Perpetual Flogulence

Sermon: By No Other Way

2011-11-03T11:56:00.001-05:00

Reformation Sunday 2011 at Tyndall Presbyterian Church, Tyndall, SD.

(a)musing about the Holiness Code

2011-07-16T09:42:00.010-05:00

For more on what (a)musing refers to, read "That's (a)musing"

Recently, I attended a training seminar for my job. This seminar was all about "sales excellence" - the art of being a professional salesman. One of the core steps in the process of making a sale was asking questions. Who, what, when, why, where, and tell me. The more information we could find out, we were told, the more complete solution we could build for our customer.
Questions are deeply important to me in my job. I ask and am asked questions by people all day: "why does my computer do this?" - "Why is it booting to a blue screen" - "why won't it turn on?" etc. How effective would I be at my job if, every time I was asked such a question, my only answer was "well, better get a new one!" - That would be irresponsible and would defeat the purpose of being a computer tech. Indeed "get a new one" may be the correct answer at times, but not all the time.
Questions are an integral part of the human experience - formulating questions begin the moment we are born. The first question I can remember is asking my father why we go to church. Quite a good question for a four year old, I think. Questions are what allow us to grow. It's what advances science (real science, anyways), propels technology forward and brings us to an understanding of extremely obscure references.
Questions are also important in my study of the biblical text and my preparation for ministry - I wouldn't be a very good student of the Bible if I didn't ask "why" or "What does that mean" every once in awhile (quite often, actually!) I also have questions put to me - both honestly and sarcastically, and sometimes I can't tell which. The spark for this article comes from a tweeter who writes...
Sarcastic, yes. Might she honestly want an answer? possibly. She certainly gave me that impression in later tweets. A statement like this demonstrates real ignorance. (that's not an insult, just a statement of fact.) This is an argument that has been used time and time and every time, it seems, the user thinks that Christians have never heard this before. It really doesn't take a lot of time to figure it out - Get yourself a good study bible, listen to a good sermon - The answer becomes clear very fast.
Deuteronomy 22:9-11 is a repeat of Leviticus 19:19. The section is part of what is known as the Holiness code - God's instruction for living in a land that is surrounded by paganism. Already we have a very basic answer for why God told Israel not to sow two different seed together, plow with two different animals, breed two different kinds of cattle, or wear garments made with blended fabrics - It had to do with being separate from the pagan culture. Lets take a closer look. All three laws can be boiled down to this: Do not mix A with B. Why? Because the pagan nations around you like to mix A with B. But why? Why do the pagans do this?
An answer to such questions does not have to be either/or. Usually, God has multiple reasons to ban a practice. In the case of mixing seeds the answer is two fold. Mixing seeds produces inferior crops that create desease in the soil and in the animals and people who eat it. The prohibition was also against the pagan practices of the day in which mixing two seeds along with magical rites and incantations was thought to provoke the fertility gods and thus produce a bountiful harvest. This is also true of mixing fabrics - Not only was the law to keep Israel from such silly superstitions but “wool, when combined with linen, increases its power of passing off the electricity from the body. In hot climates, it brings on malignant fevers and exhausts the strength; and when passing off from the body, it meets with the heated air, inflames and excoriates like a blister”(1)

To the second question that the tweeter implies: why are Christians no longer commanded to follow the holiness code? The short answer is that it no longer applies to us but we do take away principles from it. The Bible, like any document (old or new) must be read in context. To do any less would be dishonest. Non-Christians enjoy cherry picking texts, like the holiness code, and using them to make an argument that the Historic Christian Faith (which believes that the Bible is God's word, cover to cover) is inconsistent and Christians like to pick and choose what they do and do not believe. I understand the need for consistency and I do not deny that inconsistency has happened. When there is inconsistency between faith and practice it usually means one of three things: The person is either very young and immature in their faith and is continuing to grow and root out sin in their life, the Christian is ignorant of the inconsistency and will strive to change once informed or that person is a false convert. Usually, such a person is marked by gross sins and disregards passages that clearly condemn the continuation in sin.
The Christian not following OT laws like these is not an inconsistency. There is a very good reason that Christians are not bound to follow Jewish law. There are several reasons, actually.
1. The Holiness code found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy was for ethnic Israel at that time. The three rules of Biblical interpretation are context, CONTEXT, CONTEXT. Reading the Bible in context is what it means to read the Bible literally. For example: you don't interpret something literally if its obviously figurative. Jesus said that He is "the door" - that doesn't mean He's a wooden plank on hinges. What it means is that one must go to Him to enter the Kingdom. Context is very important. Failing to read something in context (Bible or otherwise) is intellectually dishonest and disrespects the original author and his audience and everyone reading my words knows that because you all write letters and emails and read books, and follow written instructions and some of you write paper and books. You wouldn't want clear words like "I love you" to be twisted into "I hate you" - would you? Words have meaning in context. Saying the words I love you to my wife mean one thing, while those same words to a friend mean another. Context matters!
Keep in mind that Israel has just come out of Egypt - a pagan land. They have been there for a long time (400 years) and have been infected with the pagan practices of the Egyptians. They are sojourning to a land that is full of and surrounded by pagan peoples and the code was meant to keep them separate from the pagans.
Let me put it this way: I am a Vikings fan (yes, I know. They stink.) - If I covered my office in Green Bay Packers gear, what impression would you get? You would think I was a Pack fan and my choice of decors would be inconsistent with my stated choice of football team. The same is true here. The funny thing about idolatrous practice is that if you give it an inch it takes a mile. God continually warned against giving any ground to idolatrous practices. Any compromise would lead to full blown apostasy in a few generations. We can certainly testify to this in our own day - idea's spread fast, especially when those who seem to guide culture (Hollywood, etc.) endorse ideas. Homosexuality, for example, has gown from a detested practice to almost complete acceptance in under 70 years. Divorce was once looked down upon and some would commit suicide before getting a divorce, yet now its common place. Ideas spread fast and God's aim was to nip them in the bud before they could corrupt the people.
2. The reasons behind the holiness code are foreign to the Church and to our culture. But there still are guiding principles.
Is my shirt a blended fabric? Currently no, it isn't. But I do own cloths that are made of two different fabrics. (my uniform for my security job for example). Is there a prevailing superstition in culture that doing so has some magical property or that it will give me some super ability to produce many healthy children? No, there isn't. (It's still a poor choice of clothing on a hot day.) If I wear blended fabrics would I be identified as something other than Christian? No. I think you get the point. But there is a guiding principle: God says "don't be like the pagan people around you." - Now what practices or clothing would go against my confession? Off the top of my head...
Promiscuity, infidelity, obscene language, drunkenness, drug use, wearing clothing with crude messages, dressing immodestly, being disrespectful to those in authority over me, being disrespectful to my peers or coworkers, going to a club and dancing in a suggestive manner(2), being crude in general - get the picture?
3. I am free from the OT Law because I belong to Christ Jesus.
When I say I am free from the law and now under grace I do not mean that I live willy-nilly without any regards to sin. I still strive to follow the law (and by law I mean the 10 commandments and principles found in OT Law). When I say I strive to follow the law I do not mean that I do so legalistically either. My obedience record has no bearing on my standing before God because Christ has attributed his perfect record to me (and all His people). I strive to live in a manner that best glorifies God because I love Him and I am grateful for what He did for me.

This brings up another question: There still are things from the Old Testament that do carry over to today. Why some and not others? Why does the laws on homosexuality and bestiality still apply but laws about blended fabric don't? The answer is simple and two fold: First, laws about sexuality are repeated in the New Testament. Practices about blending fabric are not. Secondly, Laws about blended fabric made sense in their context and still contain a guiding principle (don't be like the pagans around you.) The New Testament also has commands based on culture(3) that still have the same guiding principle: be separate from the pagans. Laws about sexuality continue because those things remain the same in all times, places, and cultures. The beginning line "when a man falls in love with a woman and gets married..." is the same no matter where or when you are from. Men and women go together. Whether it be naturally or in a lab, a mans sperm must ask a woman egg for a dance in order to produce a child. That's simple biology. Male and Male do not produce offspring. Female and Female do not produce offspring. You need one of each. We even use the terms male and female in technical terms. - "Plug the male end on the speaker into the female end on the receiver"(4).
No matter how hard we try, we can't get away from what is clearly displayed in the created order.(5) Issues of sexuality have always existed. Old Testament Israel dealt with it, the New Testament Church dealt with it and we deal with it today. People, both single and married, still sleep around. People both male and female choose to follow their passions for the same sex instead of waring against them. Nothings changed. That is why those prohibitions still apply.

Finally, I must address why the punishments attached to those laws no longer apply. Why don't we put homosexuals to death? Or disobedient children for that matter? That answer is also simple: The civil punishments for those things were under a theocracy (where the religion also runs the state). We don't live in a theocracy. Medieval Europe was a theocracy. Islamic countries are theocracies. Western countries are not theocracies. There is, however, an underlying truth: God takes sin seriously. People who do not repent of their sins and trust in Christ for salvation will fall under the wrath of God and die in their sins. From the simple lie to homosexuality. From theft to murder - God will deal out punishment for sin. The sin of disobeying ones parents will be dealt with in the end one way or another; all sins will be paid for one way or another; either by that person or by Jesus.

What is the overriding principle for instances of obscurity? Ask questions and follow through to find the answers. To simply throw out "blended fabric" as if its an argument that will destroy Christianity is intellectually dishonest. It's a straw-man argument. Beating a straw-man to death may be fun but that's all it is. Its not an intelligent argument and it does nothing more than further ignorant thinking and make the user look foolish. In short, its (a)musing.

1.Jamieson, Robert ; Fausset, A. R. ; Fausset, A. R. ; Brown, David ; Brown, David: A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. Oak Harbor, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997, S. Le 19:19
2. I'm not against dancing, per say. Just that of the bump and grind verity.
3. Paul tells young women not to braid their hair or wear costly jewelry in 1st Tim 2:9. It is not that braiding ones hair or wearing jewelry is bad. Paul tells the women of that time to avoid doing this because the temple prostitutes of the time dressed this way. So to update that to 21st century culture Paul was saying "don't dress like the prostitutes."

4. I wonder when even that will become politically incorrect.
5. I find it funny that, even with an evolutionary world view (one that I do not hold), homosexuality would be considered as inferior to heterosexuality. That's consistent with the idea of natural selection - those that survive and pass on their genes will continue. How could homosexuality be natural if it cannot be passed on? Shouldn't it eventually die out?

Something to think about...

2011-05-02T09:05:00.001-05:00

As we now emerge from the other side of Easter, Here is something to think about. Have you ever heard people argue that the Apostles made up Christianity? This simple, sarcastic cartoon shows how absurd that idea really is.

Whats a Baptist to do?

2011-04-01T17:06:00.011-05:00

Its funny how things change so quickly. The previous post on this blog is me preaching a sermon out of 1st Peter. I had expected to go through both letters in the coming months as my fellow brother, Mr. Tarpley, went through the book of Ruth; flip flopping every Sunday. I was excited. Things changed.
I believe that God is sovereign over all things. Nothing happens by chance and that all things, including the bad, will be worked by God for the good of His people and for His own glory. I believe this.
A few weeks ago SGBC voted to close its doors for good as a result of a our pastor leaving us. My wife has already written on that subject and I will direct you to her Blog for that information. But, suffice it to say, my good friend left us and it was not a good kind of leaving. There was sin involved and my prayer for this man is that he repents and seeks reconciliation with the former members of SGBC. I, for one, hope this happens soon because I miss talking to my friend. I am still very grieved over him. But, I digress...

When SGBC dissolved Em and I knew our options were limited. We knew that, no matter where we went, we would have to put something aside for the sake of unity. The state of SD only had two Reformed Baptist Churches and the other one is in the Black Hills. Sure, there are Baptists Churches in Sioux Falls, but they are not Reformed. So we were faced with a choice: Do we either go to a place where we agree 99% of the time or go to a place where we know we will agree with at least one point of Doctrine but we will have to constantly run the filter the rest of the time.
When Emily and I first met I explained why I was OK attending a classically Reformed Church: I said that I would rather disagree on one point of secondary doctrine and agree on the essentials than sit in a place where I agree with one point but spend most of the service cringing because the exegesis was wrong or the preaching was sub par or what-have-you. Basically, I want to go where I know the preaching will be serious and I will receive pastoral care.
Once we came to this conclusion, the choice was obvious: Sioux Falls United Reformed Church.

Rev. Aalsburg and I met a few years ago when I first started attending SGBC when he was filling in for the pastor. Having attended a very conservative CRC church while at Dordt College, It was no surprise to me that Rev. Aalsburg was an excellent preacher with great exegetical skills. He and I got together every now and then and always had good discussions. We went round and round with the usual banter that Baptists and Peado-Baptists engage in, always walking knowing that we were brothers and, in the end, when we were no longer looking into the dark mirror, it wouldn't matter because after all: Baptism IS NOT essential Christian doctrine. Its important, sure. It's definitely worth going to the Word of God and debating it but it shouldn't keep reformed brethren from fellowship and even cross preaching in either church.
When Emily and I informed Rev. Aalsburg that SGBC was in dire straights and ultimately was closing, He took a completely different approach to us: He took a pastoral care role. Even though we were not attending SFURC, even though we were not under the authority of the elders of SFURC/ Hills URC -he started to care for us as if we were his sheep.When we attended for the first time Em said something very profound: She said "I feel as if I really met with God today." What a great mindset to have when it comes to Church: we are meeting with God.

Now, all that being said, I wanted to address the glaring question:
Question: "Hey, aren't you two baptists? Don't you, like, disagree with the whole baby baptism thing?"
Answer: yes, to both counts.
Question: "so, why are you attending with the end goal of becoming members?"
Good question.

Emily and I firmly believe that we should attend a church that is the closest to what we believe. What that means is this: We should attend a church that we agree with on core Christian doctrine. What is that? What are those essentials? Emily and I would agree with historic confessions of faith that came from the Reformation. We would agree most with the London Baptist Confession of 1689 but we find very few disagreements with the Heidelberg or the Westminster. But the core Christian doctrines, I believe, are summarized in My Confession of Faith and follow the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. Guess what two points are not discussed in that confession: Baptism and Eschatology. I do not believe that those things are essential for salvation. They are important issues, yes, but Reformed Christians line up on either sides of both issues.

So, whats a Baptist to do when there are no Reformed Baptist churches in town? Attend a good confessional Reformed Church. We chose SFURC for two reasons: The first being that the CRC tends to be all over the conservative-liberal map. Some CRC churches are great and others stink. The URC has a good track record. Secondly, we knew Rev. Aalsburg and we knew would be cared for there.

A few years ago I wrote this piece for the Dordt Crossings on the subject of baptism. Let me be clear: I firmly believe that baptism is only for those who have publicly confessed faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. I firmly believe that that public confession must come before baptism. I believe that this is extremely clear in the New Testament and that the Reformed Hermeneutic naturally leads to this conclusion. I don't think I will ever change my mind on that but stranger things have happened. Now this prompts the question: "But how do you reconcile those things that you do disagree on?"
Answer: This may blow you away, this may make you angry, but...

We put those things aside for the sake of unity. That's right, you heard me. Emily and I have decided to put our conviction on Baptism aside. We will continue to examine the doctrine behind baptism with an open mind with the Pastor (well, we'll try at least) with the hope that we will, at the very least, come to a better understanding each others position. Now, how does that play out? Does this mean that when Em and I have children (Lord Willing) that we will have them Baptized as infants? Yes, it does. Don't have a coronary. Remember our motivations:
1. We have the conviction that we should JOIN the local church. Not casually attend, but join. That means submitting ourselves to the Pastor and the Elders of the church, that means allowing and relying on the Church to guide us, grow us, and (if necessary) discipline us.
2. The church that we become members of must conform to biblical patters of leadership, worship, and preaching. That means Biblical Church government (elders and deacons), biblical service (orderly and reverent), and biblical preaching (historical, exegetical).
3. Reformed is just another word for Biblical.

