But He's Just a Man

The “historical Jesus” has been sought after for many years.  Whether John Dominic Crossan, Elaine Pagels, Bart Ehrman, Reza Aslan, or Jesus Seminar conferees, critics have dismissed the gospel accounts as a well-meant effort to colorfully promote what was a celebrity rabbi life who met an untimely death.  Why anyone would think the gospel accounts are mythical, inflated, or otherwise altered beyond credibility, is beyond me.  The skeptics argue something like the pagans of Arnobius’ day:

“You worship,” says my opponent, “one who was born a mere human being.”*

Those pagans might have had an excuse for such a comment, not having a copy of the Scriptures readily available.  The so-called Bible scholars I mention at the opening are not ignorant of the facts.  They have read the primary documents and have willfully ignored the obvious statements from the gospel accounts themselves.  Each gospel writer gives internal evidence for his planned purpose in writing.

Luke and John give clear reasons for their accounts.  The careful doctor recounts the history in two parts, introducing the accounts as thoroughly investigated beyond contestation, while the aged apostle plainly states the thesis near the end of his work.

Luke 1:1-4	Acts 1:1-3	John 20:30-31
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.	In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.  He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.	Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

The other two writers are not quite as direct in their purposes, however linguistic clues abound, beginning with their openings.  First, Matthew’s opening:

The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.  (Matthew 1:1)

With this summary statement, Matthew seeks to place his account in a direct line with promises found in the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants.  In order to solidify this intent, he establishes the requisite bloodline through a genealogy (Mt 1:2-17), prophetic fulfillment of the birth and surrounding events (Mt 1:18-23), and finally, the anointing of the Holy Spirit by which God places His seal on Jesus (Mt 3:1-17).  These give a proper foundation for the remainder of the book which establishes Jesus’ person, ministry, redemptive work on the cross, and final commission to His apostles.

Mark’s thesis statement also comes at the very beginning.

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.  (Mark 1:1)

At first reading, one might see this merely as an introductory statement, however a close examination shows that the writer emphasizes the gospel as pivotal throughout.  Note the uses in relation to Jesus.

Beginning of His ministry

Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”  (Mr 1:14-15)

  

Mid-ministry

For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it.  (Mr 8:35)

  

Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life.”  (Mr 10:29-30)

  

End of ministry teaching on the Eschaton

And the gospel must first be proclaimed to all nations.  (Mr 13:10)

  

Anointing before crucifixion

And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.  (Mr 14:9)

  

Final commission

And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.”  (Mr 16:15)

In the above examples, the gospel writers were careful to craft their accounts accurately in order to undergird the unwritten, eyewitness accounts and faithfully acknowledge the prophecies pointing to His birth, life, and death.  The idea that there might be a concoction of ideas to consider a man being himself deity and his works as from self-originating divinity is absurd.  Not even the pagans would go this far.

Arnobius addressed the pagan objection of Jesus’ person this way:

Even if that [mere humanity] were true, as has been already said in former passages, yet, in consideration of the many liberal gifts which He has bestowed on us, He ought to be called and be addressed as God.  But since He is God in reality and without any shadow of doubt, do you think that we will deny that He is worshiped by us with all the fervor we are capable of, and assumed as the guardian of our body?

The apologist did not reason that Jesus was less than God, as will be seen below, but wished to address the objection according to their understanding.  Many in the pantheon of gods, had been mere humans but were accorded a divine status after death based on prior works.  Instead he reasoned that the works of Christ were of such a nature, that to deny a status of divinity in relation to the false gods would be a travesty.  And since He is indeed God, how much more worship is deemed appropriate.

After deflecting objections to both His method of execution and person as being base and unworthy of divine consideration, Arnobius anticipated a fit of incredulity from his opponents.

“Is that Christ of yours a god, then?” some raving, wrathful, and excited man will say.

Lest the reader think that the retort is actually an acknowledgement of the Lord’s stature, this is more along the line of: “Do you actually think He’s good enough to qualify?”  The pagans had regard for their gods, and regardless of which they worshiped, qualification to that august group needed to be properly vetted.  How could someone who died the death of a traitorous criminal qualify, regardless of the goodness of his deeds?  That would be unthinkable.

Arnobius’ response?  He is greater than their gods to the greatest degree.

We will reply: God and God of the inner powers; and—what may still further torture unbelievers with the most bitter pains—He was sent to us by the King Supreme for the greatest of purposes.  My opponent, becoming more mad and more frantic, will perhaps ask whether the matter can be proved, as we allege.  There is no greater proof than the credibility of the acts done by Him, than the unusual quality of the miracles† He exhibited, than the conquest and the dissolution of all those deadly ordinances which peoples and tribes saw executed in the light of day, with no objecting voice; and even they whose ancient laws or whose country’s laws He shows to be full of vanity and of the most senseless superstition dare not allege these things to be false.

Not only is Christ very God of what is seen, but also of all that is unseen, working in the hidden places, where no man can fathom or understand, for the greatest purposes.  Being very God, He was sent into this world by the Almighty One, proving Himself: first, through mighty deeds which were not performed in secret but in the light of day, so that none could object; and second, by His teaching against which none could contend.

We see that the questions surrounding Jesus’ origin, life, and teaching are no different in 1700 years.  In order to undermine the force of sin, righteousness, and judgment, mankind seeks to undermine the clear reading of Scripture and mold it according to their own ideas of truth.  The best response is to affirm what our Lord said and did for a fallen, sinful world, with hopes that the opposition might respond of Jesus, “No one ever spoke like this man!” (Jn 7:46) and believe.


