Politics....yeesh

There I go. I say the political post will be the rare one, then I post another on gay marriage. Back to business, now. Enough of that politics stuff. Just kick me if I ever blog about the war in Iraq or something like that.

Gay Marriage: Now Spain

Spain just added their name to the list of countries who will allow gay marriage nationwide. The others are the Netherlands and Belgium; Canada is close to legalizing the practice. Check out the story if you're interested: FOXNews.com - U.S. & World - Spain's Parliament Legalizes Gay Marriage. And the country is Roman Catholic. Anyway, I'm wondering if those people in the US that went in droves to Massachusetts or northern California will be headed over seas or to Canada? Oh well.

Gay Anglican Clergy Allowed to Marry

Have you seen this?

Church to let gay clergy "marry" but they must stay celibate - Sunday Times - Times Online

They can marry, yet they must not have sex? Just when you thought the Anglican church couldn't be more contradictory or pseudo-scriptural, they surprise you. At least they surprise me; I guess I hope for the best from "Christian" groups. One of my former NT Greek tutors was a strong Anglican, and had my same love and zeal for the Early Church Fathers. I wonder what he is thinking about all of this homosexual promotion from his church. He was a supporter of Rowan Williams before he became the archbishop.

Well. Whast's going on? Is this the end of the world? Not quite. Is this the end of the Anglican church? No; that happened in 1535.

Schleitheim Confession: Article II

The following link will take you to my post on the second article of the Schleitheim Confession: Nachfolge Christi: Schleitheim Confession: Article II

Blog update

Here is an update of what will be going on with my blogs.

Reformatus Sum: I am still trying to find the perfect color scheme and design. I want to keep the three column look because I think this will work best when I start the book and moview reviews, as well as some other projects. As far as postings go, I am getting part II of "Layman's TULIP: Limited Atonement" ready.

Common Name: I will have an early look into the Bishop matter. So far, the hierarchy of a Bishop, the elders, and deacons was pretty solidified by this time. So much so that Ignatius has not spent any time arguing for the actual structure itself. That's significant because of his strong emphasis on obedience to the Bishop and adhering to the structure. Anyway, look forward to that. This is an extremely intriguing study; although this one does not by any means push aside what I am learning about his attitude toward martyrdom, or reaching God.

Nachfolge Christi: I started an introductory series on the articles of the Schleitheim Confession. My hope is to spark some healthy thought, examination and discussion; especially when we get to the sword. That one can take you places.

US Supreme Court v. Ten Commandments

Please keep in mind, I don't care much for politics, and so this will be the extremely rare post on political matters. Thing is this decision has been in the works for a long time and will be quite influential to US History in the very recent years to come.

This morning, the US Supreme Court (ahem, a politically driven institution, mainly evidenced by the ever present activism on the part of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former leader in the ACLU, presiding and ruling in cases that are ACLU v. whoever...hmmm), ruled 5-4 that the Ten Commandments could not be displayed in certain court buildings in Kentucky. The traditional reasoning was given, that the First Amendment prohibits government from promoting one religion over another. This particular case is somewhat limited in scope, as the decision allows for a case-by-case look at the placing of the Ten Commandments. Some are allowed for historic purposes, others not for being strictly religious. The Supremem Court even made clear in their decision that the statue of Moses on their building will stay. So, instead of a blanket "No," cases will be reviewed individually.

Well, first off, let me tell you that I am for separation of Church and State. Historically, a state run Church does not work; just look at the Netherlands with their Atheist pastors. A Church run state also fails. Why? Man. I believe the Church should separate herself from any government influence, and from any political dealings. Especially in the US, I wish the Church would take a step back and analyze what is going on. I keep going back to the 501(3)(c) designation churches accept so they can have a tax break. Is that the right thing to do? Anyway...

While I am for separation of Church and State, I cannot stand poorly constructed historic arguments. The First Amendment of the US Constitution does not prohibit government from promoting one religion over another. Justice Souter wrote for the majority decision, stating, "The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion." The First Amendment doesn't say that at all, but that argument falls into the argument of strict v. loose constructionism. The First Amendment says that government will not establish any one religion in the state. The point was to not have the situation they had in England and other countries at the time, where the Church and State were one and the same. You get corruption of both the political sphere as well as the religious sphere. The government is never going to be nuetral; as I understand there is still prayer before congress opens for a daily session.

Well, we will shortly see how this pans out historically. I am keeping my eyes and ears perked for the outcry and spin (oh, yes, Christians can spin, too) from the Christian community. I'll keep you posted with some of the more rediculous ones; at least in my opinion.

Remember...Soli Deo Gloria

Addendum: I just heard the Supreme Court ruled a Ten Commandments monument could stay outside of a Texas court building, on the property.

The "Which Theologian" Quiz again

I thought I would try that quiz out one more time...for kicks.

Here are the results this time around, and I gave honest answers, but was more firm (a lot more totally agree and totally disagree). Now, I'm a Barth man, then a Calvin.

You scored as Karl Barth. The daddy of 20th Century theology. You perceive liberal theology to be a disaster and so you insist that the revelation of Christ, not human experience, should be the starting point for all theology. Karl Barth 93% John Calvin 67% Martin Luther 60% Friedrich Schleiermacher 40% Anselm 40% Jonathan Edwards 33% Paul Tillich 27% Augustine 27% Jorgen Moltmann 7% Charles Finney 7% Which theologian are you? created with QuizFarm.com

Martyrdom of Felicitas

When thinking back on the historic martyrs, many people may recall learning of Perpetua, a woman in the early third century who graciously defied her father's entreaties to deny Christ, even for the sake of her own child, and live. She boldly went into the arena to die with her fellow Christians. Many people tend to forget the story of her friend and fellow prisoner, Felicitas. Here is her story as passed along to us by Tertullian.