To fulfill these convictions in Sioux Falls, SD means that we must set aside secondary convictions. It requires that we recognize that no church on this earth is perfect and that there will always be something that we disagree over. (At SGBC, for example, I disagreed on matters of eschatology.) We believe that Christian maturity demands that secondary issues be put aside when necessary and that both parties must treat each other in Christian love. The fences that divide us should never be so tall that we cannot step over them when necessary for the sake of the Gospel and Christian sanctification.
When one refuses to bend on secondary issues one of two things usually happen. Either the individual or family will compromise on a more major point of doctrine (give up good preaching or sound theology for a secondary doctrine, like baptism, for example) or the individual or family will bounce from place to place, church to church-always finding some minor point of disagreement and using that as justification to leave. Sadly, the latter happens more frequently than the former. Families make mountain out of a mole hill and choose to die upon it. They leave a church and drag their kids with them. Its always sad when that happens. Its not good for them, it sets a horrible example for their kids and is detrimental to their faith, and it does the Church of Jesus Christ (as a universal whole) no good. And as an aside it gives the world one more example of how dis-unified the Church is. I fear that the former members and attenders of SGBC will struggle to avoid one or both of those ditches as I have struggled with them in the past.

So, in conclusion, let me say this: For the sake of unity, for the sake of your kids, for the sake of your own spiritual growth: don't let small things (perspective wise) become big things. Know what is and is not essential to the faith. Remember: the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things. There are hills to die on, yes. The nature and attributes of God, the deity and worth of Christ, Lordship salvation, sound preaching of the God's word - you can't compromise on those. There are requirements for choosing a Church, but don't let secondary issues keep you from joining good church.

Sermon: The Sure Hope of Salvation.

2011-02-15T08:14:00.002-06:00

I have the wonderful privilege of preaching a series on 1 Peter at Sovereign Grace Bible Church. Here is the first one. The text is 1st Peter, chapter 1.

Just as an aside, What a blessing to be able to upload long videos now!

Sermon: Be Concerned, but Trust in God

2011-02-06T12:19:00.000-06:00

Text: Matt 6: 25-34

In my previous sermon we looked at a test of worldliness for the believer. Worldliness, as I mentioned last time, is as much a state of attitude as it is an action. What I mean by that is that you can go your whole life never indulging in things that would be considered “worldly” and still be in love with the world. It’s not just an over indulgence in good things, it’s a heart problem. There is a balance in all things and sometimes that balance is not easy to find. In our text this morning, Christ addresses something a direct result of worldliness: Worry. Human beings are indeed responsible for many things. I should be concerned with providing food, clothing and shelter for my family. That’s a God-given responsibility. If you don’t work, you shouldn’t eat. But, when I abuse that responsibility—when I become consumed with worry about how I’m going to pay the bills, where my next meal is going to come from—I’m now crossing the line into sin territory. That’s our default mode: self-reliance. We don’t naturally trust in God and we are accustomed to dividing life into spiritual and secular categories but there is no such division with God. It is not that some things are holy and others are not. That’s a false way of looking at things. There are some who would say that it is wrong to have more than what you need. If you only need X amount to live on but you have X+1 than you’re living in sin because someone else comes up short. That kind of thinking is silly. Wealth and possessions are not a numbers game. It’s a matter of the heart. It’s not how much you have but your view of what you have that is important. Christ made it very clear, in the previous verses, that it is the right attitude towards money and possessions that are the mark of true spirituality. It’s when those priorities are reversed, when what you have and what you make suddenly become more important than God, than you have a problem.

Verse 25: Nowhere does Christ ever magnify poverty or criticize the legitimate gathering of wealth. God made all things including food, clothing, and money. God declared that all things are made good[1] and He knows that there are requirements for daily living. Not only that but he has given us “richly all things to enjoy.”[2] Let me put it this way: It is not wrong to possess things but it is wrong for things to possess you. Do you see that difference in perspective? The sin of idolatry is as dangerous a sin as hypocrisy. When our lives become consumed by the things of this world it not only cheapens what we have, but it will also cheapen us. We start to become worried about what we don’t have rather than be thankful for what we do have and that is unnatural and unspiritual. A person who is consumed by worry is a person who thinks that the things of this world can and will fix all things. Christ called that mindset sinful. We have all felt it and we have all tried to justify it by calling it something else. Softer words like “concern” or “burden” come to mind; or that super spiritual sounding phrase “it’s my cross-to-bear.” Beloved, it’s all worry and it all ends the same. And it is not as if Jesus is telling us not to be concerned, no. Let’s stay balanced here. There is a healthy level of concern in all matters. What Christ is saying is that we shouldn’t be overly concerned. This warning is repeated three times in this passage. Literally Christ says “don’t be drawn in different directions” by these things. Worry pulls us apart. It pulls an individual apart inside, it pulls families apart, and it will always, always threaten to pull a church apart. In our text this morning Christ addresses two areas of worry: food and clothing. And while he uses these examples, the command not to worry should be applied to all things. Shelter, having a job, and especially aspects of church life: Where will the money come from to pay our bills, who will lead the music, where will we meet, who will lead us? All fair questions. Be concerned, but not overly concerned. Let’s look at these examples.

Verse 26-32: Worry about Food and clothing:

Look at the birds, He says. They don’t spend time storing up food and yet God provides for them. We may be tempted to say that everything will just fall into our laps when we read these words. The birds are provided for, says Jesus and yet He is, in no way advocating a sinful idleness, we must see that. What is forbidden here is worry, not responsible provision for one’s own and one’s family needs. God provides food for the birds, but they still have to search for it! There are some who would say that God will provide and yet they do nothing about it. God will provide the money for the bills, they say, as they sit on the couch watching TV. God will provide the food, gas, and lodging for us, they say, as they speed off down the road on a trip to the other side of the country with only $20 in their pocket. If these kinds of examples weren’t taken from real life, they would almost be comical. It’s ridiculous to think that everything will just come to you. God was very clear in the garden, you will work! It will be by the sweat of your brow will you get food.

God provides for the birds, yes, but they also fly around looking for food. The very animal instinct, says Christ, is in tune with God’s sovereign provision. They go about doing what they do, day in and day out—chirping and flying about looking for food. It never enters their mind that the day’s competition might leave them hungry. They never think to store up more than what they need for that day. This is natural to them. And look at the creation, says Jesus. God has clothed it in a manner that not even Solomon, the wisest man to ever live, rich beyond comparison, not even he had clothing that compared to what God has made for the flowers of the field. God provides for his creation. And yet people use that creation. We eat the animals and make clothing from them. We use the grass and trees as building and heating materials—humanity is higher than the rest of creation. If God provides for animals and makes such beautify out of the plant life—if he goes to that kind of trouble for the “lower creation”, doesn’t it make sense that his care for you will be even better?

Worrying is really a wasted effort. That’s why he poses the question: can you add an hour to your life by worrying about it? That’s a rhetorical question. Do you see the way Jesus is putting things into perspective? Man is little. God is Huge! And yet He relates to His people as Father. What a wonderful thought! The King of the universe, the one who made this world and everything in it, the one who holds all things together by the power of his word, this God relates to His people as a Father. He relates to you, believer, and me as our Father. And what does a father do? He protects, provides for, and loves his children. Where do you think we get ideas about an ideal father figure? Yahweh is that and infinitely more. What wonderful comfort! So why worry? It seems silly when you look at it from this point of view. My Heavenly Father runs the universe; I’ve got nothing to worry about. Even when bad things come my way, even when I don’t have enough food or my clothing is ragged, or….fill in the blank. Even then, My Father is taking care of me and I know that whatever He brings it is for the best and for His glory. Knowing this, knowing that God is your father, what cause is there really for worrying?

The basis of the believer’s confidence, in contrast with the anxiety of the pagans, lies in recognizing God as your heavenly Father. The unbelieving world has legitimate cause to worry. Literally, the gentiles have a strong desire or obsession about these things. They have no basis for assurance about their daily needs, not to mention what comes after death. It doesn’t surprise me when an atheist worries. It doesn’t surprise me when a pagan worries. But why should a Christian worry? There really is no cause for it when the God of the universe is our Father.

Verse 33-34: What a Christian Should Be Concerned About:

Contrasting with the worries of the world, Jesus gives the believer something to be concerned about: Godliness. Christ’s words here should put all things in perspective for the Christian. You want something to be concerned about? Well here it is—be concerned about the kingdom of God and the righteousness of God first. Literally He says, continually seek first the kingdom, continually seek the righteousness of God; and what? Everything else will be provided for. Do what’s important and the rest will fall into place. Now that doesn’t mean that everything you desire will be given to you. Don’t think that if you try really hard that God will give you a BMW or a million dollars. What it means is this: if you saturate yourself with a concern for the things of God, the things that God cares about will become what you care about. This isn’t a new concept. That’s what Psalm 37:4 is all about: Delight yourself in the LORD; And He will give you the desires of your heart. If you are truly delighting yourself in God, than your desires will be in line with His desires. I just want to point out that this is how the Christian can know God’s will beyond what is biblically stated as God’s will—Godly desires! If your desire, for example, is to go India and be a missionary and your motives are in line with Scripture, than go! That’s what God wants you to do! Isn’t it a comfort it is to know that God not only protects and provides for His people but also gives them the desire to do His will! He provides everything!

What does it look like when a Church continually seeks the Kingdom of God and the righteousness of God? Turn with me to Acts 2:42. This is what a Godly Church looks like. "They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." This is what happens; this is the natural result of being concerned about the things of God. The word here speaks to a persistent and steadfast continuation in the search for God’s Kingdom and His righteousness. It is my belief that these things are in that order: an immersion in the Scriptures which leads to true fellowship. You cannot break bread with someone if there is no real godly connection and there can be no real godly connection if the Scriptures are not being rightly preached and taught. The Christian faith is supposed to be a day-to-day reality, not a once or twice-a-week routine. Why? Because Jesus Christ is not merely a historical figure; His resurrection is a living reality and His resurrection power is at work in in the Church through the power of the Spirit.

If the Church is continually seeking God in the Scriptures than the last two activities are the natural result, and notice the link between fellowship and breaking bread. Please notice that it doesn’t say “"They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship [and] to the breaking of bread and to prayer." The omission of “and” in the text indicates that the two are inseparable. Instead of a comma we could put a colon after the word fellowship. Fellowship is: breaking bread together and praying together. These things are foundational to Christian fellowship. Why? Because it is the reminder of Christ’s work. Every time we come together for communion we demonstrate what our fellowship is rooted in. We all come from different walks of life. We have different ages; we come from different parts of the country, different cultures, and different generations. Our education levels are different. Not only does that describe this church but it describes God’s people as a whole. Every nation and every tongue, every class of people will be represented around God’s throne. So many different people and yet all of them are unified by one thing: The life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

This is the whole reason that the Christian can be free from worry. This is the whole reason that this Church can stand strong. Hard times come and go, yes but if God is your Father, you have nothing to fear. He takes care of his people from beginning to end. So like our physical needs, let’s not worry about where our spiritual food will come from: God will provide it. We should still work hard. We should still go looking for it, but don’t worry about not finding it. It will come. God is our Father and Christ is our advocate with Him. Again, this should not give you cause to ignore your responsibilities in life, but it should comfort you; because while I work hard to provide for my family, while I work hard to please God in my life, I do so relying on grace; knowing that it is God who is continually watching over me, my wife, and this Church.

[1] Gen. 1:31

[2] 1 Tim. 6:17

Sermon: The Temporary and the Eternal

2011-01-14T09:33:00.001-06:00

Matts (a)Musings....

2010-12-06T08:59:00.019-06:00

As I stated in my previous entry, the thought level of my generation has dropped off significantly. Opinions (on any subject, but especially matters of religion) are hardly informed or researched and it seems to get worse with each succeeding generation. Not only are people largely ignorant but they are proud of their ignorance. They state that they really have no knowledge of the subject but then proceed to throw their opinion at you.

The author of this article is one such fellow: First, he tells you that he really has no business talking about matters of theology ("I'm no theologian...") and then....arrogantly flings his idea at the reader as if to say "Yes, I am ignorant of the Bible, Church History! I have never read what men like James White, John MacArthur, and John Piper have written. My beleif is simple and you can't judge a simple sincere belief. Lets examine a few of his statements.

Another issue of contention stems from a misconception about Jesus. Some Christians would like to forget that Jesus was a true radical; he incited the hatred of most of the traditional religious figures of his day.

Here we have a classic use of a loaded term. When we talk about a radical today, many of us think of Islamic Jihadist terrorism or something similar. Someone who blows up a building or themselves to make some kind of point. Dictionary.com defines radical as: "thoroughgoing or extreme, esp. as regards change from accepted or traditional forms." So, I suppose, you could say that Jesus was a radical in its definitional form but is this what the author intends?
Why is Jesus considered a radical by this author? He sees Jesus as bringing change, but what kind of change are we talking about?
Jesus' many discourses on the law reveal that Judaism had become a legalistic religion that was only concerned with outward appearances. Jesus did not do away with law, he refocuses it. He made people see that the law was not meant to make anyone righteous but was intended to drive the people back to God in repentance. In short: the law is supposed to make you cry out for mercy and grace. Why? Because you cannot possibly live up to it!

"He associated with the crudest of characters—prostitutes, gamblers, thieves—while shunning those who were too haughty and pious for their own good. Jesus would have embraced homosexuals as brothers and sisters in Christ, not condemned and denounced them"

He's half right - Jesus did indeed associate with what the Pharisee's would have considered the scum of the earth. But what Mr. Stensland-Bos fails to tell you is that these scuddzy people were repentant. Never do we read of a sinner coming to Jesus and being allowed to continue on in their sin. One does not have to search long in the Gospel accounts before we see Jesus calling people to repent: Matt 4:17, Mark 1:15 tell us that the entire ministry of Jesus was summed up by calling people to repent (i.e. Stop sinning!) Here are a few examples of the repentance of those who Jesus interacted with: Zacchaeus (Lk 19:8), The woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11), the thief on the cross (Lk 23:40). The Old Testament: The Israelites ( Judges 10:15), David (2 Sam 12:13), Manasseh (2 Chron 33:12-13), Job (Job 42:6), The city of Nineveh (Jonah 3: 5-8) The New Testament: The Corinthians: a place where homosexuality rampant! (1Cor 7:9-10), The Seven Churches of Revelation (Rev 1-3) - those are just the examples that come to mind.

"Two of the primary Bible passages that anti-gay conservatives rely on to defend their arguments come from Leviticus. The problem with using these passages is that they refer to pagan fertility rituals, not homosexuality."

Really? What are these passages? We are, of course, not told. It does not take long before we find them, however. They are Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. If what Mr. Stensland-Bos says is true it should be painfully obvious in a plain reading. Lets read them one at a time:

Leviticus 18:22: ‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." (NASB95)

Leviticus 20:13: ‘If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them." (NASB95)

Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20 are on the same subject: starting in verse one, is about immoral relations. (Since chapter 20 contains the same subject matter I will only discuss chapter 18.) We are also told that the people of God should not have sex with any relations. And just to make sure that the people God the point, God goes into detail. The people of God should not have sex with: their own parents, their own siblings, your fathers wife, your grandchildren, your aunt or uncle, your nieces or nephews, etc. Then God goes further: Don't have sex with your neighbors wife. After this, God addresses matters of a more perverse nature. Do not sacrifice your children to Molech -a deity in that children were sacrificed to by rolling them, alive, down the red hot arms of the statue into the furnace. Now we come to the verse in question. It is after a discourse on immorality that we are told not to have sex with the same gender. But God doesn't stop there: We are also told not to have sex with an animal. It is painfully obvious that while these two verses have a connection to paganism, they are what they seem to be: a prohibition against immorality. If they were simply dealing with pagan religion, one must ask the question: is homosexuality ok? Not only that but is having sex with my parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren, aunt/uncle, niece/nephew ok? How about my neighbors wife? How about an animal? How long do you think it will be before pedophilia and animal love are being promoted as "perfectly acceptable alternative lifestyles"? He continues on saying

"Some anti-gay Christians cite passages from the New Testament, as well, particularly in the writings of Paul.Again, they conveniently miss the point. When considered in literary and historical context, it's obvious that Paul's writings have nothing do with homosexuality."

What is the point then, Mr. Stensland-Bos? What could Paul possibly be saying other than "homosexuality is sin"? Why would Paul go to such pains as to paint homosexuality in this light when he really had no intention of calling it a sinful practice? Romans 1 makes it very clear that homosexuality is a "vile passion" and a "shameful act". Over and over again Paul exhorts the churches to flee from sexual immorality and always lists homosexuality in his lists of sins. He even says that some of the Christians in these churches are former homosexuals (1 Cor 6:9-11).

