reformatus sum

My Blog Has Moved

2006-01-14T12:41:00.000-08:00

FYI...my blog has moved to martyrologst.lifewithchrist.org

See you there!

Ancient church found on jail site

2005-11-06T06:44:00.000-08:00

Israeli officials say they have discovered what may be the oldest Christian Church in the Holy Land - on the site of a maximum security prison.

Archaeology is quite exciting. Finds like this are the reason I wanted to be in that specific field years ago. This is an excellent find and will help better understand the early Church in Israel. Here's the rest of the article.

"The Martyrologist" discussion forum

2005-11-05T10:26:00.000-08:00

Well, I have started a new discussion forum for those of you who would like more of a dialogue on, really, anything, instead of the typically limited comments you can leave on posts. You can discuss theology, the Scriptures, Christian living and practice, sports, books, etc. Check it out; let me know what you think.

God bless.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Promoting the memory of the martyrs through Legos

2005-11-04T05:50:00.000-08:00

And you thought it couldn't be done. I am not sure who did this, but this picture is great. Legos can make anything happen.
I think that's supposed to be Polycarp in the mid 2nd century. Thanks to whoever it was that made and took this photo.

Three marks of a martyr

2005-11-03T19:43:00.000-08:00

Back in College a few years ago, I wrote my History Senior Thesis paper (needed to be a min. 30 pages, well researched and cited, using Turabian) on the distinctions between martyrdom and suicide in the pre-Augustinian Church. In that paper I wrote about a semi-related and particular view towards martyrdom that I had not found clearly stipulated in any source I had come in contact with so far. This view was that the early Church implicitly believed that true martyrs were marked by three characteristics: they believe in orthodox teachings, were hunted down (arrested, taken captive, pursued) for those beliefs, and were killed. This morning I finished an article, published only months after I began writing my paper, wherein a similar idea was presented. William Weinrich wrote about "a few simple observations."

Martyrdom entails death; only that one who dies for the faith is called a "martyr" . . . the death imposed on the martyr is the result of a judgment to death.. . . the judgment to death imposed on the martyr is due to the refusal of the martyr to confess and to sacrifice to false gods. Confession of faith, rejection of idolatry, and judgment to death--these are the irreducible components of every martyrdom.¹

These points are integral to understanding how the early Church viewed martyrs, and distinguished true martyrs from those who simply died. As is touched on in the article, a perfect example of this idea is found in the Martyrdom of Polycarp. The writer first discussed the story of Quintus, a man who convinced several others to turn themselves into the authorities so they could achieve martyrdom. After some threatening and entreaties, the authorities were able to convince Quintus and his band to abjure and offer sacrifice to the Roman gods. In contrast, Polycarp ran (as is the directive of Christ²), was arrested, and was unshakable in his faith and confession. He the authorities were unable to break and force to offer a sacrifice.

Quintus would have been a false Christian martyr in the eyes of the early Church: "we do not commend those who give themselves up [to suffering], seeing the Gospel does not teach so to do."³ Not only did he and his group fail when they were tested, they volunteered their lives wanting to achieve martyrdom and receive the martyr's glory. Polycarp, in stark contrast, was pursued, arrested while fleeing, and held strongly to the faith he loved for so long. For that he met the martyr's fate. Polycarp's example shows all three above mentioned points. Quintus's fails in all respects.

We need to also understand Polycarp's example as it pertains to how we need to act if ever faced with true persecution. We must never just volunteer ourselves for death. Martyrdom is truly a calling of God, and only He can grant you the endurance and strength to be firm when the time comes. Flee from your persecutors, but never cease to confess the true faith. And never compromise the truth, especially for the sake of your own life. That last point I hope everyone can take to heart, even if you are never persecuted.

_________
¹ William C. Weinrich, "Death and Martyrdom: And Important Aspect of Early Christian Eschatology," Concordia Theological Quarterly, October 2002, 327-8.

