follows Jesus in singing its songs and in performing its praises. It does not, however, sing its own song; it sings the song that it receives from him. Nor does it sing that song by itself with its own instruments. The vision of St John in Revelation 15:2-4 shows how the saints hold ‘the harps of God’ in their hands as they sing ‘the song of the Lamb’. The song of the Lamb is the song of Jesus, the song that he sings as he adores his divine Father. Jesus does not copyright that song, but he makes it freely available to us. We can sing it with him because he sings it for us, like a mother teaching her child to sing.

John W Kleinig, "What's the Use of Praising God?" Lutheran Theological Journal 38/2 (2004)

Our Vocation As Praise-Singers

2011-12-01T11:10:00.000-06:00

St Paul explores the implications of [a new song of praise sung by a new human/angelic choir] in Ephesians 1:3-14. As he writes this extravagant sentence, he contrasts the new choir created by Christ with the old choir at the temple. The temple choir had been appointed to praise God for the blessings that the Israelites had received from him here on earth. Each of the musicians had been given their allotted place at the temple before the Lord. Their vocation from God was to praise him whenever they were rostered for duty there at the temple. But now Christ has created a new cosmic choir. The church is that choir. By his incarnation he has united earthlings with angels, just as he has united Jews and Gentiles by his death on the cross. Both human beings and angels are now subject to his headship. He has redeemed people and made them holy by their union with him. They now have the same status as Jesus. They share in his sonship and have every blessing that belongs to him as God’s Son. They join the angels in a single choir that spans heaven and earth. That choir consists of both Jews and Gentiles. Through the incarnation of Jesus, human beings have access to the heavenly realm as they continue to live on earth. Both angels and people have the same vocation as praise singers. Those who have been redeemed by Christ have been appointed as praise-singers for God the Father here on planet earth. They are called to live for the praise of God’s glory (Eph 1:6,12,14).

They cannot do this in his absence. In and through Jesus they praise God the Father as those who stand ‘holy and blameless before him’ (Eph 1:4), for Christ has united them bodily with himself and has taken them bodily with himself into the Godhead. As recipients of God’s grace they sing the song of God’s amazing grace to the world. In fact, God is so utterly good and gracious, so much more generous, philanthropic, and loving than the best human being, that they can only communicate something of that grace by wholehearted, full-bodied praise. The praises of the church then are full of wonder and amazement at the great mystery of the incarnation, by which the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily in Jesus, so that we humans can come to fullness of life in and through him.

John W Kleinig, "What's the Use of Praising God?" Lutheran Theological Journal 38/2 (2004)

God's Presence Inspires Praise

2011-11-30T11:30:00.000-06:00

The song of praise performed a very significant theological function in the temple service. It was not spoken to God as a gesture of flattery, or even as an act of adoration, but was addressed to the congregation. As is shown in 1 Chronicles 16:7-36, David proclaimed the goodness and steadfast love of the Lord to the congregation through the choir. He called on the people of Israel and all the nations to join him in seeking God’s gracious presence and praising him to the whole world. The song of praise therefore proclaimed the Lord’s name and his saving deeds to all people. It acknowledged his presence and announced his availability to his people. The presence of God in grace inspired the song of praise, even as the song of praise made his gracious presence known to its hearers.

This connection between access to God’s presence and the performance of praise is shown most vividly by the account of the dedication of the temple by Solomon in 2 Chronicles 5:11-14. This story tells us that after the priests had placed the ark in the inner sanctuary of the temple and had come out of the temple, the full choir began to sing a song of praise to the accompaniment of lyres and harps. As soon as they began to sing the Lord’s song, the glorious presence of the Lord filled the temple. But the glory of the Lord was not seen, because it was hidden in a cloud. It was revealed to the people audibly to the human ear in the song of praise, rather than visibly to the human eye. The performance of praise in music and song disclosed the hidden presence of the Lord and announced his acceptance of the people.

John W Kleinig, "What's the Use of Praising God?" Lutheran Theological Journal 38/2 (2004)

Eucharistic Theology in Ignatius of Antioch

2011-11-29T11:30:00.000-06:00

While recently reading Ignatius concerning the Trinity (parts one, two, and three), I noticed sentences and phrases that referred in some measure to the Eucharist. Below are a few thoughts concerning Ignatius' view, and how he interweaves this theme through a few of his epistles.

Unity – Ignatius was concerned for the unity of believers, so it comes as no surprise that he relates that breaking bread is a sign of unity (Ephesians, 20; Philadelphians 4) and pure doctrine (Trallians, 6-7). Those not partaking are deprived of that unity with the church as subjects of discipline (Ephesians, 5). Heretics apparently refused orthodox practice and abstained from the Eucharist (Smyrnaeans, 7) which all believers were instructed to do by Jesus and Paul. The presence of a separate Eucharist was considered schismatic as a probably sign of heresy (Philadelphians, 2-3). As a result the believers were encouraged to keep one that was properly sanctioned and administered (Philadelphians, 4; Smyrnaeans, 8).

Means of Grace – Ignatius relates a function in the Eucharistic beyond a memorial meal. This is evidenced by a definite connection between the body and blood of Christ to the bread and cup in the following:

•	For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup into the unity of His blood (Philadelphians, 4)
•	[Heretics] confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. (Smyrnaeans, 7)

In addition he bestows the union of bread with Christ's body as “the medicine of immortality, and the antidote which prevents us from dying, but a cleansing remedy driving away evil” (Ephesians, 20) giving clear testimony to a salvific effect.

Final Hope – Lastly, Ignatius' desire is to put away the symbols and passing of this world to “come to the Father” and partake of Christ as “the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and . . . the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life” (Romans, 7).

I am not completely certain what to make of this for two reasons. First, Ignatius was a colorful writer using ornate word pictures to communicate many of his thoughts. This is especially seen in his use of musical themes for explaining his thoughts on church unity. It may be that he used the same rhetorical device in associating a real presence and salvific work to the bread and cup though the language seems to be clear enough. Second, while a real presence of Christ in the elements is possible (per Chemnitz' The Two Natures in Christ), I still question the actuality based on my understanding of the biblical evidence.

Sola Scriptura must be the governing norm, but epistles written in so close proximity both in time and distance deserve due weight. That said, I need to revisit this and come to a more firm conclusion.

Christ's Incarnation: Our Basis for Praise

2011-11-28T11:37:00.000-06:00

In his great vision of heavenly worship in Revelation 5:6-10, St John sees twenty-four elders singing a new song. The elders, twelve for the patriarchs of Israel and twelve for the apostles of Christ, represent the people of God in both testaments. As John watches, they rise from their thrones and fall down before Jesus the Lamb, because he has just received the sealed scroll from God. That scroll is his script for the last act in the drama of world history. Each of the elders holds two things in their hands, a lyre for accompanying their songs of praise, and a bowl full of incense for presenting the prayers of the saints to God. As they fall prostrate before Jesus, they sing a new song of praise to him. In this song they acknowledge that by his sacrificial death, Jesus has created a new international priesthood for God. Their task is to reign with him on earth. And they reign in a strange way indeed. As those who stand before God and have access to him, they reign by their performance of prayer and praise.

This vision shows us how singing of praise is connected with the incarnate Christ. He himself has created this priestly choir by his self-sacrifice as the Lamb. This choir now performs its song of praise in his presence here on earth. In music and song it acknowledges and praises him. It sings its song together with all the angels and the whole of creation (Rev 5:11-14; cf. Ps 148:1-14). By that song it proclaims the hidden kingship of Christ to the world and announces what he is doing as the cosmic world ruler. He does not reign as the Lion of Judah, but as the Lamb of God. In its song of praise the church proclaims the presence of the incarnate Son of God and tells of his work as the redeemer of the world.

John W Kleinig, "What's the Use of Praising God?" Lutheran Theological Journal 38/2 (2004)

Rely Solely On Christ

2011-11-25T09:35:00.000-06:00

No matter what other false doctrines [fanatical sects] may teach, they all have this great error in common: They do not rely solely on Christ and His Word, but chiefly on something that takes place within themselves. As a rule, they imagine that all is well with them because they have turned from their former ways. As if that were a guarantee of reaching heaven! No—we should not look back to our conversion for assurance. Rather, we must go to our Savior again and again—every day—as though we never had been converted. My former conversion would be of no benefit to me if I became secure in my sins. I must return to the mercy seat every day, otherwise I would make my former conversion my savior, and not Christ, because I would be relying on it. That would be horrible, for at the end of the day that would mean that I would make myself my own savior.

C.F.W. Walther, Law and Gospel: How to Read and Apply the Bible,

(trans. Christian C. Tiews; St Louis: Concordia, 2010), 225.

Christians Are Called To Praise God

2011-11-23T11:57:00.000-06:00

We Christians are called to praise the triune God. That, in fact, is the main purpose of our life here on earth (1 Pet 2:9). It is part of our vocation as members of God’s royal priesthood. We have been redeemed from a life of suspicion and mistrust to be praise singers. This is no occasional task, something we do once a week, or every now and then when we feel moved to do so. Nor is it something that we do by ourselves. Since we belong to the church, we have joined God’s heavenly choir here on earth. This means that our whole life is, in some way, caught up in praising God. We are well-placed to do so, because we, like the holy angels, have access to God and grace. Since we stand in the light of his presence, we can reflect that light in our rejoicing.

John W Kleinig, "What's the Use of Praising God?" Lutheran Theological Journal 38/2 (2004)

Win "Historical Theology" by Gregg Allison

2011-11-22T20:45:00.000-06:00

Credo, the online magazine, is giving away a copy of Historical Theology by Gregg Allison. Multiple opportunities to win are allowed by posting and sharing the news. And since divine providence will surely work so that this volume comes into my possession, I promise to let you know how good it is after reading it.

Ten Reasons to Love Luther

2011-11-21T17:00:00.000-06:00

Over at Internet Monk, Chaplain Mike has posted ten reasons why he loves Martin Luther. I give those ten here:

1. For Luther, it was all about Christ.
2. He loved and listened to God’s Word.
3. I love a good “Rocky” story.
4. The guy had a way with words.
5. He treasured music right up there next to the Bible.
6. He never wrote a systematic theology.
7. He had a pastor’s heart that cared deeply about the church.
8. He loved a good time, especially when beer was involved.
9. He cherished his wife and family.
10. He was utterly human, completely dependent on God’s grace.

I pretty much agree with his sentiments. Luther was noted for his colorful commentary. One case in particular that struck me was a treatise on making vows of celibacy. He said, as best as I remember:

Do you want to make a good vow? Vow that you will not bite the nose of your face. That one you can keep.

The entire article with the specifics behind the above can be found here.

Trinitarian Doctrine in Ignatius of Antioch (3)

2011-11-20T11:17:00.000-06:00

This is the third and last of a series on Trinitarian doctrine in Ignatius' writing. Based on what was in the first two epistles, I assumed the others would also be filled with references, but such was not the case. The remainder are listed here.

Epistle to the Trallians.: as Polybius your bishop has shown me, who has come to Smyrna by the will of God and Jesus Christ - chap 1 (God [the Father] and Jesus both exercised their wills showing equality between the persons.)
: continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ our God - chap 7
: God promises unity, which he himself is. - chap 11 [translation from Michael Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed.] (God is a unity, not a singularity, therefore requiring more than one member or person within the Godhead.)
Epistle to the Romans: in accordance with faith in and love for Jesus Christ our God … heartiest greetings blamelessly, in Jesus Christ our God - preface [Holmes ed.]
: For our God, Jesus Christ, now that He is with the Father, is all the more revealed - chap 3
Epistle to the Philadelphians: For though some would have deceived me according to the flesh, yet the Spirit, as being from God, is not deceived. For it knows both whence it comes and whither it goes, and detects the secrets. - chap 7 (The Holy Spirit is from God and acts as God)
Epistle to the Smyrnaeans: I glorify God, even Jesus Christ, who has given you such wisdom. - chap 1 (Equating God and Jesus Christ)
: if by any means they may be brought to repentance, which, however, will be very difficult. Yet Jesus Christ, who is our true life, has the power of this. - chap 4 (Jesus has God's power of bringing men to repentance.)
: You have done well in receiving Philo and Rheus Agathopus as servants of Christ our God - chap 10
Epistle to Polycarp: I pray for your happiness forever in our God, Jesus Christ, by whom you continue in the unity and under the protection of God - chap 8

Trinitarian Doctrine in Ignatius of Antioch (2)

2011-11-19T11:16:00.000-06:00

This is part two of a series on Trinitarian doctrine in Ignatius' writing. Given below are extracts from Epistle to the Magnesians.: I pray for a union both of the flesh and spirit of Jesus Christ, the constant source of our life, and of faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred, but especially of Jesus and the Father, in whom,… we shall enjoy God - chap 1 (Jesus is the source of life, which can only be ascribed to God. Jesus and the Father are co-equal in our ultimate salvation.)
: the believing have, in love, the character of God the Father by Jesus Christ, by whom, if we are not in readiness to die into His passion, His life is not in us. - chap 5 (It is Christ who secures sharing in both the nature of God and life. 2 Pet 1:3-4)
: Therefore all of you run together as into one temple of God, as to one altar, as to one Jesus Christ, who came forth from one Father, and is with and has gone to one. - chap 7 (Jesus came from the divine glory, remained in the glory while on earth, and returned again to the glory.)
: there is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word,… and who in all things pleased Him that sent Him. - chap 8 (Jesus was sent by God and is the manifestation of God. John 17:21, 25; Col 1:15; Heb 1:3)
: Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit; in the beginning and in the end; with your most admirable bishop, and the well-compacted spiritual crown of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to God. Be subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit; that so there may be a union both fleshly and spiritual. - chap 13 (Body life in the church is a result of a correct, trinitarian understanding of God.)
: Farewell in the harmony of God, you who have obtained the inseparable Spirit, who is Jesus Christ. - chap 15 (Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one in being though different persons.)

Trinitarian Doctrine in Ignatius of Antioch

2011-11-18T21:42:00.000-06:00

I was listening to a podcast lecture on the proper understanding of the Trinity and was reminded how far back it went. Here are some excerpts from Ignatius' Epistle to the Ephesians written circa a.d. 107—well before the Council of Nicaea.: to the Church which is at Ephesus … being blessed in the greatness and fulness of God the Father,… being united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God - preface (Jesus is different from the Father, but both are called God.)
: Being the imitators of God [Eph 5:1], and stirring up yourselves by the blood of God - chap 1 (God can only have blood if he has a human body, as in the incarnation.)
: Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God,… that no heresy has any dwelling-place among you.
: Nor, indeed, do ye hearken to any one rather than to Jesus Christ speaking in truth - chap 6 (God and Jesus are both considered the basis for truth.)
: There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible,—even Jesus Christ our Lord. - chap 7 (Explicit statements of God in human flesh; born of Mary and different person of Godhead)
: being stones of the temple of the Father, prepared for the building of God the Father, and drawn up on high by the instrument of Jesus Christ, which is the cross, making use of the Holy Spirit as a rope - chap 9 (Trinitarian picture of salvation)
: For this end did the Lord suffer the ointment to be poured upon His head, that He might breathe immortality into His Church.… And why are we not all prudent, since we have received the knowledge of God, which is Jesus Christ? - chap 17 (It is Jesus who gives life to the church; and Jesus is the embodiment of God's knowledge)
: For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. - chap 18 (Trinitarian view of incarnation: Jesus is God, was appointed by God, and was conceived by Holy Spirit who is God)
: God Himself being manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life - chap 19 (God put on human form to give life)

My intent in this post was to give excerpts from all the letters, but I was surprised by the number in the first of these. This looks like a short series in the making.

