Just yesterday, I was watching the television show House, and I was quickly reminded why I watch so little TV. For those of you unfamiliar with the show, Dr. House is a cynical, sarcastic skeptic who seems to be seriously out of touch with his feelings. In this particular episode, he met a faithless Catholic priest trying to reconcile his lack of faith with an apparent "hallucination" of a crucified Jesus. As usual, the lack of faith was blamed on "free will" and the problem of evil that results. It was the same, tired story about God "letting us make our own decisions and suffer the consequences" (to paraphrase). God's sovereignty was reduced to, as the priest stated, " coincidence...God working anonymously." Sound familiar?
Unfortunately, it usually does. I was in a discussion on a "General Discussion" section of a car forum the other day, and lo & behold, an agnostic was stating the inconsistencies of the concept of "free-will" and the Bible....and using it as one of the main objections to the Christian faith. Wait, what? The sad thing is (in my experience anyway) that Arminianists are typically so biased on the subject, that their presuppositions veil their eyes from what is obvious even to a non-believer.
The biggest issue here is that the issue of "free-will" seems to be central to the "Christian" belief system, no matter how many preachers try to avoid it. At its core, Calvinists and Arminianists preach an altogether different kind of gospel. Check out what Charles Spurgeon once had to say on the subject:
"And I have my own private opinion that there is no such a thing as preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in his dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering, love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the peculiar redemption which Christ made for his elect and chosen people; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having believed. Such a gospel I abhor. The gospel of the Bible is not such a gospel as that. We preach Christ and him crucified in a different fashion, and to all gainsayers we reply, "We have not so learned Christ."
(Sermon number 98 New Park Street Pulpit 1:100)
More coming soon...
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Subjectivism
This was sent to me by a guy who goes by the user name "FazFX" on the official forum of the Holy Rollerz Christian Car Club, which claims to be the largest Christian car club/forum on the internet. He's been a loyal reader of this blog (though it hasn't received its due attention lately) and wanted to share. Therefore, I'm posting it just as it was sent:
I originally posted this on a Christian forum I've been active on for the last several years. But anyway... my thread was intended to accomplish a few different things:
1. Attack the pussyfooted approach to any theological discussion in fear of "offending anyone"
2. Encourage spiritual growth in a direction that most people are lacking, and/or don't even know exists.
3. Respond to a few particular critics of mine who all have basic similarities in their rebuttals of my approaches.
I understand that not all people think that I do, but sometimes I grow tired of being told that I'M wrong because I differ in my methodology, in my approach to Christianity. My accusers want to throw aside their differences with everybody and fellowship together, but only so long as people agree with THEM. Thought the same could be said about me, I'm definitely in the minority. I just believe that if everyone systematically studies the scriptures (in order to avoid eisogetical conclusions) and sets aside their self-based rationalism, then we'll all eventually end up in the same spot, or at least the same vicinity.
C'est la vie.
SUBJECTIVISM
For better or worse, FazFX is back. I've spent about a week "fasting" from theological discussion and fellowship...I've been saturating myself with the "peace, love and joy" that's supposed to come with the Christmas season (carols & all), doing quite a bit of soul-searching, having a lot of internal dialogue with God, and I feel more convicted than ever to speak this message. I've touched on this subject before, but now I'm going to make a mega-thread of it and lay it ALL out on the table. I thought I could sit and write this out in 20-30 minutes, but I ended up spending days working on it because I truly believe that my calling is to share this message. Watch out. LOL.
I've been noticing a disturbing trend in today's version of Christianity. This Christianity is completely different than the Christianity of 50 years ago...the 18th century revival movement...the Reformation...the days of the Roman Catholic / Eastern Orthodox schism...than the Christianity of the Bible. NEVER before in history has there been such a move away from absolute truth into the realm of subjectivism, of relativism, of humanism which at root is against the holy Word of God itself. For the record, I'm not talking about "new approaches" to church services, outreaches, etc. I'm actually kinda partial to them, though I'm also a big fan of oldschool Lutheran services, pipe organs, chants and all. I'm talking about "new approaches" to theology that compromise the authority of scripture itself.
Yes, these are broad claims to be making. To assert the possibility that this may even be true, it forces the question of what's right/wrong. To say that something is exclusively true, one automatically implies that anything else is excluded, and therefore false. It is what it is. I'm not going to sugar-coat it with semantics, because I feel that dancing around the issue and "walking on egg-shells" every time the subject is broached is actually detrimental to the body. Yeah, yeah, "I'm not perfect," "I don't claim to have all the answers," "I could be wrong..." Whatever. Let's cut all the garbage out. The world will continue to mock us for our beliefs, and will try to cut to the core with their insults. If I can't add a little callous to people with a straightforward approach that's madein love for God and His people, then how are they going to take on the world? If we can't take a little well-intended constructive criticism, then how are we going to be a light in the darkness that forever tries to consume us?
If any/all of that may offend anyone to the point that they're angry/stumbled, then I plead that they simply don't read any further.
***I CAN'T FORCE YOU TO READ THE REST OF THIS, SO DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK.***
WARNING: If you're still reading, then you might want to grab a Kleenex before you continue. Better yet, grab a whole box. Spiritual growth sometimes causes growing pains, so I'm warning you now that it could hurt, especially if it's been stunted for so long. This isn't an unmarked, hot cup of Mickey D's cup of coffee. The warning is right here. If you can't handle it and get burned in the process, then you can sue yourself.
Some people will probably just go ahead and keep living in their relativistic bubbles. Some people have this obscure, bizarre, foolish (*gasp*) notion that the individual has some innate, untainted ability to determine for him/herself what is right/wrong. In doing so, there is only one logical conclusion: there can be no truth but NO TRUTH (basically a lack altogether), since everything is completely relative to the individual. This is not a Christian concept by any means. This concept originated in the Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, rose to prevalence during the Renaissance, and has been simmering ever since, ready to boil over into mainstream thought. The Greeks, as some of you may know, believed that the gods themselves fought each other for their own selfish purposes, so "absolute" was simply relegated to whoever won. Though the ancient Greeks brought much to the table in the way of rational thought, that very thought is worthless without some sort of substantial foundation - which the philosophers lacked, believing that Reason itself (note the capitalization), the individual's ability to comprehend and infer, was some sort of absolute standard though it was completely relative to the individual.
Might I add that nowhere in this mindset is there any concept of the fallen state of mankind, and no provision we might be biased in the way that we see the world due to the effects of sin. It was believed that this idea of Reason was universal, and everyone somehow had a capability to come to "truth" or "self-enlightenment" by means of rationalization. For this reason, the so-called "Age of Enlightenment" soon followed the "Age of Reason." This concept of "self-enlightenment," is shared (to some degree or another) by many other religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism (to name but a few), all of which share some degree of moral relativism, in that the "good" one does is weighed against the "bad" in the hopes that it will be overcome. Even Athiests believe in self-enlightenment (in the form of acquiring knowledge), having no other moral basis to stand upon, much less a concrete standard of perfection from which to measure everything else.
Furthermore, these ideas were echoed and expanded upon during the European Renaissance, at which time they became accepted ideals to the general masses. It was at this time, I believe, that the church's previously-unquestioned role as the center of truth really began to come in to question (though scholars following the method of scholasticism still tried to resolve the ancient Greek philosophies to the Bible) - but even the church had been compromised when it was believed that traditions of the church could be written + practiced even when they distorted or even contradicted the Bible itself. Therefore, the time of Reformation also began. Though it's commonly misunderstood that humanism was the root of Luther's dissention from the papacy, it was truly a call back to scriptural truth that he proclaimed, through careful and systematic studies, based on established scriptural principles, NOT individual notions.
The question is: how can this rationalism compare or be reconciled with an omniscient, omnipotent God who is the "Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end" of all that is existence? Tertullian, an early Christian scholar sometime around the 2nd/3rd century, once asked "What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?" Almost 1800 years later, I will ask the question again.
The whole idea that people differ so much (and it's ok) is not a Christian concept. There is only one (albeit triune) God, whose attributes never change. When people disagree over a concept, and "agree to disagree," and believe that "we're all imperfect and won't know until we're in heaven" (quoted from a friend of mine), we're basically giving up. We've decided that we're just going to stick to whatever methodology we've been taught (and hope it's right) instead of continually seeking the truth. Instead of seeking to grow, and understand that intense debate can be a positive thing if taken within the right context, we merely stagnate.
I understand that some people have trouble reading...so talk about it. I understand that some people have trouble talking about it...so read commentaries, debates, and other materials of both people you agree with and people you don't. I've sometimes changed my own views when trying to look objectively and read some of my dissenters' materials. Whatever you do, DON'T keep coming up with excuses for why you can't get that kind of interaction in one way or another. There was an anonymous quote in one of my high school classrooms that said "EXCUSES ARE THE PILLARS OF MEDIOCRITY, THAT BUILD A MONUMENT TO NOTHING." Think about it.