*  All quotes from Arnobius are taken from Against the Pagans, I.42.
†  Translated as “virtues” in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, the word virtutes is used in Scripture for miracles and is comparable to “by virtue of.”

Lure of Perfection

In a recorded video conference session, a presenter warned against chasing after the mirage of an ideal.  It simply does not exist.  Why can’t things be the way Scripture lays out?  Why can’t we establish pristine liturgy and doctrinal perfection in Christ’s Church? or perfect relationships in our families?  Enter reality.  Life does not work that way.  Relationships are messy, because people are messy.  They (we) are sinners and fail one another, yet idealism is alive and well.  I once overheard a man opine that there were no good examples of fathers in the Bible.  At first that seemed legitimate, but as I considered the premise, it made no sense.  The fathers mentioned in the Bible are good examples.  They are as good as mankind gets.  How’s that for commentary?  If reality is so divergent from the ideal, how is it that we continue to seek the latter?  There are two primary reasons, both drawn from a myopic view of the Bible.

Miracle workers
Who wouldn’t want to perform a miracle or two?  Maybe we would never lead millions of people, so set Moses aside, but what about Elijah?  There is a man’s man.  He declared that there will be a drought until he said otherwise (1 Ki 17:1), provided unlimited oil and flour to a widow of Zarephath (1 Ki 17:13-14), raised that widow’s son from death (1 Ki 17:21-22), stood up to the prophets of Baal and called down fire from heaven (1 Ki 18:36-38), and lastly, told King Ahab that the drought would be over and to hurry home to beat the downpour (1 Ki 18:44-45).

Then there is Peter.  Maybe he was an apostle, but he was a regular guy—a fisherman by trade.  You could easily imagine him on an episode of Deadliest Catch.  What do we find Peter doing in the book of Acts?  He healed a lame man (Ac 3:7), healed Aeneas (Ac 9:33-35), restored Dorcas to life (Ac 9:40-41), and was present when the Holy Spirit was poured out on Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles (Ac 2:2-4; 8:14-17; 10:44-45).  That sounds like the normal Christian life—right?

Have you looked at the lives of these men?  When the queen threatened to take Elijah’s life, he tucked his tail, ran, and begged for God to take his life (1 Ki 19:2-4).  Not exactly the bastion of perseverance we might expect.  Surely, Peter fared better, being filled with the Holy Spirit?  Not so.  He was helping out in Antioch when the church in Jerusalem sent men to see how things were going.  Sure enough, the mighty apostle played the hypocrite and led others astray as well.  Paul got up in his face face and laid down some smack (Gal 2:11-14).

Branches of Christianity promote and cater to the idea of signs and wonders being normative for the “Spirit-filled” life, but what is the reality?  Should they be expected?  The miracles of the Bible are generally confined to three periods: Exodus and conquest of Canaan, Elijah and Elisha, and Jesus’ birth through the death of the 12 apostles.  Compared to the millennia covered in Scripture, that is barely a blip on the RADAR screen.  We focus on a tiny bit of something miraculous and overlook the abundance of Divine faithfulness.

Heroes of faith
You probably know where this will be going: open your Bibles to Hebrews, chapter 11.  There we have a stellar examples of mighty faith to which we may attain as “Spirit-filled” believers in the same God as they.  Consider the first two, Abel and Enoch, who were rewarded for their faith by an early exit from this world.  Perhaps that is not the best example, since we really want long life and prosperity.  Noah built an ark, saving the human race, but wait, he was found drunk and naked by his son.  Maybe we should keep looking.

Here we go: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Surely, these patriarchs are definitely men of stellar character.  Alas, they were all liars and schemers, and played favorites among there offspring.  What about Moses?  God chose him to lead the people out of Egypt: a man of uncompromising resolve, no doubt.  He murdered an Egyptian, tried to wriggle out of the task God had given him to do, and near the end of his life, stole glory from God.

What about the judges listed: Gideon, Barak, Samson, and Jepthah?  We know the time period was bleak, even being described as a time when everyone “did what was right in his own eyes.”  A judge needs character, so it seems they should be model citizens.  Barak needed to have Deborah “hold his hand” in battle, even though the victory had been guaranteed, and the credit ended up going to another woman (Jud 4:6-9).  Gideon worked under the cover of night to tear down idols, then required multiple signs from God even though he had a definite call and promise, and lastly, after a great victory, built an ephod that led the people into idolatry (Jud 8:27).  Jephthah was a mercenary, the son of a prostitute, who before battle foolishly vowed to sacrifice what first came out of his house—his daughter (Jud 11:30-34).  Samson was a moral train wreck, womanizing and disregarding the Nazarite vow he was under.

Surely, we can be safe with Joseph, Samuel, and David.  Maybe Joseph, but there is the honored son’s cloak and bragging about the dreams where he rules over his parents and brothers.  What of Samuel?  He apparently lacked good parenting skills (1 Sa 8:1-3) much like his high priest guardian, Eli (1 Sa 2:29).  And lastly, there is the man after God’s own heart, King David, the adulterer and murderer.

We want our heroes to be perfect in every way, but none of them are.  We  see someone commended for great faith and automatically assume moral purity.  We have trouble reconciling that God can and does use sinful men to do His bidding.  I do not condone their failures and sins, but we must face the reality that they had faith.  The reason the names are listed is that they believed what God had told them or fulfilled a specific plan He had for their lives.  They just believed the promise, just did what they were told.  Seems like a formula for increased faith to me (see Lu 17:5-10).