But respecting Felicitas (for to her also the Lord's favour approached in the same way), when she had already gone eight months with child (for she had been pregnant when she was apprehended), as the day of the exhibition was drawing near, she was in great grief lest on account of her pregnancy she should be delayed (because pregnant women are not allowed to be publicly punished) and lest she should shed her sacred and guiltless blood among some who had been wicked subsequently. Moreover, also, her fellow-martyrs were painfully saddened lest they should leave so excellent a friend, and as it were companion, alone in the path of the same hope. Therefore, joining together their united cry, they poured forth their prayer to the Lord three days before the exhibition. Immediately after their prayer her pains came upon her, and when, with the difficulty natural to an eight months' delivery, in the labour of bringing forth she was sorrowing, some one of the servants of the Cataractarii said to her, "You who are in such suffering now, what will you do when you are thrown to the beasts, which you despised when you refused to sacrifice?" And she replied, "Now it is I that suffer what I suffer; but then there will be another in me, who will suffer for me, because I also am about to suffer for Him." Thus she brought forth a little girl, which a certain sister brought up as her daughter.

She is such an influential figure in Christian martyrdom that she should not be forgotten. My wife has decided to pass along that legacy in her new blog, Daugther of Felicitas. Be looking forward to seeing some wonderful writings on Christian women, women's issues and support for the Christian life.

"Now it is I that suffer what I suffer; but then there will be another in me, who will suffer for me, because I also am about to suffer for Him."

"Which Theologian" Quiz

You scored as John Calvin. Much of what is now called Calvinism had more to do with his followers than Calvin himself, and so you may or may not be committed to TULIP, though God's sovereignty is all important. Anselm 60% John Calvin 60% Karl Barth 53% Friedrich Schleiermacher 53% Martin Luther 47% Jonathan Edwards 47% Augustine 33% Jorgen Moltmann 13% Paul Tillich 13% Charles Finney 0% Which theologian are you? created with QuizFarm.com

This test is by no means scientific. Some questions can be confusing and loaded, so be careful...or else you may end up as a theologian you don't want to be.

The Radicals DVD

I ordered The Radicals DVD from Christian Cinema on Sunday and it came in yesterday. And that was with your basic first class mail shipping. I was surprised how fast that came in. Christian Cinema has the lowest price for that DVD.

My wife and I were talking about it and we think we'll start a "Radicals Film Project" around the world. After they watch the Jesus film, they watch Radicals and see what this Christianity thing is all about.

Sound like a plan?

Borders Bookstore

I love Borders Bookstore. I am a huge fan. I worked there for about a year and a half or so; for a book lover like me that was heaven. I got to see the books as they came into the store (shipping and receiving were a big part of my duties), could set aside my choices before anyone else laid their eyes on them, had a tremendous discount, and was able to help people find books and even influence them towards certain books of my choosing. Even before I got the job with them, I prefered their store over Barnes and Nobles.

I was in the local Borders last night; we received a gift card to the mall and Borders counted. Yeah! While searching for books on martyrdom and Anabaptism I noticed there was absolutely nothing on the shelves. Every book on martyrdom has to be ordered (the Loeb Library work of the Apostolic Fathers with the Martyrdom of Polycarp in it doesn't count). Every book on the Anabaptists has to be ordered. Seriously: where's the love? They didn't even have Jasper Ridley's Bloody Mary's Martyrs up there; I own that one, but that's a popular English reformation era author (ahem...who cannot get Thomas Bilney's name right...ahem) and not even he can have representation.

Than I walked by the Greek section. Now that's slim pickin's. My only real choices were the LSJ Lexicon (too expensive) or Mounce's NT Greek Grammar (too expensive).

So, what did we get? The Mission, Unbreakable and Signs. We are huge M. Night Shyamalan fans, and The Mission will inspire you to no end. I am also waiting on a few books I ordered from Amazon.com. That along with some changes in my job situation places me in a pretty exciting time.

Nachfolge Christi

I started another blog, Nachfolge Christi, specifically for the study of Anabaptism, martyrdom and the state of the Church in America. Why three blogs? That's how my mind works; I have to keep them separate.

Groupies: Kind of Random Thought

One of the books by John Dominic Crossan that you might see pop up in This Week's Selection of my Amazon.com bookstore is The Birth of Christianity. On the cover is a short endorsement by none other than Elaine Pagles, author of The Gnostic Gospels. For some reason I thought about other books with endorsements and how they tend to be like groupies. Of course Pagles is going to endorse this book. Just like Dave Hunt will endorse a Norman Geisler book, or R.C. Sproul will endorse a John Piper book. I know if I pick up a Jehovah's Witness text, the endorsements will be by people I have never heard of (I haven't spent much time with JW works). If I pick up a Mormon book I will probably see Richard Mouw on there...oh, yeah, he's Fuller Theological Seminary's president. Anyway...just a random thought.

Wikipedia's explanation of "Martyr"

Martyr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christian martyrs in the first three centuries A.D. were crucified in the same manner as Roman political prisoners or eaten by lions as a circus spectacle. They are recognized as martyrs because they have preferred to die rather than renounce their Christian faith, usually by making a sacrifice to a pagan deity. The Christian writer Tertullian (200 AD) asserted that 'the blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church'.

With the Constantinian shift and the identification of Christianity with the Roman Empire, the tables were turned and pagans sometimes became martyrs if they refused conversion to Christianity. It didn't take long before Augustine of Hippo authorized the use of force against heretics or fellow Christians who refused to fall in line with orthodoxy. Intra-Christian persecution and the martyrdom that sometimes went with it became institutionalised in the office of the inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church.