Kate Cooper Examines Fourth-Century Shift in Church Polity

2011-11-16T11:00:00.000-06:00

Kate Cooper has written an interesting article in Journal of Early Christian Studies examining the shift in church polity from the third to fourth century.† Her thesis is that as the Roman government operated within a framework of landowners operating for their mutual benefit, so similarly the universal church took up this characteristic as they transitioned from "private power to corporate institutional policy."(327) Landowners were considered worthy of heeding by virtue of their business acumen and life experience, and the church found the pattern useful for the establishment of bishops over the churches in a diocese in order to maintain order and interact in a corporate way with the Roman government. Later, as the power of Rome faded, the authority of the bishops came to the fore within the context of both church and state.

The comparison is not without merit. Rome was first established as a republic with a senate as the governing body. Mutual cooperation would be required in order for the system to be maintained. The church acted similarly as evidenced by the apostles and later writers though the basis of their union was entirely different. Cooper quotes Cyprian's On Unity of the Church as the best example of the collegiate nature of church governance in the mid-third century. We also can follow Rome and the Church taking similar steps in moving from a decentralized to a centralized authority structure as both internal and external affairs needed action and power was given to a smaller and smaller sphere of governors. This might be directly related to Constantine's legalization of Christianity.

But the imperial sanction certainly made a difference to the bishop’s power already from the early fourth century, and across the fourth century it became increasingly important to cultivate good standing with the imperially recognized bishop of one’s city in order to enjoy the privileges of conformity with the state religion. (343)

I disagree with Ms. Cooper's thrust that Roman society was a lead factor or primary example for church structure. Scripture itself identifies the impetus—apostolic doctrine (1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). However, the research does raise a question: How much does culture affect the church? Plenty. But this does not mean we stop walking in the good works that God has given us (Eph 2:10). Neither you nor I will build the church. Jesus builds the church. We are called to trust him and work out what God done and given (Phil 2:12-13).

^† Kate Cooper, "Christianity, Private Power, and the Law from Decius to Constantine: The Minimalist View," JECS 19:3 (2011), 327–343.

Who Is the Gospel About?

2011-11-15T12:00:00.000-06:00

Marc Cortez of Western Seminary is doing a series The Problem With Our Gospel, which is not about the shortcomings of the gospel but identifying what we have inadvertently or deliberately done with the gospel to strip it of power. In the latest post, he shares the following:

Just look at how we summarize the Gospel:

▪ God loves you and wants a relationship with you.
▪ You sinned and separated yourself from God.
▪ Jesus died for your sins so that you could have a relationship with God.
▪ If you believe in Jesus and confess your sins, he will forgive you and you will spend an eternity in heaven with him.

These are some tremendous truths. But notice who this story revolves around. You. You’re the one God loves, you’re the one in trouble, and you’re the one getting saved. The whole story revolves around you and your needs. No wonder we like this story.

But the Gospel isn’t about you.

The Gospel is not about me.

The Gospel is about God.

I hear or read this "all about me" somewhere, sometime during any given week. How refreshing to remember that I am not the center of redemption but the undeserving recipient.

Lutheranism For the Post-Evangelical

2011-11-14T20:52:00.001-06:00

Chaplain Mike at Internet Monk has two posts giving strong points of the Lutheran tradition which fill a void that his former Evangelical associations simply could not or did not address. In the first, he identifies "three main areas of disillusionment with the culture of American evangelicalism: (1) Worship, (2) Pastoral Ministry, (3) Missional living" and notes the following as Lutheran strengths:

The Word and Table liturgy of the Lutheran church, rooted in the historic tradition of the church rather than the revivalist movement, restores the priority of worship in the local congregation.

Pastors are not CEO’s or program directors in the Lutheran church as they have become in much of evangelicalism. Rather, they represent Christ in distributing the means of grace through Word and Sacrament. Preaching is embedded in the liturgy so that worship does not revolve around the charisma of the preacher, but the Word Himself who meets us in the gathering of his people. Pastoral care and catechizing the congregation are essential components of his or her work.

The doctrine of vocation is one of the gifts the Lutheran tradition has given to the larger Church. Luther, himself a monk, came to appreciate the priesthood of all believers and the integrity of every calling, "sacred" or "secular," as a means of showing Christ’s love to the world.

In the second post, he addresses two other theological distinctives. First is the centrality of Christ, especially as regards three areas:

First of all, Lutherans observe the Christian Year, which is as Jesus-shaped and salutary a practice for getting to know Christ and learning to live in his story as any I know.

Second, throughout the year this involves preaching from the lectionary, which shows week in and week out how the Bible relentlessly points to Christ and God’s kingdom. As I’ve attended the Lutheran church, I have heard sermons from the Gospel reading almost every Sunday, which means it is Jesus’ story and Jesus’ voice that is constantly highlighted.

Third, traditional liturgical worship itself is by nature Christocentric, as Robert Webber has explained so well in his writings on worship. The liturgy is designed to reenact the drama of the Gospel, with Christ at the center through proclamation of the Gospel and invitation to the Lord’s Table.

Then there is distinguishing of Law and Gospel. The Law "comes to us in imperatives: “Thou shalt…” and “Thou shalt not…”

It draws the line and therefore defines crossing the line as “transgression.” It paints a picture of perfect health and defines the corruption of our nature as “iniquity.” It issues commandments, requirements, laws, exhortations, and instructions, and defines disregard of those standards as “lawlessness.” As a revelation of God’s character, it declares that our lack of conformity to him is “ungodliness.” It sets forth a clear path, a “straight way” on which humans should walk, and then points out that we have “gone astray” and become “lost.”

While the Gospel "is the announcement of God’s grace in Christ for a rebel creation."

God’s grace also renews us and God’s grace leads us. Through grace we delight in God’s will. Through grace we are strengthened to walk in his ways. The formation of virtue in our lives does not come through simply hearing God’s commands and “following the instructions.” It comes instead as we focus on Christ and feed on Christ, digesting his grace toward us. We learn with amazement that we are accepted by him solely because of his “one-way love” and not because we are in any way attractive or deserving. Our relationship with God has been initiated and is sustained wholly from outside ourselves.

With the amount of Lutheran theology read in the past five years, I can add my affirmation to the general points though disagreeing with some of the specifics. These are definitely areas where American evangelicalism has largely fallen flat. We can learn a thing or two from our Lutheran brethren to get away from what Evangelicalism has become and be an assembly of God's people.

ESV Text Changes For 2011

2011-11-13T13:51:00.001-06:00

An announcement was made concerning some text changes in the English Standard Version that can be found here on the FAQ page. The complete list of changes can be found here. There are only 750 word changes, and they are rather innocuous.

The one global change I did not care for was from hired servant to hired worker, but the translation committee did not consult me—certainly their loss. Maybe it is because my knowledge of Biblical languages is not up to par. For instance, my Greek does not go much beyond Gyro and Galaktoboureko.

On Appeasing God(s)

2011-11-12T09:21:00.000-06:00

We have next to examine the argument … that sacrifices are offered to the gods of heaven for this purpose, that they may lay aside their anger and passions, and may be restored to a calm and placid tranquility, the indignation of their fiery spirits being assuaged. And if we remember the definition which we should always bear steadily in mind, that all agitating feelings are unknown to the gods, the consequence is, a belief that the gods are never angry; nay, rather, that no passion is further from them than that which, approaching most nearly to the spirit of wild beasts and savage creatures, agitates those who suffer it with tempestuous feelings, and brings them into danger of destruction. For whatever is harassed by any kind of disturbance, is, it is clear, capable of suffering, and frail; that which has been subjected to suffering and frailty must be mortal; but anger harasses and destroys those who are subject to it: therefore that should be called mortal which has been made subject to the emotions of anger. But yet we know that the gods should be never-dying, and should possess an immortal nature; and if this is clear and certain, anger has been separated far from them and from their state. On no ground, then, is it fitting to wish to appease that in the gods above which you see cannot suit their blessed state.

Arnobius of Sicca, The Case against the Pagans, Book VII, cap. 5

In this chapter Arnobius contends that because deities are impassible, they are not subject to anger—perceived to be an animalistic, self-destructive emotion—and therefore do not need sacrifices to appease them. The reader may wonder whether he has overstepped at this point since the covenant-keeping God of the Bible is described as expressing both anger and wrath.

The pantheon Arnobius addressed had as a common characteristic a propensity for unbridled, emotional responses. In many cases the humans interwoven in the tales had more self-control than the deity involved. He argues that true gods will not be so capricious as those being worshiped in his world and not the quick, oft-given sacrifices to curry favor. Stability grounded in core principles is obvious for society and should be even more so among those overseeing the created order. A true god would be more like the Supreme, Almighty God in this manner of whom it is attested:

God is not man, that he should lie,
or a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Has he said, and will he not do it?
Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? (Num 23:19)

For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed. (Mal 3:6)

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. (Jas 1:17)

Since both scripture and argumentation presented here claim God's impassibility, how can Paul and the other biblical writers plainly teach plainly thus seemingly controverted need for propitiation? An examination of anger and wrath in the Bible demonstrates how these pertain to the Godhead.

Anger
This attribute is a response based on something done or said by another and being communicable to mankind is similar to our emotion. The difference lies in the basis and measure of anger since we tend toward sinful use and God couples it perfectly with divine patience.

And the people complained in the hearing of the Lord about their misfortunes, and when the Lord heard it, his anger was kindled, and the fire of the Lord burned among them and consumed some outlying parts of the camp. (Num 11:1)

But the people of Israel broke faith in regard to the devoted things, for Achan the son of Carmi, son of Zabdi, son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took some of the devoted things. And the anger of the Lord burned against the people of Israel. (Jos 7:1)

And they burned their sons and their daughters as offerings and used divination and omens and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking him to anger. (2 Ki 17:17)

And he burned his son as an offering and used fortune-telling and omens and dealt with mediums and with wizards. He did much evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking him to anger. (2 Ki 21:6)

Each of the above was a response to specific sins of which the Lord had given instruction and resulted in just discipline directed toward the offenders. Even then the degree of punishment meted out, though sufficient for correction, but did not fully satisfy the extent to which the people deserved punishment as a stiff-necked people. This is a much different attitude than was told of the pagan gods who were to have taken vengeance on whole nations for minor infractions.

Wrath
Divine wrath is different from anger in that it is

His eternal detestation of all unrighteousness. It is the displeasure and indignation of Divine equity against evil. It is the holiness of God stirred into activity against sin. It is the moving cause of that just sentence which He passes upon evil-doers.¹

Wrath runs deeper and broader than anger addressing the whole of what a sinful nature does in and through the person rather a single instance. God reserves wrath until his patience runs out when, because of great indignation against sin, he executes judgment. Again, this is executed within the parameters of God's justice, and because the offense is beyond the measure of any being, the fullness of judgment is brought to bear on the one to whom it is due.

Propitiation
In order to avert the just execution of wrath, a sufficient sacrifice is necessary.² Christ as that sufficient propitiation in his work on the cross (Rom 3:25; Heb 2:17). J. I. Packer explains well:

The wrath of God against us, both present and to come, has been quenched. How was this effected? Through the death of Christ.… The 'blood'—that is, the sacrificial death—of Jesus Christ abolished God’s anger against us, and ensured that His treatment of us for ever after would be propitious and favorable.³

The sacrifice of Jesus dealt with all righteous requirements of a holy, eternal God and was not given to influence a fickle deity but satisfy forever the greatest need of mankind. And what of those who reject what God has so richly provided?

The wrath of God on the wicked is great. Men deserve it. And there is no escaping it.… Those who chose to reject the sacrifice of Christ for their sins must now be judged according to their works. It is a terrible fate, but one which sinners richly deserve.⁴

Conclusion
Arnobius was correct to question the need to appease gods who were emotionally erratic. The constant need for sacrifices to influence divine behavior was folly and undeserved. In comparison, the one true God was aggrieved to an infinite degree by virtue of Adam's sin and provided himself as the only sufficient sacrifice to cover and remove sin and its effects.

¹ A. W. Pink, The Attributes of God, (Swengel, PA: Reiner Publications, 1968 [Reprint]), p. 75.
² See my post on Bloody Sacrifices for more on this.
³ J. I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1973), p. 165.
⁴ Bob Deffinbaugh, The Wrath of God, accessed online at http://bible.org/seriespage/wrath-god.

Comparing Psychological Method and Christianity

2011-11-10T13:00:00.000-06:00

Glenn Chatfield at The Watchman's Bagpipes has begun a series comparing psychological methods against Christianity. Part 1 and part 2 have been posted looking at the historical figures in the field of psychology.

It is definitely worth a look.

Sound Theology Brings Peace Of Mind

2011-11-09T20:32:00.001-06:00

A friend shared this Peanuts cartoon on Facebook. (Thanks, Karen!) The simple truth is striking. When we are not grounded in God's word, whether through ignorance or disobedience, no assurance can be found.

Consider the analogies used in scripture beginning with Jesus:

Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it. (Matt 7:24-27)

Here, the Savior shared that those who take heed to his instruction would be firmly based and nothing that assailed would shake his stand.

Later, the apostle Paul would write of godly men that Christ has given to the church

to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. (Eph 4:12-14)

Those who do not know God's word are easily swayed and concerned about the wrong things. And even those who have been taught rightly, yet doubts, James refers to in similar fashion:

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. (Jas 1:5-8)

One can easily envision a helpless vessel on a choppy sea being blown hither and yon because there is neither anchor nor ballast.

This being so, it then behooves the Church to be diligent in making disciples, not converts. Let's be "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."

Strength to Persevere

2011-11-08T15:08:00.000-06:00

Will Weedon's Patristic Quote of the Day is from On the Holy Spirit by Basil the Great and attests to the Holy Spirit's work in perseverance as demonstrated by the Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. What a blessed source of strength!

I do not know what translation he shared, but the same section is found in NPNF2, volume 8 given here.

I was taught too by the children at Babylon,^† that, when there is no one to support the cause of true religion, we ought alone and all unaided to do our duty. They from out of the midst of the flame lifted up their voices in hymns and praise to God, reeking not of the host that set the truth at naught, but sufficient, three only that they were, with one another. Wherefore we too are undismayed at the cloud of our enemies, and, resting our hope on the aid of the Spirit, have, with all boldness, proclaimed the truth.

^† Daniel 3

Bloody Sacrifices

2011-11-07T22:57:00.000-06:00

One of the objections laid against orthodox Christianity is the concept of a loving father sending his innocent son to suffer and die for the guilt of others. Men make every effort to deconstruct the plain reading of scripture and restate the narrative in a way that removes the scandal of the cross. Why? Such a sacrifice is abhorrent. Justice demands that the guilty should pay for his or her own transgressions. For someone or something to die as a substitute for wrongdoing runs counter to our thinking. Why should a living thing shed its blood for my behalf? In the following from his work against pagans, Arnobius takes up a similar argument that bears some investigation.

And can any man persuade himself that the gods become mild as they are exhilarated by pleasures, that they long for sensual enjoyment, and, like some base creatures, are affected by agreeable sensations, and charmed and tickled for the moment by a pleasantness which soon passes away?