² Mt. x.21-23: "Brother will hand over brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rise against parents and have them put to death. And you will be hated by everyone because of my name. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. Whenever they persecute you in one place, flee to another."

³ Martyrdom of Polycarp, iv.

Great spot of humor

2005-11-03T04:58:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Tyler Williams at Codex for posting this.

Jesus took his disciples up on the mountain and gathered them around him. And he taught them, saying "Blessed are the poor in spirit. Blessed are the meek. Blessed are those who are persecuted. Blessed are those who suffer. When these things happen, rejoice, for your reward will be great in heaven."

And Simon Peter said, "Do we have to write this down?"
And Phillip said "Is this going to be on the test?"
And John said, "Would you repeat that, slower?"
And Andrew said, "John the Baptist's disciples don't have to learn this stuff."
And Matthew said, "Huh?"
And Judas said, "What's this got to do with real life?"

And then one of the religious leaders, an expert in law, said, "I don't see any of this in your syllabus. Do you have a lesson plan? Where's the student guide? Will there be a follow-up assignment?"

And Thomas, who had missed the sermon, came to Jesus privately and said, "Did we do anything important today?"
And Jesus wept.

Theology of Martyrdom

2005-11-01T05:10:00.000-08:00

I will be doing a lot of research and reading on a theology of martyrdom, and the differences and similarities between martyrdom in the early Church and that of the Reformation era. I believe historically the Church presents an understanding of a Theology of Martyrdom, and many people and groups lived their faith with that foundation. I also believe there is a Biblical Theology of Martyrdom, i.e. a theology of martyrdom taught in the Scriptures.

In the sixteenth century, Menno Simons constructed his own theology of martyrdom, giving some concrete structure to the more implied theology of martyrdom the Anabaptists exercised up until that time. In the early Church we see such things as the Cult of Martyrs and even training sessions on how to be a true martyr. Depending on where you look and who you read, you can find an implied theology or a well structured doctrine.

This will be a fun endeavor for me. I am almost done reading John Piper's God is the Gospel. I will finish up the SCP articles and present a review, continue to translate Ignatius' letter to Smyrna, finish The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe with my wonderful wife, and write the next post on Layman's TULIP: Irresistable Grace.

Soli Deo Gloria!

On This Day, 31 October 1517

2005-10-31T05:15:00.000-08:00

Martin Luther nailed his 95 points of disputation with the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) to the door of the castle church in Wittenberg. His concerns predominately had to do with Purgatory and the selling of indulgences which was raging through the area. John Tetzel championed this effort, by request of Pope Leo X, in order to bring much needed funds into the church for the construction of St. Peter's.

According to the RCC, indulgences have always been

the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God's justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive.

At the Council of Trent, during the final session on 4 December 1563 (session xxv), the RCC declared

Whereas the power of conferring Indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church; and she has, even in the most ancient times, used the said power, delivered unto her of God; the sacred holy Synod teaches, and enjoins, that the use of Indulgences, for the Christian people most salutary, and approved of by the authority of sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church; and It condemns with anathema those who either assert, that they are useless; or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them.

**Where do you happen to fall? I not only say they are useless, but also that the RCC has any power at all to use them. Guess I am anathema.**

Now, there is a distinction between a plenary and a partial indulgence. Plenary indulgence is "the remission of the entire temporal punishment due to sin so that no further expiation is required in Purgatory." On the other hand, partial indulgence only cancels out a certain amount of time from one's punishment in Purgatory. God alone knows exactly how many years someone is to spend in Purgatory, and even the severity of the punishment during that time.

That is why Purgatory remains one of the most damning teachings in the RCC. People for so many years have been deceived, and have not understood the grace of God and the substitutionary atonement of His Son, Jesus.