The word that Paul uses is a compound word: ἀρσενο-κοίτης (arseno-koites). ἀρσενο, which an older form of the word ἔρσην (ersen)for "the male sex." κοίτης which comes from κοῖτος (koitos) which means refers to the sexual acts of the marriage bed. So to put that together, Paul is using a word that refers to two men committing acts that are are done by a married couple. Is that clear enough?

Beneath their tenuous theological arguments, the anti-gay crowd is hypocritical and deeply afraid of a terrible specter of an unknown—gays becoming equal in the eyes of the church.

Obviously, Mr. Stensland-Bos has never read the New Testament. He has never read First Corinthians 6 where Paul says that the believers there were, at one time, people who engaged in a long list of sins, of which homosexuality was included. Paul says "such some of you were." -indicating that their lives were no longer marked by these things. The Church is made of repentant sinners, Mr. Stensland-Bos. That is the chief mark of a Christian: repentance. If you are not repentant, than the church is not for you. Those who are unrepentant are not allowed to share the Lords Supper. They are not allowed to serve in leadership positions. They are not allowed to shepherd a local body.

They fiercely condemn homosexuals as unrepentant sinners until someone in their family comes out. Then they are forced to learn and accept with open hearts, and without exception, their views shift.

What exactly does it mean to "learn and accept" here? Clearly, Mr Stensland-bos means that what God has said should always be subject to our emotional experiences. According to this, my conviction about homosexuality must change when someone close to me comes out. Why?

One of my best friends is a homosexual. Granted, I have "learned" how to counsel her. I have "learned" how to exhort her to holiness and encourage her to wage war with the flesh. But that has no led me to condone her homosexuality. Should I use this standard when someone says they have a compulsion to molest small children? Surely not! Homosexuals, murders, thieves, adulterers, blasphemers - they all have one thing in common: they are sinners under the wrath of God. Homosexuals are guilty of breaking all ten commandments as surely as I, a heterosexual, am guilty of breaking all ten commandments. God calls homosexuals to repent and God calls heterosexuals to repent - there is no partiality with God.

It does not matter how much time passes nor how loud the debate grows, now how large the majority is; God's word does not change. The Church is indeed made up of all kinds of people, all kinds of sinners but these sinners are different. The sinners who make up God's people are the ones who daily repent of their sins. The real church is made of of sinners who daily wage war with the flesh, who deny their sinful desires-all to make the Gospel of Jesus Christ more and more glorious.

The decision of the ELCA to allow gay ministers is really just the newest development in a long succession of compromises that always happen when liberal theology gets into a church. When a church disregards what God has spoken the result is always the same: Sin will abound and a complete departure from the historic Christian faith will eventually take place. The ELCA is certainly not the first "church" to follow this pattern and I fear it will not be the last. The argumentation used by Mr. Stensland-bos is nothing new. Dr. White addressed these kinds of arguments are more it in his book The Same Sex Controversy and I'm sure many more books will come out with each succession generation of God's people.

This issue will not go away-there will always be people who seek to destroy the church by teaching things contrary to God's word and this should come as no surprise to God's people. False teachers have troubled the church all throughout church history. There never was a generation that was free or immune from false teachings. The treatment is simple. The marching orders of the church haven't changed: preach the whole counsel of God with no compromise and let God take care of the rest. To do otherwise is simply, well, amusing.

That's (a)musing....

2010-11-18T14:46:00.011-06:00

This is going to be the start of a new section on Perpetual Flogulence. I originally got this idea from a the title of a column in a local college newspaper called "Matt's Musings." While this section will not simply be about the writings from this column, I did want to start with the article that sparked this idea. First, before we begin, we must define our terms; lest the pun be lost upon us.

The word "muse" means to think. The word is used three times in the Psalms as the author "muses" about the word and works of Yahweh. (Psalm 39:3, 77:12, 143:5). It's a word that has largely fallen out of use in the English language, however we still use a derivative of it today. When you put an "a" infront of some words it negates it. For example, A theist is someone who holds the belief that there is a god(s). To be polytheist is to believe in many gods. To be a monotheist is to believe in one god. Mormonism and Hinduism are examples of polytheistic religions. Biblical Christianity is a monotheistic religion. An atheist, on the other hand, is one who holds the belief that there is no god. So then, if the word "muse" means to think than...?
Yes, you guessed it: amuse. We have entire parks dedicated to not thinking. Now, to borrow the language of Solomon in Ecclesiastes, there is a time for amusement. There is nothing wrong with taking time here and there to not think, or to be more accurate, to not think to deeply. My wife and I will, at times, read non-theological works. I, for example, am currently reading Sherlock Holmes when I am not reading theology. But, like alcohol, amusement must be done responsibly and in moderation. In everything there must be balance and if you know anything about balance there are often different kinds of balances. This kind of balance, I believe, is like the way a sword would be balanced-right at the end of the handle. What I mean to say is that the time spent amusing should be considerably less than then the time spent musing.
Yet, in today's society it seems to be the opposite. It seems that my generation and the ones following spend their time in the latest Xbox game or watching tv. The amount of time spent in amusement has skyrocketed. Not only has the amount of time spent in amusement gone up but the quality of amusement has dropped significantly. Gone are the days when cartoons were clever and puns prevailed in popular humor. Today anyone with a pencil can have his own (badly drawn) cartoon show filled with immature and filthy humor. American Pie, SouthPark, and Family Guy seem to have set the standard for what is funny and amusing. (You can about imagine what happens in my house when a good, (somewhat) clean comedies like Hitch, Get Smart or Date Night comes along - my wife and I love it!). If you don't get the humor of Family Guy people look at you as if you just grew a third eyeball.

In the next post, I shall be examining this article from the column known as Matt's Musings. Stay tuned....

Justification: The level footing of the Cross.

2010-10-14T17:35:00.004-05:00

Preached: October 10th, 2010 at Sovereign Grace Bible Church. Sorry, no video for this one. The text is Galatians 2.
===================================================================
We’ve come a long way since the Reformation; the Church today has never been so blessed. Think about some of the things that we take for granted: Christians today, at least Western Christians, can own a copy of the Scriptures and can do so at a very low cost. We have Study Bibles with great theological commentaries written into them and the book is still small and compact. We are able to fit vast libraries, vast amounts of information onto small, portable machines and take them anywhere. We have the ability to benefit from the writings of great churchmen, even from the early church—information that would once cost a fortune to obtain, a huge labor to copy, and would require a tremendous amount of travel just to see—it can now be downloaded to your home computer while you go to the fridge to get a drink of water. How often to we ever consider the ultimate cost for these things? We just take them for granted. We neglect them and trivialize them. Most of what passes for Christianity these days doesn’t take Scripture too seriously, they hardly read their bibles (and I say that with a finger pointed at me) and willfully ignores 2000 plus years of Christian thought. The things that once defined the Protestant faith are now either assumed and then trivialized or ignored because they are “too divisive” or “irrelevant.”

Do you ever wonder what men like William Tyndale or John Huss or Martin Luther would think and say if they could come back and see what the majority Protestantism has become? They’d be appalled! We can actually hold the scriptures in our hands and we hardly ever touch it! Think about that: Men were burned, alive, for that book! People died over it. (And in many parts of the world, that book can still get you killed.) The issues of the Reformation were once issues of life and death. Huss, Tyndale, Zwingli and a host of unknown men died to free the Church from the tyranny of Rome and today those same issues don’t seem to be that big of a deal. Every day, Christians are pressured to join hands with unbiblical churches and pagan religions for the sake of: well whatever. Unity, feeding the hungry, etc. You name it and there are people naming the name of Christ who are compromising the Gospel and twisting scripture to justify it.

It doesn’t take very long and you’ll find that the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone through Grace alone is the first to be thrown out the window. Evangelicals and Catholics together (ECT) is the perfect example of how Justification was marginalized for the sake of unity.

You cannot believe in the gospel of Rome and be saved. Roman justification is ongoing, incomplete, never-ending, and imperfect. You have to work and for what? You don’t get to be with the Lord when you die in the Gospel according to Rome. You go to Purgatory and for who knows how long. Beloved, if purgatory is true than the Cross is a lie and Jesus is a liar! Please don’t misunderstand: I do not hate Roman Catholics. Some of my dearest friends are Roman Catholics. I love them and I long to see them come out of this works based system. What I do hate is the Roman religion that does nothing more than traps people in a system of works-righteousness and guilt that is disguised in a pseudo-historical grandeur complete with ornate buildings and solemn ritual. The gospel of Rome will not save you and yet in many circles today the differences no longer matter. Thank you, Dr. Luther, but your efforts were a giant waste of time.

This is not something that is unique to the Protestant vs. Rome debate. You find the same thing in any pseudo-christian religion. Just because a group has a cross or the name of Jesus attached to it does not make it Christian. I’m sorry but “appearing to love God” as Joel Osteen put it on Larry King is not one of the qualifiers of a Christian or a mark of the true church. Speaking Christianese really well and saying all the right things do not make you a Christian. Spend any time speaking with a Jehovah’s witness, for example, and you will find that they really sound Christian. They use our terms and phrases and their prayers sound similar and we have the similar ethics and morals and as long as you don’t ask certain probing questions—they sound pretty Christian. The same is true of Mormonism, 7^th Day Adventists, etc. Insert pseudo-christian cult here. Denial of the Doctrine of Justification by faith alone is really the end result of a wrong view of Christ and as I’ve stated before, if you’re Christology is wrong you will get everything else wrong because your view of man, sin, and salvation flow from your view of Jesus Christ. When you believe that Jesus only came to make people savable—that is he came to enable you to pull yourself up by your own spiritual bootstraps—then religions like Romanism, Mormonism—all these man-centered religion, are not so hard to understand.

As Michael Horton points out in his book Christless Christianity, the Law is our default mode. We understand law. One of the things that sin produces in the human heart is pride and one of pride’s many out-workings is the desire to be justified in the sight of God by our own efforts; how much of salvation is credited to us varies from person to person but we all would like some credit, lets be honest—even if its only one percent of one percent; even if it’s just taking credit for believing—we would still like some credit.

It destroys our pride to hear that “all our works are as filthy rags” in the sight of God—that there is nothing we can do to earn his favor. Isn’t that offensive? For the sake of the younger among us I won’t tell you what the words for “filthy rags” mean in Hebrew but in order to help you see the hopelessness of mans position before God, let me give you an vague idea: The Hebrew that translates as “filthy rags” roughly means “soiled bloody cloth” and I will leave it to the parents discretion to explain that further but, try to think about that without getting sick: on my best day my good works amount to nothing more than a pile of smelly, bloody, rags. In Hebrew culture that means unclean and unclean means that you cannot partake in the blessings of God or even approach Him. And when that kind of thing is said to unregenerate man the sinful heart of man cries “How dare you!? You mean that I gave all this money and gave food to all these people, and did all these things, I mean I followed the Beatitudes to the letter and that’s all I get is this: a comparison to a pile of rotting bloody rags? that’s gross! That’s icky! I’m better than that!” And outside of the Grace of God, what I just told you will only spur man on to work harder and do more. Is it any wonder why people set biblical doctrine of Justification aside? This church would be filled to the brim if we trimmed things like that out. In case you’re tempted to think that I’m taking this way too far, that I’ve been too harsh, I invite you to read the entire book of Galatians today, especially 5:12.

These issues are important. To Christ and the Apostles, Theology matters. It matters so much that when error is propagated, especially by those who would be shepherds and teachers in the church, it demands that God’s people stand up and defend the truth by proclaiming the Gospel and in some situations, like we will see in our test this morning, it means publically calling out people in positions of authority. Regarding the doctrine of justification, this chapter is one of the most vital in the New Testament, for it gives us instruction not only about the attitude we are to have towards the Gospel as a whole and justification in particular but how we are to stand for the truth of this doctrine. In this passage Paul takes the abstract doctrine and shows how vitally important it is in the everyday life of the believer but also how integral it is to the live of the church itself.

While the opening verses do not directly relate to the topic of Justification it is important to our understanding because we all know the three rules of Biblical interpretation: Context, Context, and Context. Paul has come back to Jerusalem after fourteen years. Now, as you can imagine, rumors had been flying since his conversion that the one who was persecuting the Church was now preaching the Gospel. This fourteen year interval should probably be dated from Paul’s conversion and would place this in Acts 11:30.[1] There are many reasons for this dating the timing of the visit as opposed to his trip to Jerusalem in Acts 15, the private nature of the meeting, the fact that this meeting was “according to revelation,” but the main reason, and I would agree with Dr. James White on this, is that if the meeting described in Galatians 2 is the same one found in Acts 15 than the result would be an incredible act of hypocrisy by Peter and Barnabas, for the council of Acts 15 was concerning Gentile salvation. Paul’s reason for being in Jerusalem is a revelation and when they arrived there Paul tells us that he met with the more influential church leaders in a private meeting. And what did he do? He told them of the Gospel that he was continuously preaching to the gentiles. This is very important. What Paul tells us next is the basis for his argument against the false teachers in Galatia and, as we will see, the basis for his argument against Peter in verses 11-21.

It is quite possible that the Judaizers in Galatia were claiming their authority from the apostolic leadership in Jerusalem and had been exalting Peter, James, and John at the expense of Paul. And here is why this is important: the “men of reputation” didn’t teach Paul anything new. They didn’t tell Paul that he needed to be tweaked or that he was out in left field. Instead they offered him right hand fellowship; and we are familiar with what that means. We do the same thing when we accept new members: they stand at the right of the Pulpit (my right), they confess their faith, and are welcomed into full fellowship. This is what the leaders in Jerusalem did for Paul: They affirmed not only his message but his authority as an Apostle. This has two giant implications for believers, pastors and teachers especially. Firstly, notice that Paul did not barge into the meeting and demand immediate approval. When Paul talks about running in vain he is speaking of his methods. When you are out preaching the Gospel, it is not something that you have the liberty to be carefree with in terms of your method. You are not the Gospel; you are simply the one proclaiming it. This is not about you or your popularity or how witty you can sound or how wise you can appear by coming up with new connections that no one has ever seen before; God has defined the Gospel and your job is to proclaim it. I’m not arguing for a pre-packaged method, I’m saying that the way you proclaim the Gospel has to be godly and in line with Scripture. Secondly, Paul desires to have his authority affirmed. Jesus called him to be an Apostle but Paul still wants to be affirmed by the church. That’s humble. There’s no ego here. Paul isn’t looking to start his own church or to put himself up on a pedestal—he wants to work for the good of the Christ’s church. Do you know how many people are in Seminary today because they had a feeling? Or they say something like “well Jesus said to me…”— What a bunch of emotional rubbish. It’s a total dog’s breakfast. You don’t go into the ministry unless you are called and affirmed by the local church. I’ve told Pastor Kang this and I’ll tell you: If Sovereign Grace Bible Church does not affirm my calling to the Pulpit, I won’t go, that’s how seriously I take this. If the Apostle Paul sought the affirmation of the Church, then anyone who desires to lead the Church had better do the same.

Now, Paul seeking to be in line with the rest of the church is very important: Had Paul and the leaders in Jerusalem not been in agreement the results would have been disastrous: namely a Jewish/Gentile split—something that was in the making in Galatia. This entire pre-section speaks primarily to the fact that Paul and the leaders in Jerusalem were united on the subject of the Gospel over against the legalist Judaizers who were troubling the church in Galatia.

This is made even more evident by the fact that Titus, a Greek Christian, was not compelled to receive the sign of circumcision. Titus seems to be Paul’s test case and that Paul wanted the issue of circumcision to come up in the meeting. And why? Why did this entire matter even need to be discussed? It was certain people had snuck into the fellowship. Paul’s words are very clear: ψευδαδέλφους –false brother. These men were not Christians. They professed to be Christians, they spoke Christianese well, but in fact they were enemies of the Gospel. These men were in the church! They may have held leadership positions and, outside of a careful examination of their doctrine, would have appeared to be very, very Christian. The goal of these false teachers became plain when examined: it was to bring Christians back into slavery to the law and to do it in a very clever way. Not much different than today, is it? Tricking Christians back into slavery seems to be the goal of every religious leader that rejects the Gospel. While the messages of prosperity preacher Joel Osteen may differ greatly from Emergent leader Brian McLaren, the core is the same: Do more, work harder.