But the gods should be free from both passions, if we would have them to be everlasting, and freed from the weakness of mortals. Moreover, every pleasure is, as it were, a kind of flattery of the body, and is addressed to the five well-known senses; but if the gods above feel it, they must partake also of those bodies through which there is a way to the senses, and a door by which to receive pleasures. Lastly, what pleasure is it to take delight in the slaughter of harmless creatures, to have the ears ringing often with their piteous bellowings, to see rivers of blood, the life fleeing away with the blood, and the secret parts having been laid open, not only the intestines to protrude with the excrements, but also the heart still bounding with the life left in it, and the trembling, palpitating veins in the viscera? We half-savage men, nay rather,—to say with more candor what it is truer and more candid to say,—we savages, whom unhappy necessity and bad habit have trained to take these as food, are sometimes moved with pity for them; we ourselves accuse and condemn ourselves when the thing is seen and looked into thoroughly, because, neglecting the law which is binding on men, we have broken through the bonds which naturally united us at the beginning.

Will any one believe that the gods, who are kind, beneficent, gentle, are delighted and filled with joy by the slaughter of cattle, if ever they fall and expire pitiably before their altars? And there is no cause, then, for pleasure in sacrifices, as we see, nor is there a reason why they should be offered, since there is no pleasure afforded by them; and if perchance there is some, it has been shown that it cannot in any way belong to the gods.

The Case against the Pagans, Book VII, cap. 4

A cursory reading has the writer castigating the practice of bloody sacrifice as unnecessary since any divine being would not be given to pleasure by the slaughter of these beasts. He argues strongly that deity is impassible and that these offerings are not compatible with that high character. That begs the question: Does the God Arnobius confesses desire such sacrifices? And what of the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross?

Why sacrifices?
The first step is to establish why someone would feel the need to offer a sacrifice. There is within mankind an understanding that a gap exists between a person who is a corporeal entity and the incorporeal deity. A gap exists either because of shortcomings or just the inadequacy of ability in communicating from one level of existence to the other. In either case, something must bridge the chasm in order for interaction to occur.

The Bible tells us that there was originally fellowship between God and man—as much closeness in a relationship as is possible between the Creator and his creation. This was ruined by man's disobedience, and the sin resulted in a chasm (Gen 3:17-24). While no animal sacrifice was required, they were given from earliest times. The earliest recorded came from Abel who gave of the flock which was accepted (Gen 4:4).

While the early sacrifices were useful in approaching God, man still lacked basic knowledge of how short he came in his attempts and what was needed to ease the situation. Through Moses was communicated the Lord's holy character and his expectation of a holy people. Because of the sin nature within every one of his people, God also gave stipulations for the sacrifices needed to atone for those sins, because

the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life. (Lev 17:11)

A life was required in order to deal with sin. Since the Lord so valued human life (see Gen 1:26; 2:7) above animal life, the blood of specific livestock was offered in a prescribed manner as a substitute for the individual or nation.

Something Better
God has said in his word that there is something he desires above sacrifice.

Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,
        as in obeying the voice of the LORD?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
        and to listen than the fat of rams. (1 Sam 15:22)

Sacrifice and offering you have not desired,
        but you have given me an open ear.
Burnt offering and sin offering
        you have not required.
Then I said, "Behold, I have come;
in the scroll of the book it is written of me:
I desire to do your will, O my God;
your law is within my heart." (Psa 40:6-8)

What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices?
        says the LORD;
I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams
        and the fat of well-fed beasts;
I do not delight in the blood of bulls,
        or of lambs, or of goats.
                                . . .
Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;
        remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes;
cease to do evil, learn to do good;
        seek justice, correct oppression;
bring justice to the fatherless,
        plead the widow’s cause. (Isa 1:11, 16-17)

The sacrificial system was installed because of sin, but what God wanted more than anything else was obedience. Continual sacrifices were a measure to cover sin for a time but never completely dealt with the issue. Something more was required to deal with all sin forever.

Ultimate Answer
Because man had sinned, a man had to deal with the problem, but nobody was sufficient to the task. To deal with the shortcoming, God himself stepped into this world as fully man, yet remaining fully God. As man, he could represent us to pay the debt of his own precious blood. As God, the sacrifice was of infinite worth and power to cover all sin. None more were required (Heb 7:27; 9:12; 9:26; 10:10). The bloody sacrifice that was not needed by man in the beginning or wanted by God, but given by necessity, is now completed for all time, so that if we but trust in Jesus' finished work on the cross, we might walk in newness of life as new creations in Christ.

Two Natures in Christ: Lectures by Rod Rosenbladt

2011-11-04T12:08:00.000-05:00

This morning I finished listening to a set of MP3s featuring Dr. Rod Rosenbladt lecturing on Martin Chemnitz' book The Two Natures in Christ. I read this book about five years ago^† and was both impressed and overwhelmed. After listening to the lectures, rereading the book seems in order.

The audio sessions are available at Fighting for the Faith beginning here and presented intermittently over three months worth of shows. I have put these in one place and linking to the sessions below. If you wish video format, links can be found at the website for Faith Lutheran Church, Capistrano Beach, CA.

Incarnation Notes for Two Natures Lecture

Two Natures in Christ - Part 1
Two Natures in Christ - Part 2
Two Natures in Christ - Part 3
Two Natures in Christ - Part 4
Two Natures in Christ - Parts 5 and 6
Two Natures in Christ - Parts 7 and 8
Two Natures in Christ - Parts 9 and 10
Two Natures in Christ - Parts 11 and 12
Two Natures in Christ - Parts 13 and 14

Two Natures in Christ - Part 15 (unavailable)
Two Natures in Christ - Part 16 (video only)

^† The edition I read can be found here. An updated edition is available from CPH. It is thick (542 pages) and packed full of good stuff.

Receptive Worship

2011-11-03T14:23:00.000-05:00

For most of my readers, receptive worship is an oxymoron like being an Arminian Calvinist. It simply cannot work. Our understanding of worship is outward—from me to God—with my responsibility to offer sacrifices of person (Rom 12:1), purse (Phil 4:18), and praise (Heb 13:15) that are all spiritual in nature (1 Pet 2:5). Praise and worship music overwhelmingly reflects the idea of constant focus on God and his attributes, similar to Psalms 149 and 150, in our relationship with him. Such attribution is good,^† but may I assert this constant refrain is little more than emoting, and we are missing the fullness of worship?

The first direct mention of worship is used on the occasion when God tested Abraham (Gen 22:1-19):

Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you. (22:2)

At this point in the story, there is certainly the God-ward focus with the command to give a burnt offering, and later after three days' journey, Abraham and Isaac separated from the young men, telling them to stay while they "go over there and worship and come again to you" (22:5).

It is at this place in the account where things take a turn as Isaac comments that they have the fire and wood but no sacrifice. The answer is instructive: "God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering" (22:8). Abraham is expecting to receive from God in his obedience of worship. This is a remarkable statement that can best be understood through the much later commentary given by the author of Hebrews:

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back. (Heb 11:17-19)

While Abraham was in the act of worship, there was expectation that God was faithful concerning the son of promise. He was convinced in the ultimate reception of a fulfilled promise manifested in a material way in the face of any outward circumstance; and he was not disappointed as God provided the sacrifice of a ram after stopping the death of Isaac. Not only was the promise kept intact and received back, but the burnt offering was received and offered as a substitute—provision beyond all he could ask or think.

The same type of application can be made in the offerings of Leviticus 1-6. Each of the five offering types had its picture within the whole of worship, but broadly speaking these can be summed up under two—atonement and fellowship. Blood was shed to make atonement (Lev 17:11) and dealt with the sin problem; and the worshiper entered into fellowship with God and the priest by virtue of sharing in the offering when permitted (Lev 7:11-18). A prescribed animal or item was brought before the priest as an act of worship, thus portraying the God-ward view, but the promises of God associated with these offerings assured the faithful Israelite that the presentation of his gift would result in sin covered and peace with God. In the mind of the worshiper, sin was considered atoned for in three ways: first, what had been covered previously no longer carried any guilt; second, there was the promise that the person's sin would be covered in worship; and third, guilt for the sin would not be reapplied as in cases of double jeopardy and fellowship is renewed.

This expectation of atonement and fellowship is no different for the worshiper today, but we may not see it because one, final atoning sacrifice by Jesus was given 2000 years ago. When coming before the Lord to worship, we still have assurance that each person's sin was covered, and it is but for me to believe (1 Cor 6:9-11; Eph 2:1-7); that my sin is currently being covered (Eph 1:4; Col 1:22) as I come into God's holy presence with my brothers and sisters in Christ; and that I will be covered as I remain faithful to him (1 Thess 5:23), having the promise fellowship with the Father (1 John 1:5-7). It is not that we once again sacrifice the Lord of glory on the cross, but we consider him who was made a little lower than the angels and now crowned with glory and honor that I may enjoy the benefit here and now.

It is this receiving aspect of worship that is rarely mentioned today in song and sermon among evangelicals, yet it is part and parcel with God's word. The scriptures are replete with the telling of God's great acts for his people and the work of redemption, especially as one reads the psalms. We are called to worship to consider, not simply an act two millenia ago against an innocent person, but a sacrifice that dealt with for all time the sin that kept God and man separate. And as we do so, we glory in the wonder if who our God is and what he has done for us—past, present, and future—all the while relishing in the good gifts he bestows.

^† The correctness of the contemporary praise and worship music's relational focus is not under consideration here.

Knowing the Hour and Day

2011-11-01T13:18:00.001-05:00

Early in my Christian life, I was convinced by others that if a person did not know when he first believed, that one was not a believer at all. Once and again, well-meaning teachers stated plainly that if someone did not have the date, and perhaps hour, engraved in memory, that person's salvation was viewed as suspect. With that knowledge came great pride in knowing the time of decision. The "gold standard" was knowing the very minute. My attitude was like those described by C.F.W. Walther:^†

The Pietists held that anyone unable to state the exact day and hour when he was converted and entered into grace was certainly not a true Christian. The Pietists claimed that neither should such people consider themselves to be Christians nor should they be viewed as such. (210)

Years later, I have come to understand that this was nonsense: first, because I met godly men and women who could not articulate when they believed; and second, because the Bible teaches no such thing. What you may or may not remember of something done years ago is not as important as what you believe today. Do I believe the gospel? Do I confess Christ as Lord? Do I believe the condemnation of sin the Law describes in me and trust the eternal promises of God that I am saved by faith as a free gift? These questions point to the reality of my spiritual condition—within the kingdom of God or without. Walther continues that

conversion is nothing other than an awakening from spiritual death into spiritual life. Put differently, conversion is leaving the broad way leading downward and turning onto the narrow way leading upward. It is the transfer from the realm of the devil to the kingdom of Jesus Christ, the son of God.

Just as there is no "middle way" between death and life, just as there is no "middle way" between the narrow way leading upward and the wide way leading downward nor an intermediate realm between the realm of Satan and the kingdom of Christ, we are all spiritually dead or spiritually alive. We are traveling either on the narrow or on the wide way. We are either in the kingdom of Jesus Christ or in the realm of the devil. In other words, a person is either converted or not. There is nothing in between. (210-211)

Regardless of what may or may not have occurred in the past, are you today trusting in Christ's atonement because of and for your sin?

^† C.F.W. Walther, Law and Gospel: How to Read and Apply the Bible, (trans. Christian C. Tiews; St Louis: Concordia, 2010), 210-211.

Another Christian Publisher Is Assimilated Into the Collective

2011-10-31T19:11:00.003-05:00

Thomas Nelson has agreed to be purchased by HarperCollins, the corporation which had previously purchased Zondervan. The news release can be found here. Somehow I am not surprised. In recent years, Thomas Nelson seemed to be more concerned with what sells merchandise rather than quality of the product.

Facing the Emergent Church With the Ancient Church

2011-10-28T16:19:00.000-05:00

Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, and other Emergent leaders are undermining sound doctrine by claiming to return to the ancient church to find the truth and bring it forward, except what they bring forward is usually not what the Church Fathers taught. In February 2010, Chris Rosebrough of Fighting for the Faith put together an argument against the major tenets of the Emergent movement using The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus (circa a.d. 130). The full PDF can be found here.

The following are his points followed by the corresponding ancient text and chapter number.

[==================================================]

Was Mathetes a Universalist? Did he believe that adherents of other religions were already followers of Christ through their pagan sacred traditions? Absolutely not! Biblical Christianity has always been exclusive and has considered idolatry and false worship to be a breaking of the 1st commandment.

they neither esteem those to be gods that are reckoned such by the Greeks, nor hold to the superstition of the Jews (1)

Was Mathetes uncertain? Did he engage in a humble hermeneutic that claimed that knowledge wasn’t knowable and that truth was left to the individual to interpret through their experiences? Absolutely not! Not only was Mathetes certain about knowing sound doctrine, but he claimed Biblical doctrine was of divine, not human origin.

[lay] aside what you have been accustomed to, as something apt to deceive you (2)

you hate the Christians, because they do not deem these to be gods (2)

you are sufficiently convinced that the Christians properly abstain from the vanity and error common [to both Jews and Gentiles], and from the busybody spirit and vain boasting of the Jews; but you must not hope to learn the mystery of their peculiar mode of worshiping God from any mortal. (4)

nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines (5)

They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. (5)

The immortal soul dwells in a mortal tabernacle; and Christians dwell as sojourners in corruptible [bodies], looking for an incorruptible dwelling in the heavens. (6)

Did Mathetes deny the existence of hell and God’s judgement? Did he claim that because God was merciful and loving that it was contrary to God’s nature to judge the world and send people to hell. Absolutely not! Mathetes along with Jesus and His Apostles affirmed that God’s character was both loving and just, merciful and wrathful.

For, as I said, this was no mere earthly invention which was delivered to them, nor is it a mere human system of opinion, which they judge it right to preserve so carefully, nor has a dispensation of mere human mysteries been committed to them, but truly God Himself, who is almighty, the Creator of all things, and invisible, has sent from heaven, and placed among men, [Him who is] the truth, and the holy and incomprehensible Word (7)

but the very Creator and Fashioner of all things ... as a Savior He sent Him (7)

For He will yet send Him to judge us, and who shall endure His appearing? (7)

Did Mathetes believe in salvation by Grace Alone Through Faith Alone by Christ’s Work Alone? Absolutely! Mathetes along with Jesus and His Apostles affirmed that salvation is not through man’s works or his own self-righteousness, but through the work of Christ alone. Furthermore, Mathetes affirmed the Penal Substitution as well as the imputed righteousness of Christ.

Do you accept of the vain and silly doctrines of those who are deemed trustworthy philosophers? (8)

But such declarations are simply the startling and erroneous utterances of deceivers (8)

Did Mathetes affirm the doctrine of original sin? Absolutely! Mathetes along with Jesus and His Apostles affirmed that man is sinful by nature and fallen, dead in trespasses and sins and incapable by nature to do that which is necessary to attain eternal life.

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. (9)

and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us (9)

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 those who are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? (9)

O sweet exchange! ... That the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors! (9)

our nature was unable to attain to life (9)

it was [formerly] impossible to save (9)

Did Mathetes believe in eternal conscious punishment a.k.a. hell? Absolutely! Not only does Mathetes believe in hell, he calls it the “eternal fire” and he contrasts the “eternal fire” of hell with the temporal sufferings and persecutions that Christians face in this life time. Those sufferings he calls the “fire that is but for a moment.”