Some Christian sects such as Anabaptists and Mormons trace their origins to widespread persecution and martyrdom at the hands of mainstream Christians trying to suppress their break away sects. The Anabaptists have embraced this part of their heritage to such an extent that the book Martyrs Mirror, which describes the deaths of Anabaptist Martyrs in the 16th and 17th century is still widely owned and read in Mennonite and Amish households (see Anabaptist persecution for more).

The 20th century then saw large numbers of Christians martyred by non-Christians again during the persecutions in the totalitarian regimes, most markedly in communist Russia between the two World Wars. After the Fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian Orthodox Church has recognized large numbers of these so called New Martyrs.

Estimates of Christian martyrs in the 21st century are about 450 daily, and 160,000 yearly.

I found this definition this morning and just wondered, "Is this how the typical person understands what a Christian martyr is?" Wikipedia cannot blame space for the poor work done on this topic; I've seen some pretty lengthy articles on other things. Well, let this be another lesson for the kids out there: encyclopedia's are not a quality source for information. If one of my kids (who we'll be homeschooling) did a paper on martyrdom and this is what they came up with, believe me there would be a re-write.

For instance, the article said, "Christian martyrs in the first three centuries A.D. were crucified in the same manner as Roman political prisoners or eaten by lions as a circus spectacle." Really? That's it? They were either crucified or thrown to the lions? What about all the other beasts they faced? What about being tied to stakes and lit on fire to light the night sky (as when Nero decided to have a little fun)? What about the fights with the gladiators (though they were not much of fights)?

In the following paragraph I read, "With the Constantinian shift and the identification of Christianity with the Roman Empire, the tables were turned and pagans sometimes became martyrs if they refused conversion to Christianity." Now that makes it look like all of Christianity became the persecutors and the pagan world the martyrs. A poorly chosen statement.

The article did go on to say, "Intra-Christian persecution and the martyrdom that sometimes went with it became institutionalised in the office of the inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church." That is agreed. But then they threw in, "Some Christian sects such as Anabaptists and Mormons trace their origins to widespread persecution and martyrdom at the hands of mainstream Christians trying to suppress their break away sects."

First, there is the problem of equating Anabaptists with Mormons within the banner of "Christian," as well as their respective persecutions and martyrs. In fact, the early leaders of the Mormon church railed against Christianity left and right. They did not have kind words at all for Christians or Christendom. They did not want to have the direct association. They wanted to claim Christ for themselves, and call themselves the true Church of Christ, but they would never appreciate being considered a sect of Christianity. Only in recent decades has there been the social shift within the LDS church to present themselves as Christian, to talk of themselves as Christians: LDS Christians, "we members of the Church of Jesus Christ" purposefully leaving off the "of Latter-day Saints" to get the appearance of being Christian. Now a days, how many LDS will tell you that they are of the Church of Christ while you (a Christian) are of the Church of the Devil? Not too many, eh? Again, part of the shift. Well, they have yet to take the words out of the Book of Mormon (1 Ne. 13:6; 14:3,10).

Second, the reference is obviously to the early years of those groups. How many LDS (and I emphasize LDS) martyrs can you think of? I have two in mind: Hyrum and Joseph Smith. Even their "martyrdoms" are suspect, but I give the benefit of the doubt to the LDS who strongly hold to them being admired as martyrs of their faith. Yes, Mormons were persecuted. Not all of that was based on their faith, though. A lot was their political and social activity. I am amazed Wikipedia would lump Anabaptists in with Mormons. I truly am.

The final sentence, "Estimates of Christian martyrs in the 21st century are about 450 daily, and 160,000 yearly," is accurate. The numbers should stagger people. You think the numbers of Americans being killed in Iraq are high? Just look at China, Somalia, Vietnam, India, Pakistan...and I am talking about Christians not involved in military activity.

Michael Sattler's Trial and Suffering

For those of you not familiar with the movie The Radicals or with Michael Sattler (see my previous post, Michael Sattler's Inspiring Words), I would like you to have a look at the charges he faced and the responses he gave. At the end I will give you a description of his sentence, and that of his wife. Point by point, I will list the charge read against him then his response. Keep this in mind, though; after the charges were read he was allowed the opportunity to respond with a statement. Before saying a thing he conferred with his brothers and sisters in Christ for a little while. He would not take this fight alone; he used his brothers and sisters to help him. The text, though not in this precise order, is from Martyrs Mirror.

First, that he and his adherents have acted contrary to the mandate of the Emperor.

First, That we have acted contrary to the imperial mandate, we do not admit; for the same says that the Lutheran doctrine and delusion is not to be adhered to, but only the Gospel and Word of God. This we have kept; for I am not aware that we have acted contrary to the Gospel and the Word of God; I appeal to the words of Christ.

Secondly, he has taught, held and believed that the body and blood of Christ are not present in the sacrament.

Secondly, That the real body of Christ the Lord is not present in the sacrament, we admit; for the Scripture says: Christ ascended into heaven and, sitteth on the right hand of His heavenly Father whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead; from which it follows, that if He is in heaven, and not in the breads He may not be eaten bodily.

Thirdly, he has taught and believed that infant baptism does not conduce to salvation.

Thirdly, As to baptism we say: Infant baptism is of no avail to salvation; for it is written, that we live by faith alone. Again: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Peter likewise says: The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Fourthly, they have rejected the sacrament of extreme unction.

Fourthly, We have not rejected the oil; for it is a creature of God, and what God has made is good and not to be refused; but that the pope, the bishops, monks and priests can make it better, we do not believe; for the pope never made anything good. That of which the epistle of James speaks is not the pope's oil.

Fifthly, they have despised and condemned the mother of God and the saints.