As clever as these teachers were, Paul tells us that he saw through them and never once gave in. He never once doubted the Gospel of Grace as being insufficient. And what was Paul’s reason? To be right? To exalt himself as having the correct theology? No. His motivation is the truth of the Gospel. The Gospel cannot be mixed with mans legalistic religions. You do not compromise and sit down to have an ecumenical “conversation” with those who promote a gospel of works. I don’t care how nice they are or how much you agree with their politics—when you mix the Gospel of Jesus Christ with mans religion for whatever reason; the result is always the same: a powerless system of works that will not save anyone. The truth of the Gospel is and should be the number one focus for the Christian Church and it is and should always be priority number one for Sovereign Grace Bible Church. Without it, we have nothing different to say than any other group. Without the truth of the Gospel we are simply a competing organization among a myriad of groups that offer a myriad of methods for self betterment. It cannot even be said that the church loves God if she cares nothing about the truth of Gods message of salvation in Christ Jesus.

Like all Christians, there comes a time when our metal is tested. Paul moves from Jerusalem to Antioch where he is visited by Peter. This visit resulted in a crisis for the newly forged unity just a few verses back. Please notice that Peter had not simply changed his mind. Peters fall came because he gave into religious peer pressure. Peter had thrown out the Jewish regulations concerning gentiles, seen most notably by the fact that he was sharing meals with them. Pastor Kang has mentioned to us a few times that food is important in eastern cultures—and in Biblical culture it is extremely important as seen in the Lord’s Supper. Peter’s action displayed the unity within Christ’s body. The previous ideas about clean and unclean no longer apply in Christ. But when people claiming to be from James arrived, Peter changed, he “drew back.” Here the term refers to a strategic military withdrawal. Peter knew that the new arrivals would not break the old tradition and he caved in to the pressure. The reason that Paul is telling us this story is because he sees no difference between the false brethren here and those he is fighting in Galatia. Both viewed circumcision as a necessity to the Christian faith. Much like Rome and other false Churches today, they thought that, “yes, Faith in Christ is good but you have to add to that. You need a little bit more.”

Paul’s response is, as you will remember from Pastor Kang’s sermon last week, is an example of Church discipline that requires that you go straight to a public rebuke. Paul didn’t wait until he could get Peter behind a closed door to discuss the issue. Peters public action required a public critique. Paul’s confrontation came in front of everyone: Jew and Gentile, and, as we can assume, in front of these so called “men from James.” He didn’t care if Peter or anyone else would be offended. Peter was in the wrong. Literally “he was to be condemned.” Peter, a member Christ’s inner circle, was completely out of sync with the gospel and Paul didn’t care about social acceptability or being discrete: this was a matter that was far too important to allow any delay. There is a time for being gentle about doctrinal error and there is a time for cutting straight to it—I hope you can see that. Furthermore there is a distinction made between disagreement over a secondary issue and a serious doctrinal error. Christians can disagree about many things and still have fellowship with one another. Lets say that Emily has a preference for old hymns and Corinne likes modern hymns—that’s ok. Todd likes to use the NASB and Jim prefers the NKJV—nothing wrong there. We’re still brothers, we’re still family. Someone comes into our fellowship and proclaims that we need to add something to faith in Christ for salvation—no, sorry. That’s a deal breaker.

Now, we may be tempted to ask what all the hoopla is about and say that Peter is just endorsing historical tradition, and that is true: Peters action were in-line with what was historical Judaism. But that’s the point: Judaism is not Christianity. You cannot mix them. Judaism is Old Covenant and Christianity is New Covenant. The Old points to the New, it flows to the New but it does not define the New Covenant. Messianic Christianity or Messianic Judaism is simply playing with fire. It always seems to end the same way: slavery under the Law. Do these things, don’t do those things, observe Sabbath customs, look down on any Christian who celebrates Christmas, Easter, or attends historic Sunday worship. The end result is not only the ultimate denial of Justification by Faith Alone but also a complete separation from Historic Christianity and the gathering of the local Church and in some cases, a complete denial of the deity of Christ or a complete return to Orthodox Judaism. Peter was, in effect, setting a very dangerous example: That the gospel of works being preached by the Judaizers was acceptable. The result would have been one Church for Jews and another for Gentiles and Paul knows that this cannot be allowed to happen.

Peter’s action produced quick results: The rest of the Jews joined him! Including, shock of all shocks, Barnabas! Barnabas, the one who took the dreaded Saul to meet with the Apostles, the very “Son of Encouragement” himself, the very Barnabas who was in that private meeting which united Paul with the other Apostles in Acts 11; wouldn’t you have expected him to encourage Peter to uphold the truth of the Gospel? He is doing anything but encouraging anyone. Do not underestimate the power of religious tradition. I think those of us who were not raised in the Reformed faith but came to it out of conviction understand this better than most. I wasn’t raised in the Reformed faith. I was raised in Mennonite church and then later came to faith in a culture of religious nominalism and squishy evangelicalism. The “Christian community” that I found myself in was a group nominal and immature Christians mixed in with false converts –a group that used Christianity as an excuse to be childish and embrace every kind of strange subculture under the sun. When I came to understand the Doctrines of Grace I did so after a year of serious study and wrestling with God and it cost me.

Much like Spurgeon, when you take a stand for orthodoxy and Christian maturity you will be shunned. You will not be very popular. Do you see what kind of effect a popular leader can have on people? What is the trend today amongst people of my generation and younger generations? Complete and utter silliness propagated by people who are immature believers at best and false converts at worst. Instead of pulpits where God’s word is preached we have stages where crowds are entertained. Instead of the younger people being educated about their faith and trained to proclaim and defend that faith we have youth leaders bribing kids with pizza and playing disgusting Fear Factor-like games and doing all manner of shocking things to keep the kids interested. The things being done today in the church for the sake of “relevance” are utterly horrifying! This is why we need to pray for Church leaders and Sunday school teachers. The amount of influence that a person gains when they are in a position of leadership is astounding. Pastor Kang needs your prayer and encouragement. And so do the leaders of this church and those who would teach Equipping Hour—they all need your prayers and encouragement.

Now, we must remember that these men were Jews and they had been taught, as far back as they could remember that Jews and Gentiles do not associate. What one is taught in childhood will often be carried through the rest of life, even when there is further knowledge and understanding that forces us to recognize the shortcomings and limitations of that early teaching. While there is no excuse for their hypocrisy it should remind us all of the possibility that we are all deeply influenced by our own traditions.

The actions of Peter and Barnabas overrode their confession. I doubt that they had publicly stated their denial of what had been decided at the Jerusalem meeting or that they issued some written retraction on it. And I’m sure, had you asked them, they would have affirmed their orthodoxy; but as you know, orthodoxy is not only affirmed with words. It’s affirmed with actions and the actions of Peter and Barnabas were an outright denial of the Gospel. The ground at the foot of the cross was no longer level. Religious rite, namely circumcision, was what determined your standing before God. Therefore, they were not “walking straight” according to the truth of the Gospel. The term, ὀρθοποδέω, refers not only to walking straight along a rule or standard but also the consistency of that walk. Paul didn’t note one or two occurrences of this kind of behavior but something consistent. The word here is in the Present Active which means that it was an ongoing action. A person who is walking straight is not wavering or stumbling and that is exactly what Peter and Barnabas were doing: Consistently wavering and stumbling.

You can almost see Paul, can’t you? As he places himself right in front of the “kosher table” at meal time, making sure that everyone was there and in a loud voice so everyone could hear: “If you, being a Jew…” You can also imagine Peter’s red face and that he was none-to-happy with Paul’s timing. Paul’s opening was probably a painful moment for Peter, especially because the “men from James” could here everything. Paul uses Peter’s Jewishness as he makes his point about justification by faith in the following verses and it is doubtful that Peter had much of a reply since Paul’s words are in keeping with Peters own words found elsewhere, especially after his encounter with Cornelius. He asks a very simple, rhetorical question of Peter: How can you, Peter, a Jew who, by your past actions, has not put much stock in the idea that you had to live like a Jew in order to be a Christian; how can you now compel gentile believers to live like Jews and observe all the same rites and traditions that you yourself had ignored? Paul pulls no punches as he exposes the end result of Peter’s hypocrisy: Legalistic Elitism. Paul tells us what Jews think of gentiles: They’re sinners. That sounds insulting to us today but in reality, that’s the Jewish mindset regarding Gentiles (which is all of us.)—a sinner simply because of biological heritage and separated from God’s covenant and law.

Now we come to the center issue: Justification. There is a distinct divide between justification by works and justification by faith in Christ alone. Paul makes this assertion in verse 16 as something that must be understood. He says this as if it is common knowledge that both He and Peter agree that no one is justified by the works of the law and that the only way is through Jesus Christ alone. Paul is speaking of the Law in its entirety and not just the ceremonial law and while the Mosaic Law is clearly being referred to in this context we should not let this leave a door open to any other kind of law. If God’s Holy Law cannot bring about righteousness in the human heart than nothing from Rome, or Joseph Smith, or Joel Osteen ever will either. The Law’s inability to bring about righteousness is the way God designed it. The Law, for the unbeliever, will show that person that he or she needs Christ and bring about repentance or it will execute God’s wrath on them by hardening them in their rebellion but it will never save anyone; that should be obvious when you look at Jesus’ own commentary on the Law. I might never murder anyone but I’ve sure been angry and hated people in my heart. You might never commit adultery but you’ve had lustful thoughts. Everyone here as told at least one lie. There is not one righteous person in the church today when they are compared to the Law. Think of the Godliest person you know: That person is a wretched sinner!

The text is very clear (and let me just mention that in the Greek, it is even more clear) that justification is not by works period. Paul is not being a Universalist and saying that Jesus Christ is not simply one way or a better way of salvation nor is he agreeing with Rome and saying that to go the way of the Law is an option as long as you believe in Christ. The way is the same for everyone: You must repent and believe in Christ.

Do not let the words “and we have come to believe in Christ Jesus” slip past you as a mere redundancy. Paul is still playing on his and Peters ethnic identity. Even though He and Peter are Jews they still had to trust in Christ for justification, just like any “gentile sinner” would! This is Paul’s point in verses 17 and 18: Everyone stands on the same level when it comes to justification. If a Jew does not jettison all of this false pretense about having some advantage over a gentile because of his Jewish lineage he cannot come to the cross. A Jew must stand on the same ground as a gentile; he must acknowledge that he is a sinner as well. No one, literally “no flesh”—not a Jew, not a Gentile, will ever be justified by Law. You cannot have both the righteousness of Jesus and your own merit. Christ will not accompany you down that road of legalism. Like the gentile, the Jew will find himself under the wrath of God if he continues to hold to his own supposed righteousness gained by the works of the Law. This is why Paul says later on in the book that those seeking to be justified by works have been severed from Christ.[2] True faith holds to Christ and Christ alone for their salvation.

So now the question is, and Paul rightly anticipates it, if this is what Jesus does, if His work destroys the law as the supposed means of righteousness, than doesn’t that mean that Jesus becomes a “minister of sin” in the sense that he forces us all into the same category of being a transgressor of the Law? Paul is emphatic: No, absolutely not! The whole idea is in error. And here’s why: Paul says that “if I build on what I once destroy, I demonstrate that I am the one who breaks God’s law.” In other words: If the Jew rejects the law as the source of righteousness but then returns to it he proves that He has broken the law. Remember, Peter had not been observing the Jewish purity rituals concerning food and association with the gentiles, which was in keeping with Christ’s teaching that it wasn’t food that contaminated a person or association with certain people that made someone unclean; it was the heart. The law was destroyed. But since the Judaizers had come, Peter took up the rituals again. And so Paul’s point is: Peter, How can you disregard the rule one day, uphold the message of equality in Christ, and then later go back to the old system of Jewish purity? Haven’t you proved that you are incapable of keeping that law by returning to it? You’ve condemned yourself! You cannot have it both ways. You either go with faith in Jesus alone or you go with works alone.

Paul’s testimony is the testimony of every Christian: Through the law we died to the Law. How? In Christ Jesus! Once a person is dead the law cannot touch him. Once sentence is carried out, that’s the end of it. No double jeopardy. You cannot be tried again for the exact same crime. This is what Paul means when he says that we die to the law through the law. How did we die? We died with Christ. The righteous judgment of God fell on Christ in place of the believer. The sentence of death was carried out on another in my place. What an astounding statement, that the death of Christ became the death of His people! Paul had new life; the believer has new life in Christ because they have truly and really died with Christ on the cross. The believer was as surly united with Christ as John was standing there on the actual day of the crucifixion. That’s God’s eternal reality. In fact, just as John was physically standing next to Jesus he was also crucified with Christ. That is how closely our redeemer identifies with us in his sacrificial death.

The concept of being united with Christ in death is an integral part of what Paul means to be in Christ. In Ephesians 2:5 he speaks of being alive together with Christ and seated with him in the heavenly places. Unlike liberals who deny that there was an actual historical Jesus with a historical death and resurrection, Paul never confuses Christ and the believer, even though he proclaims this close relationship between Christ and his people. The believer has been crucified with Christ, he does not become Christ and Christ is still crucified. Without the historical reality of the work, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, there would be no redemption; no justification at all. God did indeed join us to Christ before the foundations of the world but that redemption was worked out in time, in history, on a hill called Golgotha. That’s the difference between election and being called. God’s people were elected and united to Christ before time existed but each one of us came to faith in our specific point in history. Some can tell you the date (for me it was January 26^th 2002), and others cannot. The point is this: redemption is historical. I died on Golgotha and I died that cold winter night in the middle of a church basement knowing full well that I was a lawbreaker and my punishment would be hell. But now, now that I have died the life I live, I live in Christ. Jesus did not take a bad man and make him a good man, He took a dead man and made him live again. And while I still live in the flesh, my life here on earth is a different kind of fleshy life. I live to glorify Him because my life is in Him. My all is in Him! The life of a believer is a life of faith in God the Son. The life of a believer goes beyond the natural life; it is indeed supernatural because of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.

Christ’s love for His people is special and unique. Notice how Paul qualifies Christ’s love for us: He loved me and gave himself up for me. Without being too technical, let me point out to you that the words for “loved” and “gave himself” are both aorist participles. To say that in a less complicated way: It means that they indicate a point of action in time.

James R. White, in his book The God who Justifies, A work that I am very grateful for and one of the works that I have relied heavily upon says this:

Paul’s consistent usage of the aorist to describe the love of Christ for his people may point to that one moment in time when he did indeed “love” His people by “giving Himself up” in their place. I believe that Paul is referring to Christ’s voluntary sacrifice of Himself in this passage and that therefore this “love” spoken of here would be a specific love of the elect, a love that is limited solely and completely to the People of God

Paul’s use of the personal pronoun “me”—This is something that every believer can say: Christ loved me and stood in my place to take my punishment. Please notice that Christ delivered himself up in place of the believer. His sacrifice was voluntary. What a wonderful truth! Who has ever been so kind as to voluntarily die in the place of another? When was the last time you really thought about that? Familiarity with the Gospel, especially in music, is something that the Church will always struggle with. I invite you to spend the week thinking about this great truth. The King of the universe died in of someone who had spent their lives raping and pillaging in His kingdom. What a kind God!

You can hopefully see where Paul is going with all of this. In case you missed it, here’s the summery in verse 21:

“I do not nullify the grace of God, for, if righteousness could come through the Law than Christ died for nothing”

This is Paul’s entire point and is a ringing challenge to anyone who wants to join the Law to the Gospel of free grace in Jesus. Peter’s actions were, according to Paul, pointing in the same direction as the Judaizers in Galatia—that the gentiles were lacking a righteousness that came through the law (in the case of Galatia, through circumcision). The reply from Paul is this: If you can obtain righteousness from the Law, why would Christ have to die in the first place? Here is a more current example:

The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church says this in Article 2 (emphasis’ mine):

P1989: "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man. (in 2002 we are told that man must respond)

P1992: Justification is conferred in Baptism.

P2010: Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.

Make no mistake, Paul’s response to the Roman church would be the same as his response to the Judaizers in Galatia: You cannot join work and grace. How can you merit any grace, even sanctifying grace? God alone justifies, sanctifies and glorifies. You cannot give God 99.99% of the credit and keep that 0.01% for yourself. It’s not partially of grace, its all of grace! According to Paul, obtaining righteousness through the law results in two things. These are the last two points I want to make and then I’ll conclude:

First, it nullifies or sets aside the Grace of God. Paul expresses this great truth in Romans 11:6 where he says “If it is by grace, it is no longer by works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.” The concept of grace in Paul’s teaching is exclusive to the idea of merit according to works of the Law; it’s either/or, black and white. Either one is made righteous before God by God’s grace alone or it is by meritorious works alone. I know I’m beating the horse to death but this is so important. To attempt to mix grace with law only nullifies grace. The second thing that righteousness through the law does is that it makes the sacrifice of Jesus meaningless and needless. Jesus called Himself the way. He said that no one would get to the Father but through him. Paul has this in mind when he says that if you could obtain justification apart from Christ than Christ’s work wasn’t necessary. You may live a really moral life on the outside. You may be the most upright Muslim or Mormon, or Roman Catholic around but the patchwork garment of works that you make for yourself, even if there is only one small patch and it says “I believed”—that will never compare to the seamless, spotless robe of Christ’s righteousness. Grace is not grace if you add any works to it.