He gave reason and understanding, to whom alone He imparted the privilege of looking upwards to Himself, whom He formed after His own image, to whom He sent His only-begotten Son, to whom He has promised a kingdom in heaven (10)

then shall you condemn the deceit and error of the world (10)

which is reserved for those who shall be condemned to the eternal fire, which shall afflict those even to the end that are committed to it (10)

Did Mathetes believe in the authoritative, accurate and binding Word of God? You bet your bippy he did! There is no trace of Modernist Liberal or Postmodernist Liberal destructive higher criticism in Mathetes. He believed God’s Word was of divine origin and was written by the Apostles & Prophets and absolutely true, authoritative, and binding.

For who that is rightly taught and begotten by the loving Word, would not seek to learn accurately the things which have been clearly shown by the Word to His disciples ...? (11)

Then the fear of the law is chanted, and the grace of the prophets is known, and the faith of the gospels is established, and the tradition of the Apostles is preserved, and the grace of the Church exults; which grace if you grieve not, you shall know those things which the Word teaches, by whom He wills, and when He pleases. (11)

Did Mathetes believe Genesis contains an accurate historical account of the World’s creation and man’s fall into sin through the tempting of the devil? Absolutely! Mathetes along with Jesus and the disciples believed the Book of Genesis to be accurate history, not myth or allegory.

it is disobedience that proves destructive. Nor truly are those words without significance which are written, how God from the beginning planted the tree of life in the midst of paradise (12)

For he who thinks he knows anything without true knowledge, ... knows nothing, but is deceived by the Serpent (12)

Texas Radio Station Cancels David Barton Program During Show

2011-10-28T09:34:00.001-05:00

I just discovered today that KBJS-FM cancelled David Barton's radio show "Wallbuilders Live" while the show was airing because Barton refused "to distinguish between Mormon theology and Christianity."

Good for that radio station for upholding Christ. O, that more would do the same.

The Blessedness of the Gospel

2011-10-27T06:00:00.000-05:00

Man, don't you understand that all is in itself a gospel? For it is a blessed gospel that one is brought into despair, not by sin, nor by the superior force of Satan, but by the Holy Spirit of God, who could save one's poor soul from becoming a legalist and a hypocrite, and whose purpose in it all has only been to let the overpowering glory of Christ shine forth. In other words,… the Spirit would show us that one may receive forgiveness without making atonement by one's own sorrow over sin and without any personal merit or self-betterment; that one may be a child of God, one's sinful nature notwithstanding.

Bo Giertz, The Hammer of God, (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2005), 101.

Who Are the True Gods?

2011-10-26T06:36:00.000-05:00

Marcus Terentius Varro, the ancient Roman writer, had stated that idols made of hands could not possibly be true gods. Arnobius uses this in his own argument that they should not be worshiped. This leads to the pagans asking who the true gods are. Arnobius points out that he does not know, but they must certainly be similar to the Most High—eternal, self-existent, immutable—to be eligible. Of course, his overall argument in this work is that if they should seek out these unseen gods, they are best served to follow the one true, supreme God.

"Who are the true gods?" you say.

To answer you in common and simple language, we do not know;¹ for how can we know who those are whom we have never seen? We have been accustomed to hear from you that a great many are gods, and are reckoned among the deities; but if these exist anywhere, and are true gods … it follows as a consequence, that they correspond to their name; that is, that they are such as we all see that they should be, and that they are worthy to be called by this name; nay, more,—to make an end without many words,—that they are such as is the Lord of the universe, and the King omnipotent Himself, whom we have knowledge and understanding enough to speak of as the true God when we are led to mention His name. For one god differs from another in nothing as respects his divinity; nor can that which is one in kind be less or more in its parts while its own qualities remain unchanged. Now, as this is certain, it follows that they should never have been begotten, but should be immortal, seeking nothing from without, and not drawing any earthly pleasures from the resources of matter.

Arnobius of Sicca, The Case against the Pagans, Book VII, cap. 2

¹ Arnobius is not declaring his own opinions here, but meeting his adversaries on their own ground. He knows who the true God is—the source and fountain of all being, and framer of the universe (ii. 2), and if there are any lesser powers called gods, what their relation to Him must be (iii. 2, 3); but he does not know any such gods himself, and is continually reminding the heathen that they know these gods just as little.

Abandoning the Care of Souls

2011-10-25T17:29:00.000-05:00

Lucas Woodford at thisweconfess [sic] has a post addressing an unsettling trend in the church by those in spiritual authority. The opening sentence establishes his thesis.

Within the North America church, the role of pastor has morphed from the biblical and historic role of Seelsorger (one who gives care of souls) and giver of God’s gifts, to that of a CEO, administrator, and/or therapist.

He is writing as a pastor within the LCMS, so he has his own denomination in view, but the extracts cited from those in other denominations shows that the problem is wider spread.

If you should balk at his broad brushstrokes, I understand. We can each point out individual men faithfully caring for those in the local church. But what he is illuminating is very real and becoming more so as church groups become loosened from the moors of Scripture and take up the next thrust of relevance. What! Isn't the cross relevant? When did Christ become insufficient?

I pray that those who the Lord has overseeing your assembly are being faithful to Holy Writ rather than Wholly Rotten.

What Is Orthodoxy?

2011-10-25T07:40:00.001-05:00

Christianity Today has reprinted an interview of Thomas Oden in honor of his 80th birthday. I enjoyed this question and answer:

In place of modernity you call for "a careful study and respectful following of the central tradition of classical Christian exegesis." In other places you call this orthodoxy. What is orthodoxy?
Lancelot Andrewes, a sixteenth-century Anglican divine, stated the answer as memorably as anyone, with a five-finger exercise: "One canon, two Testaments, three creeds [the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian], four [ecumenical] councils, and five centuries along with the Fathers of that period," by which he meant the great doctors of the first five centuries: Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and John Chrysostom in the East; and Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, and Gregory the Great in the West.

The answer is a bit simplistic. Each of these men had his theological foibles but are the early spiritual stones upon which the church builds today. The entire article can be found here.

Zombies and the Art of Negotiation

2011-10-24T22:24:00.001-05:00

Halloween is nigh, and American culture turns to the macabre with its multiple fictional creatures including the zombie. Watch B movies with a "living dead" plot, and you notice a recurring theme: be gone or be lunch. There is no reasoning with zombies because they no longer have the capacity. Driven entirely by instinct, they are dead and walk around with a single, voracious, insatiable purpose—self-satisfaction. So as I was pondering the advertisements being displayed during this time of year, it struck me like an old Norm Crosby line: I resemble that remark!

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 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—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. (Eph 2:1-3)

That's right: people come into this world as zombies—spiritual zombies. We are dead and do not realize it. (Bruce Willis was not the only one who had to figure this out.) Everything we do in this world is for our own appetites being guided by depraved thoughts. For the majority, the only difference between real people and movie zombies is that the former dress better, but inside both are dead men's bones.

Jesus told one particular story about a father with two sons that described how dead men acted. The younger son demanded his share of the estate and squandered it all on reckless living and ended up slopping hogs and going hungry (Luke 15:11-16). Why did the son act so foolishly? Because he was dead: the father said as much (Luke 15:32). This sad state of affairs finally brought the younger son to his senses, and he said to himself:

But when he came to himself, he said, "How many of my father’s hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish here with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you.'" (Luke 15:17-18)

The son is absolutely correct in everything he stated. He recognized the sin and against whom it had been perpetrated, then made a definite plan to make a confession. But then he tried to concoct a plan:

I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants. (Luke 15:19)

The son sounds very humble and pious, but what is really happening? He is trying to concoct a bargain. He wants to negotiate a deal. The problem is that he is dead. There is nothing to bargain with. This is exactly how the walking dead negotiate with the living, but the very attempt is ludicrous. For instance, how could someone present his righteous thoughts and deeds before the living God, when they are in actuality polluted items being presented by the unclean (Is 64:6)? Zombies are terrible negotiators, but they try anyway. They just don't know any better.

You may not realize that there is another zombie that is less prominent in the story Jesus told. He is called the older brother. He does not appear to be as bad off as the younger, but he is. The only difference is that his self-satisfaction was derived from the long-term prospect of a future inheritance rather than short-term wonton living. But he was still dead as evident by the reaction to his father and the brother he refuses to acknowledge.

Is there a cure for the zombie condition? Yes, it is life. The younger son had planned to proffer a deal. After he confessed his son, the father refuses to allow him the chance to deal. Instead, he bestows extravagant grace on his son. The one who was dead is now declared alive and welcomed into the family (Luke 15:32). No amount of bargaining can gain this. It must be freely given by the One who alone has the authority to give it.

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Eph 2:4-10)

Life was made available by virtue of Christ, the only living one, coming into this world and dying on the cross for those who were dead in sin in order to make them alive. Believe it.

Why the Law?

2011-10-19T21:40:00.003-05:00

Have you ever wondered why the Law came through Moses? Let's stop and think about this for a minute. Abraham was given a most wonderful promise (Gen 12:1-3) which extended to Jesus (Gal 3:16) and ultimately to those who believe (Gal 3:22). But between Abraham and Jesus, the law was given through Moses. Does anyone besides me find this peculiar? God gave a promise to two specific people filled with certainty based on what he himself had chosen to do according to the counsel of his will. It was free to the recipients. Between these two is something that appears counter because it appears to run counter to the whole concept of promise: God gave commandments, statutes, and precepts that required a certain response. The Law does not fit with the promise, so the question remains: why introduce it?

Thankfully, the Lord told us through Paul why the Law was given:

Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. (Gal 3:19)

Some of you might be underwhelmed with this revelation, but bear with me. The promise given to Abraham was generous beyond imagination with the hope of land, seed, and blessing—and that blessing to the entire world. The only needed response was to believe it. The problem is in how that belief was worked out. Their efforts in life though influenced by the promise were governed largely by the societies they lived in and what had been handed down from their ancestors. Beyond that, this nasty condition called a sin nature was manifesting itself through these early want-to-be Promise Keepers. Daily, they sinned and transgressed against God but were unaware in what ways.

To rectify the ignorance and more fully reveal what divine character was truly like, the Lord proceeded to give the people 10 commandments broadly defining the person's relationship with God and man. He then proceeded to give hundreds of laws detailing how these were to be carried out, which they would certainly fail to perform—an affront to the Most High. To account for sinful conduct, a series of sacrifices were established to cover sin. For approximately 1200 years, the people of God worked under this system: a very long time period but necessary to prepare the people for the one "to whom the promise had been made"—Jesus, the Christ.

To summarize Galatians 3:22-26, the effectual work of the Law was to demonstrate our inability to meet God's righteous demands and hold those under it in a benevolent captivity and imprisonment as a guardian until the necessary sacrifice for all sin should be made by Jesus. Being now freed from the Law, we are justified by faith: not being baptized into Moses, but being baptized into Christ.

The promise given to Abraham was never rescinded or altered, but we needed to see the sinfulness of our sin. My abhorrent nature needs a Savior. The "man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief" (Is 53:3) has covered that by giving his soul as an offering for sin being crushed and put to grief by his Father (Is 53:10). What a thought, that one holy and spotless would die for me!

The New 95 Theses

2011-10-18T21:25:00.000-05:00

Chris Rosebrough at Extreme Theology had posted in October, 2008, a modern rendition of Luther's 95 Theses in an effort to debate unbiblical trends rampant in the evangelical church. Whether one agrees or not with the Lutheran theological perspective behind this list, evangelicals should debate these things to see if their churches are in good order.

[==================================================]

Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, the public bulletin board of his day. In like manner, we, Athanasius and Chrysostom, post these 95 theses on the door of the internet. Like the original theses, these are debatable, for we believe that it is through vigorous debate that the spirits are tested and truth is revealed.

In publishing these theses, we do not intend to foment division, but to expose those who are creating division within the body of Christ. We are not addressing any particular church body or person, but invite all who love the Gospel of Jesus Christ to engage in this debate. We do so in the spirit of the great Reformer, Martin Luther, as we implore the mercies of God upon His Church, for the sake of Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Church and Bishop of our souls.

1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said “Repent,” He willed that the whole life of believers should be one of repentance.

2. To “repent” means to be contrite for one’s sins and to trust Jesus Christ and solely in His completed work for one’s forgiveness, life, and salvation.

3. Those who describe the Christian life as purpose-driven deny true repentance, confuse the Law and the Gospel, and obscure the merits of Christ.

4. Impious and wicked are the methods of those who substitute self-help and pop-psychology for the Gospel in the name of relevance.

5. This impious disregard for the Gospel wickedly transforms sacred Scripture into a guidebook for living, a pharisaic sourcebook of principles, and sows tares among the wheat.

6. Relevance, self-help and pop-psychology have no power to work true contrition over sins and faith in Jesus Christ.

7. Like clouds without rain, purpose-driven preachers withhold the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins won by Christ on the cross and enslave men’s consciences to the law which they cleverly disguise as so-called 'Biblical Principles'.

8. By teaching tips for attaining perfect health, debt-free wealth, and better sex in marriage, the purveyors of relevance undermine true fear, love and trust in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

9. They are enemies of Christ, who distort the Word of God by tearing verses from their original context in order to use them as proof texts for their self-help, pop-psychology agendas.

10. Injury is done the Word of God when it is used as a source book for practical, relevant “life applications.”

11. In the name of relevance, our Lord Jesus Christ is reduced to a life-coach whose “gospel” assists and motivates people to achieve the objectives of their self-centered delusions of grandeur.

12. Apart from the Holy Spirit, the seeker cannot understand the things of God for these are “spiritually discerned” (1 Cor 2:14).

13. The natural man does not naturally seek the Gospel. “I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me” (Is. 65:1).

14. The true Seeker of men’s souls is our Lord Jesus Christ who came to seek and to save the lost by His death on the cross (Luke 19:10).

15. The truly “seeker-sensitive” church proclaims God’s wrath against our sin and His mercy for Jesus’ sake.

16. The preaching of Christ crucified is a stumbling block to purpose-driven pragmatists and foolishness to church growth consultants.

17. The true gold of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.

18. But this treasure is a stench in the nostrils of fallen and sinful men because it exposes man’s complete lack of ability to save himself by his own religious efforts.

19. On the other hand, the fool’s gold of self-help is preferred by sinful men, for it creates the illusion of moral progress and a life that is pleasing to God apart from repentance.

20. The gold of the Gospel is the net by which Christ would make us fishers of men.

21. The fool’s gold of self-help is a snare by which purpose-driven purveyors of relevance attempt to capture the riches and approval of men.

22. The church is holy sheep who hear the voice of their Shepherd.

23. How can sheep hear the voice of their Shepherd when false shepherds preach self-help and pop-psychology?

24. Purveyors of purpose-driven relevance are not shepherds of men’s souls but wolves in sheep’s clothing.

25. Purveyors of relevance claim that self-help, life-applications and biblical principles are the means to reach the unchurched because they meet people’s felt needs.

26. Yet a person’s greatest need is one he does not by nature feel, namely the need for the righteousness that comes from God through faith in Jesus Christ.

27. The true means by which fallen sinners are reached is the preaching of Christ and His sacraments. (Romans 10:17)

28. The true need that mankind is seeking but does not know is justification by grace through faith for Christ’s sake.

29. Since justification is through faith and not through works, natural man neither seeks it nor desires it.

30. Therefore, the teaching of justification by grace through faith is neither seeker-sensitive nor relevant to a world that naturally seeks self-justification.