One of the things that bothers me the most is that some people shy away from debate or conversation about controversial topics because they're not so "loving..." and Jesus loved, God loves, the Bible love, love loveloveloveblahblahblahyaddayaddayaddaspewspewspew... Some people get offended when you try to seek the truth if they disagree with them, but Dr. Robert Morey (whom I quoted in the Satire thread) made a good point in that we should be more worried about pleasing God than people. Trying to disagree in a "loving" way that both doesn't make them defensive AND gets the message across is a tight-rope act, at best. At worst it can be like dividing by zero, because the two concepts are at root completely at odds with each other when you're dealing with people who are more concerned with preserving their egos than admitting the possibility that they might be wrong.
BTW, Don't try and turn that on me - I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. It's just that after analyzing and challenging my own beliefs for so long, I'm slowly arriving at a place where I can be fairly confident that I have a solid grasp on many different areas of discussion. HOWEVER, I'm always seeking after new arguments, and I relish the opportunity to review materials that may bring new light to old discussions.
Back to the main subject - "LOVE" shouldn't even be an issue in a discussion about a theological topic (though it may be the topic). It's irrelevant. Bringing up "love" as an excuse (because that's all it is) to avoid these kinds of discussions ONLY SHOWS SPIRITUALY IMMATURITY, particularly in fear that one's own beliefs will be questioned and/or challenged outright.
Yeah, I said it. I'm calling you guys out. If you're offended by it, then re-read my disclaimer above. If you're too bound by your own emotions to have a theological conversation, then it's time to do a little soul-searching. I'm not condemning you for it, but I'm telling you there's a problem that's hurting your spiritual growth, and you can do something about it. If you choose to do nothing, then you condemn yourself because I took away your "claim to ignorance" excuse. Nevertheless, that's still being more loving than trying not to offend your sensibilities. If someone in your family is overdosing on drugs, do you let him do it anyway because it feels good and he's ok with it, or do you try to get him to realize that it's a dangerous habit that's hurting him, and try to offer him help? This constant "love-spew" is nothing more than an addicting, emotional rush of "warm & fuzzy feelings" that give one a temporary, spiritual euphoria - that one rides for a while, eventually crashes from, and then searches after more with a growingly-unquenchable craving, while being destructive to the body. Just like drugs, eventually one gets so addicted that they'd rather have a quick "high" while their body wastes away, than enjoy good, spiritual food and exercise that will strengthen them for battle.
Having conversations or even debates shouldn't somehow hurt or cripple a person's spiritual walk. In having a constantly growing, deeper understanding of the God we worship, a person should only bear more fruit, and mature fruit at that...not just little pieces that are sometimes inedible altogether. Jesus compared our spiritual fruit to that of a tree on several occasions, so I'm going to use my own analogy here. A small, young peach tree may bear a few small peaches. As it grows in age, it may bear more fruit, and each peach may be somewhat larger. HOWEVER, give a tree some good fertilizer, and guess what? It will give you much better fruit regardless of how old it is. We should constantly be striving to serve God, but without spiritual supplementation, we'll never achieve our true potential. Just like the fertilizer, sometimes it's unpleasant when it's laid down, but it's essential to maximum growth. As the expression goes, "the grass is greenest nearest the septic tank."
I'm not going to front - there are some specific people I have in mind right now as I'm typing this post, both in real life AND on these boards, though it's NOT intended to be a personal attack for believing differently than I do. I'm not going to call you out by name, though if you think I'm writing it just for you, then I probably AM, and I'm ok with that. PM me if you're genuinely wondering (if you'd like). There's a reason for this. I've seen a genuine need for a return to strong, solid biblical teaching. I've been criticized for studying theology because it's led me to disagree with some people. I've been criticized for studying hermeneutics because I'm pulling out a "deeper" meaning from the text when people want to take literary devices and certain words in a particular translation at face value. I've even been warned that I'm "in danger" of hell-fire because I used certain terms, because the person warning me misunderstood the intent of that section scripture and pulled a verse completely out of context. This begs the question: what's worse, telling someone they misunderstood the text, or telling someone they're going to Hell for saying someone else was "foolish?"
Tony Campolo once made a good point. To quote:
"I have three things I would like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a s***. What's worse than that, third, you're more upset with the fact that I said s*** than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night!"
Though the topic here is a little different, the point is the same. People are so focused on whether or not they're being offended that they don't care about the important things. Don't give me that nonsense about how "doctrine never saved anybody." I can tell you quite a bit about the archaelogical findings that validate the historical evidence that a man named Jesus existed, but that won't say anybody. However, as soon as you try to say who Jesus is, you're getting into the very realm of doctrine! Jesus even emphasized the importance of this very thing by asking the disciples in Matthew 16:13–20! Read it, I dare ya! There needs to be ENCOURAGEMENT to study the Bible further, to develop strong exegetical conclusions, to compare them to those of established Christian scholars, and to readily defend the Word against imitators who lean on their own understandings.
We're not doing anyone any favors by "accepting" everybodys' beliefs. Theological liberalism based on secular humanism has paved the way for heresy, and the line that separates what's "tolerable" and what's "not" becomes more diminished every day. Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be Christian, though many deny that claim. Mormons claim to be Christian as well. Catholics make a distinction between them and Protestants, though their teachings are more similar to each other's than those in the New World Translation or the Book of Mormon. Where do we draw the line? Do we base it on salvation? Some say that JW's salvation is based on the actions of the individual...but isn't "asking" Jesus into your life and saying a "sinner's prayer" some sort of assisted salvation? How is this different, in principle if not practice, than the Catholic concept of "merit?" What about the 5-point Calvinists? They're an altogether different breed. So who gets to make the distinction, and on what authority? Some people want to call everyone together in some sort of superficial agreement, but even they exclude others on a relativistic basis on their own ideas of doctrine.
Speaking of doctrine... I have another issue here. Some people seem to think that doctrine in ITSELF is a bad thing. Some people think that "theological constructs" can somehow limit God. What these people fail to understand (for whatever reason or another) is that doctrine (or "theological construct," etc.) is really a fancy way of studying the Bible and making an observation of God's attributes and things He will/won't do. For example, can God sin? The answer is a clear "no," because it's a logical inconsistency. Sin is acting against God's command. Can God act against Himself? Think about that one...it's really no different than asking if God could make a rock so big He couldn't lift it (only Chuck Norris could do that, and then he'd lift it anyway to prove he's Chuck Norris - j/k). As I already mentioned, even attempting to answer the "simple" question of, "Who do YOU think Jesus is?" requires some sort of theological doctrine in order to answer correctly, because answering who He is also covers who He isn't. This ties right back into the concerns with the JW's and Mormons, because these doctrines are really what separate some of the "wheat" from the "chaff."
I'm not trying to make a call back to a single unified church, but we need to focus on what truth is, and how to determine it outside our own preconceived notions. The only way we can do this is through an objective study of the Bible, which quite a few people here thus far have rejected. I'm not trying to force MY view on anyone. I'm just asking that we return to what our faith is truly based on, the Holy Word of God, and really try to study it objectively. There is but ONE God (triune and all) who is a God of order, who does NOT want confusion amongst His believers. Therefore, if you're hiding behind your superficial notions of "unity" (which is really not unified under the surface), then remember that God gave you a backbone for a reason and be the Christian you're called to be. Jesus certainly told people to love one another, but He also warned that families themselves would be divided by His message. Ecclesiastes 3 tells us that there is a time for everything. If you just want to read scripture "plainly," then read that.
Go ahead and poo-poo this message if you disagree. Tell me I'm confused. Tell me I'm going to Hell. Don't say at all. Just know that you were warned about how "offensive" standing up for truth can be. Just don't say that I offended you. If I did, then it's your fault. Yes, you read that correctly. I warned you not to read any further, didn't I? If there's a warning on a bottle of bleach that says DON'T INGEST, and you drink it anyway, is it Clorox's fault? Let me get this straight, though: being offensive and irritating people was NOT the reason for this rant. My intentions were merely to share the truth of the Gospel, even to those who believe, while attempting to clear up some prevalent misconceptions in our modern, compromised version of Christianity (as a whole).
While I'm at it, let me get this out of the way (thought I've said it before): I'm NOT saying that everyone should necessarily believe the exact same thing as I do, though I'm fairly prepared to defend my views. I'm not shy about describing myself as a "partial-preterist/idealist," a Covenant Theologian as described by Gruden and "5-point Calvinist," Lutheran in my views of the "Sacramental Union" of the Eucharist (Hoc es corpus mayem!), a combination of Van-Tillian/Classical apologist, general pisser-offer and anti-"evanjellyfish" like Morey, and otherwise Neo-Reformer as I see fit to use the term (since I coined it) ... but I don't care if you're a Dispensationalist Prosperity Arminianist Consubstantiation-believing Naturalist preacher so much as whether or not you're constantly studying and analyzing the scriptures in the manner they were meant to be taken, and asking the Holy Spirit to guide you in the process, and willing to share, discuss, and debate the issues with the intent to grow and edify one another. But while I'm on the subject, let me hit on something else: the Holy Spirit. WHERE do people get the notion that the Holy Spirit "reveals" truth to them apart from scripture? I heard someone use the argument recently that the "guidance of the Holy Spirit" is the utmost standard. What is that supposed to mean? That's nothing more than a "spiritual" twist on the idea of Reason. If I claim to hold to predestination, and someone else claims to hold to free-will, and we BOTH believe that we're "being led" by the Holy Spirit, then what?