How then shall we live? Those who put their trust in their own works can never have assurance of salvation. As I stated at the beginning of this message: If purgatory is true than the Gospel is a lie and if the Gospel is a lie than there is no hope. Christ either secured complete and perfect redemption for me on the cross or He didn’t and if He didn’t than we’re all in trouble. All of us, when we look at the standard of God’s law will never, ever measure up. Even the rich young ruler, who claimed to have kept all of the Law since his youth, went away very sad when that claim was tested. Paul, who, before his conversion, was the most righteous of all Pharisee’s described himself as the chief of sinners. And that’s you and that’s me. But this good news is this: That Christ loved me and he loved you. He took my place. He took your place. And by that sacrifice He alone merited eternal life for His people and he bestows this grace on his people by giving them saving faith which in turn produces a zeal for good works. The Galatians were getting the cart before the horse! Works are a product of what Christ has already done for you, not the cause of it.

Think about these things as we go through Reformation month. This is a big deal! Men risked their lives over these truths, and many of them died for it. Here is the question that I want to leave you with: How can we, Sovereign Grace Bible Church in 2010, look back through the years at all these giants of the faith who stood strong against those who sought to pervert the Gospel with works and not in turn earnestly contend for the faith in our own day? How could we ever compromise and neglect so great a salvation?

[1] White, 272-274

[2] Gal 5:4

Guest Blogging: The Sola Sisters

2010-09-17T12:17:00.002-05:00

I'm sorry, Glenn...Its Over.

Dear Glenn,

This is a hard letter to write, because we've had some good times. But I'm sorry, it's over between us. And please believe me when I tell you this: it's not me, it's you. You see, I haven't changed. I'm still the same conservative gal, the one who sat around hoping that somehow, some way, this country would be set right again. And along you came, with a little sparkle in your eye, so full of national pride, so distraught and earnest over what was happening to our country right under our noses. Hegelian dialectic! Cloward-Piven! Fabian socialiasm! The third way! And suddenly, I wasn't the only one running up the hill, vainly shouting these things into the wind....you were right there with me. We were having such a good time. I was telling everybody about you!

And okay, sure, I knew you were a Mormon. But maybe, I said to myself, he's really a Christian. Maybe he's one of those "cultural Mormons," a Mormon in name only, who doesn't even know about all that kooky Mormon theology. After all, he talks about God and Jesus and salvation and atonement.... Looking back, I'm so ashamed of myself: I should have known better! After all, a large part of what I do is write about cults, and how they use the same terminology that Christians do, only with redefined meanings. Oh, how I wanted to believe.

But then, you changed. It all started with the rock. You know what I'm talking about, Glenn. It's no use getting all wide-eyed and coy with me, I'm onto you now. You brought out that rock, and exclaimed over its "Hebrew" inscription. At the time I didn't know what you were talking about, but after a little digging, I discovered that this rock, known as the Bat Creek Stone, is believed by Mormons to be evidence of ties between ancient Israel and Native American Indians. And I discovered that the Mormon Bible teaches that America will become God's latter-day base of operations for His restored church. (3 Neph 21:4) With these findings, your zealous patriotism was taking on new meaning for me.

Suddenly, we had taken a strange turn. I didn't want to be proselytized by someone who believed in Planet Kolob and spirit babies; I wanted the old Glenn back, the one with the blackboard, running back and forth between Cass Sunstein and Jim Wallis and Barack Obama, sweating and red-faced. You began to talk more about faith, and suddenly I could no longer pretend we were on the same page. "Get back to God," you earnestly spoke into the camera. "Whatever that means for you, go back to your church, your synagogue, your mosque, your whatever."

Excuse me, but....."Whatever that means for you?" As in, however you want to approach God is fine by me, just so long as you have a tidy little moral code that keeps you out of trouble? I couldn't believe it. I was crushed! No longer could I pretend that you were somehow secretly a Christian who hadn't yet mustered up the courage to leave his cult.

And then came the 8/28 rally. By that time, I couldn't even watch. My heart was already broken.

And then it began to dawn on me: I think I've been played. Not by you, Glenn. But by the Progressive Left Wingers. You see, all along, as your tide was rising, we Tea Partiers and conservatives were cackling about 2012, about "just wait!" and "oh boy, we'll show them!" But the Progressives weren't concerned in the least. Why was that? Could it be that, on the rising swell of your popularity, they were envisioning the possibility of a Mitt Romney run.....and instead of being concerned, they already had it mapped out? Instead of quaking with fear over the handsome, articulate, former governor of Massachusetts, they were ready and waiting with a list of questions about temple garments, Brother Lucifer, and baptism for the dead? Maybe that's why they weren't worried about you or a possible Mitt Romney run....they were secretly rubbing their hands together with glee at the thought of "temple garments" being shown over and over again on CNN.

Oh dear, it's all starting to become clear to me. The truth is, we don't believe the same things. Your Mormon "gospel" of moralism and good works and America-as-the-promised-land is the kind of false gospel that the Bible warns about. And now I'm officially freaked out. Of course, I'm still conservative and want what's best for the country, but the bottom line for me is God....not country. Don't get me wrong. I love my country, and I'm heartbroken to see it sliding into socialism, but I'm sorry: God trumps country.

So Glenn, this is it, it's over. Now, instead of pleading with my friends to tune in, I'm begging everyone to wake up and realize that, as nice and earnest as you are, you are not a Christian. And to pray for you. But I want you to know that I still wish you the best, even though you scare me now. It's not me, Glenn. It's you.

Sadly,

Sola Sisters

SixTests of Christian Fellowship Part 2

2010-08-25T13:13:00.004-05:00

See the first half of this sermon from 8/15/2010 Here

Part 2:

Pt 1:

Pt 2:

Pt 3:

5 Classic Bible Twists (And How To Correct Them)

2010-08-21T19:37:00.001-05:00

Source
Jeremiah 29:11

For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.

The Wrong Application: God loves you and has an adventurous plan for your life. Quit living the same-old boring life of just going to church, and go do something great for God.

The Problem: If you zoom out and look at this verse in context, you see the background. Look at verse 4: “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon…” These verse are not written about you. They are written about the Jews during the exile in Babylon and thus when God says that he knows the plans he has for “you” he was not speaking about the general reader of the book of Jeremiah.

The Right Application: God disciplines his covenant people when they engage in idolatry by delivering them into the hands of their enemies, yet faithfully promises to rescue them according to his predestined plans to bring them to repentance and bless them by grace.

John 10:10

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.

The Wrong Application: Your marriage, your finances, your relationships, your children, your health and everything else in your life may be ok, but couldn’t it all stand to be a lot better? The enemy wants you to give up and give in to just living the normal life, but God doesn’t want you to be mediocre. He wants to give you life abundantly. By applying biblical principles to our lives we can learn from Jesus how to quit being average and live the abundant life God has for us.

The Problem: With Jeremiah 29:11 we saw that the context and the audience make a big difference when it comes to biblical interpretation. Based on the wrong application above, who would you guess Jesus is speaking to? His disciples? A blind, lame, or leprous person that Jesus is about to heal? No, at this point Jesus is arguing with the Pharisees. If anyone applied biblical principles to their lives, it was the Pharisees. They also were rich, in places of honor, and seemed to generally maintain decent relationships with people. By most people’s standards, the Pharisees applied biblical principles to their lives and were living the abundant life as a result. Yet Jesus is in the middle of arguing with them.

The Right Application: Jesus is the great shepherd of his people. He lays down his life in order to save his sheep, because he knows his sheep, he loves his sheep, he gathers his sheep, and he has received the charge from his Father to lay down his life for his sheep. Jesus wants to give his people abundant, eternal life where he may dwell with all who have entered through the door: faith in himself. Any who enter another way have come to steal people away from the joy of life with Jesus.

Revelation 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

The Wrong Application: If you have never accepted Jesus into your heart to be your personal Lord and Savior, know this: Jesus is knocking on the door of your heart, asking you, begging you to let him in. If you have never done that before in your life, I want you to pray this prayer with me. Just repeat after me. “Lord Jesus…”

The Problem: In chapters 2 and 3 of the book of Revelation, Jesus is dictating letters that are to be sent to the churches of Asia. This particular portion is written to the church in Laodicea, a church with a reputation for well-being. By all appearances Laodicea would be a church where Jesus had been invited in a long time ago. Jesus is not knocking on the door of anyone’s heart, but knocking on the door of the church.

The Right Application: The reason that Jesus is at the door knocking is because the church has effectively removed Jesus. He is no longer present at the church and they are only keeping up appearances. Jesus is highlighting the irony that a church with a reputation of spirituality is a church where he needs to knock on the door and wait for it to be answered. Therefore, today we must recognize that outward growth and spiritual reputation can be present when Jesus is not. We need to bring Jesus back into our church by preaching the gospel and performing works that are worthy of the gospel of God.

Matthew 22:36-40

“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

The Wrong Application: The Bible is not a book all about rule-following and keeping every “i” dotted or every “t” crossed. The Pharisees were experts with their traditions and kept thousands of man-made laws thinking that this made them right with God. God says this, “You want to know what the whole Bible is about? You want to know how to please God? You want to know how to live a life of meaning and purpose? Love God, love people. That’s it. This is the whole Bible whittled down to 4 verses.”

The Problem: It is certainly true that the entire law is summarized and fulfilled by the two commandments to love God and love people. In fact, it is even perceptive to notice that the commandment for us to love our neighbor is in fact a commandment to love mankind in general considering that Jesus told the parable of the good Samaritan in response to the question “who is my neighbor” and furthermore Jesus has also said, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” Having stated this, the problem with the wrong interpretation is that the commands “Love God, Love People” are an adequate summary of the law, but not the gospel! See Romans 3:20 – “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” So the incorrect application of this passage actually teaches salvation by works rather that salvation by faith!

The Right Application: Since the entire law is summarized by the commandments “Love God and Love People,” consider the full scope of how gravely we break this every day. The requirement of this law is absolute, uninterrupted love for God. That is a terrifying thought. With or every action that does not stem from absolute love of God we are guilty of breaking the greatest commandment. The very commandment that seemed to be life-giving has actually condemned us! Yet thanks be to Jesus, who did in fact keep this commandment perfectly! Jesus always loved his Father and neighbor with perfect and unfailing love. Meditate on 1 John 4:10 – “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” Through faith in Jesus, we are counted as if we lived Jesus’ life of perfect love. We are counted as if we loved God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength and our neighbor as ourselves. From this righteousness that comes from outside of us we can learn to actually obey Jesus. We learn that there is no sin that loves God and there is no good work without loving God.

Proverbs 29:18

Where there is no vision the people perish.

The Wrong Application:Your local mega-church pastor has been reading books by business gurus again and announces the newest topic of a sermon series: Vision-casting. When you totally surrender your life to God he will make a vision for your life to well up within you until you just can’t help but do something about it. This church was born from a vision we had a few years ago and if you’re not on board with the mission and vision of this church then it’s not you who is going to perish, but everybody else. This is a church for the unchurched, and if you’re not on-board with the vision of this church, you need to leave and find another church. Preferably one who doesn’t care about reaching the lost.

The Problem: Most fundamentally, the verse itself is quoted wrong. The verse actually says, “Where there is no prophetic vision the people cast off restraint, but blessed is he who keeps the law.” The proverb is not talking about a church’s vision or mission statement but about God’s legal revelations.

The Right Application: If you are familiar with the Book of Concord’s three primary uses of the law, the correct use for this proverb would be the first: to curb sin in society. When there is no revelation from God concerning his moral law sinful human beings do whatever they consider right in their own eyes causing absolute havoc. When the God of Love reveals a law, it truly is good for society for that the law be kept and enforced.

Six Tests of Christian Fellowship Part 1

2010-08-17T16:12:00.005-05:00

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Social Justice Jesus

2010-07-14T11:51:00.002-05:00

Gotta love this hard look at the social justice aspect of liberal Christianity from Chris Rosebrough. Rosebrough hosts Pirate Christian Radio and is the newest theologian under the Theology blogroll. Check him out and give him a listen!

Work seeking woes....

2010-07-13T12:27:00.003-05:00

The past two days have been a roller coaster in terms of interviews. I was interviewed yesterday by a national security company and today with an airport security company. Both results are disappointing. The first (GS4) was for a 32hr/week job that payed 9.00 an hour. 32hrs is considered full time and while they did offer heath benefits the long term picture was bleak: I would be working more hours for less money and after taxes and the cost of heath care for Emily and I, I would be loosing money. Em and I are just staying afloat on my current paycheck (400/every two weeks at minimum) so, any less would be unacceptable to us.

The second job, Covenant Aviation, hardly got off the ground in terms of an interview. The man who interviewed me was very nice Christian man who appreciated my snappy dressing and was very pleased by the answers I gave to his questions. Unfortunately, because his company had recently been unionized, He guaranteed me that I would be working weekends and holidays. At first I didn't see a problem with this...that is until he told me about the shifts. The bottom line? The kicker? The snag, if you will: None of the shifts allowed for me to faithfully attend Sovereign Grace Bible Church and still work a shift at the airport. So its work vs. Church. He asked me if I even wanted to continue the interview with that information and I told him no. To my surprise, he told me that he was "honored and humbled to sit across from a man with that kind of conviction." We took the rest of the "interview time" to talk about Godly things: Church, seminary, my study in 1 John and we even shared a time of prayer. There is a silver lining to this at least, even though my human eyes are prone to looking toward the dark cloud. I'm so glad I worship a God who keeps his promises. I know He'll be taking care of us.

SK

Book Review: Stop Dating the Church by Joshua Harris

2010-07-02T13:02:00.006-05:00

Like-minded people tend to gather and they gather for all kinds of reasons: bike rallies, concerts, book clubs, golf clubs, etc. Sadly, the church seems to be going in this direction as well. Most “churches” today are mere religious social clubs. The majority of “church goers” today tend to move around. They go to Church A one week, then Church B and then C; a habitual circuit tends to form as the months and years go by and Church’s A, B, and C tend to be so large that no one really notices of the Jones are there or not . And when Mr. and Mrs. Jones decide, for whatever reason, that the church doesn’t meet their preference, they leave. Because, after all, they have to be comfortable there.

Once upon a time, the Church was the center of a community – pastors would investigate when people were absent. Why? Because they took their pastoral duties seriously; they were concerned about their flock. Gone are the days when that was the norm. There is, however, still a remnant of believers who are serious about church membership. In his book, Stop Dating the Church, Joshua Harris addresses this very issue. Gods people where never meant to be out on their own. Lone Ranger Christianity has never worked. Solo Christianity is an oxymoron. Trying to follow Jesus all by yourself would be akin to one soldier storming Omaha beach. Christians, redeemed as they may be, will always feel the pull of sin and without others to help you along the way you will find yourself, more often than not, sunk in the swamp of despair. In fact, Church history has shown that when someone really tries to go it alone they wander off into heresy and usually amass a following.

Today’s churchgoer is much like teenage dating – they attend for as long as they get something and then stop and move on-especially if the pastor puts his finger on their particular sin. This kind of behavior is contrary to the Gospel according to Jesus and the Apostles found in Scripture. Scripture calls for a commitment. Being an active member of a biblical church is not only what God commands but it is also God’s best for you and not only you but for the church community and for the world. Remember, the Church is the only institution that God promised to sustain forever. The Church is the key to spiritual health and development. As my pastor often says “your sanctification is a community project.” Spurgeon said that failure to join the church is disobedience calling those who refuse to join the local church a pile of “good-for-nothing bricks.”