31. To be in the church is to be union with Christ through faith.

32. Regardless of the number of people in attendance, the church does not grow unless men are granted repentance and faith by God through the action of His Word.

33. Scripture clearly teaches that the means by which God grants faith are the the hearing of the Word of Christ (the Gospel) and the water of Holy Baptism.

34. Therefore, even if a congregation, through their own marketing methods and business prowess were able to draw 100,000 people every Sunday, if the Gospel is not heard and the sacraments are not administered according to the Gospel there is no church and the true Church of Jesus Christ has not grown by a single soul.

35. If numerical growth is a measure of God’s approval, then we must conclude that God approves of Islam and the Mormons.

36. If financial success is a measure of God’s approval, then we must conclude that God approves of pornography and gambling.

37. Cancer and crabgrass both grow rapidly, as does the church that obscures the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

38. The purveying of purpose-driven relevance is the theology of glory; the preaching of Christ crucified for sinners is the theology of the cross.

39. The theologian of glory says that the kingdom of God is visible now in buildings, people, and dollars; the theologian of the cross says that the kingdom of God is an article of faith.

40. The theologian of glory asks “How much?” and “How many?”; the theologian of the cross preaches Christ regardless of how much or how many.

41. The theologian of glory prepares people to receive health, wealth, and happiness; the theologian of the cross prepares people to suffer and die in faith.

42. The theologian of glory preaches that God wants to grant you favors; the theologian of the cross preaches the favor of God for the sake of Christ crucified.

43. The theologian of glory proclaims 40 days of purpose; the theologian of the cross preaches daily dying and rising in Jesus.

44. God established the Church to be a “mouth house” of forgiveness not a madhouse of activity.

45. Christ wills that His voice be heard in His Church and not the voice of man when He says, “He who hears you, hears me.” (Luke 10:16)

46. Purveyors of purpose-driven relevance obscure the voice of Christ and so draw the sheep away from the Good Shepherd.

47. Christ saves from sin and death not through the motivation of the sinner to do good, but through baptismal death and resurrection.

48. The mission of the church is not to transform the world but to disciple the nations by baptizing and teaching (Matt 28:19-20).

49. Anyone who preaches a vision and demands allegiance to it sets up a new papacy among the churches.

50. A synod or church body is a human institution that exists by the will and consent of its member congregations and pastors.

51. A synod or church body is not merely an affiliation of churches that agree on a common purpose.

52. A synod or church body is not the Church, properly speaking, but a fellowship of churches sharing a common confession of faith and practice.

53. Synods are not of the church’s essence (esse) but for her well being (bene esse).

54. Synodical leaders are not lords over the churches, but servants of the churches and stewards of their common possessions.

55. Synodical leaders are not called to promulgate visions but to execute the collective will of the synod’s churches.

56. The old papacy arrogated the Church’s treasury of merits; the new papacy arrogates the Church’s treasury.

57. The old papacy said, “As the coin in the coffer clings, so the soul from purgatory springs.”

58. The new papacy says, “As the coin in the church coffer clings, so another program out of debt springs.”

59. The old papacy counted plenary indulgences; the new papacy counts money and people.

60. The old papacy suppressed the Gospel through canon law; the new papacy suppresses the Gospel through constitutions and by-laws.

61. The old papacy was a friend of Caesar; the new papacy is a friend of Mammon.

62. The old papacy bound a man’s conscience for the sake his wallet; the new papacy binds a man’s wallet for the sake of his conscience.

63. The old papacy promulgated infallible dogma; the new papacy promulgates undebatable visions.

64. The old papacy claims to sit on the seat of Peter; the new papacy claims to sit on the mandate of the majority.

65. The old papacy reserved the right to judge doctrine and practice; the new papacy judges doctrine and practice by commissions and committees.

66. The old papacy issued “bulls;” the new papacy issues task force reports.

67. The old papacy had a college of cardinals; the new papacy has high-priced consultants.

68. Just as popes and councils have erred in the past, so synodical leaders and synodical conventions err in the present.

69. A synod that is concerned for the true unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace does not excuse unionism and syncretism.

70. Unity in doctrine and practice means discernible interchangeability in teaching, preaching, and practice.

71. Unity in doctrine and practice does not consist in signing confessional statements, but in word and deed.

72. Worship is doctrine put into practice.

73. As one worships, so one believes.

74. As one believes, so one worships.

75. Christian worship consists in God’s service to us through His giving and our receiving in faith the gifts of Christ’s Word, Body, and Blood, and our service to God by our prayer, praise, and thanksgiving.

76. Worship that is focused principles for Christian living obscures the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His gifts and is detrimental to faith and salvation.

77. While Christian liberty allows that worship forms need not be altogether the same in every time and place, unity in faith and practice requires that worship forms must not be altogether different in every time and place.

78. Worship forms serve as identifying banners in the confessional field of battle.

79. Peculiar and novel worship forms obscure the unity of the churches and extol the creativity of the worship leaders.

80. In matters neither commanded nor forbidden in the Word of God (adiaphora), the churches of God are free to change ceremonies according to circumstances, as may be most beneficial and edifying to the churches of God. (Epitome, Art X.4)

81. Such changes must avoid all frivolity and offenses, particularly with regard to those who are weak in faith (Epitome, Art X.5).

82. Where the Gospel is at stake, concessions in ceremony must not be made so as to suggest unity with those who deny the Gospel (Epitome, Art X.6)

83. Therefore, it is contrary to the doctrine of adiaphora to hide the substance of Lutheran doctrine behind a non-Lutheran style of worship.

84. To create and sustain saving faith, God established the office of the holy ministry in the church to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments according to our Lord’s institution.

85. No one may publicly preach, teach, or administer the sacraments in the churches without his being called and ordained.

86. Those who introduce novelties into the church are the true agents of division.

87. The ordination of women is a novelty that has caused great division in the church.

88. The introduction of worship forms not held in common by the churches is a cause of division and a stumbling block.

89. The church belongs to no man but to Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, and Lord of the church.

90. Woe to the false prophets who cry, “Unity, unity” when there is no unity.

91. Again, woe to those who say, “Peace, peace,” when there is no peace.

92. Again, woe to those who say, “Gospel, gospel,” when there is no Gospel.

93. Blessed are those who say, “Cross, cross,” when there is no cross.

94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through all suffering, death, and hell;

95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven through many trials and tribulations, rather than through the assurance of outward peace, unity, and happiness.

Getting Away from the Program

2011-10-17T22:13:00.002-05:00

Program! Get your program!
I was first introduced to the concept of small groups some thirty years ago at a men's conference. The organizers had brought in a group from California who had successfully established these in local churches with success. This was to be a modern implementation of what the church experienced in the decades after Pentecost. I was hooked and started such a group in my church with a few people. It started well enough but lasted only as long as the first book we worked through. I was somewhat disillusioned that it had not continued under its own inertia. Over the decades between then and now, I have come to understand that my attempt, though well-intended, was more contrived than developed.

Since that time many programs I have been involved with in the assemblies of God's people have come and gone. Programs initiated to involve people in the body or draw to the body generally have lasted but a few months at best. Why was that? Men and women who said they loved the Lord either did not get involved or abandoned the program early on. At first I thought other Christians were just lazy or apathetic. Later, I factored in the work and family schedules that many of the saints maintain. I still wondered how God's children would not maintain consistency for a program designed to stimulate body life. These initiatives were good for them.

Any of what I mention above could be accurate to some degree. My own work schedule gets crazy during the Spring of the year. And with one child, there was no way my wife and I could understand the logistics of a family with four or five children, though even they seemed to have enough time for the important matters of godly living and many special events at the church building. But still something was missing. There was a key ingredient that prevented what appeared to be good programs for spiritual growth from doing what was expected. Eventually, the real reason hit me like a 2x4—men were leading and working; the Holy Spirit was not.

So what do I mean that "the Holy Spirit was not?" Wasn't he involved? I doubt it. You see, the plans made and enacted were geared toward creating activity within the church to spur spiritual and numerical growth, and that artificially and outwardly. God was completely unnecessary in the effort except as someone invoked as having the final authority and the ultimate answers of life. These were our plans; we had prayed for God's blessing; and by golly, he better deliver or else. Of course, he rarely did. The spiritual victories that did come usually were something done on the side and not as part of the main function of the program, like a coincidence. We should have learned.

Fast-forwarding to the present, I think I have learned. Let's take the small group effort as an example. When a church tries to organize a program of this type, there are some potential areas of great concern that I build on from an article by Brian Jones in The Christian Standard.

If you build it, they will come. No, they will not. And if they do, it is for the wrong reason. Church leaders often have blinders on in matters of growth. They want so badly for the church to increase spiritually and numerically, that they forget who is to be leading and growing the church. It is Christ's body. He is the head. He causes the increase. No amount of organization and implementation will cause this to happen.

Growth happens at the discretion of a sovereign Lord and according to his plan. He knows what is best. Revivals are exciting to be a part of and hear about, but they do not come because a great speaker is preaching the gospel or because of the impassioned pleas during an altar call. Those spark emotions. True revival comes from faithfully proclaiming the fullness of God's word. The law condemns, and the gospel heals.

The fellowship is contrived and shallow. Small groups are promoted with the idea that they are necessary for good fellowship. While it is true that you get to know a subset of the church a little better, the forced nature of the groupings will keep people on their guard. So as not to stir controversy, comments will be withheld. Socializing revolve around the weather, politics, travel plans, or whatever keeps the conversation away from spiritual matters. There is more chance of encourage each other of the St. Louis Cardinals' chances in the World Series than to encourage each other in Christ.

Fellowship comes as we are centered on Christ. Understanding on a daily basis who we were as sinners undone who have been freely forgiven, we can more easily operate in a realm of humility open to those the Holy Spirit brings our way. To those that day we fellowship with and minister to, and as we continue to interact, we share more of ourselves because we want to open up without sense of obligation.

The material does not center on scripture. Group material is meager at best. The questions are given to stimulate discussion rather than work out what God's word says and means. Who cares if I identify more with the younger or older brother in the parable of the prodigal? That is immaterial. Tell me what Christ is saying first and foremost.

And why are the group studies usually topical? They lead to greater discussion. Recently, I sat through an entire hour session listening to others discuss what should and should not happen in regards to forgiveness. For the entire time, nobody (leader included) sought to open their Bibles and state what holy writ instructed. I tried but the leader kept the discussion moving to the next nuance so was unable to interject when appropriate.

The only way to keep centered on God's Word is to use it as the primary source. This can be done directly through some method of systematic teaching through the Bible or doing so systematically using creeds and catechisms directing the learner's attention to it.

If you can read, you can lead. A group leader who does not know his Bible makes for a disastrous small group. Typically, the material is written so that anybody can pick up the discussion guide and rattle off the questions. But what happens when the question is unbiblical or the discussion moves into uncharted waters? How does the leader navigate this? The discussion leader is in the position of a teacher, and with that comes a great responsibility. (James 3:1)

Now, get with the program
If you think by now that I might be opposed to small groups or any program whatever, you would be wrong. The problem is that those which are correctly functioning seem as scarce as hen's teeth because the church at-large has neglected its duty. What is the purpose of the church? What is the purpose of the individual member? Answer these questions biblically, and programs take care of themselves. They become something we do not as a well-organized, sterile clinical study but as a by-product of Christ-centered body life.

Who Builds the Kingdom of Heaven?

2011-10-15T10:24:00.000-05:00

The following is from the book What is the Mission of the Church? by Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert (133-34) describing the language we use concerning the Kingdom of God. I was surprised by the difference between how we describe our action in the kingdom compared to scriptural language. Let's just say that we give ourselves far too much credit for the work. Within the quote is another coming from George Ladd’s book The Presence of the Future (Eerdmans, 1996).

When you look at the Gospels and examine the verbs associated with the kingdom, you discover something surprising. Much of our language about the kingdom is a bit off. We often speak of "building the kingdom," "ushering in the kingdom," "establishing the kingdom," or "helping the kingdom grow." But is this really the way the New Testament talks about the kingdom? George Eldon Ladd, the man who put the kingdom back on the map for evangelicals, didn’t think so.

The Kingdom can draw near to men (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; Mark 1:15; etc.); it can come (Matt. 6:10; Luke 17:20; etc.), arrive (Matt. 12:28), appear (Luke 19:11), be active (Matt. 11:12), God can give the Kingdom to men (Matt. 21:43; Luke 12:32), but men do not give the Kingdom to one another. Further, God can take the Kingdom away from men (Matt. 21:43), but men do not take it away from one another, although they can prevent others from entering it. Men can enter the Kingdom (Matt. 5:20; 7:21; Mark 9:47; 10:23; etc.) but they are never said to erect it or to build it. Men can receive the Kingdom (Mark 10:15; Luke 18:17), inherit it (Matt. 25:34), and possess it (Matt. 5:4), but they are never said to establish it. Men can reject the Kingdom, i.e., refuse to receive it (Luke 10:11) or enter it (Matt. 23:13), but they cannot destroy it. they can look for it (Luke 23:51), pray for its coming (Matt. 6:10), and seek it (Matt. 6:33; Luke 12:31), but they cannot bring it. Men may be in the Kingdom (Matt. 5:19; 8:11; Luke 13:29; etc.), but we are not told that the Kingdom grows. Men can do things for the sake of the Kingdom (Matt. 19:12; Luke 18:29), but they are not said to act upon the Kingdom itself. Men can preach the Kingdom (Matt. 10:7; Luke 10:9), but only god can give it to men (Luke 12:32).

We’ve quoted this section in our works. But when we’ve used it in the past, we’ve been uncomfortable with the line "we are not told that the kingdom grows." It seemed to us that the parable of the sleepy farmer (Mark 4:26-29) and the parable of the mustard seed (4:30-32) clearly teach that the kingdom grows. But as we’ve studied the passages more carefully, we think you can make a good case that Jesus is not teaching about the growth of the kingdom as much as he is demonstrating that the kingdom of small beginnings will, at the close of the age, be the kingdom of cosmic significance. The kingdom may look unimpressive now, with nothing but a twelve-man band of fumbling disciples, but one day all will see its glorious end.

To borrow a cliché, the kingdom is what it is. It does not expand. It does not increase. It does not grow. But the kingdom can break in more and more. This of it like the sun. When the clouds part on a cloudy day we don’t say, "The sun has grown." We say, "The sun has broken through." Our view of the sun has changed or obstacles to the sun have been removed, but we have not changed the sun. The sun does not depend on us. We do not bring the sun or act upon it. The sun can appear. Its warmth can be felt or stifled. But the sun does not grow. (Science guys, don’t get all technical, you know what we mean.) This seems a good analogy for the kingdom.

God certainly uses means and employs us in his work. But we are not makers or bringers of the kingdom. The kingdom can be received by more and more people but this does not entail growth of the kingdom. We herald the kingdom and live according to its rules. But we do not build it or cause it to grow because it already is and already has come. As Ladd put it:

The Kingdom is the outworking of the divine will; it is the act of God himself. It is related to human beings and can work in and through them; but it never becomes subject to them . . . The ground of the demand that they receive the Kingdom rests in the fact that in Jesus the Kingdom has come into history.