There are only three options:
1. Both people are telling the truth.
2. One person is telling the truth (and the other is either lying or self-deluded)
3. Both people are lying.
There's only ONE Holy Spirit, and our God is not one of confusion, so that eliminates 1 right off the bat, leaving only 2 & 3. The next question is: How do we test the message to see if it's really from the Spirit? Since we know God can't contradict Himself, we have to test each person's claim to see if it's consistent with the Holy Word of God, the Bible. Guess what? We're back to my previous point again about the scripture being the final standard. Thomas Merton once said, "we should never underestimate our ability to deceive ourselves." For those of you who insist on taking the Bible "just as it's written," go ahead and read Jeremiah 17:9 - it's pretty straightforward.
If you want to argue this point, then go right ahead - just know that I'll blast you right out of the water with a defense based on exegetical scriptural support. What else are you going to base your argument on? Did you have some sort of esoteric revelation? Do you dare claim some authority higher than scripture, as if you're so "special" that the Holy Spirit speaks to you more so than any other devout believer? If so, then try to prove it. I will only need to refute it with two latin words: sola scriptura. Any message of God won't contradict the Word which He so carefully preserved for thousands of years. Read 2 Corinthians 11:1-14 (3-4 & 13-14, in particular) for some backing of this point. Don't worry, it's straightforward enough to speak for itself. Don't you see how even someone who has "sincere and pure devotion" can "somehow be led astray?" As a matter of fact, while we're on the subject of purely "spiritual" revelation, I'm going to throw another one at you: Galatians 1:6-12. You can read this one "as it is written" if you'd like, too. I do find that part about being "accursed" rather interesting.
To quote Luther: "Unless I am convicted [convinced] of error by the testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted [convinced] by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God's word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us. On this I take my stand. I can do no other. God help me."
I don't care whether or not you have a "gift," or whether or not you like to read or write or debate. Ask God to give you the abilities to study wholeheartedly, and I guarantee He'll hear your prayers.
Let me leave you who actually took the time to read all of this with an encouragment: IF you're really studying the scripture, and I'm really studying the scripture, and we're both/all doing it in an earnest attempt to grow in our relationship with our holy God, then the SAME truth will eventually be revealed to both of us by the same Holy Spirit that resides in each of us, and our fellowship will TRULY have the Lord's presence among us as we gather, and as we seek to do His will every day. Amen.
I originally posted this on a Christian forum I've been active on for the last several years. But anyway... my thread was intended to accomplish a few different things:
1. Attack the pussyfooted approach to any theological discussion in fear of "offending anyone"
2. Encourage spiritual growth in a direction that most people are lacking, and/or don't even know exists.
3. Respond to a few particular critics of mine who all have basic similarities in their rebuttals of my approaches.
I understand that not all people think that I do, but sometimes I grow tired of being told that I'M wrong because I differ in my methodology, in my approach to Christianity. My accusers want to throw aside their differences with everybody and fellowship together, but only so long as people agree with THEM. Thought the same could be said about me, I'm definitely in the minority. I just believe that if everyone systematically studies the scriptures (in order to avoid eisogetical conclusions) and sets aside their self-based rationalism, then we'll all eventually end up in the same spot, or at least the same vicinity.
C'est la vie.
SUBJECTIVISM
For better or worse, FazFX is back. I've spent about a week "fasting" from theological discussion and fellowship...I've been saturating myself with the "peace, love and joy" that's supposed to come with the Christmas season (carols & all), doing quite a bit of soul-searching, having a lot of internal dialogue with God, and I feel more convicted than ever to speak this message. I've touched on this subject before, but now I'm going to make a mega-thread of it and lay it ALL out on the table. I thought I could sit and write this out in 20-30 minutes, but I ended up spending days working on it because I truly believe that my calling is to share this message. Watch out. LOL.
I've been noticing a disturbing trend in today's version of Christianity. This Christianity is completely different than the Christianity of 50 years ago...the 18th century revival movement...the Reformation...the days of the Roman Catholic / Eastern Orthodox schism...than the Christianity of the Bible. NEVER before in history has there been such a move away from absolute truth into the realm of subjectivism, of relativism, of humanism which at root is against the holy Word of God itself. For the record, I'm not talking about "new approaches" to church services, outreaches, etc. I'm actually kinda partial to them, though I'm also a big fan of oldschool Lutheran services, pipe organs, chants and all. I'm talking about "new approaches" to theology that compromise the authority of scripture itself.
Yes, these are broad claims to be making. To assert the possibility that this may even be true, it forces the question of what's right/wrong. To say that something is exclusively true, one automatically implies that anything else is excluded, and therefore false. It is what it is. I'm not going to sugar-coat it with semantics, because I feel that dancing around the issue and "walking on egg-shells" every time the subject is broached is actually detrimental to the body. Yeah, yeah, "I'm not perfect," "I don't claim to have all the answers," "I could be wrong..." Whatever. Let's cut all the garbage out. The world will continue to mock us for our beliefs, and will try to cut to the core with their insults. If I can't add a little callous to people with a straightforward approach that's madein love for God and His people, then how are they going to take on the world? If we can't take a little well-intended constructive criticism, then how are we going to be a light in the darkness that forever tries to consume us?
If any/all of that may offend anyone to the point that they're angry/stumbled, then I plead that they simply don't read any further.
***I CAN'T FORCE YOU TO READ THE REST OF THIS, SO DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK.***
WARNING: If you're still reading, then you might want to grab a Kleenex before you continue. Better yet, grab a whole box. Spiritual growth sometimes causes growing pains, so I'm warning you now that it could hurt, especially if it's been stunted for so long. This isn't an unmarked, hot cup of Mickey D's cup of coffee. The warning is right here. If you can't handle it and get burned in the process, then you can sue yourself.
Some people will probably just go ahead and keep living in their relativistic bubbles. Some people have this obscure, bizarre, foolish (*gasp*) notion that the individual has some innate, untainted ability to determine for him/herself what is right/wrong. In doing so, there is only one logical conclusion: there can be no truth but NO TRUTH (basically a lack altogether), since everything is completely relative to the individual. This is not a Christian concept by any means. This concept originated in the Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, rose to prevalence during the Renaissance, and has been simmering ever since, ready to boil over into mainstream thought. The Greeks, as some of you may know, believed that the gods themselves fought each other for their own selfish purposes, so "absolute" was simply relegated to whoever won. Though the ancient Greeks brought much to the table in the way of rational thought, that very thought is worthless without some sort of substantial foundation - which the philosophers lacked, believing that Reason itself (note the capitalization), the individual's ability to comprehend and infer, was some sort of absolute standard though it was completely relative to the individual.
Might I add that nowhere in this mindset is there any concept of the fallen state of mankind, and no provision we might be biased in the way that we see the world due to the effects of sin. It was believed that this idea of Reason was universal, and everyone somehow had a capability to come to "truth" or "self-enlightenment" by means of rationalization. For this reason, the so-called "Age of Enlightenment" soon followed the "Age of Reason." This concept of "self-enlightenment," is shared (to some degree or another) by many other religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism (to name but a few), all of which share some degree of moral relativism, in that the "good" one does is weighed against the "bad" in the hopes that it will be overcome. Even Athiests believe in self-enlightenment (in the form of acquiring knowledge), having no other moral basis to stand upon, much less a concrete standard of perfection from which to measure everything else.
Furthermore, these ideas were echoed and expanded upon during the European Renaissance, at which time they became accepted ideals to the general masses. It was at this time, I believe, that the church's previously-unquestioned role as the center of truth really began to come in to question (though scholars following the method of scholasticism still tried to resolve the ancient Greek philosophies to the Bible) - but even the church had been compromised when it was believed that traditions of the church could be written + practiced even when they distorted or even contradicted the Bible itself. Therefore, the time of Reformation also began. Though it's commonly misunderstood that humanism was the root of Luther's dissention from the papacy, it was truly a call back to scriptural truth that he proclaimed, through careful and systematic studies, based on established scriptural principles, NOT individual notions.
The question is: how can this rationalism compare or be reconciled with an omniscient, omnipotent God who is the "Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end" of all that is existence? Tertullian, an early Christian scholar sometime around the 2nd/3rd century, once asked "What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?" Almost 1800 years later, I will ask the question again.
The whole idea that people differ so much (and it's ok) is not a Christian concept. There is only one (albeit triune) God, whose attributes never change. When people disagree over a concept, and "agree to disagree," and believe that "we're all imperfect and won't know until we're in heaven" (quoted from a friend of mine), we're basically giving up. We've decided that we're just going to stick to whatever methodology we've been taught (and hope it's right) instead of continually seeking the truth. Instead of seeking to grow, and understand that intense debate can be a positive thing if taken within the right context, we merely stagnate.