Fifthly, We have not condemned the mother of God and the saints; for the mother of Christ is to be blessed among all women; for to her was accorded the favor of giving birth to the Saviour of the whole world. But that she is a mediatress and advocatess, of this the Scriptures know nothing; for she must with us await the judgment. Paul said to Timothy: Christ is our Mediator and Advocate with God. As regards the saints; we say that we who live and believe are the saints; which I prove by the epistles of Paul to the Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians; and in other places where he always writes: To the beloved saints. Hence we that believe are the saints; but those who have died in faith we regard as the blessed.

Sixthly, he has declared that men are not to swear before the authorities.

Sixthly, We hold, that we are not to swear before the authorities: For the Lord says: Swear not; but let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay.

Seventhly, he has commenced a new and unheard of custom in regard to the Lord's Supper, placing the bread and wine on a plate, and eating and drinking the same.

To this charge he gave no direct response. He either left that as being answered under his reponse to the second charge, or there was nothing to really argue about. I know what I believe on this subject, being a former member of the Roman Catholic Church.

Eighthly, he has left the order, and married a wife.

Seventhly, When God called me to testify of His Word, and I had read Paul, and also considered the unchristian and perilous state in which I was; beholding the pomp, pride, usury, and great whoredom of the monks and priests, I went and took unto me a wife, according to the command of God; for Paul well prophesies concerning this to Timothy: In the latter time it shall come to pass that men shall forbid to marry, and command to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving.

Ninthly, he has said that if the Turks should invade the country, no resistance ought to be offered them; and if it were right to wage war, he would rather take the field against the Christians than against the Turks; and it is certainly a great matter, to set the greatest enemies of our holy faith against us.

Eighthly, If the Turks should come, we ought not to resist them; for it is written: Thou shalt not kill. We must not defend ourselves against the Turks and others of our persecutors, but are to beseech God with earnest prayer to repel and resist them. But that I said, that if warring were right, I would rather take the field against the so-called Christians, who persecute, apprehend and kill pious Christians, than against the Turks,was for this reason: The Turk is a true Turk, knows nothing of the Christian faith; and is a Turk after the flesh; but you, who would be Christians, and who make your boast of Christ, persecute the pious witnesses of Christ, and are Turks after the spirit.

But he was not done. He decided to leave them with this:

In conclusion: Ye ministers of God, I admonish you to consider the end for which God has appointed you, to punish the evil, and to defend and protect the pious. Whereas, then, we have not acted contrary to God and the Gospel, you will find that neither I nor my brethren and sisters have offended in word or deed against any authority. Therefore, ye ministers of God, if ye have not heard or read the Word of God, send for the most learned, and for the sacred books of the Bible, of whatsoever language they may be, and let them confer with us in the Word of God; and if they prove to us with the Holy Scriptures, that we err and are in the wrong, we will gladly desist and recant and also willingly suffer the sentence and punishment for that of which we have been accused, but if no error is proven to us, I hope to God, that you will be converted, and receive instruction.

A majority of the point made by the persecutor (and the executioner) was to give an example to the community of what will happen to heretics and dissenters. Ironically, the point of the martyr was to be an example as well. Rarely did a martyr suffer a quick death. The case of Michael Sattler was no exception. (Please understand, I do not mean to post this merely for shock value or sensationalism; this is the truth of the world then, and it is much the same today around the world where Christians are being tortured and killed.)

They gave Michael to the executioner who first cut out his tongue. The executioner then placed him on a wagon where two pieces of his body were torn off with red hot tongs. They wheeled him outside of the city gates to the place of his execution and then repeated the torture with the tongs five more times (so seven times total he was pinched with the red hot tongs). After that, they lifted him up, placed a bag of gun powder on him (that's the mercy they showed him, as the gun powder would swiften his death), and lowered him into the fire. Despite the gun powder, he undoubtedly suffered quite a bit in the flames. And as for his wife, Margaretha (an awesome woman of God and great wife of Michael), she held fast to the faith of her husband. Three days after Michael's martyrdom by fire, Margaretha was drowned.

Such a story gives me strength. It reminds me that I cannot live this Christian life alone or by my own power. It also reminds me that I could never give my life so fearlessly unless Christ, by the Holy Spirit, gives me the strength to do so. Indeed, "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake" (Phi. i.29).

Michael Sattler's Inspiring Words

Michael Sattler was a Roman Catholic prior who left his monastery and eventually became a leader of the Anabaptists known as the Swiss Brethren. On 24 February 1524 he presented to the Swiss Brethren a set of Scripturally based beliefs and practices the group should adhere to. These were accepted without dissent and are known together as the Schleitheim Confession. In May of the same year he was captured, tried on 17 May and martyred on 21 May. His wife was martyred just a few days after.

After the trial but before the sentence, he was asked by the town clerk if he would accept the decision of the judges as law. To this, Michael Sattler responded with powerful words:

Ye ministers of God, I am not sent to judge the Word of God; we are sent to bear witness of it, and, hence, cannot consent to any law, since we have no command from God concerning it; but if we can not be discharged from the law, we are ready to suffer for the Word of God whatever sufferings are, or may be imposed upon us all for the sake of the faith in Christ Jesus our Saviour, as long as we have breath within us; unless we be dissuaded from it by the Scriptures.

This readiness to suffer for the Word of God should perk everyones eyes and ears. Are you really ready to give up your life for Christ? Here in America, I don't know if the majority of the Church can understand what a "Yes" answer even means. People feel "persecuted" when the ACLU wins a court case taking the Ten Commandments out of a public building. Giving up your life for Christ is subjected to the interpretation of standing firm to your convictions during and after that court case. But for Michael Sattler, he knew all too well that his suffering was going to involve torture and eventually death by burning. The Anabaptists recognized that baptism into Christ went hand in hand with--and even meant--baptism into martyrdom.

