Introduction to Christian Liturgy – First Thoughts

I have read the first two chapters of Introduction to Christian Liturgy by Frank Senn and wanted to get out a thought or two on the book.  He does not limit the definition of liturgy to a high form as found in Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox, etc. traditions but recognizes that all bodies of believers adhere to a liturgy of some form however loosely.

I was struck by the following:

All of the major Reformers—Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, Jean Calvin, Thomas Cranmer, Olavus Petri—produced liturgical orders, sometimes two or more in which a development could be seen in their theological commitments and pastoral concerns. (p. 20)

Luther's German liturgy was familiar to me, but I was unaware of others, including that of the Anabaptists as documented by Balthasar Hubmaier.

Another point that jumped out was the legislation of liturgy in England.  These were the Acts of Uniformity which "required exclusive use of the Book of Common Prayer" (20).  Not surprisingly, this resulted in sudden disunity as various denominations rapidly splintered.  The reigning monarch might be the official head of the Church of England as its defender, but when the state oversteps its bounds, it cannot expect the church to continue in subservience.

I do question his heavy attribution of Roman influence in the early church.  He sees their worship designed more from culture than from scripture.  I do not altogether downplay the influence, but he seems to be intent on using that as a springboard to pursue cultural adaptation, rather than the God's word, as the driver for proper worship.

Why Unbelievers Don't Attend Church

The reason why unbelievers don't attend church is because they're dead in trespasses and sins, NOT because churches aren't entertaining. (see Eph 2:1–3)

Chris Rosebrough, 3 Nov 2013

Not Inheriting the Kingdom of God

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these.  I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.  (Gal 5:19-21)

I listened to a message recently that equated inheritance in the kingdom of God with the fullness of Christian reward with the net effect that believers who practice such things will lose out and be saved "though as through fire" (1 Cor 3:15).*  While this thesis bolsters the doctrine of Eternal Security, it forces an unwarranted interpretation on the plain text.  In this section Paul is admonishing and exhorting the Galatian believers to "walk according to the Spirit."  For effect he intersperses warnings to not "bite and devour" or indulge in other sinful practices, which is a characteristic of those who will not inherit the kingdom (i.e., unbelievers).

The clarification can be found by examining the words used.  Paul writes that the fleshly characteristics are found among those who do them.  The Greek (πράσσοντες) can be translated this way, but

is the verb for habitual practice…, not ποιω for occasional doing.  The habit of these sins is proof that one is not in the Kingdom of God and will not inherit it.†

As a result there appears to be no possibility to confuse these practitioners of fleshly works with true believers, who are manifest by the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23) having crucified the flesh (Gal 5:24).  The early church had this understanding as well:

• Irenaeus, Against Heresies, VI.3 – Wherefore also it comes to pass, that the “most perfect” among them addict themselves without fear to all those kinds of forbidden deeds of which the Scriptures assure us that “they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”
• Tertullian, Against Marcion, V.10 – Therefore, when exhorting them to cherish the hope of heaven, he says: “As we have borne the image of the earthy, so let us also bear the image of the heavenly,”—language which relates not to any condition of resurrection life, but to the rule of the present time.  He says, Let us bear, as a precept; not We shall bear, in the sense of a promise—wishing us to walk even as he himself was walking, and to put off the likeness of the earthly, that is, of the old man, in the works of the flesh.  For what are this next words?  “Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.”  He means the works of the flesh and blood, which, in his Epistle to the Galatians, deprive men of the kingdom of God.
• Nemesianus of Thubunae, Seventh Council of Carthage – Therefore, whatsoever things all heretics and schismatics do are carnal, as the apostle says: “For the works of the flesh are manifest, which are, fornications, uncleannesses, incest, idolatries, witchcrafts, hatreds, contentions, jealousy, anger, divisions, heresies, and the like to these; concerning which have told you before, as I also foretell you now, that whoever do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”  And thus the apostle condemns, with all the wicked, those also who cause division, that is, schismatics and heretics.
• John Chrysostom, Commentary on Galatians 5 – Answer me now, you who accuse your own flesh and suppose that this is said of it as of an enemy and adversary.  Let it be allowed that adultery and fornication proceed, as you assert, from the flesh; yet hatred, variance, emulations, strife, heresies, and witchcraft, these arise merely from a depraved moral choice.  And so it is with the others also, for how can they belong to the flesh?  You observe that he is not here speaking of the flesh, but of earthly thoughts, which trail upon the ground.  Wherefore also he alarms them by saying, that “they which practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”  If these things belonged to nature and not to a bad moral choice, his expression, “they practice,” is inappropriate, it should be, “they suffer.”  And why should they be cast out of the kingdom, for rewards and punishments relate not to what proceeds from nature but from choice?‡