I understand that some people have trouble reading...so talk about it. I understand that some people have trouble talking about it...so read commentaries, debates, and other materials of both people you agree with and people you don't. I've sometimes changed my own views when trying to look objectively and read some of my dissenters' materials. Whatever you do, DON'T keep coming up with excuses for why you can't get that kind of interaction in one way or another. There was an anonymous quote in one of my high school classrooms that said "EXCUSES ARE THE PILLARS OF MEDIOCRITY, THAT BUILD A MONUMENT TO NOTHING." Think about it.
One of the things that bothers me the most is that some people shy away from debate or conversation about controversial topics because they're not so "loving..." and Jesus loved, God loves, the Bible love, love loveloveloveblahblahblahyaddayaddayaddaspewspewspew... Some people get offended when you try to seek the truth if they disagree with them, but Dr. Robert Morey (whom I quoted in the Satire thread) made a good point in that we should be more worried about pleasing God than people. Trying to disagree in a "loving" way that both doesn't make them defensive AND gets the message across is a tight-rope act, at best. At worst it can be like dividing by zero, because the two concepts are at root completely at odds with each other when you're dealing with people who are more concerned with preserving their egos than admitting the possibility that they might be wrong.
BTW, Don't try and turn that on me - I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. It's just that after analyzing and challenging my own beliefs for so long, I'm slowly arriving at a place where I can be fairly confident that I have a solid grasp on many different areas of discussion. HOWEVER, I'm always seeking after new arguments, and I relish the opportunity to review materials that may bring new light to old discussions.
Back to the main subject - "LOVE" shouldn't even be an issue in a discussion about a theological topic (though it may be the topic). It's irrelevant. Bringing up "love" as an excuse (because that's all it is) to avoid these kinds of discussions ONLY SHOWS SPIRITUALY IMMATURITY, particularly in fear that one's own beliefs will be questioned and/or challenged outright.
Yeah, I said it. I'm calling you guys out. If you're offended by it, then re-read my disclaimer above. If you're too bound by your own emotions to have a theological conversation, then it's time to do a little soul-searching. I'm not condemning you for it, but I'm telling you there's a problem that's hurting your spiritual growth, and you can do something about it. If you choose to do nothing, then you condemn yourself because I took away your "claim to ignorance" excuse. Nevertheless, that's still being more loving than trying not to offend your sensibilities. If someone in your family is overdosing on drugs, do you let him do it anyway because it feels good and he's ok with it, or do you try to get him to realize that it's a dangerous habit that's hurting him, and try to offer him help? This constant "love-spew" is nothing more than an addicting, emotional rush of "warm & fuzzy feelings" that give one a temporary, spiritual euphoria - that one rides for a while, eventually crashes from, and then searches after more with a growingly-unquenchable craving, while being destructive to the body. Just like drugs, eventually one gets so addicted that they'd rather have a quick "high" while their body wastes away, than enjoy good, spiritual food and exercise that will strengthen them for battle.
Having conversations or even debates shouldn't somehow hurt or cripple a person's spiritual walk. In having a constantly growing, deeper understanding of the God we worship, a person should only bear more fruit, and mature fruit at that...not just little pieces that are sometimes inedible altogether. Jesus compared our spiritual fruit to that of a tree on several occasions, so I'm going to use my own analogy here. A small, young peach tree may bear a few small peaches. As it grows in age, it may bear more fruit, and each peach may be somewhat larger. HOWEVER, give a tree some good fertilizer, and guess what? It will give you much better fruit regardless of how old it is. We should constantly be striving to serve God, but without spiritual supplementation, we'll never achieve our true potential. Just like the fertilizer, sometimes it's unpleasant when it's laid down, but it's essential to maximum growth. As the expression goes, "the grass is greenest nearest the septic tank."
I'm not going to front - there are some specific people I have in mind right now as I'm typing this post, both in real life AND on these boards, though it's NOT intended to be a personal attack for believing differently than I do. I'm not going to call you out by name, though if you think I'm writing it just for you, then I probably AM, and I'm ok with that. PM me if you're genuinely wondering (if you'd like). There's a reason for this. I've seen a genuine need for a return to strong, solid biblical teaching. I've been criticized for studying theology because it's led me to disagree with some people. I've been criticized for studying hermeneutics because I'm pulling out a "deeper" meaning from the text when people want to take literary devices and certain words in a particular translation at face value. I've even been warned that I'm "in danger" of hell-fire because I used certain terms, because the person warning me misunderstood the intent of that section scripture and pulled a verse completely out of context. This begs the question: what's worse, telling someone they misunderstood the text, or telling someone they're going to Hell for saying someone else was "foolish?"
Tony Campolo once made a good point. To quote:
"I have three things I would like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a s***. What's worse than that, third, you're more upset with the fact that I said s*** than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night!"
Though the topic here is a little different, the point is the same. People are so focused on whether or not they're being offended that they don't care about the important things. Don't give me that nonsense about how "doctrine never saved anybody." I can tell you quite a bit about the archaelogical findings that validate the historical evidence that a man named Jesus existed, but that won't say anybody. However, as soon as you try to say who Jesus is, you're getting into the very realm of doctrine! Jesus even emphasized the importance of this very thing by asking the disciples in Matthew 16:13–20! Read it, I dare ya! There needs to be ENCOURAGEMENT to study the Bible further, to develop strong exegetical conclusions, to compare them to those of established Christian scholars, and to readily defend the Word against imitators who lean on their own understandings.
We're not doing anyone any favors by "accepting" everybodys' beliefs. Theological liberalism based on secular humanism has paved the way for heresy, and the line that separates what's "tolerable" and what's "not" becomes more diminished every day. Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be Christian, though many deny that claim. Mormons claim to be Christian as well. Catholics make a distinction between them and Protestants, though their teachings are more similar to each other's than those in the New World Translation or the Book of Mormon. Where do we draw the line? Do we base it on salvation? Some say that JW's salvation is based on the actions of the individual...but isn't "asking" Jesus into your life and saying a "sinner's prayer" some sort of assisted salvation? How is this different, in principle if not practice, than the Catholic concept of "merit?" What about the 5-point Calvinists? They're an altogether different breed. So who gets to make the distinction, and on what authority? Some people want to call everyone together in some sort of superficial agreement, but even they exclude others on a relativistic basis on their own ideas of doctrine.
Speaking of doctrine... I have another issue here. Some people seem to think that doctrine in ITSELF is a bad thing. Some people think that "theological constructs" can somehow limit God. What these people fail to understand (for whatever reason or another) is that doctrine (or "theological construct," etc.) is really a fancy way of studying the Bible and making an observation of God's attributes and things He will/won't do. For example, can God sin? The answer is a clear "no," because it's a logical inconsistency. Sin is acting against God's command. Can God act against Himself? Think about that one...it's really no different than asking if God could make a rock so big He couldn't lift it (only Chuck Norris could do that, and then he'd lift it anyway to prove he's Chuck Norris - j/k). As I already mentioned, even attempting to answer the "simple" question of, "Who do YOU think Jesus is?" requires some sort of theological doctrine in order to answer correctly, because answering who He is also covers who He isn't. This ties right back into the concerns with the JW's and Mormons, because these doctrines are really what separate some of the "wheat" from the "chaff."
I'm not trying to make a call back to a single unified church, but we need to focus on what truth is, and how to determine it outside our own preconceived notions. The only way we can do this is through an objective study of the Bible, which quite a few people here thus far have rejected. I'm not trying to force MY view on anyone. I'm just asking that we return to what our faith is truly based on, the Holy Word of God, and really try to study it objectively. There is but ONE God (triune and all) who is a God of order, who does NOT want confusion amongst His believers. Therefore, if you're hiding behind your superficial notions of "unity" (which is really not unified under the surface), then remember that God gave you a backbone for a reason and be the Christian you're called to be. Jesus certainly told people to love one another, but He also warned that families themselves would be divided by His message. Ecclesiastes 3 tells us that there is a time for everything. If you just want to read scripture "plainly," then read that.
Go ahead and poo-poo this message if you disagree. Tell me I'm confused. Tell me I'm going to Hell. Don't say at all. Just know that you were warned about how "offensive" standing up for truth can be. Just don't say that I offended you. If I did, then it's your fault. Yes, you read that correctly. I warned you not to read any further, didn't I? If there's a warning on a bottle of bleach that says DON'T INGEST, and you drink it anyway, is it Clorox's fault? Let me get this straight, though: being offensive and irritating people was NOT the reason for this rant. My intentions were merely to share the truth of the Gospel, even to those who believe, while attempting to clear up some prevalent misconceptions in our modern, compromised version of Christianity (as a whole).
While I'm at it, let me get this out of the way (thought I've said it before): I'm NOT saying that everyone should necessarily believe the exact same thing as I do, though I'm fairly prepared to defend my views. I'm not shy about describing myself as a "partial-preterist/idealist," a Covenant Theologian as described by Gruden and "5-point Calvinist," Lutheran in my views of the "Sacramental Union" of the Eucharist (Hoc es corpus mayem!), a combination of Van-Tillian/Classical apologist, general pisser-offer and anti-"evanjellyfish" like Morey, and otherwise Neo-Reformer as I see fit to use the term (since I coined it) ... but I don't care if you're a Dispensationalist Prosperity Arminianist Consubstantiation-believing Naturalist preacher so much as whether or not you're constantly studying and analyzing the scriptures in the manner they were meant to be taken, and asking the Holy Spirit to guide you in the process, and willing to share, discuss, and debate the issues with the intent to grow and edify one another. But while I'm on the subject, let me hit on something else: the Holy Spirit. WHERE do people get the notion that the Holy Spirit "reveals" truth to them apart from scripture? I heard someone use the argument recently that the "guidance of the Holy Spirit" is the utmost standard. What is that supposed to mean? That's nothing more than a "spiritual" twist on the idea of Reason. If I claim to hold to predestination, and someone else claims to hold to free-will, and we BOTH believe that we're "being led" by the Holy Spirit, then what?