Don Quixote is alive and well
In Miguel de Cervantes’ novel Don Quixote, there is a woman, Dulcinea, on whose behalf the self-appointed knight fights.  He describes her as the loveliest of all women, deserving complete adoration, yet in reality she is quite plain and nothing like the fantasy he preserves in his imagination.  The same is true of our ideal pictures of a spiritual Christian and pure church.  The pinnacle of perfection does not exist, nor has it ever.  Sin remains, and the world, flesh, and devil are actively at work.  By seeking ever-elusive perfection, we fight imaginary battles against foes of our own making.  (I tend this direction.  Maybe it’s a male thing.)  In thirsting to drink from the Fountain of Youth, we can miss the refreshment from returning and drinking at the Fountain of Life.

Do we cease from confronting error then?  No, the tasks of false teaching and practice need to be addressed.  But there are questions to be asked.  Is the teaching or practice actually false, or is the problem only in my mind?  Am I as defender being vigilant or quixotic?  Is the standard by which I adduce an answer to either even reliable?  In the final analysis, we must ever be returning to the revealed Word of our God as delivered in Scripture and the body of sound doctrine delivered to the saints.

Are we not to be examples of examples of Christ to the world and fellow believers?  Indeed, even as the apostle Paul tells us (Php 3:17; 1 Th 1:7; 1 Ti 1:16) and with eyes wide open, but realizing perfection will come when Jesus returns in power and glory.  Christianity is Christ.  He is the example to whom Paul pointed and of whom we are to hold, however imperfectly, not through our own strength but by virtue of the Holy Spirit working in us.  In these things, we all

beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another.  Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart.  But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways.  We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.  (2 Co 3:18-4:2)

May we be honorable vessels for His use.  There is a real spiritual battle going on.  We could spend less time tilting at windmills and more contending for the faith.

Christians Must Speak Forth the Truth

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, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.  (1 Pet 3:14-16)

An observer paying a modicum of attention will have noted the polarization of ideologies across the country.  With palpable increase, sections of society are wrestling over issues with a “winner-take-all” approach over matters that had not mattered to the populace or were not deemed acceptable in a civilized society.  Proponents, rather than engaging in debate, are now pressing points of interest on specific issues for tactical advantage, creating angst through emotional manipulation and garnering favor for a position.  The rallying point is the societal or political need deemed best for a sub-group, sometimes as standalone causes, but more usually as one of multiple divergent thrusts seeking to gain wide acceptance and celebration of personal liberty regardless of societal effects.

Those causes that become enmeshed into the fabric of society become viewed as a norm of existence, being placed on par with natural law.  People learn how to adjust to the system, even turning it to an advantage.  Power and authority are legitimized, and laws enacted to defend and promote acceptance however irrational the defense might be.  Leaders prop up their causes and engage in syncretistic alliances on multiple fronts, arguing sometimes contradictory causes in a phenomenal feat of juggling prowess lest one fail and a “domino effect” befall the remainder, while followers are swept up in the emotion of the movement.  Such an approach to gain single-issue favor can be effective in securing short-term goals, however the argumentation of the proponents quickly devolves to aping key phrases in a self-defeating string of argumentation or assaulting opponents through ad hominem attacks, all of which demonstrates that the rationale for the cause is pure self-interest: this is what we want.

In spite of all the effort to force transformation, there remains a contingent who recognizes the Emperor’s New Clothes for what they are.  Those, who know the facts and can reasonably articulate disagreement, break with status quo, turn to follow the truth, and are instantly castigated for not adhering to popular opinion and practice.  Through the past 20 centuries, Christians have played the role of societal critic, resulting in heaps of blame received for many ills that befell mankind: civil unrest, disease, drought, flood, etc. were considered the result of those who refused to bow to the authority of the deity du jour and their established representatives.  The change in worldview sets the believer apart from those around.  They become noticed and alternatively respected or feared for their stand.  Whichever is the case, the reaction is certain and immediate.  Repercussions have varied from genial discussion to open threats and hostile attacks.

As I have stated, none of this is new.  The third-century apologist Arnobius of Sicca noticed how those who worshiped the Roman pantheon of gods were holding Christians like himself responsible for the troubles in North Africa.  He opens his work:

I have discovered some who deem themselves very wise in their opinions, acting as if they were possessed* and announcing with all the authority of an oracle,† that from the time when the Christian people began to exist in the world the universe has gone to ruin, that the human race has been visited with ills of many kinds, that even the very gods, abandoning their accustomed charge, in virtue of which they were wont in former days to regard with interest our affairs, have been driven from the regions of earth.  I have resolved, so far as my capacity and my humble power of language will allow, to oppose public prejudice, and to refute calumnious accusations.  For, on the one hand, those persons may imagine that they are declaring some weighty matter, when they are merely gossiping common rumors;‡ and on the other, if we refrain from such a contest, they may suppose that they have won a cause because our view is lost by its inherent demerits, when rather the defenders abandoned their view through silence.

I would not deny that the charge is a most serious one, and that we fully deserve the hatred attached to public enemies,§ if it should be apparent that we are the reason by which the universe has deviated from its laws, the gods have been driven far away, and such swarms of miseries have been inflicted on mankind.