While imprisoned, but before his trial, he wrote a dynamic letter to his Church family at Horb. He closed the letter with these words of admonition:

Beware of false brethren (Acts xx.39); for the Lord will perhaps call me to Him; so take warning, I wail for my God. Pray without ceasing for all that are in bonds. God be with you all. Amen.

While he did not know yet if he was going to die, he was at peace with his call. Doesn't it seem an odd phrase in this context: "Beware of false brethren?" Even to the point of death he showed absolute concern for his Church. False brethren could lead you astray. False brethren could instill a false doctrine. And his final command to the Church: "Pray without ceasing for all that are in bonds." That is something we should all keep in our minds and in our hearts.

I hope to talk more about Michael Sattler and his story. I am going through my Martyrs Mirror and am just enjoying the stories and examples God has given us.

There is an excellent movie out on Michael Sattler and the beginnings of the Swiss Brethren: The Radicals. So far I think it is only on VHS. If you can watch it, do so. The history is accurate and the story will make you think, make you cry, and if you are not careful, you'll give up everything and try to become an Anabaptist (you won't really find true Anabaptists here in the US; you have the Amish and Mennonites, but they tend to be towards the legalistic side of things while the early Anabaptists just lived and taught).

The Radicals (VHS, CBD.com)

The Radicals (DVD, CBD.com)

DVD, Christiancinema.com

Sinful man

Check out these stories of examples of sinful mankind.

Zimbabwe's president destroying homes of those considered his opposition. Even an orphanage is not safe from destruction.

A 2 year old is shot by hostage takers because he was crying too much. They then threatened to kill more children.

Child molester may have abused 36,000 victims, most of which were boys. He recorded their names and possibly how he abused them.

Honestly, "There but for the grace of God go I." These are just three examples of the sin of man and why only the grace of God can save us. Some of this leaves me speechless; this is disgusting and sad. Why should God hold back His wrath? Lord help us.

VOM Map

Check out this map from Voice of the Martyrs:



We have some friends who will be going to the Middle East in the near future to live as Christians where the green color means it's tough to do that. Pretty amazing what God is able to do with us feeble people in the face of such strong opposition to Christ's great name.

Martyrdom

I decided to finally (I don't know where my mind was this whole time) add and discuss one of the most important subjects in my life: martyrdom. This has been my focus of study for about five years solid. Friends have called me crazy (some joking, some serious).

Christian martyrdom is still extremely open for study and growth. I personally find a study of the martyrs and persecutions of the Early Church and the Reformation absolutely invigorating and gives my spirit peace and guidance.


(The Martyrdom of Polycarp, in Martyrs Mirror)

Do I have any preferences? Sure! I study the development of Christian martyrdom over the years, through the persecutions and during the peace times. The cult of martyrs is fascinating. Also, the great division in the Church caused by how to treat the lapsi, or those who denied Christ under persecution in whichever form it came. How would you treat someone whom you called a brother or sister in Christ who denies Christ when faced with the choice of life or death? Would you simply accept them back into the Church? If they were a leader, would you just say, "Hey. That's alright. Come on. You're still alive, so teach us the next lesson from Scripture. I think you're on Matthew x.33." Or, would you subscribe some punishment? Simply a fascinating study.

I also delve into the English Reformation and the sixteenth century martyrs. Then there are the Anabaptists. Quite simply the most intriguing and challenging of studies I have undertaken. They are absolutely amazing. Their understanding of Christianity is extrememly beautiful.

What!?! A Calvinist says Anabaptism is beautiful? Yep. Just an amazing story. The tales of their lives and deaths sting the heart and soul. Maybe you can call me a Calvibaptist (huh?).


(Dirk Willems rescuing his pursuer. As the story goes, Dirk saved his drowning pursuer. That pursuer in turn made Dirk a martyr.)

Mayby that is my niche in this world. That's fine. No matter where I go, God always brings me back to the saints.

Church History and Theology Bookstore

Here is my blog version of an Amazon.com bookstore. I will keep this link posted in the right column for future reference. As I go, I will try and create more of a bookstore atmosphere (including music and videos), and have specific titles I recommend. This will be in addition to my book reviews for Mind and Media.

For studies on the Anabaptists:



For studies on Church History:



For studies on Christian Martyrdom:



For New Testament Commentaries:

Just a thought

Around the time that PLO leader Arafat died, I began to think about who would be the next highly influential people to die and cause the world to focus on the person, their life and work, and also look forward to who would take over after them. Here are the big names I thought of:

• Pope John Paul II: he obviously recently passed on and his successor as Pope was Ratzinger, or Pope Benedict XVI.


• Billy Graham: evangelist, extremely popular world wide; his health as of late causes me to think his time is very soon. Without a doubt, the coverage for his death and funeral will be close to that of the Pope's (not equal to the magnitude, but close).


• Gordon B. Hinckley: current prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; he is getting very old and we will see a changing of the guard. If you wondered about the direction the Roman Catholic Church would take with a new Pope, the new direction of the LDS church under a new prophet will be quite the attention grabber.


• Queen Elizabeth II: while the monarchy in England is nowhere near in relevance as in centuries past, the eyes of the world will turn to the island when this news comes out. England will have a King again and he will be the new head of the Church of England.


• Fidel Castro: while most of the eyes that will be watching this one will be American in nature, the transition will be immensely important.

Yes, there are some other big names (e.g. Nelson Mandela) but their impact and influence (including that of their region) was limited in scope.

Anyways, those are just some thoughts of mine. I am reminded of how God sets in place those who will rule in areas, and govern people. God is sovereign, in control at all times. And He will even be at work, I believe, with transition of the LDS church for the good of the Christian Church. I do pray for those who are for whatever reason trapped in their snare; but God (two amazing words) can do all things.

Them evil Calvinists

Check out this pic of James White:

I mean, he's obviously evil. Just look at the picture! If that doesn't say, "Errr! I'm a Calvinist. Errr!" I don't know what does.