There are only three options:
1. Both people are telling the truth.
2. One person is telling the truth (and the other is either lying or self-deluded)
3. Both people are lying.
There's only ONE Holy Spirit, and our God is not one of confusion, so that eliminates 1 right off the bat, leaving only 2 & 3. The next question is: How do we test the message to see if it's really from the Spirit? Since we know God can't contradict Himself, we have to test each person's claim to see if it's consistent with the Holy Word of God, the Bible. Guess what? We're back to my previous point again about the scripture being the final standard. Thomas Merton once said, "we should never underestimate our ability to deceive ourselves." For those of you who insist on taking the Bible "just as it's written," go ahead and read Jeremiah 17:9 - it's pretty straightforward.
If you want to argue this point, then go right ahead - just know that I'll blast you right out of the water with a defense based on exegetical scriptural support. What else are you going to base your argument on? Did you have some sort of esoteric revelation? Do you dare claim some authority higher than scripture, as if you're so "special" that the Holy Spirit speaks to you more so than any other devout believer? If so, then try to prove it. I will only need to refute it with two latin words: sola scriptura. Any message of God won't contradict the Word which He so carefully preserved for thousands of years. Read 2 Corinthians 11:1-14 (3-4 & 13-14, in particular) for some backing of this point. Don't worry, it's straightforward enough to speak for itself. Don't you see how even someone who has "sincere and pure devotion" can "somehow be led astray?" As a matter of fact, while we're on the subject of purely "spiritual" revelation, I'm going to throw another one at you: Galatians 1:6-12. You can read this one "as it is written" if you'd like, too. I do find that part about being "accursed" rather interesting.
To quote Luther: "Unless I am convicted [convinced] of error by the testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted [convinced] by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God's word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us. On this I take my stand. I can do no other. God help me."
I don't care whether or not you have a "gift," or whether or not you like to read or write or debate. Ask God to give you the abilities to study wholeheartedly, and I guarantee He'll hear your prayers.
Let me leave you who actually took the time to read all of this with an encouragment: IF you're really studying the scripture, and I'm really studying the scripture, and we're both/all doing it in an earnest attempt to grow in our relationship with our holy God, then the SAME truth will eventually be revealed to both of us by the same Holy Spirit that resides in each of us, and our fellowship will TRULY have the Lord's presence among us as we gather, and as we seek to do His will every day. Amen.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Name it and claim it...Huh?
It's Thanksgiving, and I'm certainly thankful for this computer that I'm typing on, and for the internet connection, and for the four walls and a roof surrounding me, and for the job that pays for most of it.
However, to focus on these things is to miss the fullness of God's incredible grace, through Jesus the Christ, who died for our sins that we might be regenerated and sanctified in Him.
Amen?
Believe it or not, I've had a little controversy over a favorite verse of mine, Matthew 6.33:
"Seek first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you."
That seems pretty simple & straightforward in context, right? The previous verses talk about how the birds never worry about what they're going to eat, and the flowers don't worry about what they're going to wear, but God takes care of them. Likewise, we're supposed to focus first on doing God's work, and letting Him handle what we need. Right?
Well, I noticed a little online bulletin from an acquaintance of mine who is the pastor of a rather liberalistical church (along with his wife, a co-pastor, which is a different subject altogether) that quoted that verse...only something was different. His version said, "Seek the kingdom of God, and his righteousness, then these things will be added."
THEN?
Huh?
The actual translation (in English) is "...AND all these things shall be added unto you" (emphasis mine). Consider it semantics, if you will, but there is a very important reason it doesn't read "then."
The original Greek translation of the term is "kai," which according to Greekbible. com means -
"1) and, also, even, indeed, but"
It's definitely not "then," which is a different Greek word altogether (actually two: "tote" or "loipon").
As I pointed out to this person, that basically turns the scripture into an "if/then" statement. IF you do this, THEN something will happen. However, I believe Jesus said this in a different context intentionally. The point is not to seek God so that you will gain materialistic prosperity, but to seek God and not worry about materialism, as seen from the previous verses about the birds & flowers.
It was altogether convenient that this pastor follows what I call "Genie in a bottle" theology - just another term for the "name it & claim it" belief that people eisogete from the scripture. To focus solely on temporal, physical blessing, whether it be financially, health-wise, or otherwise, and blame trials & tribulations solely on a lack of faith is to deny that God can work in the midst of difficult times in our lives. Let me quote a few verses to support the point.
Isaiah 30:20-21
20And though the Lord give you the bread of adversity, and the water of affliction, yet shall not thy teachers be removed into a corner any more, but thine eyes shall see thy teachers: 21And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left. - King James Version
1 Thesselonians 5:16-18
16Rejoice evermore. 17Pray without ceasing. 18In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. - King James Version
1 Peter 5:9-10
9Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world. 10But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you. - King James Version
(I'm not necessarily a KJV fan, but I happened to have these up already)
Let me reiterate that we're called to follow and serve God first, and let Him worry about the temporal things in our lives. God's grace is so amazing that we don't have to be preoccupied with these things, though we're still accountable for what we do with whatever we are given. In fact, a pastor and friend of mine pointed out that "blessings WON'T come if we're not being faithful."
Nevertheless, being faithful does not automatically equal blessings. THAT'S NOT THE POINT.
If you really want to get into it (and I do, just a little anyway), all we, every one of us truly deserve is DEATH. Even the world says that "nobody's perfect," which is just the secular acceptance of total depravity. Nobody can stand in the presence of a holy God. Even Elijah, in God's presence, felt like he was being "undone," practically torn apart from the inside out, in God's throne room.
All kinds of sensational preachers, from Fred Phelps to Jeremiah Wright talk about God's judgment on the USA, whether it be on the war, the homosexual agenda, the economy, or Hurricane Katrina. However, if God revealed Himself right now, the whole WORLD would would be undone just as Elijah was...and God has every right to do it if he wishes.
When we were saved, God revealed Himself to us at that moment. We realized just how holy we weren't, just as Elijah did. We realized how excruciatingly painful Elijah's experience was right up to the point where an angel took a searing coal and touched his lips with it. We begged for mercy, for forgiveness that we certainly didn't deserve, and God saw fit to show grace. Christian hip-hop group The Cross Movement had a lyric that went something like: "You're born, you suffer, and you die...but there's a loop-hole." Though we deserved to die in our sins, God saw fit to give us a loophole through Christ!
The sad thing is that this shouldn't be anything new for believers, but it's so easily forgotten in day to day life. I made the mistake of watching The Saw once and it scared me half to death. I'm not talking about the sado-masochistic semi-realistic gory parts, either. What scared me was that people become blind to all of the things they've been given in life, taking everything for granted until it's going to be taken from them. I was in an accident once - an accident that I have no doubt should have taken my very life. I was given a rare opportunity to realize everything that I had been given, yet I find myself taking things for granted every day, as soon as another minute crisis looms over me. This world is so demanding that it tries to capture our attention every minute of every day, but we have to work constantly to firmly tell it, "NO!" and ignore it's cries of frustration.
Therefore, let us not focus on the materialistic blessings during the holiday season (especially CHRISTMAS, so I don't get boycotted by the AFA) but on the spiritual blessings as well. Better yet, let's focus more on the spiritual and let God make sure we have everything we need. Regardless of what and how much you've been given, give thanks to the Lord for all of it.
Sola gratia.
Sola Dei gloria.
However, to focus on these things is to miss the fullness of God's incredible grace, through Jesus the Christ, who died for our sins that we might be regenerated and sanctified in Him.
Amen?
Believe it or not, I've had a little controversy over a favorite verse of mine, Matthew 6.33:
"Seek first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you."
That seems pretty simple & straightforward in context, right? The previous verses talk about how the birds never worry about what they're going to eat, and the flowers don't worry about what they're going to wear, but God takes care of them. Likewise, we're supposed to focus first on doing God's work, and letting Him handle what we need. Right?
Well, I noticed a little online bulletin from an acquaintance of mine who is the pastor of a rather liberalistical church (along with his wife, a co-pastor, which is a different subject altogether) that quoted that verse...only something was different. His version said, "Seek the kingdom of God, and his righteousness, then these things will be added."
THEN?
Huh?
The actual translation (in English) is "...AND all these things shall be added unto you" (emphasis mine). Consider it semantics, if you will, but there is a very important reason it doesn't read "then."
The original Greek translation of the term is "kai," which according to Greekbible. com means -
"1) and, also, even, indeed, but"
It's definitely not "then," which is a different Greek word altogether (actually two: "tote" or "loipon").