The Case Against the Pagans, I.1

Some points to note:

1. The seriousness of the accusations.  In effect, the people were blaming Jesus Christ as causing the problems when their own sin or natural consequence of sin was working in the world.  Arnobius does not cast off these accusations as meaningless or trivial.
2. The need for a response.  Christians cannot remain silent in the face of accusations. Whether or not the political or religious atmosphere is considered safe, the name of the Lord Jesus Christ must be upheld.  Arnobius lived during the reign of Diocletian, who was openly hostile to the Christian sect.  Many died in martyrdom for not worshiping the pagan gods, but standing firm for Christ.
3. Ability is not an issue.  A defense of the gospel does not depend on the ability of the believer to articulate the faith.  While Arnobius was a rhetorician by vocation, he did not feel up to the task of properly responding as he should.  He presented his response as God had enabled.  This does not mean that Christians are to remain willfully ignorant of what Scripture teaches, but lack of thorough understanding does not disqualify the believer from responding.

Opponents of the Most High will use any means possible to enhance their arguments through whatever political maneuvering or religious gesticulation makes a point and raises the issue so that others will join the accusatory chorus and shout down what is true and right.  Christians need to remain reasoned and reasonable to effectively make their case for the gospel.


*  Referring to the appearance of the ancient seers when under the influence of the deity.  The meaning is, that they make their emphatic assertions with all the mad raving and gesticulation of a seer under the influence of the god.
†  Declare a matter with boldness and authority, as if most certain and undoubted.
‡  Rumors arising from the ignorance of the common people.
§  The Christians were regarded as “public enemies” and were so called.

Defending Christ by Nicholas L. Thomas – Book Review

I purchased Defending Christ by Nicholas L. Thomas in an effort to further research on Arnobius of Sicca.  While this work did not aid toward the specifics of my research, the author did a good job in presenting five early Latin apologists in their defense of Christianity.  The author compares and contrasts styles of argumentation in chronological order* to show how authors may have borrowed from one another or addressed similar issues.

I found the lack of direct scriptural citation to be interesting.  Each was more intent on presenting the Christian position in general terms assuming the specific propositions from which they are derived are true.  Instead, each apologist brings his argument to the cause to lay out the reasonableness of the Christian position, the unfairness of attacks against believers, and the folly of continued pagan worship.

Thomas does a good job of interconnecting the thought processes between these men and bringing out individual rhetorical styles.  Minucius Felix is noted for his elegance and Tertullian for prowess in building a legal case.  Lactantius, the last of the men chronologically, set out to draw from and improve upon the argumentation of the North African writers who preceded him, as noted in Divine Institutes.

Although Tertullian fully pleaded the same cause in that treatise which is entitled the Apology, yet, inasmuch as it is one thing to answer accusers, which consists in defense or denial only, and another thing to instruct, which we do, in which the substance of the whole system must be contained, I have not shrunk from this labor, that I might complete the subject, which Cyprian did not fully carry out in that discourse in which he endeavors to refute Demetrianus (as he himself says) railing at and clamoring against the truth.… For, since he was contending against a man who was ignorant of the truth, he ought for a while to have laid aside divine readings, and to have formed from the beginning this man as one who was altogether ignorant, and to have shown to him by degrees the beginnings of light, that he might not be dazzled, the whole of its brightness being presented to him. (5.4.1)

I was disappointed that the section covering Arnobius did not dwell more on his arguments, dwelling on his relation to the others.  This is understandable since the apologist is a professional rhetorician, not a theologian, something his errant scriptural support demonstrates.  Instead he plays to his strengths and argues against the pagans with an offensive polemic akin to Martin Luther’s denunciations of foolhardy doctrine and practice.†

All in all, I appreciate this book explaining the united effort given to the defense of Christ while undergoing Roman persecution.  It is my hope that this will assist believers in learning of the early apologists and how they built upon their predecessors to logically address cultural, if not legal, opposition to the gospel.


*  Exact chronology is impossible, especially in the case of Minucius Felix, however the relative placement of the original works assists in understanding the relationship of ideas.
†  And who doesn’t like a good smack down where it is richly deserved?

Guard the Deposit Entrusted to You

Christians are constantly presented with scenarios concerning unbelievers wherein the former must decide the best course of action based on their knowledge and understanding of scripture.  We bear the name of Christ and have no desire for the Lord's reputation to be sullied by our conduct.  Questions are asked: how do Christians converse and interact with the world in a way that will glorify God and testify of Christ's work on the cross?  And how do we interact with the world concerning festivals and solemn occasions of other religious bodies or the world in general?  Care is required because there is the real danger of affirming the false god believed by the person or group with whom we are engaged and can unwittingly affirm their idolatrous beliefs.

Tertullian stated that idolatry, by his reckoning, is "the main crime of the human race, the highest guilt on the world, the whole cause of judgment," since by immersing oneself in the conduct, the idolater is equated to a murderer of the worst kind as he strikes spiritually mortal blows—of grievous offenses against God—on himself as victim (On Idolatry, 1).  And if that did not suffice, the nature of idolatry promotes debauchery and falsehood, and above both, it is an act of fraud bringing the greatest insult.

The essence of fraud is, I think, if anyone will seize what is another's or deny his due; and of course fraud toward man is admitted to be a label of greatest crime. But idolatry does fraud to God by denying him, and conferring on others, his honor: fraud brings an insult.

By removing the glory due God and placing it elsewhere, anyone might be an idolater, heaping upon himself guilt and condemnation that justifiably could be held against him had the actions been toward a fellow human.  How much more so for bringing such an insult against the Almighty.

This is not to say that Christians overtly divert or diminish what is God's alone.  In some measure those intent on serving him properly seek to find scriptural bases for their actions, but the means cause more harm than good.  Tertullian reminds his readers (On Idolatry, 13) that while we are to “rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep,” (Rom 12:15) there is the offsetting “what fellowship has light with darkness?” (2 Cor 6:14): we do not have permission to associate with any frivolity or solemnity unbecoming to or forbidden by the Lord.  By associating with such an event, believers give tacit affirmation to the proceedings and what they represent.  Attending a function without being known as Christian damages the conscience, but if the believer's position is known, this damages the conscience of others and shames God.