Sorry; just playing around a bit. I saw that on Dave Armstrong's blog (an RCC apologist, or as my fellow Calvinists would say, a Romish Apologist).

What I won't blog about

Contrary to what many folks will do today, I will not blog about the OJ Simp...I mean Michael Jackson case today. I will not talk about letting celebrities off the hook, mainly because the celebrity life doesn't mean a thing to me.

At the end of the day, God is still Lord of all, and people out there still need to hear the true Good News of Christ and His Gospel.

New Common Name Blog

I started a new blog which will be dedicated to my studies of Ignatius of Antioch. The name of the blog is Common Name, taken from his letter to the church at Ephesus. I am becoming more and more excited about this study. Ignatius is such a fascinating and pivotal figure in the grand history of the Christian Faith. Check it out periodically as I plan on spending quality time in the study.

Common Name Blog

Classifieds...of a different kind

...just so you know, I'm waiting for my wife and kids to wake up from their naps; that's why I have the time to blog right now...

I picked up the latest Good News, Inc. magazine from the church we go to. Now, our church, Grace Fellowship of San Diego, holds the meetings and services in a Seventh-day Adventist church building. There is no connection or affiliation between us and the SDA, and I think there's just way too many Ellen G White books hanging around (especially in the room we use as our nursery), but anyway...

Back to the magazine. I was just skimming through to see if any of the articles caught my attention. There's usually one or two. I got to the classifieds, and noticed there was a section titled "Ministries." Hmmm. What's that? Who'd got an ad in there?

I saw one that caught the eye, mostly because someone would actually send one in and have it say what is says. Here you go:

LOOKING FOR church that baptizes in "Jesus name" not Father, Son, Holy Ghost

I do feel sad for the guy or gal. They have their theology mixed up; he or she is most likely Oneness Pentacostal; could be the rare follower of modalist monarchianism (the last fellow I encountered who followed that stony roadway used profanity and a barrage of insults mixed with those colorful explitives to "witness" the truth and "defend" the "faith"). Plus, they feel the need to post an ad in a Christian publication to find a church that will tickle their ears with just the right message to pull them into their congregation.

Well, let's go back to the Scriptures and see what the Word says about baptism. As in the ever quoted Matthew xxviii.19,

βαπτιζοντες αυτους εις το ονομα του Πατρος και του Υιου και του Αγιου Πνευματος

Even from the Greek, Christ instructed us to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Elders

In our church, Grace Fellowship of San Diego, we do not have a senior or head Pastor; we have three elders and then deacons. While one of the elders may be perceived as a pontifex maximus to some, the three elders are on a level plain with respect to their authority and responsibility. Admittedly, I am not a leader in the church, so my view of this is not from the inside; this is just my perception which has been discussed with other members of our local body. I needed to set the context for what this post is about.

Last night, during the wonderful evening of dinner and discussion with our great friends, we talked a little about elders in the Early Church and some on the role Timothy played. When you look at the history of the leadership of the Church and how that developed and progressed in the first to second century of the Church, things obviously became hierarchical relatively quick.

This morning, during the sermon (lesson) time, Bob, one of our deacons, continued through our chapter by chapter series on Acts. In Acts xx.17 he read about how Paul called for the elders of Ephesus to come. Lo and behold, Bob went into a discussion on the role of an elder, the number, and so forth. Of course, he had to discuss the comparison with a pastor as is the typical hierarchy in most churches today. This portion of Bob's lesson was intriguing (not to mention almost the only thing I heard; shortly after he moved on into the next verses in the passage I had to go to the nursery and help with my older son). Essentially the same information was talked about as was last night.

What does this mean? I'll just take it as a divine call to study up on this subject. I will look into the Early Church and see how this developed; but, I'm talking well before the formation of the Roman Catholic Church. A huge figure in Church History is Ignatius of Antioch, martyred around AD 107. His letters are foundational for understanding the transition from the Biblical period, headed and directed by the Apostles, to the Early Church period under the guidance and leadership of bishops (which is the same word in Greek for elder) and deacons.

This won't be added work. I have been weaving my way through different subjects and works to find what I will focus my Master's Thesis on when I reach that point. I have pretty much found what I want to reasearch more and write about: Ignatius of Antioch, his doctrine and martyrdom, and especially his doctrine of martyrdom (martyrology). One of his three core points to the churches while on his way to glory was that of respect for, submission to, and the continuance of the bishops and deacons over the local bodies.

This will be an excellent study. Will this kick aside my Layman's Tulip? No, sorry. But this will be quite the fascinating look into the Early Church and how they sought to keep some control amid persecution and the rapid growth of heresy.

Calvinist Living

For the past few weeks, I have been thinking about the connection between doctrine and living out your faith both within the Christian community as well as among non-believers (this blog included). A discussion with my good friends last night emphasized my need to understand how doctrine plays a role in my living as a Christian.

As a Reformed believer, first and foremost I must remember how vital the doctrines of grace to my own life, and how God would want this portrayed to those around me. While the doctrines I hold to are not the most popular around here, why would I live as though they are not true? I should live as though everyone truly needs and needs to see the grace and mercy of God. And while I press on to understand what Christ taught, I cannot forget who Christ sat and ate with, had conversations with, showed mercy and grace towards.

Should I concern myself with all the minor details? I don't think so. I just need to make sure no one can knock Christ or Reformed doctrine simply because I fail to exemplify who Christ is or what those doctrines teach. While my "evangelism message" is different than that of a non-Reformed follower, I am supposed to have one either way.

first moblog!

now i've got no excuses!! i can blog from my cell phone.