As I pointed out to this person, that basically turns the scripture into an "if/then" statement. IF you do this, THEN something will happen. However, I believe Jesus said this in a different context intentionally. The point is not to seek God so that you will gain materialistic prosperity, but to seek God and not worry about materialism, as seen from the previous verses about the birds & flowers.
It was altogether convenient that this pastor follows what I call "Genie in a bottle" theology - just another term for the "name it & claim it" belief that people eisogete from the scripture. To focus solely on temporal, physical blessing, whether it be financially, health-wise, or otherwise, and blame trials & tribulations solely on a lack of faith is to deny that God can work in the midst of difficult times in our lives. Let me quote a few verses to support the point.
Isaiah 30:20-21
20And though the Lord give you the bread of adversity, and the water of affliction, yet shall not thy teachers be removed into a corner any more, but thine eyes shall see thy teachers: 21And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left. - King James Version
1 Thesselonians 5:16-18
16Rejoice evermore. 17Pray without ceasing. 18In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. - King James Version
1 Peter 5:9-10
9Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world. 10But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you. - King James Version
(I'm not necessarily a KJV fan, but I happened to have these up already)
Let me reiterate that we're called to follow and serve God first, and let Him worry about the temporal things in our lives. God's grace is so amazing that we don't have to be preoccupied with these things, though we're still accountable for what we do with whatever we are given. In fact, a pastor and friend of mine pointed out that "blessings WON'T come if we're not being faithful."
Nevertheless, being faithful does not automatically equal blessings. THAT'S NOT THE POINT.
If you really want to get into it (and I do, just a little anyway), all we, every one of us truly deserve is DEATH. Even the world says that "nobody's perfect," which is just the secular acceptance of total depravity. Nobody can stand in the presence of a holy God. Even Elijah, in God's presence, felt like he was being "undone," practically torn apart from the inside out, in God's throne room.
All kinds of sensational preachers, from Fred Phelps to Jeremiah Wright talk about God's judgment on the USA, whether it be on the war, the homosexual agenda, the economy, or Hurricane Katrina. However, if God revealed Himself right now, the whole WORLD would would be undone just as Elijah was...and God has every right to do it if he wishes.
When we were saved, God revealed Himself to us at that moment. We realized just how holy we weren't, just as Elijah did. We realized how excruciatingly painful Elijah's experience was right up to the point where an angel took a searing coal and touched his lips with it. We begged for mercy, for forgiveness that we certainly didn't deserve, and God saw fit to show grace. Christian hip-hop group The Cross Movement had a lyric that went something like: "You're born, you suffer, and you die...but there's a loop-hole." Though we deserved to die in our sins, God saw fit to give us a loophole through Christ!
The sad thing is that this shouldn't be anything new for believers, but it's so easily forgotten in day to day life. I made the mistake of watching The Saw once and it scared me half to death. I'm not talking about the sado-masochistic semi-realistic gory parts, either. What scared me was that people become blind to all of the things they've been given in life, taking everything for granted until it's going to be taken from them. I was in an accident once - an accident that I have no doubt should have taken my very life. I was given a rare opportunity to realize everything that I had been given, yet I find myself taking things for granted every day, as soon as another minute crisis looms over me. This world is so demanding that it tries to capture our attention every minute of every day, but we have to work constantly to firmly tell it, "NO!" and ignore it's cries of frustration.
Therefore, let us not focus on the materialistic blessings during the holiday season (especially CHRISTMAS, so I don't get boycotted by the AFA) but on the spiritual blessings as well. Better yet, let's focus more on the spiritual and let God make sure we have everything we need. Regardless of what and how much you've been given, give thanks to the Lord for all of it.
Sola gratia.
Sola Dei gloria.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
To Be (Free) or Not to Be (Free) - THAT is the Question (and has been)...
Calvin, Arminius, Pelagius...what do they have in common? The answer is "not much" when it comes to the issue of free will. Actually, I take it back - the latter two are both heretics (LOL). Seriously, though, the argument on free-will has been raging since the serpent tempted Eve in the Garden of Eden, and it will continue to be fought in vain until the Second Coming. The subject was even mentioned at the latest RC Sproul conference some 300+ years after the three of them left the earth. I'm not even going to bother rehashing the typical arguments. That's not what this blog is about. What the blog IS about, well, we're still trying to figure that out.
But back on the subject...wait, what? "...Since the Garden of Eden?" I would have to say "Yes, it's been going on that long."
Let's look at Genesis 3:1-5:
" 1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" 2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "
4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Now let's focus on verse 5: "...and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." So according to the serpent, Adam and Eve didn't know good and evil like God does. However, this can't be right. In the scriptures, Christ is compared to Adam, right? Christ was sinless, as Adam must have been when he was created. After all, even the Arminianists will agree that God didn't create Adam sinful. So let's look at an commonly-used example from Romans.
Romans 5:12-21:
"12Therefore, just as through (A)one man sin entered into the world, and (B)death through sin, and (C)so death spread to all men, because all sinned--
13for until the Law sin was in the world, but (D)sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned (E)in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a [a](F)type of Him who was to come.
15But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of (G)the one (H)the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by (I)the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.
16The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand (J)the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.
17For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned (K)through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will (L)reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
18So then as through (M)one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one (N)act of righteousness there resulted (O)justification of life to all men.
19For as through the one man's disobedience (P)the many (Q)were made sinners, even so through (R)the obedience of the One (S)the many will be made righteous.
20(T)The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, (U)grace abounded all the more,
21so that, as (V)sin reigned in death, even so (W)grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
Well, it's clear that one man sinned. Eating the forbidden fruit certainly didn't enable him to do good; it only caused him to sin. So it's pretty evident that the only thing that came out of the fruit was the capacity to do evil, which ended up causing death. This death wasn't exclusive to Adam & Eve, either. Verse 12 is clear - "through one man sin entered into the world" (emphasis mine). For all you free-will theists, look at verse 16: "the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation" (emphasis mine again). If Adam's sin resulted in condemnation from EVERYBODY, then it's pretty clear that sin is reigning supreme. But what is sin? It's disobedience to God. It doesn't sound like we really have a choice to follow him, to "choose good," does it? The problem is, after Adam sinned, he was under the condemnation of sin, and everybody since has been under judgment. Adam, up until that point, was in God's will. He was "choosing" to do right (doing what God told him to), and thus was allowed in God's presence. After he "chose" evil, the option to do good and hang out with God was lost. Free will is not about being able to "choose" whether or not to follow God. Free will is the ability to choose "good" and do God's will, which no one is able to do on their own (apart from Him).
Only God can choose to do right. Only man can do evil (violating God's will), because God CAN'T violate His own will by default, particularly since He's unchanging. So either GOD has free will being able to choose right, or MAN has free will, being able to choose wrong. I don't know about anybody else, but my bets are on God. The rest of you can go ahead and believe the serpent, but trust me, you'll die regardless of what he tells you. ;)
But back on the subject...wait, what? "...Since the Garden of Eden?" I would have to say "Yes, it's been going on that long."
Let's look at Genesis 3:1-5:
" 1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" 2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "
4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Now let's focus on verse 5: "...and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." So according to the serpent, Adam and Eve didn't know good and evil like God does. However, this can't be right. In the scriptures, Christ is compared to Adam, right? Christ was sinless, as Adam must have been when he was created. After all, even the Arminianists will agree that God didn't create Adam sinful. So let's look at an commonly-used example from Romans.
Romans 5:12-21:
"12Therefore, just as through (A)one man sin entered into the world, and (B)death through sin, and (C)so death spread to all men, because all sinned--
13for until the Law sin was in the world, but (D)sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned (E)in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a [a](F)type of Him who was to come.
15But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of (G)the one (H)the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by (I)the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.
16The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand (J)the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.
17For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned (K)through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will (L)reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
18So then as through (M)one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one (N)act of righteousness there resulted (O)justification of life to all men.
19For as through the one man's disobedience (P)the many (Q)were made sinners, even so through (R)the obedience of the One (S)the many will be made righteous.
20(T)The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, (U)grace abounded all the more,
21so that, as (V)sin reigned in death, even so (W)grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
Well, it's clear that one man sinned. Eating the forbidden fruit certainly didn't enable him to do good; it only caused him to sin. So it's pretty evident that the only thing that came out of the fruit was the capacity to do evil, which ended up causing death. This death wasn't exclusive to Adam & Eve, either. Verse 12 is clear - "through one man sin entered into the world" (emphasis mine). For all you free-will theists, look at verse 16: "the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation" (emphasis mine again). If Adam's sin resulted in condemnation from EVERYBODY, then it's pretty clear that sin is reigning supreme. But what is sin? It's disobedience to God. It doesn't sound like we really have a choice to follow him, to "choose good," does it? The problem is, after Adam sinned, he was under the condemnation of sin, and everybody since has been under judgment. Adam, up until that point, was in God's will. He was "choosing" to do right (doing what God told him to), and thus was allowed in God's presence. After he "chose" evil, the option to do good and hang out with God was lost. Free will is not about being able to "choose" whether or not to follow God. Free will is the ability to choose "good" and do God's will, which no one is able to do on their own (apart from Him).