Without the actions of Martin Luther, I believe a Reformation still would have continued. God, however, sovereignly used Luther at that time and the foundations of Wycliffe and Hus were not in vain. We today are the product, without question, of what happened in the sixteenth century. I choose to agree with the soteriology of Calvin (of which Luther's was extremely similar) and many of the ideals and practices of the Anabaptists. Not that I hold them as my foundation, but because I agree with their views of Scripture on the respective issues.

I thank God for the Reformation. Soli Deo Gloria!

Reformation Day

2005-10-30T09:44:00.000-08:00

omorrow we remember the moment in our Church's great history most significant to Protestants: Martin Luther nailing his 95 points of contention with the Roman Catholic Church. He desired a dialogue with the leaders of the church, not to look at the the flames of Reformation already raging and add to it a pyre of logs the size of which was used to burn Jan Hus. Like or dislike his style and personality, even (and especially) some of his beliefs, he was the man chosen by God to continue the great work of Reform. He, like Vos and van den Esschen less than four years after he nailed the list to Wittenberg's door, was willing to die for the gospel of Jesus Christ.
If you have not seen Luther with Joseph Fiennes as Martin Luther, please do so.

John Howard Yoder

2005-10-28T12:26:00.000-07:00

Just a link for all the J. H. Yoder fans, in case you were not aware of the blog on this man. Check out John Howard Yoder for some articles on Yoder and Yoderianism.

The Reformation's Unknown Shining Stars

2005-10-28T05:00:00.000-07:00

ot long after the Diet of Worms and the subsequent Edict in 1521, Augustinian monks Johann van den Esschen (Johannes Esch) and Hendrik Vos (Heinrich Voes), sympathetic to Luther and his teachings, were taken captive and branded for execution. On 1 July 1523, van den Esschen and Vos were burned at the stake. They are now touted as the first martyrs of the Reformation, or "purified Christian truth."

Despite the acclaim, their names and stories are very seldom, if ever, told in the scheme of the Reformation. Even less is mentioned of the third man who endured prison and torture along with Vos and van den Esschen, Lampertus Thorn, who at his trial asked for four more days to mull over whether he should recant or not. Going forth in the strength God had granted them at their appointed time, van den Esschen and Vos went not merely defiantly to the stake, but with courage and readiness, knowing they would soon be baptized into a new life.

What were these men charged with and sent to their deaths for? They believed and taught the following (though this list does not contain all they charges brought against them):

no on should be deterred from reading the works of Martin Luther
worldly authorities had no power over conscience
all Christians are priests
Christ is not sacrificed again during Mass (or Communion)
Scripture must be the foundation doctrine and practice (sola scriptura)
Baptism, Communion and Confession are the only sacraments instuted by Christ (rejecting the other four)
Jesus Christ Himself works good deeds through men; men do not contribute except for allowing Christ to use them
appointing successors to Peter as Pope, or Bishop over all churches, was not the act of Christ
if the sinner believes he has been absolved, his sins have been forgiven

For these and other charges, the Roman Catholics turned the two men over to the civic courts to handle the official execution orders. Interestingly, these charges were not read to the crowd at the execution site prior to their burning, as was the typical procedure. Eyewitness reports talk about the men singing a hymn, praying and admonishing the crowd. Yet another picture of beauty in such a horrific and horrendous act.

These are unsung, generally unknown heroes of the Reformation. For the most part, their story is limited to being told in Ludwig Rabus's The History of God's Chosen Witnesses, Confessors, and Martyrs. The problem is that so few even know such a sixteenth century martyrology exists. Due to the limited amount of martyrs, and relatively little persecution, in the Germanic land at the time (there is no comparison between Rabus's country and John Foxe's country in the 1550's), interest in the martyr book fell away quickly. I pray their story can live on, and encourage us Christians today to be strong in our faith. We may not all be called to the fire as these brothers were, but we will endure our own struggles from the world because we bear Christ's name.