Foolishness of Idols

2011-10-13T21:25:00.002-05:00

Sinful mankind gets so wrapped up pursuing its own ends that perception is lost and fantasy becomes reality. Consider gatherings such as a Star Trek convention, ComicCon, etc. where the purpose is to interact in a realm akin to The Twilight Zone—a dimension, not of sight or of sound, but of mind. The real world is set aside while people live out characters conceived by another's active imagination. Most understand this is a respite, a mini-vacation, for two or three days, but there are those who, for whatever psychological or spiritual reason, are engulfed with the persona of the alternative universe and need treatment to interact with every day life once again. On an individual level, this is considered psychosis. On a societal level, this is considered the new normal.

Those who worship idols live and interact in such a realm. Arnobius has made his case that the tales and temples of the gods constructed as they are for posterity are useless and counterproductive. He is now calling the people to leave their self-imposed blindness (The Case Against the Pagans, Book VI, cap. 14):

We would here, as if all nations on the earth were present, make one speech, and pour into the ears of them all, words which should be heard in common:

Why, pray, is this, O men! that of your own accord you cheat and deceive yourselves by voluntary blindness? Dispel the darkness now, and, returning to the light of the mind, look more closely and see what that is which is going on, if only you retain your right,¹ and are within the limits of the reason and prudence given to you.

The call is being sounded for the deluded to come to their senses. The alternative is shame as described by the prophet Isaiah:

All who fashion idols are nothing, and the things they delight in do not profit. Their witnesses neither see nor know, that they may be put to shame. Who fashions a god or casts an idol that is profitable for nothing? Behold, all his companions shall be put to shame, and the craftsmen are only human. Let them all assemble, let them stand forth. They shall be terrified; they shall be put to shame together. (Isa 44:9-11)

This is the certain end of idolaters. While Arnobius was directing his plea to their reason, as one who understood scriptural themes, he would probably have understood the end of such foolish behavior. He goes on by stating to the pagans so they might understand what Isaiah had told the people of God of their idols:²

Those images which fill you with terror, and which you adore prostrate upon the ground in all the temples, are bones, stones, brass, silver, gold, clay, wood taken from a tree, or glue mixed with gypsum. Having been heaped together, it may be, from a harlot’s trinkets or from a respectable woman’s ornaments, from camels’ bones or from the tooth of the Indian beast,³ from cooking-pots and little jars, from candlesticks and lamps, or from other less cleanly vessels, and having been melted down, they were cast into these shapes and came out into the forms which you see, baked in potters’ furnaces, produced by anvils and hammers, scraped with the silversmith’s, and filed down with ordinary files, cleft and hewn with saws, with augers, with axes, dug and hollowed out by the turning of borers, and smoothed with planes. (Book VI, cap. 14)

The idols are made of inanimate materials: some precious, some common. They know the source. They know how they are fashioned. Yet they are regarded as something more—a doorway to the great beyond; an attempt to reach whoever or whatever can make sense of this world. And what do people do with these fashioned images?

And the rest of it he makes into a god, his idol, and falls down to it and worships it. He prays to it and says, "Deliver me, for you are my god!" (Isa 44:17)

Arnobius also sees the folly and proceeds with his argument:

Is not this, then, an error? Is it not, to speak accurately, folly to believe that a god which you yourself made with care, to kneel down trembling in supplication to that which has been formed by you, and while you know, and are assured that it is the product of the labor of your work and fingers—to cast yourself down upon your face, beg aid suppliantly, and, in adversity and time of distress, ask the favor of the propitious deity to succor you with gracious and divine favor? (Book VI, cap. 14)

We can almost hear him shouting, "How can you willingly continue on this path? Can you not see what nonsense you are practicing?" But they cannot.

They know not, nor do they discern, for he has shut their eyes, so that they cannot see, and their hearts, so that they cannot understand. No one considers, nor is there knowledge or discernment to say, "Half of it I burned in the fire; I also baked bread on its coals; I roasted meat and have eaten. And shall I make the rest of it an abomination? Shall I fall down before a block of wood?" He feeds on ashes; a deluded heart has led him astray, and he cannot deliver himself or say, "Is there not a lie in my right hand?" (Isa 44:18-20)

Sinners left to their own designs will not comprehend the folly of their actions. They are merely acting according to their nature by chasing after all that is not God and imagining something real has been found. Men attempt to build and devise without the Lord and fail, but instead of turning to him, they chase after devices that cannot fulfill or help.

Arnobius and Isaiah both gave words of Law to convict people of their sin. Only the truth of the Gospel—Christ Jesus died for their sin—could change such hardened hearts.

¹ I.e., faculty of discernment, which is properly man’s.
² Compare with Isa 44:12-16. The same type of argument was also made by Minucius Felix in Octavius, 23.
³ I.e., elephant’s tusk.

Approaching in Prayer

2011-10-06T11:30:00.000-05:00

The idea of erecting buildings so that worshipers can approach their god has been commonplace throughout much of recorded history. Such was behind those who erected structures for pagan gods in Arnobius' day as they respond to his sarcasm:

But it is not for this reason that we assign temples to the gods as though we wished to ward off from them drenching storms of rain, winds, showers, or the rays of the sun; but in order that we may be able to see them in person and close at hand, to come near and address them, and impart to them, when in a measure present, the expressions of our reverent feelings. (Arnobius of Sicca, The Case against the Pagans, Book VI, cap. 4)

This seems to be reasonable: create a sacred space, not for the deity, but so that a person can enter before the deity in order to make petitions. Arnobius points out that the problem is in pagans viewing these places as the only location where a worshiper could meet his god. Christians recognize that a specially-made enclosure is not required to come before the God of heaven, so what is deficient in the pagan gods to require them?

For if they are invoked under the open heaven, and the canopy of ether, they hear nothing, I suppose; and unless prayers are addressed to them near at hand, they will stand deaf and immoveable as if nothing were said. And yet we think that every god whatever—if only he has the power of this name—should hear what every one said from every part of the world, just as if he were present; nay, more, should foresee, without waiting to be told what every one conceived in his secret and silent thoughts. (Arnobius, Book VI, cap. 4)

If a god is true to his character, he should be omniscient. Wherever and whenever a petition is made, there the deity should hear, or know the request if unspoken, and give a proper response even enacting the answer before the request goes forth. King David understood something of this as he writes:

O Lord, you have searched me and known me!
You know when I sit down and when I rise up;
you discern my thoughts from afar.

As certain as bodies move in their appointed paths and seasons, deities are to be present—attentive to worshipers wherever they may be.

And as the stars, the sun, the moon, while they wander above the earth, are steadily and everywhere in sight of all those who gaze at them without any exception; so, too, it is fitting that the ears of the gods should be closed against no tongue, and should be ever within reach, although voices should flow together to them from widely separated regions. For this it is that belongs specially to the gods,—to fill all things with their power, to be not partly at any place, but all everywhere, not to go to dine with the Ethiopians, and return after twelve days to their own dwellings. (Arnobius, Book VI, cap. 4)

Omnipresence being a divine attribute, it will certainly be found in the character of the Lord our God as David declared:

Where shall I go from your Spirit?
Or where shall I flee from your presence?
If I ascend to heaven, you are there!
If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there! (Ps 139:7-8)

If a god falls short, what can be done? There is no hope, no certainty, no comfort that he is present, has heard, or will answer. All is futile.

Now, if this be not the case, all hope of help is taken away, and it will be doubtful whether you are heard by the gods or not, if ever you perform the sacred rites with due ceremonies. … If all at one time beg of a deity with sacrifices what their wants compel each one to think about, what hope, pray, will there be to all of obtaining the benefit, if the god does not hear the cry sent up to him everywhere, and if there shall be any distance to which the words of the suppliant for help cannot penetrate? For either he will be nowhere present, if he may at times not be anywhere, or he will be at one place only, since he cannot give his attention generally, and without making any distinction. And thus it is brought about, that either the god helps none at all, if being busy with something he has been unable to hasten to give ear to their cries, or one only goes away with his prayers heard, while the rest have effected nothing. (Arnobius, Book VI, cap. 5)

Such is not the case concerning the Lord Jesus. He has promised to be present always (Matt 28:20), interceding for us before the throne (Heb 4:14-16; 7:25) and responding according to our need (Heb 4:15-16); and we do so in full assurance that the Father desires to hear us (John 16:34-24) as the Holy Spirit also intercedes for the saints for our good (Rom 8:27-28).

Reformation Week at Issues, Etc.

2011-10-06T08:45:00.000-05:00

Issues, Etc. will have programming during Reformation Week 2011 (October 24-28) comparing Lutheranism to some other Christian systems. I look forward to the podcasts.

Only True Knowledge Elicits True Worship

2011-10-05T11:30:00.000-05:00

The pagans were prolific in building temples to deities through the third century A.D., but not so Christians. Arnobius points out that in building temples, the pagans are demeaning the gods as if deities needed to come in out of the weather, or the buildings are for no purpose but to please the worshiper. Christians, however, did not build temples or erect images.

But we rear no temples to them, and do not worship their images; we do not slay victims in sacrifice, we do not offer incense and libations of wine. And what greater honor or dignity can we ascribe to them, than that we put them in the same position as the Head and Lord of the universe, to whom the gods owe it in common with us, that they are conscious that they exist, and have a living being?

The Case against the Pagans, Book VI, cap. 3

Arnobius here has pointed out that Christians, instead, recognize the greatness of deity in the person and work of the Most High, so that no special building or shrine is required or even adequate. What matters most is to honor according to revelation.

Thus says the Lord:
    "Heaven is my throne,
        and the earth is my footstool;
    what is the house that you would build for me,
        and what is the place of my rest?" (Isa 66:1)

King Solomon was similarly overwhelmed by the Lord's greatness when undertaking construction of the temple during his reign. Certainly, David and Solomon had the best intentions for this place of worship, still an admission in correspondence to Hiram, king of Tyre, should instill give us pause from thinking someone can perform something grand and glorious for any god, much less the God of gods.

The house that I am to build will be great, for our God is greater than all gods. But who is able to build him a house, since heaven, even highest heaven, cannot contain him? Who am I to build a house for him, except as a place to make offerings before him? (2 Chr 2:5-6)

What we can take away is that when the triune God of heaven and earth is not properly recognized, he is not properly worshiped. Many groups under the Christian umbrella have tried to "improve" on how scripture describes the Lord and his wondrous works only to reshape him into a manifestation of our culture. No longer the sovereign king, he is turned into a weak emissary for an ideal trying to woo men with diplomacy and platitudes. As a result, the glory and honor reserved for the King of kings and Lord of lords is considered shared among his creatures as they gather together praising themselves as the seal of perfection.

Had we a true understanding of the sinfulness of sin and the gift of grace through the Lord Jesus Christ, we would manifest this on Sunday mornings (or any day for that matter) by regular acknowledgment of our unworthiness to be called by his name as elect children and rejoice that our names are written in heaven. What a grand privilege! What an enormous responsibility! What a Savior!

My God Is Better Than Your God(s)

2011-10-04T11:30:00.001-05:00

As Arnobius turns his attention from the pagan gods to the temples and rites, he makes the case that deity should be marked by attributes greater than the most noble of men: i.e., perfect virtue personified (The Case against the Pagans, Book VI, cap. 2). He breaks these up into the following main points beginning with the positive: how gods should be.

For we think that [deity] should have all the virtues in perfection: should be wise, upright, venerable, strong in virtues within themselves, and should not give themselves up to external props, because the completeness of their unbroken bliss is made perfect;

Every conceivable good should be found in deity without blemish. Nothing external would be required or added as if that one is somehow insufficient. Of course the apologist's case-making example is the source of all goodness to mankind:

I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them. (John 17:20-26)

should be free from all agitating and disturbing passions; should not burn with anger, should not be excited by any desires;

Turning now to the negative, deity is not to be capricious. Everything accomplished is of deliberate intent anchored in self-control and long-suffering with an eye to demonstrating Christ's act of redemption.

The Lord is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation. (Num 14:18)

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? (Rom 9:22-24)

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. (2 Pet 3:9)

should send misfortune to none, should not find a cruel pleasure in the ills of men; should not terrify by portents, should not show prodigies to cause fear;

At this point, Arnobius begins making statements that appear to run contrary to scripture. Did not God state plainly that he sends adversity?

I form light and create darkness,
I make well-being and create calamity,
I am the Lord, who does all these things. (Is 45:7)

While this is so, Arnobius is comparing the steadfast nature of God to the fickle nature of passion-driven men, making his point that the pagans are incorrectly assigning their own corrupt, sinful natures on their conception of gods. These points are made to turn the pagan from that goal. Arnobius has not specifically turned their attention to the God of the Bible. YHWH does not act maliciously for the sole intention of watching a man suffer but instead works all things that they might seek him (Acts 17:26-27).

should not hold men responsible and liable to be punished for the vows which they owe, nor demand expiatory sacrifices by threatening omens;

The Lord disciplines the one he loves (Heb 12:6), so he will hold us responsible for idle intentions, however he does not do so threateningly, demanding certain sacrificial acts or gifts to turn his anger. What he sends is for our good (Rom 8:28).

should not bring on pestilences and diseases by corrupting the air, should not burn up the fruits with droughts;

The Lord promised Israel that if they turned from him, they would be punished with pestilence and drought (Deut 28:20-24), but as before, this would not be as a result of mood-swings or mutability as the pagan gods were wont to do. Rather the threat was to put the fear of the Lord in the people, giving them added incentive to not turn away from his abundant blessing which he had already promised.

should take no part in the slaughter of war and devastation of cities;

People look at the conquest and slaughter of Canaanites by Joshua to be the result of worshiping a bloodthirsty God. Rightfully so, this is an abhorrent notion when left there. Omitted is that the people being conquered were vile and needed to have judgment enacted on them (Gen 15:16; Deut 29:17).

should not wish ill to one party, and be favorable to the success of another; but, as becomes great minds, should weigh all in a just balance, and show kindness impartially to all.

God is no respecter of persons and deals with all according to his nature and revelation as part of his providential care.

For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. (Matt 5:45)

He does not show favoritism but responds justly in reward and judgment. For those obedient to the gospel:

Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. (1 Cor 3:12-15)

and for the unrepentant:

For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. (Heb 10:26-27)

In conclusion is the God we profess to follow a caricature or projection of ourselves with fleeting character given to whims and tantrums, or do we follow the true God as revealed by the apostolic witness and demonstrated by Jesus Christ, God incarnate?

No Christianity Without the Trinity

2011-10-03T17:00:00.000-05:00

Kevin DeYoung has a good post that the proper understanding of the Godhead is necessary for Christianity. Here is a snippet:

Yet, when it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity, most Christians are poor in their understanding, poorer in their articulation, and poorest of all in seeing any way in which the doctrine matters in real life. One theologian said, tongue in cheek, “The trinity is a matter of five notions or properties, four relations, three persons, two processions, one substance or nature, and no understanding.” All the talk of essence and persons and co-this and co-that seem like theological gobbledy-gook reserved for philosophers and scholars-maybe for thinky bookish types, but certainly not for moms and mechanics and middle-class college students.

He then goes on to lay out in simple terms what it is, where to find it, and why I should care.

Pastoral Care by Overseers

2011-10-03T11:35:00.000-05:00

The following is nothing new but is an excellent understanding of the pastoral care to be performed by overseers/elders in the local church.