Churchgoers with what they perceive to be average or better command of scripture will read the above, give themselves a quick self-assessment, and think that this is rather preposterous.  What Bible-toting, amen-shouting believer would willing place themselves in a spiritually harmful way?  They have "purer" motives for reaching the lost and dying world and seek out ways to do so.  Some much so that, seeing the divide between the church and the world with inherent tensions, avail themselves of the world's events in order to foster discussion between worldviews and remove the stigma of Christian exclusivity.  They view dogma as some type of blasphemy on the name of Christ, which must be expunged so that people might be wooed by the love of God as demonstrated through the tolerance and openness of his people.  Rather than drawing the lost to Christ, this tactic works havoc because the one attempting it becomes the cause of blasphemy rather than the cure.  Tertullian noticed the same as he penned:

Now the blasphemy which must quite be shunned by us in every way is, I take it, this: If any of us lead a heathen into blasphemy with good cause, either by fraud, or by injury, or insultingly, or any other matter of worthy complaint, in which "the Name" is accordingly criticized, so that the Lord, too, is deservedly angry.  (On Idolatry, 14)

The desire to enter into the world's realm in order to befriend their worldview and customs for the sake of the gospel is not what the apostle Paul intended when he said "I become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some" (1 Cor 9:22).  Rather Tertullian points to something quite different in his biting sarcasm:

No doubt he used to please them by celebrating the Saturnalia and New-year’s day! or was it by moderation and patience? by gravity, by kindness, by integrity?  In like manner, when he is saying, "I have become all things to all, that I may gain all," does he mean "to idolaters an idolater?" "to heathens a heathen?" "to the worldly worldly?"  (On Idolatry, 14)

The apologist makes plain that Paul did not join with the frivolities of the pagan holidays or worship but related to them as a man no different than they: deserving judgment but instead receiving grace through the work of a merciful God and Savior.

Lastly, not just our deeds can be compromised, but our speech as well.  Consider not just the above mentioned intercourse of ideas being promulgated by the postmodern and emergent movements but also in withholding a necessary verdict.  Too often we do not wish to engage a wrong idea but allow the other person to verbally bind us and

by remaining quiet, affirm their majesty, by reason of which majesty you will seem to be bound. … At all events, whoever the petitioner is, he binds you to himself either in friendly or unfriendly union.  If in unfriendly, you are now challenged unto battle, and know that you must fight.  If in friendly, with how far greater security will you transfer your engagement unto the Lord, that you may dissolve the obligation of him through whose means the Evil One was seeking to appropriate you….  (On Idolatry, 21)

Whether in friendly or hostile debate with the world, believers are not at liberty to refuse engagement.  The enemy is always seeking whom he may devour.  But neither are believers to respond in a sinful way.  Rather when confronted the proper response is to be

according to the precept [Matt 5:44, 1 Pet 3:9, etc.], not to return a curse in the name of God even, but dearly to bless in the name of God, that you may both demolish idols and preach God, and fulfill discipline.  (On Idolatry, 21)

The disciple of Christ should therefore, as both a privilege and duty, be always learning from God's word, so that he might rightly handle it, take every thought obedient to Christ, and be ready to give an answer to his hope.

How to Answer the Fool

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.  (Proverbs 26:5)

I had the pleasure of listening to an interview of Sye Ten Bruggencate by Chris Rosebrough of Fighting for the Faith concerning the former's new film How to Answer the Fool.

Every believer is called to "make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Pet 3:15).  God is knowable and has made himself known in the scriptures, but most well-intended Christians inadvertently undermine themselves by appealing to evidence or experience as their basis.  While neither of these is incorrect when used properly, one should begin with the truth of the God who revealed himself in his word and not try to prove him through the material world or what happened to you in your faith journey.

I have edited out the bump music from the program.  The interview is 65 minutes and worth the time whether or not you purchase the film.

As Though It Were Actually True, Matthew Cochran – Book Review

Back in December, I was checking the website of a Lutheran church where a coworker of my wife was to be married. I noticed that one class under Christian Education was on the subject of apologetics using the pictured book and taught by the author.  This piqued my interest on more than one level: (1) this church was even teaching apologetics because the subject is usually perceived as boring or difficult; (2) the author was teaching the course using his own work; and (3) the author lives in the same metropolitan area as I.

Matthew Cochran is a software engineer and a graduate of Concordia Theological Seminary – Fort Wayne, IN.  These combined influences have been put to good use resulting in this introduction to Christian apologetics.

The book is organized into three sections.  The first establishes a foundation by examining the philosophy underlying Christian epistemology—reason and its relation to faith, the reality and denial of truth, sin and its evidence through the use of natural law, and God's existence.  The discussion allows the author to help the reader build a foundation of possible argumentation of those things that are evident in the world before opening the Bible itself.  This is a worthwhile goal, as many Christians lack basic skills of logic and reasoning, especially when confronted with an opposing view.

After demonstrating the reasonableness of Christianity, the second section interacts with its historicity.  The author begins with a critical view of the text, its nature and veracity, as well as the reliability of the authors, before examining the claims of Jesus concerning himself and scripture, then finishing with a comparison between genuine and false gospels.  As an aside comment, I appreciated the helpful explanation of accuracy and precision as it relates to inerrancy.