What of Corinth?
Those who know their Bibles typically raise questions about the church in Corinth, since many of the above fleshly works were active in that church, causing no end of pain and work for Paul as he attempted to correct the errors.  Were those who engaged in them unbelievers?  Possibly, but the error in Corinth was a reckless misuse of spiritual things in the name of freedom, while the Galatians were being enticed to overly regulate or control that freedom.  Both groups were assuming their course demonstrated spiritual maturity, but both led away from the truth.  The problems in Corinth were specific in nature and could be addressed by pointed correction.  In Galatia, the foundation of their salvation was being undermined, so that Paul needed to make the broad comparison between flesh and Spirit.

In the end, Paul is not accusing the Galatians of practicing the works of flesh, though they may be certainly present in some occasional form, but building a case to broadly illustrate how they were trying to use the flesh to fulfill the work of the Spirit, denying Christ's sufficiency and placing ultimate completion of salvation on what I can accomplish—a hopeless endeavor.



*  I know of this interpretation having read The Reign of the Servant Kings by Joseph Dillow, Schoettle Publishing Company, Miami Springs, FL 33266.

† A. W. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament.

‡ A little background may be helpful.  Chrysostom is arguing against those who were teaching a dualism of of man's flesh and spirit.  He concludes that this is improper and whatever one claims for the origin of the sins in life, the practice of those prevents us from the kingdom.

Luther Against the Self-Indulgences of the Modern Church

For this Reformation Day, Carl Trueman provides a realistic look at Martin Luther compared to the self-aggrandizing that has become so common in the modern church.  Here are the main points, which are explained further in his post.

Thesis One: Martin Luther saw church leadership as primarily marked by servanthood.

Thesis Two: Martin Luther understood worship as rooted in repentance.

Thesis Three: Martin Luther did not care for the myth of cultural influence nor for the prerequisite cultural swagger necessary to catch the attention of the great and good.

Thesis Four: Luther saw suffering as a mark of the true church.

Thesis Five: Martin Luther was pastorally sensitive to the cherished practices of older Christians.

Thesis Six: Luther did not agree to differ on matters of importance and thus to make them into practical trivia.

Thesis Seven: Luther saw the existence of the ordained ministry as a mark of the church.

Thesis Eight: Luther saw the problem of a leadership accountable only to itself.

Thesis Nine: Luther thought very little of his own literary contribution to Christianity.

Teach Chastity, Not Abstinence

Matt Richard has posted a one-page article on the benefits of teaching chastity rather than abstinence.  Here is one paragraph.

The teaching of chastity doesn’t limit itself to a mere line in the sand that is intended to only bind sexual actions before marriage but rather it comprehensively addresses the physical, emotional and spiritual aspects of sexually purity in all aspects of life.  Furthermore, where abstinence only addresses those that are single before marriage, the teaching of chastity speaks to everyone; youth, adults, single people and those that are married.  It speaks about fidelity, purity and the sacredness of sex in view of the way God graciously anticipated intimacy to be.

Download the PDF here.

Loving God and Neighbor

Sorry for my absence.  What a busy week for my job!