Only God can choose to do right. Only man can do evil (violating God's will), because God CAN'T violate His own will by default, particularly since He's unchanging. So either GOD has free will being able to choose right, or MAN has free will, being able to choose wrong. I don't know about anybody else, but my bets are on God. The rest of you can go ahead and believe the serpent, but trust me, you'll die regardless of what he tells you. ;)
Thursday, September 18, 2008
So the Catholics...
Well shoot, it's been quite some time since the first post, and I don't think anyone knows we even exist yet, so I'm going to make another one simply because I feel like it. When we came up with the name "Reformed Remnant," it was primarily in response to the lack of Reformed doctrine that's being taught these days. Over here in sunny Southern California, Calvary Chapels are as common as palm trees, but let's not forget about the Roman Catholic churches that were here first. And since the Reformation had everything to do with disagreeing with and eventually splitting from the formerly "unified" church, we might as well get down to it.
So I got an email from a good friend of mine, a pastor of a small church who is singlehandedly trying to handle all of the administrative, personal, and every other side of the game, all while playing dutiful dad and attentive husband. He has a new member of the congregation who came from a Roman Catholic church, though someone from that congregation are trying to draw this person back.
Being that this is 2008 and technology has advanced quite significantly in the last 400 years or so, matters are no longer argued in public forums, they're argued on internet forums and email. Fortunately, email can be dealt with at one's convenience, but unfortunately, my buddy doesn't have the time to deal with the Catholic person's arguments. So he asked me if I could respond for him.
*cue diabolical laugh*
So here is the email I received, and my response below. Names have been changed to protect the innocent ... ok, we're all guilty sinners without Christ, but I changed them anyway. I will warn you that it's pretty long, so be prepared to dig in. Enjoy!
Original Message:
End of Message
Ok, so the only name I omitted was my own, LOL. In retrospect, I realized I made a boo-boo somewhere in there. Can you tell where it was? Quite honestly, I doubt that either the new believer OR the Catholic will even catch it. I'll let it slide on the no0b, but it's absolutely heart-breaking to see someone who's gone to church (or Mass) his/her whole life, and hasn't even obtained a rudimentary understanding of scripture.
If you're still with me at this point, then maybe I'll post future responses, if/when I get them!
So I got an email from a good friend of mine, a pastor of a small church who is singlehandedly trying to handle all of the administrative, personal, and every other side of the game, all while playing dutiful dad and attentive husband. He has a new member of the congregation who came from a Roman Catholic church, though someone from that congregation are trying to draw this person back.
Being that this is 2008 and technology has advanced quite significantly in the last 400 years or so, matters are no longer argued in public forums, they're argued on internet forums and email. Fortunately, email can be dealt with at one's convenience, but unfortunately, my buddy doesn't have the time to deal with the Catholic person's arguments. So he asked me if I could respond for him.
*cue diabolical laugh*
So here is the email I received, and my response below. Names have been changed to protect the innocent ... ok, we're all guilty sinners without Christ, but I changed them anyway. I will warn you that it's pretty long, so be prepared to dig in. Enjoy!
Original Message:
Here's some teaching Of YOUR FAITH WITH VERSE LIKE YOU SAID.
nOW DISPUTE THAT.
TELL ME THE CATHOLIC FAITH IS NOT THE BETTER FAITH.
1.The Catholic teachings actually are in the Bible.
2.The Bible nowhere claims that Christians are to base their faith solely on the Bible (Sola Scriptura). Rather, the Bible instructs Christians to accept the faith which was handed on to them by authorized Church leaders. 2 thess 2:15
•Purgatory. That only the perfect are allowed into heaven and that those whose faith is imperfect when they die must be purified before entering heaven. Heb 12:23, mat 5:48, rev 21:27
•Devotion to Mary, the mother of Jesus.
•Confession before a priest. But the Bible specifies that the church leaders have the power to forgive sins. John 20:23
•That communion (the Eucharist) is more than just a symbol.
.
(John 20:30). (John 21:25). In addition to scripture the Catholic Church values the tradition which has been passed down from Jesus to the Apostles through the Church.
This passage supports the idea that Paul considered himself to be a priest (Rom 15:16). Catholic
My Response:*Please note that the following response is going to be in, more or less, an informal "debate-style" tone where I counter the points made by the other person and provide some of my own. In my humble opinion, this is the most straightforward means of giving an honest response to the questions at hand, though running the risk of being a little forceful and/or blunt, which is not my intention. Also, since formatting is often lost between email servers, I am CAPITALIZING words rather than italicize/bold to emphasize them. I apologize if it seems as though I am yelling (as common internet etiquette would suggest), but please accept this peculiarity with its intended usage.
Let me begin by pointing out that starting an argument with the statement that the idea of the Catholic Faith being (or not being) the "better" faith is rather spurious. Matthew 5 says "blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth," but yet saying that one belief is "better" than another appears to be a claim made with much pride and bravado. We should all be seeking to know the truth, rather than rooting for a particular side or another. Additionally, the very idea of Catholicism labeling itself as "better" than another contradicts the very meaning of the term "Catholic," which means "unified." Its very inability to maintain its unity with all spirit-filled believers of Christ is a foreshadowing of some of the internal contradictions within its tradition that the honest follower must face.
So let's start with the listed objections.
1. "The Catholic teachings actually are in the Bible" - My first observation is that there is no evidence provided to substantiate this claim. Had it been made at the end of an argument, it may have had some substance behind it, but to list it as a point unto itself makes it purely an unsubstantiated claim. As a matter of fact, by going through these other points, it will be quite evident that many of the Catholic beliefs not only AREN'T in the Bible, but CONTRADICT scripture outright, though the Catholic doctrine makes general reference to scriptures that are taken entirely out of context, manipulated by the doctrine to try to prove itself. This is basically "verse abuse," otherwise known as "eisogesis" - reading ones beliefs into the scripture.
2. "Sola Scriptura" - 2 Thessalonians 2:15 does mention "teachings" that was handed down to them by others, "whether by word of mouth or by letter." However, this verse is rather vague by itself, since it doesn't include the particular teachings it was referencing. Basically, one can see from the beginning of the verse ("So then, brothers...") that the verse was not intended to stand on its own, but is in fact a CONCLUSION of the preceding verses. Paul was basically CONCLUDING a series of points, not making another one intended to stand alone from everything else he was saying. So let's read verse 14 WITH 15 to see what exactly Paul is talking about.
14"He (God) called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
It seems fairly clear, in context, that the GOSPEL is what teachings were being referred to. This in NO WAY justifies any other teachings/doctrine that supercede the scriptures.
Additionally, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 clearly states that "16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
The Catholics argue that Paul could've only referenced the Old Testament, because the New Testament had not been completed yet; however, Paul never gives any other teaching or tradition the same authority whatsoever, making this a moot point.
Furthermore, in Matthew 24:35, Jesus says, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away." However, the Catholic Church claims that its doctrines supercede the very teachings of Jesus.
This is an obvious indication that they believe that some Jesus' words are no longer applicable, in DIRECT DEFIANCE of Jesus' own teachings. How can the Catholic Church dare to teach doctrine which contradicts the very authority of Jesus Himself?
3. "Purgatory" - Our perfection is already MADE COMPLETE in Christ. The verses that were cited are unfortunately vague in nature, and actually DON'T make any sort of reference to the concept of Purgatory unless one reads into them quite heavily. Hebrews 12:23 and Revelation 21:27 do NOT specify the necessity of some vague intermediate location between Earth and Heaven for purification. Though they mention the need of being "made perfect", the sacrifice of Christ is sufficient. In 2 Corintians 5:21, Paul says - "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." Matthew 5:43 is merely a reminder from Jesus of the commandments of the Mosaic Law, which just points back to Christ as the necessary sacrifice for our atonement.
Let's look at a few verses that ARE specific:
*Romans 5:18-19 - "18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous."
As you can see from this verse, "the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men." The very idea that each man must go through some sort of separate purification goes against this concept of "one act" justifying every believer.
*Romans 3:23-24 - "23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."
Again, it's quite clear that the believer is "justified FREELY by his grace." Believing that the Christian must go through some other sort of "cleansing" indicates that there is still some sort of payment that is still due. If there is still a debt to sin, then logically, justification CANNOT be free.
Here's another one: 1 Corinthians 6:11 - "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
I think that it's safe to say that it eliminates the idea that we'd need anything else.
Additionally, it's evident in John 19:30 that Jesus Himself (while on the cross, at that), stated "It is finished." Though this verse speaks quite conclusively on its own in simple English, the original Greek text uses the term "tetelestai," which means complete payment in full for a debt. There is nothing left for us to pay.
Finally, everywhere in scripture you look, references of death and judgement occur WITHOUT any sort of intermediate cleansing in between. Here are a couple more examples:
*Hebrews 9:27 - "Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment."
*Romans 3:19-20 - "Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin."