But like a compassionate shepherd, and a diligent feeder of the flock, search out, and keep an account of your flock. Seek that which is wanting (Matt 18:12), as the Lord God our gracious Father has sent His own Son, the good Shepherd and Savior, our master Jesus, and has commanded Him to “leave the ninety-nine upon the mountains, and to go in search after that which was lost, and when He had found it, to take it upon His shoulders, and to carry it into the flock, rejoicing that He had found that which was lost” (Luke 15:4-6). In like manner, be obedient, O overseer, and seek that which was lost, guide that which has wandered out of the right way, bring back that which is gone astray: for you have authority to bring them back, and to deliver those who are brokenhearted by remission. For by you does our Savior say to him who is discouraged under the sense of his sins, “Your sins are forgiven you: your faith has saved you; go in peace” (Luke 5:20; Matt 9:2; Mark 5:34). But this peace and haven of tranquility is the church of Christ, into which you, when you have loosed them from their sins, restore them, as being now sound and unblamable, of good hope, diligent, laborious in good works. As a skillful and compassionate physician, heal all such as have wandered in the ways of sin; for “they that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick. For the Son of Man came to save and to seek that which was lost” (Matt. 9:12; Luke 19:10). Since you are therefore a physician of the Lord’s church, provide remedies suitable to every patient’s case. Cure them, heal them by all means possible; restore them sound to the church. Feed the flock, “not with force and harshness, as lording it over them” (Ezek 34:4), but as a gentle shepherd, “gathering the lambs into your bosom, and gently leading those which are with young” (Matt 20:25; Isa 40:11).

Apostolic Constitutions, II.20

Recounting God's Mercy and Grace

2011-09-30T08:00:00.000-05:00

Jonah

Yesterday, I was listening to the podcast Jonah from Issues, Etc. and was awed by God's mercy and grace throughout the short book. Think about it:

1. Jonah runs from his duty and God forces the issue with a storm. Not only did the Lord withhold immediate punishment from Jonah, but he ends up witnessing of the Lord's greatness and sovereignty to the sailors, who end up worshiping and making vows.

2. After being thrown overboard, God sends a great fish to swallow Jonah, saving his life and giving him time to repent of his actions, who delivered him to dry ground.

3. Jonah preaches throughout Nineveh, capital city of one of the most bloodthirsty, ruthless nations ever to have existed. Every person from the greatest to least, seeing they deserved God's wrath, repented and fasted from food and water for three days along with their animals, turning away God's wrath.

4. Sullen Jonah was still pouting and complained that the Lord was gracious and merciful, and the Lord took care of him anyway by providing shade, then after removing the shed, teaching Jonah that he is even more merciful and gracious than Jonah understood.

Ten Lepers

Now if this was not enough, I later listened to Luke 17:11-19, Jesus Heals Ten Lepers. Now, I understood the action of the Samaritan at the end (or so I thought), when the guest explained the full import of Jesus statement, "Go and show yourselves to the priests." This was the prescribed action (Lev 14:2-4), but there is a catch. Only the nine Jews would be allowed before the priest: Samaritans were outcasts and unwelcome in Jerusalem. There would be no approach for examination or to offer the sacrifice for cleansing. The only recourse for this man was to go to God in person:

Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice; and he fell on his face at Jesus’ feet, giving him thanks. Now he was a Samaritan. Then Jesus answered, “Were not ten cleansed? Where are the nine? Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?” And he said to him, “Rise and go your way; your faith has made you well.”

The Samaritan had faith in the right person, and because of this, he was made complete. It was faith in the Lord Jesus that healed him boday and soul.

Giving Account of Careless Words

2011-09-29T11:30:00.000-05:00

Matthew 12:36-37
I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.

Arnobius is coming to the end of this section in which he has castigated the pagans for demeaning and insulting their gods by attributing to them character reprehensible if found in mankind, much less deity. In summation he points out that relating something sinful and evil to deity to goes beyond the pale. Any sentient being worthy of worship must be highly honored in every respect, whether concerning personal nature or name. If one believes a divine entity is present (a reasonable assumption), every care should be taken to honor that one in every respect.

Now, while in this you might be held guilty in one respect for writing in such wise about the gods, you have added to your guilt beyond measure¹ in calling base things by the names of deities, and again in defaming the gods by giving to them the names of infamous things.

But if you believed without any doubt that they were here close at hand, or anywhere at all, fear would check you in making mention of them, and your beliefs and unchanged thoughts should have been exactly as if they were listening to you and heard your words. For among men devoted to the services of religion, not only the gods themselves, but even the names of the gods should be reverenced, and there should be quite as much grandeur in their names as there is in those even who are thought of under these names.
Arnobius of Sicca, The Case against the Pagans, Book IV, cap. 44

This same argument applies equally to Christians. Though we may not overtly link God with sin and evil, we certainly can do that through how we carry his reputation in life and conduct. God uniquely ties together his word and name (Ps 138:2), so that any defamation brought on one reflects on the other. At Sinai God makes known that his people who are called by his name should conduct themselves in such a way that will never defame his holy character.

Exodus 20:7
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.

As well, he gave specific instructions concerning those who are speaking something false in his name.

Deuteronomy 18:20
But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.

Even if retribution is not meted out by the Lord immediately, all will be made plain at the final judgment with just reward or condemnation.

Luke 12:2-3
Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. Therefore whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed on the housetops.

To an almighty God, we owe much that could never be paid, yet he is loving beyond all conception and has given everything by Christ's death for sinful man. To him all honor is due.

¹ Addere garo gerrem, a proverb ridiculing a worthless addition, which nullifies something in itself precious, garum being a highly esteemed sauce (or perhaps soup), which would be thrown away upon gerres, a worthless kind of salt fish. Arnobius merely means, however, that while such stories are wrong, what follows is unspeakably worse.

You Know It's True

2011-09-28T17:00:00.000-05:00

Thabiti Anyabwile has a good post at The Gospel Coalition entitled Multi-Site Churches Are from the Devil that is worth your time. I am sorely tempted to say the same about the multi-service church.

"But Steve, doesn't your own church have multiple services?"

Exactly.

The King Who Took a Stand

2011-09-27T22:59:00.001-05:00

There were eight good kings of Judah, after the kingdom divided in 931 BC, with the first of these being Asa whose 41-year reign began in 911 BC. His famous great-grandfather, Solomon, had begun well but allowed his many wives to turn his heart from the Lord. In return He brought retribution on the nation by dividing it after the king's death. When Asa took the throne, peace came to the land (2 Chr 14:1-2), but his was an uphill climb. In different areas, the new king had to make a stand.¹

Stand against an awful heritage (2 Chr 14:3-7; 15:16-19)
The two kings of Judah preceding Asa, Rehoboam and Abijah, both did evil in the Lord's sight. The former did so passively by turning away from the Lord after he had been established (2 Chr 12:1) and allowed worship on high places to Asherim as well as cult prostitution (1 Ki 14:23-24). Even the king's mother had to be dealt with directly because of idolatry. Asa had made a decision that the sin which marked the last two kings was not going to rule over him.

Stand against a dreadful enemy (2 Chr 14:8-15)
An army numbering almost double that of Judah came up from Ethiopia and was making its way north. We are not told what stirred the invasion: perhaps their ruler heard of the reforms being done in Judah and thought such drastic action would cause dissent in Judah, making it an easy target. Asa saw the threat and went out to meet it. Acknowledging the immense force of the enemy and understanding that his own brave army of valorous men faced certain defeat, Asa turned to the Lord as the only one capable of winning the victory. Because the army of Judah was fighting in the Lord's name (i.e., servants of all the Holy One of Israel represented) and not for their own glory, they won the day.

Stand upon God's unshakable promises (2 Chr 15:1-15)
While the spiritual and military victories were impressive, one must ask why Asa had made such a turn from his fathers to the Lord his God. We are not told directly, but a logical assumption ties his actions with what he knew of God's word plus Azariah's visit in chapter 15. The prophet seems to have come at some point while Asa was bringing reforms to Judah and encouraged the king with the certainty of the Lord's presence and blessing if he continued to walk in his commands and precepts. With this encouragement, Asa was able to make sweeping reforms and lead the people in worship and a renewal of the covenant. The divinely-inspired scriptures were necessary to understand the present condition and what the Lord had done for a fallen world that they might have life.

The Wheels Fall Off (2 Chr 16:1-14)
As with any man of Adam's race, sin remains a very present reality. So it is with a man who reigned wisely for 35 years but forgot who had provided him the wisdom and peace. Baasha, king of Israel, was building Ramah to prevent those in the north from going south after seeing the reforms happening in Judah. Asa wanted to stop this, so he bought off the king of Assyria to break the latter's treaty with Israel. Though this had its desired result to stop the building, but because Asa relied on Assyria to handle the problem instead of going before the Lord, God sent a prophet to point out the sin with the consequence of continuing war the rest of his days. Rather than repent, Asa jailed the prophet and treated some of the people cruelly. Finally, he became diseased in his feet, yet still refused the Lord's help by seeking out physician's.

Asa's refusal to confess his sin and repent allowed bitterness to reign in the last few years of his life and rule. This is a problem that can overcome Christians today, if allowed. Lives have been ruined because bitterness from unconfessed sin has been allowed to fester and spread like gangrene, not only in the individual but to the church body. The solution is to fall on the grace of Christ. His death, burial, and resurrection is the final solution for all sin for all time. Receiving the gift of grace that covers that sin allows the person to live in freedom. This sounds like an easy solution: it is because the work of grace has been done on my behalf, yet accepting can be difficult because, even as a Christian who has been taught and known the release of sin's guilt, we can stumble because of pride. Early on the believer has won early victories with the Lord help but now has become self-satisfied in his walk and relies more on himself or the world than the Lord who bought him.

Consider what God told Asa, "The Lord is with you while you are with him. If you seek him, he will be found by you, but if you forsake him, he will forsake you" (2 Chr 15:2). Does this mean we must work to build ourselves up to somehow become better in God's eyes? No, but we come before the Lord of glory, recognizing that he alone is sufficient to remove our sin and to whom we go for our daily bread. The life of faith is lived in knowing there is nothing within ourselves, but all comes from our Lord.

¹ My thanks to Aaron Telecky for the first three points as given in his sermon of 9/25/11.

Drought Conditions

2011-09-23T12:34:00.001-05:00

Photo by Mose Buchele for KUT News

You may have noticed that my output has been as fruitful as a Texas drought. It is not that I have given up on gleanings from Arnobius of Sicca but lack appropriate material to post here. In Book V of his work, the apologist reviews the sordid tales found in the histories of the Roman gods. Oh, my! These deities were a vile lot: kidnap, murder, drunkenness, adultery, incest, same-sex relations, bargaining information for sexual favors. (A typical day in the District of Columbia, I suppose, but still difficult to absorb.) What really caught my attention came in chapter 27, where he states:

Oh, what have we had it in our power to bring forward with scoffing and jeering, were it not for respect for the reader, and the dignity of literature!

It gets worse?! He is sparing our sensitivities?! I found it disturbing as is and struggled to properly summarize his sanitized content without being too graphic. The editors of the two English translations I own leave one section in Latin because of the content. Good for them.

I am approximately 75% completed with this book. There may be something useful before the end, but I doubt it. Book VI should have something worthwhile. Be patient.

God Offers Pure Grace

2011-09-20T11:30:00.000-05:00

Romans 11:5-6
So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

But if we are saved by pure grace, why should our salvation be such a difficult task—provided it is really grace that saves us? It is precisely because we are saved by grace that God must have arranged matters so that we need nothing but the means by which God offers us forgiveness of sins, grace, and salvation. When God says to the sinner, "Only believe," He is saying, "Accept what I give you; have confidence in Me. What I am telling you is the truth. Just come, lay hold of My gift, and take it." When I hear the gospel preached to me, I am supposed to believe that it is God who is bringing me these glad tidings by means of the preacher's proclamation. At the same time, God is saying to me: "Why do you keep on working to accumulate good works? Christ has acquired all that you need. Just believe, and all is yours. I am not lying." That is what God says.

C.F.W. Walther, Thesis IX

Law and Gospel: How to Read and Apply the Bible,

(trans. Christian C. Tiews; St Louis: Concordia, 2010), 175.

From Eternity to Here, Frank Viola - Book Review

2011-09-19T06:29:00.000-05:00

I have enjoyed reading Frank Viola's books, so when this became available for free download, I jumped at the chance. The best that can be said for this book is that it was worth the price. Had actual funds been transferred, a refund would have been appropriate.

The book is divided into three sections. The first relates how God's ultimate passion was a bride for His son. Now, I do not want to negate that a bride was not in God's mind since before the foundations of the earth, but to state that is His ultimate passion is to say that the eternal Trinitarian Godhead is incomplete. Is this really Viola's claim? Is the only begotten Son of God so lovesick that the Father must send the Holy Spirit out to find a suitable bride, and until that happens God is thwarted? What kind of a God is this? Surely it is not the one found in Scripture who is all in all and complete within Himself.

To build his case, Viola begins with eisegesis: he states that Eve did not come along until after the seven days of creation were complete. Where did this come from? I have read most works of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and they do not mention this. Is this a later development? A Google search gives many sights with this theory, but those I read were promoting a different race of man having been created before Adam and Eve came on the scene—more folly.

Section two outlines how God has always wanted a dwelling place. Again, I do not wish to take away from His promises to dwell with the elect, especially that found in the new Jerusalem, but to claim God was basically homeless without the church is utter nonsense. Again, where can we find apostolic or historic teaching that such is the case?

These first two sections were written in a sentimental style. The aim was clearly to appeal to the emotions without reasoning through divine revelation. This is sloppy teaching, and the author should know better.

Section three surprised me because of the clear, correct application that was made in spite of the faulty foundation built with the first two. If someone could secure a copy of the book and read only this part, there would be some merit.

At the end of the book is a page of acknowledgements which disturbed me. The scholars were a mixed bag—some I trust, other not—but the authors and friends I recognized frightened me: Tom Wright, Brian McLaren, and Mike Bickle. These men are cover the spectrum from poor to heretical theology. Frank Viola considers these men as influential or friends. While someone might be able to divorce friendship from exegesis, eventually the errors will become ingrained. Apparently, this book is the manifestation of that association.

If you choose to read this book, do so with your Bible open and sound commentaries at your disposal.

Knowledge of Scripture Leads to Christ-centered Solutions

2011-09-17T09:46:00.000-05:00

These, [the mixed multitude,] being themselves indifferent to the true interests of the Christian life, are incapable of sharing in the government of a religious body; they will therefore gladly free themselves from a burdensome responsibility by casting it on their leaders. The hierarchy gains strength in proportion as living piety declines.

On the other hand, a Church composed of earnest, active Christians, well instructed in divine things, is a self-governing Church; it does not surrender to any the conduct of its highest interests, which it regards no less than sacred obligations; its rights and duties go hand in hand, and the former are forfeited only as the latter are neglected. A saintly life cannot be servile. Primitive Christianity preserved its sacred liberty so long as it defended itself against the intrusion of foreign elements, and its stern discipline proved the strongest bulwark of its independence. Thus so long as every Christian believed himself to be a priest of Christ, no special priesthood could interfere between him and heaven. The true worshiper of the living God stands erect in presence of every human dignitary, and is intolerant of the superstitions of man just in proportion to his reverent submission to the authority of God.

E. de Pressensé, Christian Life and Practice in the Early Church,

(trans. Annie Harwood-Holmden; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1877), 7-8.