What should a person look for in a Church? That is, what makes a church a church? Harris outlines ten important questions to ask when searching for a church[1]:

1. Is this a church where God’s word is taught faithfully?

2. Is this a church were sound doctrine matters?

3. Is this a church in which the Gospel is cherished and clearly proclaimed?

4. Is this a church committed to reaching non-Christians with the gospel?

5. Is this a church whose leaders are characterized by humility and integrity?

6. Is this a church where people strive to live by God’s word?

7. Is this a church where I can find and cultivate godly relationships?

8. Is this a church where members are challenged to serve?

9. Is this a church that is willing to kick me out?

Church disciple is one of the three marks of a true church.[2] When someone who claims to be a Christian consistently lives as if they are not then it is the duty of the church leaders to dismiss said person with the hopes that they will repent and come back to the Church. This practice as instituted by Christ himself (Matt 18). Why is this so important? Harris says, and I agree, “I gain a wonderful sense of protection in knowing that if I committed a scandalous sin and showed no repentance, my church wouldn’t put up with it. They would plead with me to change. They would patiently confront me with God’s word. And eventually, if I refused to change, they would lovingly kick me out.” [3]

10. Is this a church I am willing to join “as is” with enthusiasm and faith in God?

The church is the “dearest place on earth” said Spurgeon, but as long as you simply date the church you will never understands that. The real question is this: will you be obedient to Scripture? Will you put your hand to the plow with the institution that God ordained and Christ died for or will you not? Don’t say you love Jesus when you refuse to join His Church. If you don’t love what He loved then how can you love him? Be obedient, join the local church today.

If you are in the Sioux Falls, SD area and would like to attend a biblical church please check out Sovereign Grace Bible Church (the church that I and my Wife attend) or Sioux Falls United Reformed Church

[1] Pg discussion of these question is found on pages 81-96

[2] The marks of a true church are: where the word is rightly preached, the ordinances (baptism and communion) are rightly practiced, and church disciple is carried out.

[3] Pg 94

After a long Hiatus....

2010-05-13T09:47:00.004-05:00

I'm almost back. Blogs are coming about my recent marriage which should include some photo's of the ceremony and honeymoon adventure to Hot Springs, SD. If you wish to know a little now you can go Here and Here and Here to my wife's blog and read her wedding blogs but as for me, I'm super busy at the moment finishing my first year of seminary. Oh, and, Lord Willing, there should also be a blog on why I am leaving Sioux Falls Seminary. For now, though, take a look at this.

The Message Bible: Why not?

2010-03-23T16:36:00.004-05:00

Today in Greek class, someone asked why we shouldn't recognize the message as a legitimate translation since it is supposedly the Bible in modern language. Please have a read, this is why:

===================================================
Original Source

The Message

The publisher of this version (NavPress) informs us that Eugene Peterson started out to become a scholar, but after earning a master's degree in Hebrew he changed his plans and entered the ministry, as a pastor in the Presbyterian Church (USA). There he served for some years before he retired to write. Peterson says that he began to create this version during a series of lessons on Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. He observed that his congregation was bored with the Biblical text as they knew it, and so, in order to stimulate them, he wrote a paraphrase of the Epistle, in which he tried to make it extraordinarily vivid and interesting to them. Later, he published this paraphrase as part of a devotional book, and it was noticed by an editor at NavPress. This editor persuaded Peterson to put the entire New Testament in the same kind of language. ⁽¹⁾

Peterson did most of the work on the New Testament during 1991, at which time he was "writer in residence" at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. The New Testament was published in 1993, and became a best-seller. Peterson was persuaded to do the Old Testament, and, over a nine year period, he gradually completed the entire Bible. A volume containing The Old Testament Wisdom Books was published in 1998, followed by The Old Testament Prophets in 2000, the Pentateuch in 2001, the Books of History in 2002, and an edition of the complete Bible in 2002.

In evaluating this version, the author's purpose and audience must be kept in mind. Unfortunately, the publisher has advertised it as a "translation from the original languages" that "accurately communicates the original Hebrew and Greek" and brings out "the subtleties and nuances of the Hebrew and Greek languages," being the work of a respected "exegetical scholar," etc., all of which gives an entirely false impression of the work. Instead, what we have here is a free paraphrase of the text, often very eccentric, with many unlikely renderings, lengthy insertions and omissions, and other problems; but to criticize this work for its many inaccuracies would be to miss the whole purpose of its author. Peterson's purpose in this is to present something new and provocative at every turn, something vivid and unusual, in order to stir up the dull minds of people who have become bored with their familiar Bibles.

His method is comparable to that of a preacher in the pulpit, who dwells on one thing for a while and then rushes over another, alternatingly serious and jocular, doing whatever he can to maintain the attention of his audience. The version incorporates a number of interesting but peculiar interpretations that can only be described as homiletic:

Literal translation	The Message
Matthew 1:22. All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet	This would bring the prophet's embryonic sermon to full term
Matthew 5:13. You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.	Let me tell you why you are here. You're here to be salt-seasoning that brings out the God-flavors of this earth. If you lose your saltiness, how will people taste godliness? You've lost your usefulness and will end up in the garbage.
John 3:5. Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.	Unless a person submits to this original creation—the 'wind hovering over the water' creation, the invisible moving the visible, a baptism into a new life—it's not possible to enter God's kingdom.

Such 'homiletic' elements of the version are sprinkled here and there on a translation which is for the most part extremely colloquial. Long and formal-sounding sentences in the original are often simply replaced with punchy phrases: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you" is replaced with a jovial "Enjoy the best of Jesus!" Many renderings can only be described as facetious: John 1:14 "The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us" becomes "The Word became flesh and blood, and moved into the neighborhood." The language is spiced up with slangy and amusing idioms: 2 Corinthians 4:17 "These hard times are small potatoes compared to the coming good times." In Acts 13:6 "crooked as a corkscrew" is used instead of the simple adjective "false."

Often the version portrays things in a more colorful way than the original, and it sometimes takes on a cartoonish quality. For example, in James 4:7 instead of "resist the Devil and he will flee from you" we have "Yell a loud no to the Devil and watch him scamper." This is intended to make us chuckle. In Acts 12:16 according to The Message the disciples were not only "amazed" when they saw Peter, they "went wild," which suggests an amusing scene of commotion that is not indicated in the original text. (At least they didn't go bananas!) Many renderings inject the same kind of breezy slang that provoked Alexander Tytler to ask, "What must we think of the translator, who makes the solemn and sententious Tacitus express himself in the low cant of the streets, or in the dialect of the waiters of a tavern?" ⁽²⁾

A psychologizing tendency is evident in several places. In Luke 2:34-35 Simeon prophesies that Christ will be "spoken against" or opposed, and that by this opposition "the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed." Peterson analyzes these thoughts, and says that Christ will be a "misunderstood" figure, whose rejection will "force honesty" upon the opposers. Yet the Bible's own "psychology"—as reflected in its use of the word psyche (soul)—is muted in the version. For example, in Acts 14:22 instead of "strengthening the souls of the disciples" Peterson gives a bodily metaphor: "putting muscle and sinew in the lives of the disciples." In John 12:27 he eliminates Jesus' reference to his own soul. Instead of "Now is my soul troubled" we read "Right now I am storm-tossed." In a similar manner he avoids using the word "spirit" (pneuma), as in John 13:21, where the Greek says that Jesus was "troubled in his spirit (pneuma)" but Peterson says "visibly upset." In Luke 23:46 he writes "Father, I place my life in your hands" instead of "into your hands I commit my spirit." When Stephen is martyred in Acts 7:59 Peterson makes him cry "Master Jesus, take my life" instead of "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." The avoidance of the words "soul" and "spirit" in the version appears to be deliberate and systematic. ⁽³⁾ The same thing is done with the Hebrew word ruach "spirit" in the Old Testament. In Psalm 51:10 where it says "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit (ruach) within me" Peterson gives a very fanciful rendering—"God, make a fresh start in me, shape a Genesis week from the chaos of my life." Here Peterson plays with a concept suggested by the word bara "create" in the verse (same word as in Genesis 1:1), and his rendering may be appreciated as an interesting homiletic development, but it cannot be taken seriously as a translation of the Hebrew.

Sometimes Peterson obscures the main point of a passage by distracting attention from it with a homiletic flourish, as in Romans 9:27-28. Here the apostle Paul is dealing with the question of why the Church has so few Jews in it, and so he quotes Isaiah's prophecy concerning the relatively small remnant that will remain after God has dealt with them in judgment.

Literal translation	The Message
Romans 9:27-28. And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved. For the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.	Isaiah maintained this same emphasis: If each grain of sand on the seashore were numbered and the sum labeled "Chosen of God," they'de be numbers still, not names; salvation comes by personal selection. God doesn't count us; he calls us by name. Arithmetic is not his focus.

The reason for the citation is clear in the literal translation, but in Peterson's paraphrase it is strangely opaque. He fastens on the word "number" and he produces a little meditation on the contrast between numbering and naming by importing the concept "he calls us by name" into the passage. In the process of making his interesting homiletic point he neglects the main point of the passage. This sort of thing often happens in the pulpit, where it is quite forgiveable to expound "the right doctrine from the wrong text"—but it is another matter when homiletic excursions supplant the text itself.

There is a tendency in the version to transpose things into a modern context. In Matthew 10:29 Christ's question, "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny" becomes "What's the price of a pet canary? Some loose change, right?" Arguably the "loose change" here is actually more accurate than "a penny" as a translation of assarion, but the "pet canary" is completely anachronistic. An item from the experience of the modern American consumer is substituted for the "two sparrows" of the text. ⁽⁴⁾ Even the Holy Spirit seems to be transformed into a more familiar character in this version, when Peterson gives the word "Friend" as a translation of paraclete (John 14:16).

The reader who mistakes this cavalier treatment of the text for a reliable translation is in danger of being misled at many points. This danger is well illustrated by the following paragraph from a review of The Message which recently appeared on a religious homosexual website:

What about the passages against homosexuals, you might ask? Well, although we found his translation of Romans 1:26-27 a bit off, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 have been liberated from their heterosexual bias and are translated in ways that are much more inclusive and truer to their original intent. The text of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 reads as follows:
"Don't you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don't care about God will not be joining his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don't qualify as citizens in God's kingdom"
The text of 1 Timothy 1:9-10 reads as follows:
"It's obvious, isn't it, that the law code isn't primarily for people who live responsibly, but for the irresponsible, who defy all authority, riding roughshod over God, life, sex, truth, whatever!"
We at Spirit & Flesh say, nicely done!

But these passages really do condemn homosexuality, as may be seen in any reasonably accurate translation:

Literal translation	The Message
1 Cor 6:9-10. "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."	Don't you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don't care about God will not be joining his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don't qualify as citizens in God's kingdom.
1 Tim 1:9-10. "...realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching.	It's obvious, isn't it, that the law code isn't primarily for people who live responsibly, but for the irresponsible, who defy all authority, riding roughshod over God, life, sex, truth, whatever!

It would be unfair to suggest that Peterson has omitted the references to homosexuals because he disagreed with the indictment against them — he omitted many other things in these verses also. Are these omissions due simply to an attempt to make the passages more concise? It seems that something more is afoot, because in the midst of his severe abridgement of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 he adds, "use and abuse the earth and everything in it," which corresponds to nothing in the Greek text. Apparently Peterson has interpreted the passage as a merely conventional list of sins, in which the sins mentioned are of no particular importance, and so he passes over them, and he takes the liberty of inserting a new "sin" (earth abuse) ⁽⁵⁾ which he imagines is more relevant to the reader.

The treatment of 1 Peter 3:1-7 is interesting. This passage is rather offensive to modern ears when translated accurately, but Peterson's paraphrase solves the problem:

Literal translation

The Message

1 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair, the wearing of gold, or the putting on of clothing— 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. 5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening. 7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.

The same goes for you wives: Be good wives to your husbands, responsive to their needs. There are husbands who, indifferent as they are to any words about God, will be captivated by your life of holy beauty. What matters is not your outer appearance — the styling of your hair, the jewelry you wear, the cut of your clothes — but your inner disposition. Cultivate inner beauty, the gentle, gracious kind that God delights in. The holy women of old were beautiful before God that way, and were good, loyal wives to their husbands. Sarah, for instance, taking care of Abraham, would address him as, "my dear husband." You’ll be true daughters of Sarah if you do the same, unanxious and unintimidated. The same goes for you husbands: Be good husbands to your wives. Honor them, delight in them. As women they lack some of your advantages. But in the new life of God's grace, you're equals. Treat your wives, then, as equals so your prayers don't run aground

We notice how Peterson's instruction to wives here differs somewhat from Peter's instructions. Peterson strips away any suggestion that the women are to subject themselves to their husbands, although obviously this is the main point of the passage, as written by Peter. Instead of "respecting," "submitting to," or "obeying" their husbands, the wives are to be "responsive to their needs," and "taking care" of them, like mothers. Turning to the men, Peterson puts the idea of wifely submission out of bounds by telling them, "you're equals." He explains that the woman is a "weaker vessel" only in a sociological sense — the women "lack some of your advantages." Here it seems that Peterson has simply replaced the teaching of the passage with its opposite.

On what theory of translation does he suppose he can do all this? We note that in his introduction he makes some statements that hint at a philosophy of translation which theorists have called contextualization, in which contemporary ideas and ways of thinking are substituted for the concepts of the original text: "The goal is ... to convert the tone, the rhythm, the events, the ideas, into the way we actually think and speak" (emphasis added), and he describes his work as "looking for an English way to make the biblical text relevant to the conditions of the people." This is the traditional function of a preacher, of course — the contemporization of the message. But it is not the proper function of a translator. Regarding his treatment of 1 Peter 3, it may be that Peterson felt that the passage was only meant to encourage women to conform to social expectations of the time, and so the 'meaning for today' would involve some corresponding affirmation of current morals.

Peterson's homiletic method of handling of the text should have been more clearly explained in the introduction, and in the advertising of the version. But it seems that Peterson himself has little awareness of how the message of the Bible has been transformed in his paraphrase. In one article that appeared in a publishing industry trade magazine, it was reported that

What Peterson says he has never done in any of The Message titles is to explain what needs clarification because of cultural and language barriers. If the text is obscure, he says, "I keep it obscure. If it's ambiguous, I keep it ambiguous. It has never been my intent to put my take on someone else's ancient writings." ⁽⁶⁾

Nothing could be further from the truth, as the examples given above show. Putting his own "take" on the Bible is precisely what he has done throughout The Message. But on the other hand, in the same article he admits that he does "take considerable liberties" with the text. He says that when pastors have told him they have used it in preaching he warns them that "they miss the connection with the past with this translation." He indicates that it is for "first-time readers," and that these readers should quickly "get weaned from it." In an interview published in Christianity Today when he was asked, "Do you think The Message will be well suited for reading in worship?" he replied, "When I'm in a congregation where somebody uses it in the Scripture reading, it makes me a little uneasy. I would never recommend it be used as saying, 'Hear the Word of God from The Message.' But it surprises me how many do. You can't tell people they can't do it." ⁽⁷⁾

Instead of giving any such warnings in the introduction, Peterson distracts attention from the problems and tries to justify his treatment of the text with an argument about historical and comparative linguistics. He asserts (wrongly) that the Greek New Testament itself was written "in the street language of the day, the idiom of the playground," the "informal idiom of everyday speech," etc., and implies that The Message is meant to correspond in style with the originals. ⁽⁸⁾ But clearly The Message does not use "street language" in any consistent way. Much of it is in colloquial style, but much of it is not. Who uses such phrases as "the prophet's embryonic sermon" or "God-flavors of this earth" in everyday speech? Who says things like, "Isaiah maintained this same emphasis" down at the barber shop? Surely this is not the language of the common man. Moreover, in the Christianity Today interview he says something quite different concerning the nature of the original: "The fact is, the Bible is hard. It's not an easy book. I don't think we should compromise the accuracy of the Bible just for ease of reading." Obviously the Bible cannot be both the "idiom of the playground" and a "hard" book. Which is it? And, we might ask, why shouldn't we read The Message in the worship service as "the Word of God" if the version is really as accurate as the introduction (and the publisher's advertising) implies?