4. Devotion to Mary - Hebrews 12:2 encourages us to look to CHRIST, "the author and finisher of our faith" (beginning and end), NOT to anywhere else. In context, we are told in verse one to set aside everything else that would hold us back from "run[ning] the race that is set before us" as we "look towards Christ" (v.2, again). Nowhere in scripture are we told to have any special reverence for Mary.
Additionally, though the Roman Catholics believe that Mary was sinless, she herself states otherwise in Luke 1:47 - "And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior..." If Mary was truly sinless, then she would have no need for a savior, already being blameless in God's sight; however, by expressing her need, she humbly acknowledges her sin.
5. Confession - John 20:23 is an interesting verse. John Wesley, a classical Biblical scholar, once questioned the meaning behind it. Since the original quote is somewhat antiquated and difficult to read, please allow me to paraphrase: Aren't the sins, of someone who truly repents and believes, already fully pardoned? And aren't the sins of everyone else still held against them? If so, then doesn't this imply that the power being granted is nothing more and nothing less than the declaration of the Christian belief of forgiveness - whose sins are forgiven and those held against them?
Basically, the power that we've been granted is the very same "Great Commission" spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 28:18-20 - "Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."
It's also important to note that putting the onus of asking for constant forgiveness on the sinner takes away from the sacrifice of Christ. John 3:16 states: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life." Note here that the emphasis is on BELIEF, not on continual repentance. Looking again at the verses I quoted in response to point three, it's evident that the one-time sacrifice of Christ was enough to sanctify us.
Let's revisit 1 Corinthians 6:11 - "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
The believer WAS washed, WAS sanctified, and WAS justified. This is past-tense. As Jesus said in 19:30, "Tetelastai." It is finished. The debt has been paid IN FULL. One is not unforgiven until confessing to a priest and/or for doing penance in order to receive forgiveness. It has already been granted to the believer, and to suggest that more is needed is to take away from the totality of Christ's incredible sacrifice.
6. Communion - The question is not whether or not "communion (the Eucharist) is more than just a symbol." The question is whether or not bread and wine LITERALLY becomes Jesus' flesh and blood. I will not deny that there is more than just mere symbolism involved. Martin Luther called it the "Sacramental Union," John Calvin called it "Consubstantiation," Uldrich Zvingli referenced the "Real Presence," each basically using different terms to describe the SPIRITUAL "essence" of Christ somehow being especially present at the time of the Eucharist. But to suggest that the bread and wine literally ceases to be bread + wine, and somehow actually becomes the actual flesh and blood of Jesus is not biblical. First of all, Jesus was still alive when He commanded that the disciples do this. He had not yet been handed over by the Sanhedrin to the Romans to be crucified. Since He was still physically intact, having not yet been sacrificed for our sins, how could the bread + wine He offered to the disciples become His sacrifical body + blood?
Furthermore, the very idea of eating literal flesh and blood was clearly forbidden by Levitical law (Lev. 17:14), and would've repulsed the disciples to no end. To conclude, Jesus was quite fond of figurative language, which was clearly used here as a foreshadowing, and then later as a reminder, of the price He paid for our sins. As He was present with the disciples during that time, some believe that He is somehow spiritually present with us during the Eucharist, but to literally become His body and become sacrificed over and over again is pointless and redundant. As many of the scriptures I've referenced point out, once was enough.
7. A couple of verses (John 20:30, John 21:25) are used to support the claim that "the Catholic Church values the tradition which has been passed down from Jesus to the Apostles through the Church." So let's look at them:
John 20:30 - "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book."
John 21:25 - "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."
These two verses are quite similar. They both indicate that Jesus did other actions that, for one reason or another, weren't written down. That's not surprising at all. If a woman touching His cloak was enough to cure her (Matthew 9:20), imagine what a simple smile from the Creator in human flesh could've done to someone. But by no means do those verses indicate that any of Jesus' teachings were left out.
Additionally, Hebrews 13:8 says that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." He would not later teach something that contradicted an earlier message.
"15I have written you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me 16to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit."
OK... so Paul had the "priestly DUTY OF PROCLAIMING THE GOSPEL." This is no different than the "Great Commission" spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 28:18-20 (as I previously referenced) - "Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."
Were ALL of the disciples priests? Were all of their disciples priests? Is it not the duty of EVERY BELEVER to proclaim the gospel?
Look at Romans 10:8-13 - "8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"[d] that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.""
Take note here that confessing that "Jesus is Lord" is an act that ACCOMPANIES salvation. EVERY believer should be confessing Jesus, regardless of the fear of "being put to shame" (v.11). So Paul's "priestly duty," in proper context, was no different than the duty of any other believer.
To conclude, I will return to the beginning, by saying that the better faith is the one most consistent with the teachings of the Bible. As mentioned, Hebrews 13:8 says that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." Therefore, it would be contrary to the VERY NATURE of Christ to go back on His Word and later proclaim a different message and different traditions, whether oral or written. What would one rather believe - the very words of Jesus, the Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity ... or the words/traditions of fallible man that directly contradict those of Christ? To this extent, the Catholic church shares the same fallacy as that of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints (Mormons), who also contradict many of the teachings of the Bible (in the Book of Mormon), though certainly to sometimes vastly different degrees. The Bible is the ultimate authority. Sola Scriptura.
In Christ,
End of Message
Ok, so the only name I omitted was my own, LOL. In retrospect, I realized I made a boo-boo somewhere in there. Can you tell where it was? Quite honestly, I doubt that either the new believer OR the Catholic will even catch it. I'll let it slide on the no0b, but it's absolutely heart-breaking to see someone who's gone to church (or Mass) his/her whole life, and hasn't even obtained a rudimentary understanding of scripture.
If you're still with me at this point, then maybe I'll post future responses, if/when I get them!
Monday, August 25, 2008
The Reformed Remnant is up!
Welcome to "The Reformed Remnant." The intent of this blog is to discuss various events, ideas, perspectives, and other topics from a Reformed, Christian perspective.
So what does the title of the blog mean, anyway?
The first term, "Reformed," as it applies to Christianity, originated from the Protestant Reformation of the 1500's, particularly through several notable scholars who eventually separated from the Roman Catholic church. There will assuredly be more on this soon.
The second term, "Remnant," is a little more fun. Let's start with Mirriam-Webster's first-listed definition of its meaning:
1 a: a usually small part, member, or trace remaining
b: a small surviving group —often used in plural
So what's the point?
With the rise of Secular Humanism in our Post-Modernistic society, there has been a move from absolute truth to moral relativism. Some churches, in a sincere effort to remain culturally-relevant, have reformatted their entire church in order to suit the masses, with mixed results. While I applaud their efforts to provide a seductive, seeker-friendly environment, I must wonder what kind of compromises are being made in order to do so. The very definition, sometimes labeled as the Emergent Church, is subjective ... so every church out there may be different.
On the other hand, I myself have seen far too many "traditional" churches that are completely unwilling to change, and yet wonder why their attendance drops week after week until it's time to close their doors permanently. They had forgotten that their 16th-century services were once contemporary themselves, back in the time of their conceptions. While I can appreciate the beauty of their theologically-deep, melodic hymns, and their accompanying pipe organs, it's certainly not what's being played on the radio, and at times can be hard to really connect with.
It is our belief that neither extreme is true to what the true church really is, a living organism that survives on God's eternal, unchanging Word. The side of tradition is dying, and the side of cultural-relevance is compromised, leaving few of us willing to find a balance between the two ... hence the term "Remnant."
Regardless, we hope that, whether you agree or disagree, you will enjoy and be challenged by our various discussions, rants, raves, and whatever else we can come up with!
So what does the title of the blog mean, anyway?
The first term, "Reformed," as it applies to Christianity, originated from the Protestant Reformation of the 1500's, particularly through several notable scholars who eventually separated from the Roman Catholic church. There will assuredly be more on this soon.
The second term, "Remnant," is a little more fun. Let's start with Mirriam-Webster's first-listed definition of its meaning:
1 a: a usually small part, member, or trace remaining
b: a small surviving group —often used in plural
So what's the point?
With the rise of Secular Humanism in our Post-Modernistic society, there has been a move from absolute truth to moral relativism. Some churches, in a sincere effort to remain culturally-relevant, have reformatted their entire church in order to suit the masses, with mixed results. While I applaud their efforts to provide a seductive, seeker-friendly environment, I must wonder what kind of compromises are being made in order to do so. The very definition, sometimes labeled as the Emergent Church, is subjective ... so every church out there may be different.
On the other hand, I myself have seen far too many "traditional" churches that are completely unwilling to change, and yet wonder why their attendance drops week after week until it's time to close their doors permanently. They had forgotten that their 16th-century services were once contemporary themselves, back in the time of their conceptions. While I can appreciate the beauty of their theologically-deep, melodic hymns, and their accompanying pipe organs, it's certainly not what's being played on the radio, and at times can be hard to really connect with.
It is our belief that neither extreme is true to what the true church really is, a living organism that survives on God's eternal, unchanging Word. The side of tradition is dying, and the side of cultural-relevance is compromised, leaving few of us willing to find a balance between the two ... hence the term "Remnant."
Regardless, we hope that, whether you agree or disagree, you will enjoy and be challenged by our various discussions, rants, raves, and whatever else we can come up with!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