In Christ,
Eddie

Mind & Media: Blog for Books

Last night I was accepted as a new reviewer for Mind & Media. This is an new and exciting opportunity for me, and will be a wonderful addition to this blog. Not only do I take on the responsibility of reviewing different materials, but there are those benefits that come along with this (and let me list them for you as they are still looking for some more reviewers; maybe this will entice you just enough to apply):

• You will receive a free copy of the book, movie or other product we are promoting.
• You will become known as a partner with Mind & Media and known as a trusted and valued reviewer.
• You will be the first to know what books are being promoted, which will give you first choice picks on what material you get to review.
• You will have access to the authors whose books you are reviewing, so you can interview them for your blog or website.
• You will be linked to the Mind & Media website.

The materials are donated by the publishers as a gift, and it's basically your choice to review which book or movie from the options available. So, if you have a blog, would like to add something to give it some more meat or life, and you love to read or watch movies (and talk or write about them), this could be a perfect opportunity for you. Again, I'm excited. My wife got excited; especially when I told her about the first book I would be reviewing.

I look forward to the reviews to come, and hope you are looking forward to checking out what I have to say (and even to plugging into the program yourself). God bless!

Layman's TULIP: Limited Atonement (Part I)

And we have arrived at the terrible L. Apparently, this simple letter makes so many people cringe. The idea of a "Limited Atonement" puts this urge in people to run into the streets and call Calvinists cultists and the like. Calvinists are heretics for teaching a "Limited Atonement." Funny thing is they say this before they read or hear what "Limited Atonement" means.

I guarantee many people will be surprised to hear that unless they believe in Universalism, where everyone will be saved, then you believe in a limited atonement. Even your die hard Arminians believe in a limited atonement. If you do not believe that the death of Christ actually atones for everyone's sin--or, as you may see around, for all people of all time--then you believe in a limited atonement. The limitation lies in the efficacy, meaning who is effected by the atonement.

Some Calvinists tend to define Limited Atonement with this maxim:

The atonement is sufficient for all but efficient for some.

Well, yes it is. But how is that any different than what an Arminian says? The terrible L means a little more than that. We've learned that all men of all time were and are sinners by nature, incapable of turning and coming to God by their own will (see the write up on Total Depravity.) We then learned that God elects those He will save on the sole basis of His good pleasure; He chooses the man, not the other way around (see the write up on Unconditional Election.) The Atonement of Christ is thus limited to the elect of God.

Other ways to refer to the Limited Atonement are "Definite Atonement" or "Particular Redemption." No matter what you call it, they mean the same thing. The Limited Atonement is a real, actual atonement. Christ actually died for the elect. He actually atoned for sin. The death did not happen so that salvation could be possible. Christ was slain in order to save.

I recall a debate on Bible Answer Man. There was George Bryson and Hank Hanegraaff versus James White. I had to go back to the portion a couple of times to make sure I could make out what was said, but surely enough, Bryson made the statement I still cannot find Scriptural support for (and of course on the debate--all three hours of it--he never gave any support or explanations...but anyways). He called what Christ did on the cross a "Conditional Atonement." While Christ died for all men of all time (absolutely everyone), the atoning work is of no effect unless a condition is met: the person individually chooses to accept the atoning work as having been done of their behalf. In other words, it's a gift, but the gift means nothing to you unless you accept and receive it.

In part II I will explain the problems with such a belief, and what the reformed understanding of the Limited Atonement is.

Oxyrhynchus Papyri Update

If you are not familiar with the Oxyryhnchus Papyri being examined today, check out this article: Oxyrhynchus Papyri updated. This is really exciting stuff. I would only like to mention a bit of caution for some readers and followers of this sort of news, who happen to be Christian.

Here's a quote from the article:

There were plays by Sophocles and Euripides, poems of Pindar and Sappho, and some of the earliest documents recording Christianity's spread to Egypt. The gospel of Thomas, for example, records the "Sayings of Jesus" in a manner that some scholars of early Christianity believe is more authentic than the Gospels in the New Testament.

Also, about a month or so ago a report came out talking about a fragment of the Bible's Revelation that explained the number of the beast was 616 and not 666. If you are not careful, you could fall into the trap of believing your what some people out there are saying: that we've been wrong all these years, there is validity to the Gospel of Thomas, and so forth. You don't have to fear information that comes out, or a furtherance of knowledge.

The Gospel of Thomas is not a true "good news" account of Christ. All you have to do is begin to read the text. You don't get too far before you realize there is a problem. By the end, especially when you read about women being turned into men, you scoff at people's attempts to equate this with, or even supress, the true Gospels. I for one would love to have a grasp on the exact dating of the Gospel of Thomas. If the timing is correct, then we have this work being created before AD 79 and the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. I personally believe the Gnostics were extant in the mid-first century, to the point that the Apostle John wrote about them in his epistles. To the point that Ignatius of Antioch would push his readers to reject the Gnostic heresy as he went to his martyrdom. But, maybe I will discuss the Gospel of Thomas on a later blog.

As for the number of the Beast, Irenaeus long ago (second century AD) wrote debunking the idea the the number was 616. We knew about this number existing long before this came out. It was wrong then; it's still wrong now. No need to fret. You have no idea how many bits and rants I've read from folks. Even some LDS folks posted such things as, "Christianity was wrong about the beast" and so forth. Then, you correct them, and they respond with silence.

There is no reason to be shaken by this sort of thing. It will still be decades before this is all sorted out and discussed thoroughly and developed into systematic information.

But, all things Soli Deo Gloria!

Αγοραζω in 2 Peter 2:1 by Jim Ellis

I found this article, titled Agorazo in 2 Peter 2:1 by Jim Ellis. This was a simple read, and an excellent look at the use of the word αγοραζω.

Blog Search Engine

I'm happy to announce Reformatus Sum is now listed on Blog Search Engine. Even set a link in my Fun Links (to the right of your screen). Enjoy!