The third section of this book takes up practical matters with which Christians interact almost daily through the media, workplace, or various acquaintances: sciences, life issues, sexuality, feminism, and tolerance.  Worldly opinions in each are becoming increasingly antagonistic to the Christian worldview, and the author does a good job of demonstrating how the believer can demonstrate the fallacy of the world's arguments while demonstrating genuine concern for those making their claims.

As I said at the beginning, this is a good introductory text.  The content is well-written and accessible for any of teenage years or older.  I would encourage the purchase and use of this book for personal or group study.  It is published through Wipf and Stock and also available through retail book outlets.

To learn more of Matthew Cochran, visit his website or blog.

Heretics Tamper with Scriptures; Orthodox Testify for Them

When men feel confident in following their own understanding of scripture, bad things happen.  Attempting to find new insights or meanings in the text, they pour over passages searching for relevance or notoriety in their sphere of influence.  Coupled with this is a culture desiring to demonstrate its breadth of inclusivity by allowing any and all to voice their insights.  Listeners and readers of the material, no longer satisfied with the truth plainly taught, What had been considered a hallmark of ignorance becomes commonplace and is celebrated as the acme of intelligent thought, misusing scripture by selectively ignoring sections or deconstructing, then reworking, the whole.  What may have once been attempted by those of the basest sort is the product of church leaders and academicians. Is this condition unique to the past 200 years?  Sadly, no.  Tertullian combated the same issues centuries ago.

•         Where diversity of doctrine is found, there, then, must the corruption both of the Scriptures and the expositions thereof be regarded as existing.  On those whose purpose it was to teach differently, lay the necessity of differently arranging the instruments of doctrine.  They could not possibly have effected their diversity of teaching in any other way than by having a difference in the means whereby they taught.  As in their case, corruption in doctrine could not possibly have succeeded without a corruption also of its instruments, so to ourselves also integrity of doctrine could not have accrued, without integrity in those means by which doctrine is managed.
•         One man perverts the Scriptures with his hand, another their meaning by his exposition.  For although Valentinus seems to use the entire volume, he has none the less laid violent hands on the truth only with a more cunning mind and skill than Marcion.  Marcion expressly and openly used the knife, not the pen, since he made such an excision of the Scriptures as suited his own subject-matter.  Valentinus, however, abstained from such excision, because he did not invent Scriptures to square with his own subject-matter, but adapted his matter to the Scriptures; and yet he took away more, and added more, by removing the proper meaning of every particular word, and adding fantastic arrangements of things which have no real existence.

Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics, 38

As then, and perhaps more so, the truth of God's Word needs those who remain faithful, as men continue to accumulate teachers to satisfy itching ears.

Letting God's Word Work

As you have noticed, I have been reading Justin Martyr recently. I enjoy his apologetic approach and the difference of method between his two apologies directed to Gentile rulers and the dialogue with a Jew, Trypho.  The former treatises juxtapose philosophy and politics with the truth of the scriptures, while the latter uses extensive passages of scriptures because both parties agreed to the veracity of the Old Testament.

As an example, we can use a question posited by Trypho:

And Trypho said, "You endeavor to prove an incredible and well-nigh impossible thing—that God endured to be born and become man."  (Dialogue, 68)

He is correct: that God should become man by natural means is unbelievable and an utterly ludicrous notion.  Justin takes up the challenge:

If I undertook to prove this by doctrines or arguments of man, you should not bear with me.

Justin agrees that if these arguments were made on a natural level using observable phenomena, they would be untenable, but that is not where the force of argument lies.  He continuously goes back to the Bible to make his points regardless of how Trypho attempts to take a different course.

His aim was to argue first and foremost from scripture as the ultimate authority.  It does not just contain truth: it is truth.  The Bible lives and works because its nature or being is bound in the person of God though penned by sinful humans.  Any listener of God's Word is obligated to make a decision whether to believe or disbelieve its content.

But if I quote frequently Scriptures, and so many of them, referring to this point, and ask you to comprehend them, you are hardhearted in the recognition of the mind and will of God.  But if you wish to remain forever so, I would not be injured at all; and for ever retaining the same [opinions] which I had before I met with you, I shall leave you.

Notice Justin's surprising conclusion to Trypho's indifference.  If the listener does not believe the message, the consequences are on his own head.  The presenter of the gospel does not fret that possibly not enough was done.  The message has been delivered, and he can leave with a clear conscience.  The one sharing the good news is not obligated to attempt new measures or relevant lingo to present the message in a different way to reach the intended audience.

More than once I have been come upon unbelievers and believers alike disregarding what scripture plainly states.  This is disappointing, but our job as witnesses is to speak the truth plainly of sin and a Savior.  Instead of attempting an emotional or entertaining appeal to draw in the listener, simply speak what needs to be said in a loving way and leave it there.

God's word can do its own work, if you let it.

Gaining Perception in the Fog

Photograph by Stephen Pohl

There are many times in a discussion or debate when we become so intent on maintaining our correctness on a single point that we overlook the obvious: we miss the forest for the trees.

Recently, I  was involved in such a Facebook interchange with some of a Calvinist bent.  While discussing the choice of Jacob instead of Esau, one person wrote:

So God's love does not depend on our faith.  And He does not love equally.  Therefore, those with saving faith have it because it is a gift from God because He loved us with a saving love where he did not love the rest with that sort of love.

It is like the sheep and the goats.  A goat cannot make itself into a sheep, nor can a sheep become a goat.  God foreordained who would be sheep and allowed the rest to be goats.

Considering this to be Reformed inanity based more on faulty logic than clear scripture, I took up the challenge to counter his thinking.  Soon the debate went back and forth on whether goats could become sheep; and whether sheep are always sheep, but they are just lost for a time—all this based on John 10, 1 Peter 2, Ephesians 2, and Romans 9.