Something struck me as Aaron was preaching this past Sunday on Galatians 5:13-18—the section "through love serve one another.  For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"

The first thing I notice is that Paul says the the law is fulfilled in the one word or command.  This is puzzling because Jesus explicitly stated that the law is summed up in two commands:

And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.  This is the great and first commandment.  And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.  On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."  (Matt 22:37-40)

Some might think that there is a disconnect between Jesus and Paul in their understanding of the Law, but if we look at the original Mosaic context, this disappears.  First, as pertains to God:

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.  You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.  And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart.  You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.  You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.  You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.  (Deut 6:4-9)

Moses has just recounted the Ten Commandments and wants to drive home the main point: YHWH is the only true God, so love to him is demonstrated by learning and understanding his righteous demands, then teaching them to others.

Then there is the command concerning neighbors:

You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him.  You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.  (Lev 19:17-18)

God has been giving instruction on how to treat other people: treat them like you would treat yourself in the same circumstance.

The conclusion I get from these passages on God and men are driving at the same thing: give honor and respect as accords with the recipient.  In the end, what Jesus and Paul said in the New Testament were in agreement as to where these commands applied.  Loving God or neighbor does not entail some mystical, esoteric spirituality but are deserving of their due based on who they are; and it is incumbent on you to bestow what is appropriate, when appropriate.

We both know that neither of us is there yet.  We do not keep these consistently, but that does not weaken the obligation.  What improvement that comes in this life does so only as the Holy Spirit works through us using the word of God, or using Paul's words: "But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh." (Gal 5:16)

Heresy Begets Heresy

That cults and sects borrow teaching from other aberrant groups should come as no surprise.  Scott Diekmann at Standing Firm has posted a bit of such history with a link between Benjamin Wilson (acquaintance of John Thomas, founder of Christadelphians)* and the Jehovah's Witnesses in that Charles Taze Russell of the latter group bought the rights to a Wilson's Bible interlinear to disseminate as their scriptures until the New World Translation was published in 1961.

Each of these historic figures was involved in the 19th-century movement to restore the church to its pristine state by going back to the Bible without the benefit of historical teaching or creeds.  In doing so, each of these, along with other notables of the era, established error rather than purity.  This serves as a warning for us today: new teaching does not equate to true teaching.


* Wilson would later co-founder of the Church of God of Abrahamic Faith.

Mother and Child: Joined but Separate

I was listening to a podcast discussion on inherited sin which stimulated some divergent thoughts.  We start by defining inherited sin.  The following comes from Sid Litke at Bible.org.

1. Definitions:

- Inherited sin is simply “the sinful state into which all people are born” (Ryrie). We have a constant bent toward sin.

- Inherited sin is also called the “sin nature” (it affected our entire being), and it is called “original sin” (emphasizing that Adam’s sin caused the corrupted nature we each inherit).

- “Total depravity” is a related term expressing our total lack of merit in God’s sight. Total depravity does not mean we are as “bad” as we can be but that we are as “bad off” as we can be because we all have a totally sinful nature.

2. Scripture

- Psalm 51:5 “…in sin my mother conceived me.”

- Ephesians 2:3 “…by nature children (objects) of wrath”

- Our emotions (Romans 1:26), our intellect Romans 1:28) and our will (Romans 7:20) are all enslaved to sin and opposed to God.

3. Penalty.

The penalty of inherited sin is spiritual death. Man is born spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:3) and will be eternally separated from God in hell if our sinful condition is not remedied (Revelation 20:11-15).

This accurately describes the doctrine, but there is a question that invariably arises: what about Jesus, since he was born of a woman?  The question is legitimate, because the sin nature is passed from parent to child without interruption.  One solution I have heard more than once is that the Holy Spirit miraculously intervened so that the sin nature would not be passed to Jesus.  It is an explanation, but there is no support for it.  Scripture simply gives no such explanation, not that God has to give one, but we should base doctrine on factual statements when available rather than inferences or logical conclusions.

Another solution appears to be more workable.  While Adam was clearly made from in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26-27), Adam's descendents are said to come forth in his image and likeness (Gen 5:3).  This supports the idea that inheritance of sin comes through the man, so that, though woman inherits sin, she does not pass that nature to her offspring.  If sin is inherited from the father, there is no logical requirement for sin to also come through the mother.

If this explanation holds there are two immediate applications.  The first is that Roman Catholics did not need to develop the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.  There was no need for Mary to be sinless before Jesus was born.  Nothing of Jesus' nature needed protection since sin would not be inherited through her.