Article on respect for the Bible in America

I came accross this article at ApologeticsPress.org. It was an intriguing read. I wonder what your thoughts would be. I think any open-eyed Christian who looks at the state of Christendom in the US will see a problem in the state of affairs--with the lack of theological care taken, the liberalism so widespread, the love of the nice and tolerant over the desire for truth and wisdom. Am I concerned with how the US in general would react? No; Bibles are burned, torn up and so forth all the time around the world. So are the Christians who read them. The believers are being martyred and tortured, on a daily basis. What has the US, that great bastion of Christianity, done or said?

Hmmmmm....nothing!?!

But, what about the Christian community? What have they said when they hear of these stories? I can tell you I've heard crickets many times.

The Unpardonable Sin

We are in Mark iii in our Tuesday night Bible Study/Fellowship. This coming Tuesday will undoubtedly be submerged in and by the discussion of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and the Unpardonable Sin. I've been trying to do an early study. What I would like to do is present to the group the many different interpretations that exist right now. I am also gathering certain quesitons that could be asked about the subject, particularly with respect to the text of Mark iii.

So far I have seen quite a few commentaries or study notes talk about the unpardonable sin being very specific to the situations explained in the Gospels and how this sin cannot be committed today.

I have also heard it taught that this unforgiveable sin is basically the rejection of Christ, the rejection of God.

I don't know if either of those two explanations work for me. Why? On the first one, the language of Mk. iii, Mt. xii and Lk. xii seem general in the way Jesus refers to those who commit the sin. If blaspheming the Holy Spirit can be done, than anyone can do it, right? Well, yes, anyone who has not been regenerated by the Spirit and is still in sin can surely blaspheme God. On the second one, that idea seems too general. In Mk. iii.29-30 we find this written:

but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"--[and Jesus said this] for they had said, "He has an unclean spirit."

That seems specific. They claimed He was an agent of Satan, so He told them any who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. Seems like a 1:1 correspondence.

But, that's why we study. I have put together some questions to ask, and maybe I will have the opportunity to ask one or two. They are real simple (and again this is preliminary):

1. What is the unpardonable sin?
2. What does "unpardonable" mean? Does it mean that it is outside of the salvific efforts of Christ? Is this "sin" incapable of being covered by Christ atonement? Is it the choice of God not to forgive this particular sin, while forgiving the rest?
3. Who can commit the unpardonable sin?

I've read a couple of places that if you are wondering if you have committed the unpardonable sin then you haven't. That's so simple and profound at the same time.

Layman's TULIP: Unconditional Election

Unconditional Election, in my humble opinion, may be the simplest to understand from Scripture, but really is the most difficult to grasp for "evangelicals." You've probably heard of "Four Point Calvinists" (I used to be one) who reject the "L" but accept the other points. In all honesty, if you reject the idea of Limited Atonement (aka Real Atonement) which I'll discuss next time, then likely you don't have a true grasp for what Unconditional Election is. As the addage goes, what do Calvinists call "Four Point Calvinists?" Arminians!

Unconditional Election means that God elected, or chose, who would be saved, who would receive the benefits of the atonement. This election was not based on the works of those people, or on God knowing that they would choose Him. Both of those ideas are not plausible Scripturally; you simply cannot find that taught in the Bible. God's election of people was based solely on His good pleasure. Again, we have to get our doctrines from Scripture.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. Eph. i.3-6 KJV

God predestinated us (Paul is referring specifically to himself and the members of the Church of Ephesus, but generally speaks of all believers) according to the good pleasure of His will; or as the ESV translates this, according to the "good purpose of His will." Either way, the will of God Himself is the basis for His choices, for His election. You, if you are a believer, reborn by God's Spirit, through faith in Christ Jesus, you were first chosen by God Himself. As Christ said, "You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you" (Jo. xv.16 ESV).

God did not look to the future and base His choice on whether or not you would choose Him. He did not look and see if you were going to be good or bad, do evil or not? Before He ever created, He chose. That is His will, His choice, His prerogative. Keep in mind man's state of sin (totally depraved, incapable of choosing God unless first reborn of the Spirit). The sinner will never choose God. God chooses first. Look at John vi.44 (a passage that I will go into further at another time).

Can you imagine the Want Ad's?

What would you think if you saw a want ad like this:

Wanted! One minister for a large Lutheran congregation. Must be likeable, humerous. Seminary trained preferred. Atheists OK.

Have you seen this?

"A Danish Lutheran minister who publicly denied the existence of God said Sunday he was glad to be back in the pulpit, but refused to speak about the case that led to his brief suspension last year."

He denied the existence of God, was suspended by the Lutherans, renewed his vows recently, was allowed back in the pulpit, and continues to deny the existence of God. This really is not too surprising, but just utterly silly. It truly disgusts me to even think of people in the congregation and Lutheran community, who call themselves "Christian," openly and joyfully accepting this man back into a leadership position in the Church. But, that's what will (not just can) happen when you have state run churches. If the government tells the churches what to do, dictates the goings on, you will have chaos. You will not have a church, but a business.

Do we really have to go into the absurdity of having an atheist (or maybe he'd call himself an agnostic) leader of a local body of theists? I wonder if they still call him a Christian? Sure would be a great survey topic among that group of people.

What is the role of a bishop when the church is governed by the state? Advisory? Ooooh. Look at what this particular area bishop indicated:

Lindhardt has said that although he disagrees with Grosboell's views there should be room for him in Denmark's state church.

That's like the bishops at Nicea going up to Arius and saying, "While we don't agree with your denying the true divinity of Jesus, and your teaching that Jesus was a created being (it's OK to disagree, you know...no hard feelings, eh?), we still think you should be the bishop of one of the largest and most prolific Christian congregations around."

Belief in God to be a Christian? Optional I guess.