Do bear His name proudly. He will give you the strength you need, when you need it.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Mark ix.30-50, part ii

2005-10-27T16:35:00.000-07:00

Let's deviate a little from looking at martyrdom to talk about tonight's Bible Study. Well, I did not mention the happenings at last week's study, but things went well. We did not get through the whole passage--the rest of chapter ix--but we were able to have some good discussions on the Good News, and the failure of the disciples to understand what Christ meant when He spoke about His coming death. This week we will complete chapter ix. We will. Really. No, really!

The image above shows a depiction of Mk. ix.37, when Christ takes a child in His arms and begins to rebuke the disciples for their arrogance, using a child as a metaphorical object lesson. But, is that a smile on Jesus' face, as well as the disciple to His right (our left)? Smiling when Jesus is about to rebuke and correct the disciples...again?

We will go through the disciples's arrogance, Christ's correction using children as an example, and His expounding on how bad it will be to mess with one of Christ's own. This should be a good night, Lord willing.

Soli Deo Gloria

Martyr Tale of the Day

2005-10-25T22:55:00.000-07:00

s recorded in van Braght's The Bloody Theater or Martyrs Mirror of the Defenseless Christians, the famous story of Dirk Willems:

Concerning his apprehension, it is stated by trustworthy persons, that when he fled he was hotly pursued by a thief-catcher, and as there had been some frost, said Dirk Willems ran before over the ice, getting across with considerable peril. The thief-catcher following him broke through, when Dirk Willems, perceiving that the former was in danger of his life, quickly returned and aided him in getting out, and thus saved his life. The thiefcatcher wanted to let him go, but the burgomaster, very sternly called to him to consider his oath, and thus he was again seized by the thief-catcher, and, at said place, after severe imprisonment and great trials proceeding from the deceitful papists, put to death at a lingering fire by these bloodthirsty, ravening wolves, enduring it with great steadfastness, and confirming the genuine faith of the truth with his death and blood, as an instructive example to all pious Christians of this time, and to the everlasting disgrace of the tyrannous papists.

The following is the execution order as recorded in Martyrs Mirror:

Whereas, Dirk Willems, born at Asperen, at present a prisoner, has,. without torture and iron bonds (or otherwise) before the bailiff and us judges, confessed, that at,the age of fifteen, eighteen or twenty years, he was rebaptized in Rotterdam, at the house of one Pieter Willems, and that he, further, in Asperen, at his house, at divers hours, harbored and admitted secret conventicles and prohibited doctrines, and that he also has permitted several persons to be rebaptized in his aforesaid house; all of which is contrary to our holy Christian faith, and to the decrees of his royal majesty, and ought not to be tolerated, but severely punished, for an example to others; therefore, we the aforesaid judges, having, with mature deliberation of council, examined and considered all that was to be considered in this matter, have condemned and do condemn by these presents in the name; and in the behalf, of his royal majesty, as Count of Holland, the aforesaid Dirk Willems, prisoner, persisting obstinately in his opinion, that he shall be executed with fire, until death ensues; and declare all his property confiscated, for the benefit of his royal majesty. So done this 16th of May, in presence of the judges, -Cornelis Goverts, Jan van Stege Jans, Adriaen Gerritts, Adriaen Jans, Lucas Rutgers, Jan Jans, and Jan Roefelofs, A. D., 1569.

May this blessed martyr's story be an encouragement to you, not only in suffering but also in your daily living. Remember that even when he was being chased to his death, he stopped to give his life saving hand to the one who would help take him to the stake.

Thomas More, the Christian Martyr?

2005-10-24T11:42:00.000-07:00

hat do we do with Sir Thomas More? Beheaded on 6 July 1535 for defying King Henry VIII, he died a staunch Roman Catholic, rejecting all cries for separation from the holy mother church. Before his execution, he wrote several treatises, like The Sadness of Christ and A Dialogue of Comfort Against Tribulation, discussing his own impending martyrdom for his beloved church. Primarily concerning More in his writings while imprisoned was the same concept that separated the RCC from the rapidly germinating protest movement in England and other regions of Europe: right doctrine.