And then the fog settled in—literally.

As I was driving to work the next morning, considering the argumentation, the truth stood out plainly.  On that foggy interstate, it became clear that I (and they) had pushed the metaphors too far so that they became absurd and mixed.  Yes, Jesus spoke of sheep and goats at the final judgement (Matt 25), but this was a way of illustrating that he was separating the bodies and had the right to do so.  And Jesus spoke of the sheep/shepherd relationship (John 10) to point out the caring relationship he has with the sheep, willingness of the sheep to follow his voice, and his gift of eternal life, as opposed to the Jewish rulers who were not listening and not receiving eternal life.

I had become so intent on winning that I had lost sight of the obvious.

While fog inhibits comprehension of the overall picture, important details can be made clearer upon drawing near and letting what is before us stand out.  Take advantage of those opportunities and learn from them.

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.  (2 Tim 2:15)

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.

Contending for the Faith Is Contentious

In the 13 Sep 2012 podcast of The God Whisperers (episode 197), Bill Cwirla and Craig Donofrio discuss how doctrinal conflicts are resolved within their own denomination.  Bill Cwirla begins the segment by asking, "What's our approach to making peace?"  (Listen to the 1:40 clip here.)

Did that sound familiar?  You probably have relived that in some form.  Outside the Christian realm this is expected.  American culture now demands an intolerably high level of tolerance making any type of disagreement either an attack on the civil liberties of whatever societal group with whom the offended person identifies, or a postmodern pleasure-fest allowing each to define his own truth and reality.  People variously react to conflict, but the goal is always the same—defend myself regardless of how indefensible my position.  This self-centeredness has taken a prominent place in the American psyche, such that people have become incapable of debate, and logical reasoning quickly gives way to logical fallacy or ad hominem.

But how do we react within the community of the King of Kings?  Referring back to the sound clip, that scenario has  become the default mode of groups of Christians that fear the thought of conflict within their organizations as paramount to gross sin.  If an spiritual overseer speaks or acts contrarily to God's word in an effort to draw crowds and is rightly criticized for doing so, the standard retort has been to label the God-fearing critic as a loser or hater.  There is no attempt at talking through the issues as brethren in Christ with open Bible in hand.

Next is the situation where a Bible teacher delivers heretical doctrine, but instead of drawing people in, the intent is to expand the mind of the listener to the truths discovered through research, rigorous or otherwise, in a professorial manner for the common good.  This is worse because we are quick to give someone with academic intent more leniency, until we find ourselves wrapped in a web of deceit.  This one will dismiss criticism with an air of superiority, since the objector simply does not understand the subtle complexities, and the critic often goes away berated, assuming the inferior status is warranted.

What happens when overseers who actively go about caring for the flock, innocently begin to teach error or what you believe to be error?  The first reaction should be for the listener to question whether or not he heard correctly.  Then go listen to the teaching again, if recorded, ask what was stated and intended, or both.  At this point there should be freedom to clearly state the biblical mandate and work through to a commonly agreed understanding.

Lastly, there are those who are not believers but present themselves as the holders of true Christianity.  The problem might even be compounded by the fact are members in good standing of your congregation, or worse, leading it.  While this might not be true, the proper action is identical: these need to be confronted quickly and vigorously.

These last two cases—erring overseer and ravenous wolf— especially require a strategy for engagement.  One simply does not contend for the faith haphazardly.  A four-part method used during the Reformation given in the podcast above is helpful for the task.

• 1.  State the controversy.  There must be stated points all parties understand are at issue, otherwise nothing can be started, much less resolved.  Opposing parties must clearly state what is being taught.
• 2.  Define the terms.  Quite often no true progress is made because the same words are used but with different meanings.  Words can have completely different meanings for each side of a controversy.  Agreements will be made to statements that have different meanings to the differing parties.  For example, cults will use Christian terms but supply their own definitions.  Also, do not assume two Christians are using their terms the same way.
• 3.  State the Theses.  What do you believe?  Share the points in plain language.
• 4.  State clearly what you do not believe.  This is equally important, because it clarifies the points being made and reduces the risk of being led to a side discussion.  Often times this step is not used, because it is not for the fainthearted.  Conflicting points may not only need to be rejected but unequivocally condemned as well.

Contending for the faith is never-ending work, often with little or no immediate gratitude or reward.  Believers can grow weary of continually defending the faith.  These should be encouraged to consider the Lord Jesus "who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted"  (Heb 12:3).  Some continue in adversity to the point of death understanding what it means to "participate in the fellowship of his sufferings" (Phil 3:10).  But for those who endure, there is the promised crown of life (James 1:12; Rev 2:10).

The Test of Relevantism

Mark Kalthoff has written an article defending the importance of liberal arts in a well-rounded education.  He makes the following observation concerning American academic culture.

We live in a culture of "relevantism."  Nearly every student, it seems, arrives on campus primed to ask, "How is this course, this assignment, this lecture relevant?  What can I do with it?  Tell me its immediate practical use."  Such questions arise because too many Americans know nothing of the old distinction between true education and mere training. *

The mentality of "relevantism" is not unique to academia but flourishes in the Church.  Pastors have recognized this shift and are increasingly shifting content from pulpit and classroom to deliver practical application useful for life in the church body or conducting oneself in the world.  In order to facilitate this change, doctrine is not given a priority except as it might bolster an application being presented.  Exegetical content give way to the thematic.  Categories of doctrine and theology become at best useful descriptions of what a local assembly or denomination holds as corporately true, though relegated to a status of sentimentality for individuals to pull out when opining about better past times but not able to immediately address pressing issues of the day.  The fruit of this culture is a group mentality that theology is boring and doctrine divides.  The overseers in a local body have a vested interest in resisting this wave of pragmatism and instead teaching the scriptures as they present themselves.  Doctrine and theology are not the bane of Christian life but vital instruments the Holy Spirit uses in us to effect godliness and repel false teaching.