Live and Suffer as Servants of God

2011-09-15T07:30:00.000-05:00

1 Peter 2:16
Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.

1 Peter 3:14-16
But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.

For why, indeed, have our writings deserved to be given to the flames? our meetings to be cruelly broken up, in which prayer is made to the Supreme God, peace and pardon are asked for all in authority, for soldiers, kings, friends, enemies, for those still in life, and those freed from the bondage of the flesh; in which all that is said is such as to make men humane, gentle, modest, virtuous, chaste, generous in dealing with their substance, and inseparably united to all embraced in our brotherhood?¹

Arnobius of Sicca, The Case against the Pagans, Book IV, cap. 36

¹ I.e., the communion of saints within the church.

Honor the Lord by Exposing Error

2011-09-14T12:08:00.001-05:00

When followers of a worldview are presented with logical contradictions that expose the system as actually being disgraceful toward what it is trying to exalt, they often try to deflect and claim no culpability because the discipline's elements are being perpetrated by the worldview's teachers. Arnobius points out that there is little likelihood that a thinking person inventing something that brings disdain on the worldview being communicated. And even if that was true, the followers' guilt remains because nothing has been done to repel or denounce what is insulting. Just the opposite, the teaching is being repeated broadly as true, and those outsiders denouncing the faults are being slandered for being correct.

"But all these things," they say, "are the fictions of poets, and games arranged for pleasure."

It is certainly not credible that men by no means thoughtless, who sought to trace out the character of the remotest antiquity, either did not insert in their poems the fables which survived in the minds of men and common conversation; or that they would have assumed to themselves so great license as to foolishly feign what was almost sheer madness, and might give them reason to be afraid of the gods, and bring them into danger with men.

But let us grant that the poets are, as you say, the inventors and authors of tales so disgraceful. You are not, however, even thus free from the guilt of dishonoring the gods, who either are remiss in punishing such offenses, or have not, by passing laws, and by severity of punishments, opposed such indiscretion; and it has not been established by you that no man should henceforth say that which was very near to disgrace or was unworthy of the glory of the gods. For whoever allows the wrongdoer to sin, strengthens his audacity; and it is more insulting to brand and mark anyone with false accusations, than to bring forward and upbraid their real offenses. For to be called what you are, and what you feel yourself to be, is less offensive, because your resentment has less bite, being weakened by the testimony of silent reviewing; but that wounds very keenly which brands the innocent, and defames a man’s honorable name and reputation.

Arnobius of Sicca, The Case against the Pagans, Book IV, cap. 32

Sadly, the church, both local and universal, has sometimes taken the same stance regarding those trying to correct improprieties and what defames Christ from within. Historical and present times afford multiple examples of practices, teachings, and movements put forward in the name of Christ which were contrary to divine revelation. Those sounding alarms were exiled, castigated, reviled, and in the past even tortured or killed so the promoters of error should not face the facts of their ways.

When a new movement or teaching arises, it is incumbent on the local church to ascertain the facts, not the motivation, behind it. Promoters are by nature sincere and passionate in what they are promoting. Discerning church bodies, especially the leaders, must wrestle with the issue or issues presented and compare with Scripture. Reaction by a promoter may be negative, vociferous, and possibly vicious, but the agenda of men is not our standard of conduct or practice. We answer to the Lord of all—holding his name high and defending his honor to the utmost.

True Worship Is More than Sacrifices

2011-09-13T13:55:00.000-05:00

1 Samuel 15:22-23

Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,: as in obeying the voice of the Lord?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,: and to listen than the fat of rams.
For rebellion is as the sin of divination,: and presumption is as iniquity and idolatry.

John 4:23-24
But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.

Arnobius provides to the pagan worshipers a reminder of what true worship entails—obedience rather than sacrifice. Christians, those purchased by the precious, shed blood of Jesus Christ, have no less obligation. Let us fear lest we also become complacent and be like the Jews to whom was said:

“Your words have been hard against me, says the Lord. But you say, ‘How have we spoken against you?’ You have said, ‘It is vain to serve God. What is the profit of our keeping his charge or of walking as in mourning before the Lord of hosts?'" Malachi 3:13-14

For it is not he who is anxiously thinking of religious rites, and slays spotless victims, who gives piles of incense to be burned with fire, not he must be thought to worship the deities, or alone discharge the duties of religion. True worship and belief worthy of gods are in the heart; nor does it at all avail to bring blood and gore, if you believe about them things which are not only far remote from and unlike their nature, but even to some extent stain and disgrace both their dignity and virtue.

We wish, then, to question you, and invite you to answer a short question: Whether you think it a greater offense to sacrifice to them no victims, because you think that so great a being neither wishes nor desires these; or, with foul beliefs, to hold opinions about them so degrading, that they might rouse anyone’s spirit to a mad desire for revenge? If the relative importance of the matters be weighed, you will find no judge so prejudiced as not to believe it a greater crime to defame by manifest insults anyone’s reputation, than to treat it with silent neglect. For this, perhaps, may be held and believed from deference to reason; but the other course manifests an impious spirit, and a blindness despaired of in fiction. If in your ceremonies and rites neglected sacrifices and expiatory offerings may be demanded, guilt is said to have been contracted; or if by a momentary forgetfulness anyone has erred either in speaking or in pouring wine,…you all cry out immediately that something has been done contrary to the sacredness of the ceremonies;…and yet do you dare to deny that the gods are always being wronged by you in sins so grievous, while you confess yourselves that, in less matters, they are angry, often to your ruin?

Arnobius of Sicca, The Case against the Pagans, Book IV, cap. 30-31

Catfight!

2011-09-09T14:07:00.003-05:00

What happens when you enter a room designed and built for a prima donna? You are expected to focus your attention on her alone. Now what if there were several such women present at one time?

Arnobius paints a scenario using the five known goddesses named Minerva as an unsuspecting worshiper enters.

Grab some popcorn, and enjoy the show.

For suppose that it had occurred to us, moved either by suitable influence or violent fear of you, to worship Minerva, for example, with the rights you deem sacred, and the usual ceremony: if, when we prepare sacrifices, and approach to make the offerings appointed for her on the flaming altars, all the Minervas shall fly thither, and striving for the right to that name, each demand that the offerings prepared be given to herself; what drawn-out animal shall we place among them, or to whom shall we direct the duties of pious service?

For the first one of whom we spoke will perhaps say: “The name Minerva is mine, mine the divine majesty, who bore Apollo and Diana, and by the fruit of my womb enriched heaven with deities, and multiplied the number of the gods.”

“Nay, Minerva,” the fifth will say, “are you speaking, who, being a wife, and so often a mother, have lost the sanctity of spotless purity? Do you not see that in all temples the images of Minervas are those of virgins, and that all artists refrain from giving to them the figures of matrons? Cease, therefore, to appropriate to yourself a name not rightfully yours. For that I am Minerva, begotten of father Pallas, the whole band of poets bear witness, who call me Pallas, the surname being derived from my father.”

The second will cry on hearing this: “What say you? Do you, then, bear the name of Minerva, an impudent parricide, and one defiled by the pollution of lewd lust, who, decking yourself with rouge and a harlot’s arts, roused upon yourself even your father’s passions, full of maddening desires? Go further, then, seek for yourself another name; for this belongs to me, whom the Nile, greatest of rivers, begot from among his flowing waters, and brought to a maiden’s estate from the condensing of moisture. But if you inquire into the credibility of the matter, I too will bring as witnesses the Egyptians, in whose language I am called Neith, as Plato’s Timaeus attests.”

What, then, do we suppose will be the result? Will she indeed cease to say that she is Minerva, who is named Coryphasia, either to mark her mother, or because she sprung forth from the top of Jove’s head, bearing a shield, and girt with the terror of arms? Or are we to suppose that she who is third will quietly surrender the name? and not argue and resist the assumption of the first two with such words as these: “Do you thus dare to assume the honor of my name, O Sais, sprung from the mud and eddies of a stream, and formed in miry places? Or do you [turning to the fourth Minerva] usurp another's rank, who falsely say that you were born a goddess from the head of Jupiter, and persuade very silly men that you are reason? Does he conceive and bring forth children from his head? That the arms you bear might be forged and formed, was there even in the hollow of his head a smith’s workshop? Were there anvils, hammers, furnaces, bellows, coals, and pincers? Or if, as you maintain, it is true that you are reason, cease to claim for yourself the name which is mine; for reason, of which you speak, is not a certain form of deity, but the understanding of difficult questions.”

If, then, as we have said, five Minervas should meet us when we approach to sacrifice, and contending as to whose this name is, each demand that either clouds of incense be offered to her, or sacrificial wines poured out from golden cups; by what arbiter, by what judge, shall we dispose of so great a dispute? Or what examiner will there be, what umpire of so great boldness as to attempt, with such personages, either to give a just decision, or to declare their causes not founded on right? Will he not rather go home, and, keeping himself apart from such matters, think it safer to have nothing to do with them, lest he should either make enemies of the rest, by giving to one what belongs to all, or be charged with folly for yielding [as you do] to all what should be the property of one?

Arnobius of Sicca, The Case against the Pagans, Book IV, cap. 16

Cheap Building Materials

2011-09-09T08:00:00.000-05:00

1 Corinthians 3:11-13: For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.

Over time, the pagans against whom Arnobius writes have moved from the foundations of their religious system by inventing new gods with the same names as preëxisting gods. As well, their theologians are teaching this whole system. Christ's church fell into the same type of trap. Not content to build on the foundation and cornerstone of Jesus Christ with the gold, silver, and precious stones as did the apostles, adaptations have been made, even now abandoning the biblical names for the Triune God with other, more "culturally-relevant" monikers as the Presbyterian Church (USA) and United Church of Christ have done recently.

Arnobius points out the obvious results of such decisions—difficulty and confusion without any visible mooring.

But if it is true and certain, and is told in earnest as a well-known matter, either they are not all gods, inasmuch as there cannot be several under the same name, as we have been taught; or if there is one of them, he will not be known and recognized, because he is obscured by the confusion of very similar names. And thus it results from your own action, however unwilling you may be that it should be so, that religion is brought into difficulty and confusion, and has no fixed end to which it can turn itself, without being made the sport of equivocal illusions.

Arnobius of Sicca, The Case against the Pagans, Book IV, cap. 15

I Am the Lord, Who Does All These Things

2011-09-07T21:50:00.000-05:00

Isaiah 45:5-7
I am the Lord, and there is no other,
        besides me there is no God;
I equip you, though you do not know me,
        that people may know, from the rising of the sun
        and from the west, that there is none besides me;
I am the Lord, and there is no other.
I form light and create darkness,
I make well-being and create calamity,
I am the Lord, who does all these things.

After chiding the pagans for their many gods, Arnobius asks how they can be sure there is not one God who is over all these things making them seem to be under the influence of many deities. And since they do not trust Christians, let them ask the other nations who have finally come to some conception of a supreme god. Then they might finally understand.

Or, if you refuse to believe this on account of its novelty, how can you know whether there is not some one being, who comes in place of all whom you invoke, and substituting himself in all parts of the world, shows to you the appearance of many gods and powers?

"Who is that one?" someone will ask.

We may perhaps, being instructed by truthful authors, be able to say; but, lest you should be unwilling to believe us, let my opponent ask the Egyptians, Persians, Indians, Chaldeans, Armenians, and all the others who have seen and become acquainted with these things in the esoteric arts. Then, indeed, you will learn who is the One God, or who the very many under Him are, who pretend to be gods, and make sport of men’s ignorance.

Arnobius of Sicca, The Case against the Pagans, Book IV, cap. 13

Worshiping Virtue: The Idol of Political Correctness

2011-09-06T21:06:00.000-05:00

People sense that virtue is a divine attribute either as a result of inherent knowledge from the imago dei, or by reasoning that since evil is prevalent in mankind, divinity must be somehow transcendentally other. In either case, God can be said to have placed eternity in man's heart though he is unable to understand it all (Eccl 3:11). At some point in Roman society and history the decision was made to deify virtues themselves turning attention from the creator to the created. This allowed men to promote and magnify themselves if they attained to these virtues as a goal in itself without purpose for society as a whole.

In much the same way, American domestic policy has turned in a similar direction. Understanding, tolerance, equality, justice, etc. are worthwhile traits for any person or group, but they have been elevated to a status that may be considered divine. Laws are enacted, corporate policies are reworked. Specific values are set up as laudable goals but deemed by those in authority to be idols worthy of worship. If the knee is not bowed, the consequences will be suffered. As was true centuries ago, we as a nation are now bowing to idols that reflect our humanity. What godless men hope to attain, though in reality never shall, they deify and worship, ignoring the Lord of all who bestowed on man the very gifts and attributes being idolized.

Arnobius saw the folly in this whole line of reasoning amongst the Romans and asked why they are worshiping human virtues as gods? They have nothing in themselves—no divine power of their own. In fact, the opposites are demonstrated daily through human actions.

And that being the case, how can these things be deified, either then or now?

We would ask you, especially you Romans, lords and princes of the world, whether you think that Piety, Concord, Safety, Honor, Virtue, Happiness, and other such names, to which we see you see altars built and splendid temples, have divine power, and live in in the regions of heaven? Or, as is usual, have you classed them with the deities merely for form’s sake, because we desire and wish these blessings to fall to our lot? For if, while you think them empty names without any substance, you yet deify them with divine honors, you will have to consider whether that is a childish frolic, or tends to bring your deities into contempt, when you make equal, and add to their number vain and feigned names. But if you have loaded them with temples and couches, holding with more assurance that these, too, are deities, we pray you to teach us in our ignorance, by what course, in what way, Victory, Peace, Equity, and the others mentioned among the gods, can be understood to be gods, to belong to the assembly of the immortals?

For we—but, perhaps, you would rob and deprive us of common-sense—feel and perceive that none of these has divine power, or possesses a form of its own kind; but that, on the contrary, they are the manliness of manhood: the safety of the safe, the honor of the respected, the victory of the conqueror, the harmony of the allied, the piety of the pious, the recollection of the observant, the good fortune, indeed, of him who lives happily and without exciting any ill-feeling.

Now it is easy to perceive that, in speaking thus, we speak most reasonably when we observe the contrary qualities opposed to them, misfortune, discord, forgetfulness, injustice, impiety, baseness of spirit, and unfortunate weakness of body. For as these things happen accidentally, and depend on human acts and chance moods, so their contraries, named after more agreeable qualities, must be found in others; and from these, originating in this wise, have arisen those invented names.

Arnobius of Sicca, The Case against the Pagans, Book IV, cap. 1-2

1.	The word of absolution is not fully sufficient for forgiveness.
2.	Christ has not necessarily died for or perfectly forgives all sins.
3.	Certain sins and sinners are somehow more or less damnable before God.
4.	There is no authority or office for truly forgiving sins on earth, but that forgiveness is only something for which one may hope to have as a reality before God in heaven.
5.	That the church is made up of and led by only those who are morally superior.
6.	One believes one can and must be the actor in changing his or her own destiny, including his own fate before God eternally.

1.	For Luther, it was all about Christ.
2.	He loved and listened to God’s Word.
3.	I love a good “Rocky” story.
4.	The guy had a way with words.
5.	He treasured music right up there next to the Bible.
6.	He never wrote a systematic theology.
7.	He had a pastor’s heart that cared deeply about the church.
8.	He loved a good time, especially when beer was involved.
9.	He cherished his wife and family.
10.	He was utterly human, completely dependent on God’s grace.