Evidently Peterson finds himself in a difficult position trying to defend his paraphrase, which attained such unexpected popularity, while trying at the same time to indicate that it is not really the Word of God and not suitable for use in the church—without being very specific about why it isn't suitable. "You can't tell people they can't do it," he says, unable to articulate his reservations. Meanwhile, the publisher is doing everything it can to make it happen. By the end of 2003 almost nine million copies had been sold through aggressive marketing techniques. ⁽⁹⁾

The Message has found a ready audience among "evangelicals" who are bored with the Bible, and who wanted a jazzy and fun paraphrase to take its place. Its popularity is just one more example of the levity of the contemporary church, and of its unhealthy taste for novelties and fads, which have become so much a part of ministry in evangelical churches in the past thirty years. As Peterson has written in one of his books on pastoral care, American church leaders have been "transformed into a company of shopkeepers with shopkeepers concerns — how to keep the customers happy, how to lure customers away from the competitors down the street, how to package the goods so that the customers will lay out more money." ⁽¹⁰⁾ And again, speaking of entertainment-driven ministry he says, "There are others who do not desert the place of worship, but in staying, they do something worse: they subvert it. They turn it in to a place of entertainment that will refresh bored and tired consumers and pump some zest into them." ⁽¹¹⁾ But if there is one thing worse than turning the Sanctuary into a place of entertainment, it is turning the Sacred Page into a piece of entertainment.

This book should be recognized for what it is. It began as a stimulating paraphrase of the Epistle to the Galatians included in a popular devotional book, and it remains a piece of stimulating devotional literature. But it is not the Word of God. As Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary has put it, "it is freer even than a paraphrase. I think of it more as devotional literature than as a version of the Bible and wouldn't recommend it for any other role." ⁽¹²⁾

1. This information is given on the publisher's website. But the publisher downplays the aggressiveness of its editors in soliciting the work. See the article by Hope McPherson, "Ten Years in the Making, The Message Was Released in Its Entirety This Summer," Seattle Pacific University Response 25/3 (Summer 2002). Mcpherson writes, "Peterson took on the task, in part, to appease a persistent NavPress editor. The editor had read Peterson’s paraphrase of Galatians in his 1982 book, Traveling Light, and wanted more." See also the interview with Peterson by Doug LeBlanc, "I Didn't Want to Be Cute," Christianity Today, 46/11 (October 7, 2002), p. 15. LeBlanc quotes Peterson as saying, "I was a reluctant participant in this. I really didn't think that I could do it or that it could be done. But I agreed with my editor, John [Jon Stine], that I would. In some ways Paul is easy. There's a lot of challenge to Paul, but the gospels are something quite different. There's a kind of clean, lucid clarity to them, and I just didn't think I could do that. But I agreed to do 10 chapters of Matthew and then let John decide whether he thought we could do this. And so it was just as bad as I thought it would be. It was very wooden, and it just wasn't working. I just kind of let go and became playful."

2. Alexander Fraser Tytler, Essay on the Principles of Translation, third ed. (Edinburgh, 1813), p. 119.

3. Yet in John 19:30 he does translate accurately, "he offered up his spirit." Is this because John's Gospel is regarded as more "spiritual," more "Greek" in outlook? Peterson's avoidance of the words "soul" and "spirit" in so many places is probably due to his being influenced by theologians in his denomination, the PCUSA. Despite the fact that the New Testament clearly makes a distinction between "body" and "soul" in several places, many liberal and neo-orthodox theologians attribute the body-soul distinction to a kind of "Greek thinking" which they like to characterize as unbiblical. They assert that according to "Hebrew thought" (which they identify with biblical teachings) a human being is a "psychosomatic unity" in which the soul cannot be separated from the body. In some circles there is a very palpable discomfort with the word "soul." When I was a student at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary there were at least two professors there who frowned upon any talk about the "soul." One of them flatly denied that there was any such thing as a soul in man. Eugene Peterson was "writer in residence" at this seminary in the year before I arrived, and he completed most of the work on the New Testament while there. It seems unlikely that his version's avoidance of the word "soul" is unrelated to the aversion to the word that I saw at the seminary.

4. In a review article published in The Bible Translator 46/1 (Jan 95), Robert G. Bratcher faults Peterson for "indulging in transculturation." He writes, "This New Testament lies somewhere between Kenneth Taylor's Living Bible and Clarence Jordan's Cotton Patch New Testament: to the right of Jordan and the left of Taylor. Peterson goes beyond the acceptable bounds of dynamic equivalence in that he will often divest passages from their first-century Jewish context, so that Jesus, for example, sounds like a twentieth-century American. Look at Mt 5.41-42: 'And if someone takes unfair advantage of you, use the occasion to practice the servant life. No more tit-for-tat stuff. Live generously.' No longer are we in first-century Judea, where the Roman occupation troops had the right to require Jews to carry their packs. In Jn 2.4 the money changers in the Court of the Gentiles become 'loan sharks.' Besides indulging in transculturation, Peterson at times pads the text with additional details for increased vividness and drama ..." (p. 155.)

5. Evidently Peterson is an "environmentalist." In at least one other place he seems to inject an environmentalist idea into the text of the Bible. In his version of Genesis 1:26 he makes God say that people were created to "be responsible for" the earth instead of "have dominion over" it — "Let us make human beings in our image, make them reflecting our nature so they can be responsible for the fish in the sea, the birds in the air, the cattle, and, yes, Earth itself, and every animal that moves on the face of Earth."

6. Michelle Bearden, "Eugene Peterson: Getting Out the Message," Publishers Weekly, October 9, 2000.

7. Doug LeBlanc, "I Didn't Want to Be Cute," Christianity Today, 46/11 (October 7, 2002), p. 15.

8. See also his article "The Message of Love in a World at War" published in Response 25/3 (Summer 2002), in which he argues along the same lines. Concerning this idea about New Testament Greek, which has so often been used as a fig leaf for colloquializing versions in recent years, we invite the reader to learn the true facts of the matter as given in the article Was the Bible Written in 'Street Language'?

9. As H. L. Mencken said, "No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public." Painful details of the marketing strategy are given in an article by Kimberly Winston, "You Can Judge A (Good) Book By Its Cover," Publishers Weekly, October 13, 2003.

10. Eugene Peterson, Working the Angles: The Shape of Pastoral Integrity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), p. 1.

11. Eugene Peterson, Reversed Thunder (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988), p. 141.

12. Craig Blomberg, review of The Word of God in English by Leland Ryken, Denver Journal: An Online Review of Current Biblical and Theological Studies, volume 6 (July 2003).

"Eugene Peterson: Getting Out the Message"

Michelle Bearden, Publishers Weekly, October 9, 2000.

Sometimes there's a fine line between paraphrase and translation. Eugene Peterson, author of the popular The Message series, believes his work falls into both categories. "I do take considerable liberties," admits Peterson, whose newest book, The Message: The Old Testament Prophets in Contemporary Language, due out this month from NavPress, translates the works of the Old Testament prophets into modern language. "But when you're working from original languages and trying to translate as close to the American idiom as you can, you sometimes have no choice," he adds.

What Peterson says he has never done in any of The Message titles is to explain what needs clarification because of cultural and language barriers. If the text is obscure, he says, "I keep it obscure. If it's ambiguous, I keep it ambiguous. It has never been my intent to put my take on someone else's ancient writings."

Peterson wants to introduce new readers or refresh longtime students of the Bible through The Message, which offers a contemporary rendering of the New Testament and other scriptures from the original languages. Although it was never his intention to create a publishing phenomenon, he did just that, obviously filling a void. To date, the 12-book The Message line has sold more than 6 million copies.

A onetime Presbyterian pastor who retired after 35 years to write full time, Peterson says there was nothing magical or marketing driven behind his plunge into making the Bible more accessible. It dates back to the early 1980s, when he gave a Sunday school class, followed by a series of sermons, on the book of Galatians. He looked out into the congregation and saw plenty of bored faces. "They just weren't getting it." He decided to use his knowledge of Greek and translate Galatians into contemporary English. When Paul launched into wild syntax with vigor and startling images, so did Peterson's modern translation. He managed to capture the spirit of the text without changing the message. When Peterson retired from pastoral work and moved back to the family home in Montana, he decided he had the time to tackle the whole New Testament in the same style, with the help of nothing more than his Hebrew Bible and the works of his favorite commentators. The result was The Message.

Peterson wouldn't recommend The Message as a study Bible because it has no concordance, and he doesn't like to see fellow clergy use it for sermon preparation. "When pastors tell me they preach from it, I tell them they miss the connection with the past with this translation," he says. So what purpose does The Message serve? Peterson says it's a comfortable entry point for those who have been turned off by the institutional feel of the traditional text. With a translation that speaks in contemporary language, there's no reason for first-time readers to fear the Bible. He hopes The Message will only be a launchpad into the standard translations. "Get weaned from it," urges Peterson. "I actually prefer translations that are archaic and stay close to the syntax of the ancient language. It makes for awkward reading, but it preserves the uniqueness of the works."

You Can Judge A (Good) Book By Its Cover

Kimberly Winston, Publishers Weekly, October 13, 2003

NavPress has had enormous success repackaging its The Message contemporary-language Bible-as-novel by Eugene Peterson. First published in 1993, this retelling has sold more than 8.5 million copies in versions ranging from single books of the gospels to the New Testament and the entire Bible. Now Sarah Snelling, NavPress's new associate publisher for The Message Division, reports that The Message Remix (2003)—designed to appeal to younger readers but differing from the original only in its smaller format and the addition of verse numbers—has sold over 150,000 copies in its first month. NavPress will offer "collector's editions" of The Message Remix four times a year in different formats. Out this month is The Message Remix: Snack Mix Limited Edition, a lunchbox with the book inside. Due in January is The Message Remix: Limited Edition #2 / Trail Mix, which comes with a backpack. Other repackages include the just-published The Message: Slimline Edition and The Message: The Gospel of John. Snelling reports that sales for The Message show no signs of slowing—Wal-Mart ordered 15,000 copies in May and Sam's Club had sold more than 60,000 by late September. Snelling said key to keeping the product fresh is partnering with Christian celebrities and their pet causes. NavPress plans to promote The Message by sponsoring a tour with Christian singers Tobymac and Kirk Franklin to benefit at-risk youth. That helps fulfill NavPress's publishing mission. "We don't want people to just read the Bible, but to live it," she said. "That's the big push for us this fall, and that will be our marketing campaign in the spring."

Introduction to the New Testament, from The Message

The arrival of Jesus signaled the beginning of a new era. God entered history in a personal way, and made it unmistakably clear that he is on our side, doing everything possible to save us. It was all presented and worked out in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. It was, and is, hard to believe—seemingly too good to be true.

But one by one, men and women did believe it, believed Jesus was God alive among them and for them. Soon they would realize that he also lived in them. To their great surprise they found themselves living in a world where God called all the shots—had the first word on everything; had the last word on everything. That meant that everything, quite literally every thing, had to be re-centered, re-imagined, and re-thought.

They went at it with immense gusto. They told stories of Jesus and arranged his teachings in memorable form. They wrote letters. They sang songs. They prayed. One of them wrote an extraordinary poem based on holy visions. There was no apparent organization to any of this; it was all more or less spontaneous and, to the eye of the casual observer, haphazard. Over the course of about fifty years, these writings added up to what would later be compiled by the followers of Jesus and designated "The New Testament."

Three kinds of writing—eyewitness stories, personal letters, and a visionary poem—make up the book. Five stories, twenty-one letters, one poem. In the course of this writing and reading, collecting and arranging, with no one apparently in charge, the early Christians, whose lives were being changed and shaped by what they were reading, arrived at the conviction that there was, in fact, someone in charge—God's Holy Spirit was behind and in it all. In retrospect, they could see that it was not at all random or haphazard, that every word worked with every other word, and that all the separate documents worked in intricate harmony. There was nothing accidental in any of this, nothing merely circumstantial. They were bold to call what had been written "God's Word," and trusted their lives to it. They accepted its authority over their lives. Most of its readers since have been similarly convinced.

A striking feature in all this writing is that it was done in the street language of the day, the idiom of the playground and marketplace. In the Greek-speaking world of that day, there were two levels of language: formal and informal. Formal language was used to write philosophy and history, government decrees and epic poetry. If someone were to sit down and consciously write for posterity, it would of course be written in this formal language with its learned vocabulary and precise diction. But if the writing was routine—shopping lists, family letters, bills, and receipts—it was written in the common, informal idiom of everyday speech, street language.

And this is the language used throughout the New Testament. Some people are taken aback by this, supposing that language dealing with a holy God and holy things should be elevated—stately and ceremonial. But one good look at Jesus—his preference for down-to-earth stories and easy association with common people—gets rid of that supposition. For Jesus is the descent of God to our lives, just as they are, not the ascent of our lives to God, hoping he might approve when he sees how hard we try.

And that is why the followers of Jesus in their witness and preaching, translating and teaching, have always done their best to get the Message— the "good news"—into the language of whatever streets they happen to be living on. In order to understand the Message right, the language must be right—not a refined language that appeals to our aspirations after the best but a rough and earthy language that reveals God's presence and action where we least expect it, catching us when we are up to our elbows in the soiled ordinariness of our lives and God is the furthest thing from our minds.

This version of the New Testament in a contemporary idiom keeps the language of the Message current and fresh and understandable in the same language in which we do our shopping, talk with our friends, worry about world affairs, and teach our children their table manners. The goal is not to render a word-for-word conversion of Greek into English, but rather to convert the tone, the rhythm, the events, the ideas, into the way we actually think and speak.

In the midst of doing this work, I realized that this is exactly what I have been doing all my vocational life. For thirty-five years as a pastor I stood at the border between two languages, biblical Greek and everyday English, acting as a translator, providing the right phrases, getting the right words so that the men and women to whom I was pastor could find their way around and get along in this world where God has spoken so decisively and clearly in Jesus. I did it from the pulpit and in the kitchen, in hospitals and restaurants, on parking lots and at picnics, always looking for an English way to make the biblical text relevant to the conditions of the people.

Eugene H. Peterson, The Message: The New Testament in Contemporary English. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1993.

Eugene H. Peterson, The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2002.

So, alot more has happened....

2010-03-02T10:03:00.006-06:00

1) That girl I told you all about? Emily? Well, she's no longer my girlfriend. She is now my fiancee
and 46 days from this date she will be my wife. (April 17th 2010). I can hardly believe it sometimes. If you thought planning your wedding was difficult, try doing it when one of you is on the other side of the country! I am happy to say that Emily now lives in South Dakota and we have a large portion of the planning finished but there is still much more to do and we covet your prayers as we finish our preparations.

2.)Because I am getting married I have decided to press pause on my seminary track. After discussing it with my pastor and my fiancee, we all agree that a year off would be beneficial to our marriage and to me personally. It will allow Em and I to enjoy our first year of marriage without the classroom being a third party but allow us to declare war on debt. and will also allow me to put more of my energy into Sovereign Grace Bible Church. I will still continue private study, though. I plan to either walk through Mounce's Greek again or take Hebrew.

3. I am now a full fledged member of Sovereign Grace Bible Church! w00t!

Asking for Prayer:

2010-02-25T14:45:00.004-06:00

I apologize for the long absence. Things are moving at a mile a minute right now and I do plan on blogging something rather soon. But until then, I'd like to direct your attention to the blog of my fiancee Emily. A friend of ours had a baby today that had some complications surrounding it. Actually. I'll just let her tell you.

From A Shot in the Dark:

My best friend Jenni had her baby girl Isabelle today, three weeks early. I don’t know much of what is going on now, but I suspect that her lungs are under developed. Isabelle came about three weeks early.

For those of you whom I have discussed this with, we still do not know if Isabelle has Down’s Syndrome. Click here to see the trouble Jenni had with a nurse last fall over testing for this birth defect. Evidence over the course of the pregnancy has pointed in the opposite direction, but a safer test can be administered now to provide resolution. I will keep this blog updated as I know more. Please be praying with us.

Merry Christmas!

2009-12-24T14:12:00.002-06:00

What is Christmas about? It's about the cross. Jesus Christ came to pay the penalty due to sinners. He came to save them from the wrath of God. Why? Every one of us has broken God's law. Don't believe me?

How many lies have you told? Have you ever stolen anything, irregardless of its size of value? Ever hated anyone? How about lusted after someone? Jesus said that those things are as bad as murder and adultery! I've done all those things. That means that I'm a liar, a thief, and a adulterer and murderer at heart! I deserve hell! If you've done any of those things then you deserve hell! Why? because God is a just God and He must punish sinners. He is angry at sinners because they have broken His holy law.
But, God is so kind that He sent His son to die in the place of sinners. Jesus Christ paid my fine and He will pay yours as well, but you must repent of your sins and trust in Him. That not only means acknowledging and apologizing for your crimes but making him Lord of your life. Please, reader, I don't want you to go to hell. Please, bow your knee to His Lordship. Repent and trust in the Savior today! What better time then on the celebration of his birth?

It's about the cross, Amen.