Kalthoff warns against the attitude of immediate usefulness by reminding the reader that this is not the best gauge:

In view of this distinction between mere training and true education, I propose that submitting everything to a crass "relevantism test," the test that first asks, "What can I do with it?" is to ask the wrong question.  It is like asking about the uses for a newborn baby.  When immediate usefulness becomes the measure of value, we risk discarding things whose worth may be inestimable.  Further, it happens to be the case that things pursued for their own sake without regard to their practical utility quite often have the happy consequence of being useful in ways not originally perceived. †

Practical application has its place in Christian education, but we err when practicality is the totality of  education without establishing a foundation and building the superstructure within which the application is founded.  The usefulness or appropriateness of the basic instruction is often not immediately discernible.  Many years may go by before usefulness is realized. ‡  Both the instructor and student (or in Christian terms: disciple-maker and disciple) need to have the long view in mind.  As the information is assimilated, logical conclusions can be formed and used in appropriate times and seasons.

How does this instruction work itself out in the regular meetings of believers?  Ready-Fire-Aim tactics will not work.  Instruction needs to be consistent and committed, teaching the whole counsel of God and the plan of redemption.  Bible books should be covered as well as major theological sections (i.e., Christology, Hamartiology, Soteriology, et al) using a multi-year plan.  Will people balk at this approach and call out for something more "tangible" for today?  Yes, they will, but like any educator knows, the uneducated do not know what is essential, so understanding of the need must be integrated into the curriculum.

Someone once asked me if I want a church to be a mini-seminary.  No, I want believers in my assembly without correct doctrinal knowledge to properly handle the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15) and be firmly grounded, even if we have to teach "boring" things to get there.


* Mark A. Kalthoff, "The Usefulness of Useless Knowledge: Defending Classical Liberal Education from Melanchthon to Newman," Logia, Vol 21, No. 2, p. 51.
† Ibid.
‡ For instance, I now wish that more American citizens had paid attention to their instruction in American Government—or were even taught it.

Living with Fallout from Speaking the Truth

“You’re Too Negative”
How many times have you heard that one?  I get it all the time.

So begins Bill Muehlenberg's post on bearing the brunt of reactions for telling the truth.  I have gotten the same, even from friends and family.  When you disagree with someone, a certain amount of tension occurs.  This is inevitable and good.  The proper response is to work through it.  Sadly, the mode du jour is to converse without expecting resolution—agreeing to disagree agreeably—and without making objective, transcendent truth claims.  Only opinions and knowledge based on life experience are used as verbal lubricant with the net effect that all parties maintain their views and part amicably.  I liken this to kissing my wife with a mask on.  Why bother?  Yet this has become the expectation in both secular and sacred culture.

The post ends with this:

I think Spurgeon had it right when he said, “This shall be an infallible test to you concerning anyone’s ministry.  If it is man-praising, and man-honouring, it is not of God.”  If that means we will be seen as negative and harsh to some people, well, tough beans.

Amen.

Answering Heresy

Tertullian and Irenaeus both wrote against the teachings promulgated by the heretic Marcion.  Mark Gignilliat describes Ireanaeus' response as a lesson for us:

Irenaeus describes Marcion's editorial exegesis as "the most daring blasphemy against Him who is proclaimed as God by the law and prophets."  Marcion again according to Irenaeus, "mutilates the gospel."  He "dares to mutilate the Scriptures."  He is an instrument of Satan, and because he is so, "I purpose specially to refute him."  How is it that Irenaeus will seek to refute Marcion?  On the basis of Marcion's own claims and Irenaeus' own exegesis of Scripture.  Despite [Adolph] Harnack's overreaching claim that the early church's theological discourse fell prey to alien forms of Greek metaphysical categories and, in turn, destroyed the purity of the apostolic age, one observes that these ante-Nicene fathers' struggle for trinitarian grammar takes place in the context of the exegesis of Scripture (and by Scripture, I mean primarily the Old Testament).  To put the matter simply, theology for the early church (and for us too!) is exegesis.

Mark S. Gignilliat, Evangelicals and Nicene Faith, p. 21

Hold Fast to Scripture Faithfully Delivered

Newly devised human traditions that claim to be divine revelation but disavow the apostolic witness must be gently and charitably resisted. * They must not be confused with the divinely revealed good news received from the apostles.  "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ" (Col 22:8; see also 1 Tim 1:4).  Jesus rebuked the Pharisees because they neglected the commandment of God "in order to maintain the tradition of men" (Mark 7:8; Tertullian, Praescr. 7).  The godly transmission of the memory of Jesus Christ must be maintained accurately and faithfully, since it is the living memory of God's own coming to humanity (John Chrysostom, Comm. Gal. 1.6).

Thomas C. Oden, Evangelicals and Nicene Faith, p. 10

*  Dr. Oden is being quite gracious in his approach.  There are times when a right sharp rebuke is necessary (Tit 1:11, 13).

Lessons Learned from Origen

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.

Facing the Emergent Church With the Ancient Church

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)

Honor the Lord by Exposing Error

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.

The Conspiracy Game

This video reminds me of the material Isaac Air Freight did during the 1980's.