Doctrine has always divided people, especially groups who call themselves Christian. Personally, that gives me all the more reason to study and learn the doctrines taught in Scripture. I seek to unify, but without compromise. Martyrdom is no exception. Doctrine divides claims to martyrdom. In the first few centuries of the Church, if you held to Gnostic teachings and were killed for not confessing the name of the Emperor instead of Christ, the Church (which held to orthodoxy) would reject your death outright. You would not be recognized as a martyr on the basis of your doctrines.

Today we face quite the same dilemma. There are hundreds of millions of Roman Catholics worldwide. There is great controversy over whether or not Protestants can or should consider Roman Catholics brothers and sisters in Christ. I would be in the camp of those who say Roman Catholicism teaches a false gospel, where grace is no longer grace. The legalism and drastically heretical dogma and doctrines (e.g. their teachings of Mary, the mother of Jesus; purgatory; Papal infallibility; the sacraments) diverge from the true evangel, the true Good News. Thomas More did not hold back from calling anyone a heretic who did not believe in the real presence of Christ in the communion elements.

If salvation is not found in the RCC, if the Catholic is not my brother, can I consider a Catholic martyr a Christian martyr? When someone like Thomas More, who vehemently opposed Protestantism and sent quite a few of them to the stake, even considered them false martyrs on the basis of their doctrine, is beheaded or burned for what he declares are his Christian convictions, how do we non-Catholics respond? In his work, A Dialogue of Comfort Against Tribulation, he wrote "The devil hath also some so obstinate heretics, that endure willingly painful death for vainglory."¹ Historically, Roman Catholicism has rejected Protestantism, and other divergent groups, and declared their claims to salvation as invalid. Contrary to relatively recent sentiments, the RCC has stated that there is no salvation outside of the RCC. They take as their very own Cyprian's dictum, "He cannot be a martyr who is not in the Church."²

So I ask again: what are we to do with Sir Thomas More? More, who had Christians killed, and who was himself killed, as he would have deemed, for Christ's sake. Would you list his name among the great martyrs of the faith? Does doctrine matter?

___________________

¹ Thomas More, A Dialogue of Comfort against Tribulation [1534-1535], as cited in Brad Gregory, Salvation at Stake: Christian Martyrdom in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, MS: Harvard University Press, 1999), 316.
² Cyprian, Treatise 1: On the Unity of the Church, xiv; found in ANF, vol. v. See a fascinating engraving and short commentary on this dictum (esse martyr non potest qui in Ecclesia non est) in Gregory, Salvation, 316.

Martyrology: a simple perspective

2005-10-24T06:05:00.000-07:00

ndoubtedly, if one hears the word martyrology or the phrase martyr book, initially he will think of the most popularized work by John Foxe, Actes and Monuments (commonly known as Foxe's Book of Martyrs). Next to come to mind may be the more extensive work by Thieleman J. Van Braght, The Bloody Theater or Martyrs Mirror of the Defenseless Christians (commonly known as The Martyr's Mirror). Yet these were only two of a handful of major martyr books to come out of the Reformation era (sixteenth thru seventeenth centuries). Foxe's Actes and Monuments was not even the first martyrology of the Reformation, contrary to general thought; Ludwig Rabus's The History of God's Chosen Witnesses, Confessors, and Martyrs holds that distinguished title.¹ But, outside of these martyr books--and we can include the work of Jean Crespin and Adriaen van Haemstede--do any others come to mind? What about Eusebius or Bede? Did they write any martyrologies?

The study of martyrdom is inextricably linked to an intimate study of Christian Church History. While martyrologies may be in the forefront of everyone's mind as the sources of martyr tales, they are only a fragment of the sources used to understand the history of "the cup of salvation."² If we go back in time, centuries before Rabus and Foxe came to prominence, martyrs were not separated from their historical context. The histories written to tell of the developement and proliferation of the Christian faith never told of the lives and deaths of men, women and children who God chose and enabled to confess the truth in such a special way. The martyrs were a central part of the history of the Church.