Roman Catholics Don't worship Mary

2009-12-15T11:14:00.003-06:00

Please keep that in mind when you read this. They don't worship Mary, really, they don't!

The Christology of Nestorius (Part 5 )

2009-12-14T20:26:00.003-06:00

Regarding the union of divinity and Christ, Nestorius believes that one must reject every interpretation that claims that the union between the two natures is natural or hypostatic. To Nestorius, these two terms mean that the two natures came together and formed a third static and complete union. If this were true then Christ is result of the union. This is unacceptable to Nestorius, who believes that the integrity of the two natures is an inviolable principle. Why? Because only two incomplete natures could unite in this manner and neither divinity nor humanity is incomplete. If Nestorius understood the doctrine of the hypostatic union this way then it is no wonder that he rejected it.

Instead of using the term “natural union,” Nestorius uses the term “voluntary.” This speaks to a union that is the result of a decision but does no harm to either nature. A natural union is involuntary because two come together to form one; the properties of either nature are mixed or lost as a result. The union of the divine and the human is a voluntary one because both natures retain their distinctions. The union is voluntary because God the Father, by His own free choice, ordained that it would occur. From the human standpoint, it is voluntary because the humanity is compatible with the divine will; this is so because God foreordained it to be so.

Regrettably, because of his emphasis on the integrity of the two natures, it became difficult to see a real union between the two natures, especially for his opponents who thought in terms of static “natures.” The union between humanity and divinity was a conjunction – much like salt and pepper. The two go together and retain their own properties, and at the same time, are contained in one body and each shares in the activity of the other and vice versa. This is why he could not accept the doctrine of the communication idiomatum and this is why he could not accept theotokos as a title for Mary. God cannot have a mother and calling Mary the “bearer of God,” as Nestorius saw it, only blurred the lines between God and Man. Mary is the temple in which the divinity dwelt and the instrument by which the Logos took flesh. She is merely the anthrotokos, the “man-bearer” or the “Christ-bearer” to be precise. It was Nestorius’ excessive distinctions and his inability to speak of the union between the two natures in strong enough terms that got him in trouble. How can we say that God dwelt with humanity if we must take such great care to distinguish among the two natures? Theotokos was simply the tip of the iceberg because the debate had implications on the work of Jesus Christ. According to his opponents, to say that God was not “born of a virgin,” (i.e. a human being) was to imply that Christ (the God-man) was not completely human. In order to affirm that God dwelt among man (in the person of Jesus Christ) and also suffered and died for humanity one must affirm that Mary is the God-bearer.

Sadly for Nestorius, Cyril never made much of an attempt to understand him. The controversy was a result of a failure to define terms and the overzealous mindset of both parties. Cyril’s position was certainly as vulnerable as Nestorius’. Cyril emphasized the unity of Jesus so much that it became difficult for him to show how Jesus was really human and to avoid Christ’s humanity from being swallowed up by the divinity. Yet, Cyril has gone down in history as a great defender of orthodoxy and Nestorius as another adoptionist similar to Theodotus or Paul of Samosata.

Bibliography

Brown, Harold O.J. Heresies. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company, 1998.

Ferguson, Everett. Church History. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005.

Gonzalez, Justo L. A History of Christian Thought Vol 1. . Abington Press, 1987.

O'Keefe, John J. "Impassible Suffering? Divine Passion and Fifth Century Christology." Theological Studies 58, no. 1 (1997): 39-60.

Pelikan, Jaroslav. Mary Through the Centuries. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1996.

R.N. Swanson. The Church and Mary. Rochester, NY: Boydell & Brewer, 2004.

Sullivan, Francis. The Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Rome: Gregorian University, 1956.

White, James R. Mary - Another Redeemer? Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers , 1998.

Wilken, Robert L. "Tradition, Exegesis, and the Christological Controversies." Church History 34, no. 2 (1965).

The Christology of Nestorius (Part 4)

2009-12-12T13:45:00.001-06:00

So, what Nestorius a heretic? Scholars are in debate about this. Since he was declared a heretic there can be some doubt as to whether his views have come down to us accurately since the majority of what we know of his beliefs have come through the writings of his enemies. It is fair to say that his concerns over the word Theotokos were correct on at least one point—the term is liable to serious misuse and misunderstanding[1] This misuse is certainly see that within the Roman Catholic Church. [2]In 1889 the Book of Heraclides, Nestorius’ work persevered in Syriac, was discovered and sparked new discussion. Some say that the book shows Nestorius’ true thoughts and that the fragments of his work were twisted by his enemies. Others claim that the book is the apology of the defeated Nestorius trying to portray his orthodoxy and show the injustice of his situation twenty years after writing of the fragments. The proponents of this theory claim that the amount of time had allowed Nestorius to see fault in his attitude which brought moderation to his thought. There seems to be some truth to both theories. It is true that the Christology condemned at Ephesus was a caricature of Nestorius’ theology yet Nestorius did exaggerate his own claims in the heat of the debate and he certainly did not attempt to destroy the straw-man that Cyril had created. If the Book of Heraclides was Nestorius’ attempt to correct his error, it came too late.

It is important to understand the terms being used in his argument. Terms such as nature, hypostasis, prosopon, union, etc. can be misunderstood. For Nestorius, the term nature is either complete or incomplete and its meaning depends greatly on the context. For example, the body and the soul are incomplete natures because they make up one human nature. Human nature, on the other hand, is complete because, when joined with a new nature, it does not produce a third; as it is with Jesus Christ. The reason that Jesus has two complete natures is because each one retains its own distinctions, differences, or characteristics, or as Nestorius puts it: separation. The term should not be understood to mean distance but rather distinction. Each nature, though joined, is distinct, definable, and knowable. When speaking of a complete nature, Nestorius uses the word hypostasis. Not to refer to something different from the nature itself or something added but that the nature in and of itself is complete.

Prosopon refers to the context of the doctrine of the trinity. It speaks to the characteristics of a nature, either divine or human. Concerning this, Gonzalez writes:

The natural prosopon is the form of a nature, the totality of the properties and distinctions that make a nature complete, so that it may be called hypostasis. Each complete nature is known and distinguished by its prosopon. Therefore, in the case of Christ, if humanity and divinity are to subsist as complete natures, without being dissolved into a third, each of them must have its own prosopon. [3]

This is the basis for the claim that there are two prosopon within the person of Jesus Christ. Yet, on the other hand, one must affirm that there is only one prosopon in Christ. This is what Nestorius calls the “prosopon of union,” “common prosopon,” “or “voluntary prosopon.”[4] This is the prosopon of the Son and identical to the second person of the trinity. Nestorius did not deny that the Word is this prosopon however this must be understood in his use of the terms Son and Word. The Word is the Second person of the Trinity while the first is used for the same person as a distinct prosopon. It is mealy a conceptual distinction and does not mean that the Son only came into existence after the incarnation. God has united the two prosopon in Christ yet this in no way destroys the two natural prosopon which are both complete natures in and of themselves. For Jesus to have a divine prosopon means that he acts and wills as God the Father acts and wills. In other words, he is the true revelation of God the Father. The incarnation, then, is a dynamic being and acting as God on the part of the human Jesus.

[1] For more on the subject, cf. White, James R. Mary - Another Redeemer? Minneapolis, MN: Bethany Press International , 1998.

[2] The next section is largely reliant on Gonzalez, 359-367

[3] Gonzalez, 361

[4] Ibid

The Christology of Nestorius (Part 3)

2009-12-11T14:43:00.001-06:00

For the Alexandrians the term was entirely appropriate. The Logos took flesh upon himself in the womb of Mary – to say anything less was to deny the full divinity of Christ. Nestorius and the Antiochenes, on the other hand, saw that the title made Mary a goddess. She was the mother of the man, Jesus, who was God incarnate and there should be nothing said that would imply that God originated from her. The term had been in use since the time of Bishop Alexander[1] as a way to divide the orthodox from the Arians, though it is arguably a poorly chosen word, since a number of prominent heretical leaders had no problem with the term. The Arians could use it because they acknowledged that a divinity of sorts had been born into the world and had suffered and died as a man. The Apollinarians were eager to accept the term since they confessed that there was only one incarnate nature of God the Logos.[2] The term does, however, does make sense when one understands that that the word is the consequence of the communication idomatum (that is, the communicable attributes of Christ). Since Jesus is fully God and fully man it requires that God was born, in a sense, and that the one that bore the God-man should be the “God-bearing one.” Nestorius, however, saw that the term was misleading. He saw the term implied that the One that Mary bore was not fully man.

Instead, one must say that Christ is born, thus implying, because God and man are one in Christ, that both God and Man are born. To call Mary either God-bearer or man-bearer, although both are correct in terms of the communication of attributes, appears misleading. [3]

Nestorius taught that the two natures of Jesus came together in one prosopon or one person which is actually an orthodox statement. His opponents, on the other hand, took him to mean that the two natures came together to make one appearance. The difference being that to be united in appearance would be to simply be associated and not completely joined. Nestorius held that there was an inseparable union between the Logos and the human in Christ from the moment of conception yet there was no mixture of the natures so each retains its properties. It was the humanity that was born, suffered, died, and raised again yet, even though there are two natures, there is one Son.

Nestorius was not a theological radical like Arius. Arius fell into heresy with his desire to be brilliant. Nestorius, on the other hand, wanted to be precise and it was something he sought zealously at all costs. The church, however, did not hold the same enthusiasm for that kind of precision. The attack from Alexandria was not simply a result of a misunderstanding. It would seem that the attack came firstly out of a personal and regional pride and ambition to be the dominating theology of the eastern Roman Empire. However, the intentions of the Alexandrian church (namely Cyril) can be debated. Whether or not the debate was fuelled by the rivalry or the issue was used as an opportunity to gain political superiority will never be known and it is not a question that I will try to answer in this work. As Cyril understood Nestorius, the saving acts of Christ were done in his humanity only and, as Cyril saw it, they could have no saving power. The union between God and man must go beyond a mere association if our human nature is to participate in the purification and sanctification that only the union with the deity can bring. Cyril, like Apollinarius and Gregory of Nazianzus, insisted on the unity between God and man—yet in contrast to Apollinarius and with much greater clarity than Gregory, Cyril taught that the humanity and the divinity remained unmixed and unchanged. There are two natures in Christ, according to Cyril, but they exist in a natural unity. The term “henosis kath’hypostasin (unity according to the person) was introduced—the true unity is both natural and hypostatic. This resulted in a kind of third nature: the incarnate nature. Cyril is, of course, straining the use of the word. It is not a deified nature but more of a theological term that Cyril used to portray the real unity of two unchanged, unmixed natures in the person of Christ.

The Council of Ephesus – 431 A.D.

A council was called at Ephesus in 431 to settle the disputes. With only some of the bishops present (153) and Cyril presiding Nestorius was declared a heretic, deposed, and excommunicated to the joy of the city. Four days later (June 26^th) John, the bishop of Antioch, and the Syrian bishops arrived and held a rival council at John’s lodgings. With only 43 bishops and a representative of the Emperor they declared Cyril deposed and excommunicated him. The rival sessions continued and the excommunications piled up until word reached Theodosius II and both sides came to plead their case. After some expensive gifts from Cyril and the intercession of his friends, Theodosius II sided with Cyril. Nestorius was sent into exile and a new bishop of Constantinople was consecrated. Following the council, Cyril agreed to a formula that asserted a duality of natures yet affirmed Mary as theotokos. The creed states that Jesus was of one substance with the Father according to his deity and of one substance with us according to his humanity. He had a rational soul and his two natures are unified. The formula answered all of the concerns of the Antiochenes but since Nestorius had been exiled their ideas were discredited despite their acceptance as orthodox.

[1] Died in 326 A.D.

[2] Brown, 172-173

[3] Ibid, 173

The Christology of Nestorius (Part 2)

2009-12-10T09:43:00.002-06:00

Nestorius was a presbyter and head of a monastery in Antioch until Theodosius II chose him to be the bishop of Constantinople in 428. As student of Theodoret, Nestorius was of the Antiochene tradition. After his position had been consecrated he began a harsh campaign against heresy but was accused of heresy himself, partially out of his aggressive policy and partly out of jealousy from rival churchmen. [1] He objected to the term theotokos as it applied to Mary. His reasons for this objection are many and to understand his objection it is necessary to examine the context behind his objection. The problem really began with the heretic Arius and the varying responses to his teaching. Arianism had been condemned by Nicaea but that pronouncement hardly stamped the movement out and the line of orthodox, semi-Arian, and Arian councils that stretched from Nicaea to Constantinople are a testament to that fact. The responses from the Alexandrian church and the Antiochene church differed. The Arian syllogism went like this:

The word is the subject of the human operations and sufferings of Christ.

Whatever is predicated of the Word must be predicated of him according to his own nature (kata physin).

Ergo, the nature of the word is limited and affected by the human operation and sufferings of Christ, and is subordinate to the Father. [2]

In other words, The Word is limited by humanity. The humanity suffered and therefore the divinity suffered and since God cannot suffer, Christ must be created and subordinate to The Father. For the Nicene theologians this required an adequate apology – not only to answer the Arian problem but a comprehensive hermeneutic to counter the passages in the Arian armory. Two approaches emerged: One from Alexandria and the other from Antioch. These two replies to Arianism created a problem that would come to fruition in the conflict between Nestorius and Cyril – the two divergent replies created a breeding ground for tension, namely the inability to distinguish between the doctrine being defended and the defense itself.[3] In other words, to take issue with the defense was to take issue with the doctrine itself. By the fifth century, Nicaea had become the established tradition of the church but the two defenses had grown into separate theological traditions. By the time of Cyril and Nestorius, the question now became one of apostolic tradition and which side was correctly walking in that tradition.

Athanasius, who set the pattern for the Alexandrian position, attacked the second (minor) premise of the Arian syllogism.

If it false, argued Athanasius, to claim that any action predicated of the Logos must be predicated of him according to his own nature (kata physin). For the Gospel teaches us that the divine and eternal Logos took on human flesh and became a man. When He became man he assumed the characteristics of the man such as weakness, hunger, suffering, etc. Therefore we can rightly say that it is the Logos who hungers, suffers, etc.; but we do not say that he does so in according to his own nature. Rather He suffers according to the flesh, according to his humanity (kata sarka). [4]

Athanasius is setting up two types of predication: one according to the nature of the flesh and the other according to the nature of the Logos. Jesus always was and is God the Son but at a certain time he “took flesh from the Virgin Mary, the theotokos, and became man.” [5] the passages of scripture that the Arians used to say that Jesus was subordinate to The Father were explained in this manner: Sometimes, Jesus does things divinely, such as heal, raise the dead, or know the thoughts of those opposing Him. Other times, Jesus does humanly things: he hungers, thirsts, and suffers. When it says, for example, in Luke 2:52 that Jesus advanced in wisdom, it was interpreted that the Logos advances humanly or in other words: the human nature advanced. The point is this: whether Jesus performs the divine actions or the human actions, Jesus is always the Divine Son but, depending on the action, the actions must be assigned to the Son as he is according to his divinity or as he is according to His humanity.

On the flipside, the Antiochene School put forth a completely different defense. Contrasting Athanasius, the Antiochenes accepted the minor premise of the Arian syllogism and denied the major premise. The asserted that there was only one kind of predication possible: predication according to the divine Logos (kata physin). This, of course, suggested that God was limited by his own nature and Arianism was the logical end. To counter this, the Antiochenes said that the Word is not subject to the human operations of Christ, rather the passages that speak of Christ suffering and feeling hunger and thirst must be attributed not to the Logos or to the flesh but to the man Jesus. He is the one who hungers, thirsts, and suffers. In a way, Jesus was the production of the divine and human natures – this is how Jesus could both heal and raise the dead and yet at the same time feel the need for nourishment and require sleep. The objective was the same for both sides: Give an apology against Arianism, defend Nicene theology, and give a hermeneutic for interpreting and expounding the Gospels. The Alexandrians had no trouble recognizing that Jesus was God yet their Christology tended to downplay the humanity of Jesus. The Antiochenes, on the other hand, also recognized the divinity but had trouble explaining how Jesus could be one with God. The first, worked out by Athanasius, was inherited by his successor: Cyril and the other found its expression in Nestorius. These two traditions provide the backdrop for Nestorius and his objection to the term theotokos. As we will see, the term is not simply about Mary but it is about the person and work of Jesus Christ.

[1] Ferguson, 259

[2] Sullivan, 158ff

[3] Wilken, 128

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid