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.

The Law Works Condemnation and Contrition; The Gospel Works Love

The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;

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

Psalm 51:17

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Bender on Christian Service

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

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

Who Is the Superior In Worship: God or Me?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bless the LORD, O my soul,

and all that is within me,

bless his holy name!

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

Bless the LORD, O my soul,

and forget not all his benefits,

who forgives all your iniquity,

who heals all your diseases,

who redeems your life from the pit,

who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy,

who satisfies you with good

so that your youth is renewed like the eagle’s.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

How is your local church doing?



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

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

Luther on Examining Ourselves for Communion

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

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

Why Do You Offer Your Sacrifices?

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. (Rom 5:12-13)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Putting the Lord First in Confession

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

If a confessor does not intend to keep the seal absolutely confidential, he is likely weak in faith, or his doctrine of justification is likely inconsistent, and so could easily likewise mislead or harm the faith of any penitent who would approach him.  When a confession is not held in absolute confidentiality, any of the following is suggested to the penitent, however subtle:

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

Similarly, if a penitent is required first to be willing to reveal his sinful intentions or actions to neighbors or other authorities before coming to confession, then confession and absolution is not understood as being the place where the ungodly are justified.  If reporting sins to the government or other earthly authorities is first required before confession, this also suggests to the penitent that the government is a higher authority than Christ’s word and church also in regard to dealing with sin. *

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

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

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



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

On a Personal Note

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


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

Rejoicing in God as He Rejoices in Us

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

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

Praise Transforms the Worshiper

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

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