The main reason this happened, of course, is that the first three centuries of our Church's history is filled with persecution and execution. History was martyrdom, and martyrdom was history. Care must be taken, when studying martyrdom and specific martyrs, not to have martyrologies and histories as two distinct categories. Eusebius of Caesarea's Ecclesiastical History, for example, is filled almost to the brim with martyr tales; not only the stories, but also commentary on the idea of martyrdom as the years and persecutions went on. As I was reading Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (tr. Ecclesiastical History of the English People) I found many parallel ideas between Bede and Eusebius in telling an early history of the Church in a land, and martyrdoms tied directly into the historical developements. The Martyrdom of Polycarp does not exist as the sole martyrology of the early Church. All early histories, in the sense I am discussing, are martyrologies. They can all supply information and ideas toward a thorough and intimate study of martyrdom. My own studies would be incomplete if I looked only for specific works on martyrs.

None of that, however, even touches the importance of works like An Exhortation to Martyrdom by the third century theologian Origen, or more than a few of Cyprian's letters, including the excellent On the Glory of Martyrdom. Works like these were more like sermons, exhortations and teachings. They served a purpose within the greater context and help greatly in understanding Christian martyrdom.

_____________________
¹ Titled translated from the German Historien Der Heylugen Auβerwolten Gottes Zeugen, Bekennern und Martyrern. I consider this "distinguised" because, as I will mention in a later article, the first martyrs of the reformation were two German, Augustinian monks.
² Origen, An Exhortation to Martyrdom, xxviii.

The Bible, Bible Study, and Application

2005-10-24T06:00:00.000-07:00

I noticed that James White went batty over Thomas Nelson publishing Align, N(ew) C(entury) V(ersion): the Complete New Testament for Men. Here's the blurb they give in promotion:

Ever wish your Bible was as easy to pick up as your favorite magazine? Now there’s a new BibleZine™ created with today’s modern guy in mind. With an edgy, techo-savvy style and content that makes Biblical truth fresh and relevant, it might just make Bible reading the best part of your day. By putting one of the most readable versions of the Bible, the New Century Version^®, together with articles about the topics you face everyday, we’ve created a ‘zine that will help you get deeper in the Bible, find out what God has to say for your life, and grow in your faith.

In this case, I would agree with James White. This is just silly. I remember seeing a similar version for women a year or so ago. Sad how people do not (and are not instructed and encouraged to) just pick up the Bible and study. Will it be difficult? Sure, at times. But is that not one of the reasons we have been given the Holy Spirit as our paraclete, our helper?

You say you cannot apply the Scriptures to your life because you cannot understand the Scriptures? Why are you jumping to application before you understand? Take the time to understand what the Scripture actually says about the Christian life. Do not bother with application if you do not know what the text says or what it means. That is a major problem with many "Bible Studies." Please do not call it a Bible Study if the Biblical text is not the focus or concern. So many people find the reading and interpretation boring and hard work; they want to get right into "what does it mean to me." Well, the text is not going to mean a thing unless you know what it says.

Whew...thus ends the ravings of another Calvinist.

Soli Deo Gloria

Phil Johnson has moved on

2005-10-24T05:20:00.000-07:00

It appears Phil Johnson has moved on from defending his take on "strict pacifism" and is now discussing another controversial topic, spiritual warfare (an important subject to C.H. Spurgeon).

Aslan, the coming ruler

2005-10-22T07:53:00.000-07:00

y wife and I have been reading C.S. Lewis's The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe in preparation for the upcoming movie. We all understand the parallel that Lewis made between Aslan and Jesus. But, yesterday was the first time I saw this particular parallel between the expectation the people had of Aslan, and what the Jews, especially Christ's disciples, expected from the coming Messiah.