The second application touches more than points of doctrine and goes to the diverging thought I had.  Even though the baby is living in the mother's womb, they are individual people, though nutrients and waste are sent back and forth between mother and child.  And though ingested foods and chemicals carried in some form via the bloodstream to the baby, there is ample clinical evidence of mothers developing conditions that did not directly affect him or her.  They are separate, distinct living human beings regardless of the question of viability outside the womb.

If my scriptural basis and logic is correct (and feel free to correct me), the obvious ramification is that a woman can talk about the right to do with her body as she pleases, but in the end she has no right to kill the child.  It is living within the mother but is not the mother.  The two are bound by an intimate connection, but they are still two.  No amount of rationalization can alter this.

Rely on Christ's Perfect Submission

There are some implications to this submission.  By placing ourselves underneath the authority and rule of God, this also means that you and I are to be a servant of all!  In submission to God we are to live in humility, humility that demands that we place ourselves in service to those around us.  In humility we are to serve our friends, fellow employees at work, our family and stranger with all that we have.  This is especially true in how we speak of others.  We are called to put the best construction on others for when we speak evil of another person we are showing a lack of love and a lack of humility.  When we speak evil of another, this is portraying an attitude that says that we are equal to God’s position of authority.

So, my friends, how are you doing with this?  How are you doing at submitting to God, walking in humility, and denying yourself?  Are you 50% there, maybe 60% there?  Also, how has your consistency been?  Keep in mind that James calls for complete submission.  He is not watering this submission idea down.  There is no room for mediocrity.  So how are you doing?… Therefore, hear the Gospel.  You and I who … fail to submit to God have been forgiven by the Christ, who submitted perfectly to the Father on our behalf.  You and I are forgiven by a Savior who submitted Himself to the penalty of sin which is death on a cross.

Matt Richard, Sermon on James 4:7-5:6

Adding to Grace Is Falling from Grace

Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.  I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.  You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.  For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness.  For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.  (Galatians 5:2-6)

Judaizers had been working overtime to nullify the effects of the gospel in the lives of the Galatian believers.  Promoting obligatory external manifestation of God's working in these Gentile believers, they had been successful in turning hearts by adding to what God had accomplished in the cross of Jesus.  No longer was the atoning sacrifice sufficient.  These believers were being taught that, though baptism was a public repudiation of the past life and a declaration of faith in the Lord Jesus, it no longer buried someone with Christ to walk in newness of life (Rom 6:3-4).  Circumcision was now the required addition to complete the work of salvation.

According to the Galatians passage, the reverse is true.  When we add to grace, we actually fall from grace.  When we attempt to complete a finished work, Christ is no longer the all-sufficient sacrifice.  He is not the offering who removes our sin from us.  Much as the recipients of the epistle to the Hebrews were former Jews tempted to return to their sacrifices, the Galatians were pushed to confirm that Jesus' suffering and death was not able to cover their sin and take the same Old Covenant path.

This is no small matter.  Above, Paul speaks of those who take would circumcision as "severed from Christ" and "fallen away from grace."  These are serious words.  A. T. Robertson (Word Pictures in the New Testament) writes that these have made their identification with Christ "null and void" and "left the sphere of grace in Christ" to took a stand "in the sphere of law as your hope of salvation."  He goes on to say:

Paul does not mince words and carries the logic to the end of the course.  He is not, of course, speaking of occasional sins, but he has in mind a far more serious matter, that of substituting law for Christ as the agent in salvation.

Clearly, Paul marks those who now want to take circumcision—not stating that any had already taken this step but is warning against this act of apostasy—as fully turning their backs on the grace of God found in Christ Jesus and as those of whom "it is impossible to restore again to repentance … since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt" (Heb 6:4-6).  They have no further recourse for salvation after abandoning the redemption and reconciliation won by Jesus.

Conversely, those who live by grace through faith are "eagerly waiting for the hope of righteousness" through the Holy Spirit.  They live in full assurance that what Christ promised and won on the cross is waiting for them in the final resurrection.  Let us then hold fast our confession of faith (Heb 4:14).