"Aslan?" said Mr. Beaver. "Why, don't you know? He's the King. He's the Lord of the whole wood, but not often here, you understand. Never in my time or my father's time. but the word has reached us that he has come back. He is in Narnia at this moment. He'll settle the White Queen all right. It is he, not you, that will save Mr. Tumnus."

"She won't turn him into stone too?" said Edmund.

"Lord love you, Son of Adam, what a simple thing to say!" answered Mr. Beaver with a great laugh. "Turn him into stone? If she can stand on her two feet and look him in the face it'll be the most she can do and more than I expect from her."

The expectation was that this coming King would get rid of the present powers with his own power. But, as we know the story, Aslan came and willingly died on the table. Jesus came and the people expected him to be rid of the Romans and sit in Jerusalem as King. Yet, he rode in on a donkey and died on the cross. Not only did he present powers look him in the face, but they were able to do what they willed with him. And he went willingly.

It's a beautiful depiction of who the people thought Christ would be and who he truly was . . . and is.

Mark ix.30-50 tonight . . . maybe

2005-10-20T05:34:00.000-07:00

ark ix.30-50 reads

They went out from there and passed through Galilee. But Jesus did not want anyone to know, for he was teaching his disciples and telling them, "The Son of Man will be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise." But they did not understand this statement and were afraid to ask him.

Then they came to Capernaum. After Jesus was inside the house he asked them, "What were you discussing on the way?" But they were silent, for on the way they had argued with one another about who was the greatest. After he sat down, he called the twelve and said to them, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be last of all and servant of all." He took a little child and had him stand among them. Taking him in his arms, he said to them, "Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me."

John said to him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him because he was not following us." But Jesus said, "Do not stop him, because no one who does a miracle in my name will be able soon afterward to say anything bad about me. For whoever is not against us is for us. For I tell you the truth, whoever gives you a cup of water because you bear Christ's name will never lose his reward.

"If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone tied around his neck and to be thrown into the sea. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off! It is better for you to enter into life crippled than to have two hands and go into hell, to the unquenchable fire. If your foot causes you to sin, cut it off! It is better to enter life lame than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. If your eye causes you to sin, tear it out! It is better to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where their worm never dies and the fire is never quenched. Everyone will be salted with fire. Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other."

This is the section of Mark we will be going over at tonight's Bible Study. However, I can only say I hope we get into this section. We will see how the Lord leads tonight. Last week I posed a question to the group that has been running circles in my mind since I started reading John Piper's God is the Gospel. I wanted to take what we were reading in the Bible Study (i.e. Mark) and ask the question, "Why is the Good News good?"

Back in Mk. i.1, Mark wrote "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." I explained how we have been going through this account or history by Mark, learning about what Christ did during His time here, and understanding more and more about Him. But, Mark calls all that he wrote "the gospel of Jesus Christ." The first thing I cleared up is the popular, modern concept of the word gospel. Whenever people hear or read that word today they tend to automatically think of the New Testament or the whole Bible. That is not what Mark intended when he penned the word ευαγγελιου (euangeliou). The gospel was the Good News (a literal translation of ευαγγελιου): the history, the events, the teachings, and so forth. What Mark wrote he considered the Good News. So as we read the different events in the life of Jesus, are we thinking, "Remember, this is the Good News?"

Back to the question I asked the group: Why is the Good News good? Why is this not just news? What makes it so good? I keep remembering Mk. vi.5-6:

He was not able to do a miracle there, except to lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. And he was amazed because of their unbelief. Then he went around among the villages and taught.

How is that good? Sure we can talk about the many miracles He did, and the authority He held among the people (especially in the faces of the Scribes and Pharisees). We can even bring up later events like the resurrection or the second coming. But what about instances like vi.5-6? Or when the disciples would not understand Him or who He was? Where is the good in that?

I did not want to discuss the question last week. I wanted folks to mull it over for a week, consider the text of Mark we have gone through so far, and ask themselves questions about the Good News. I am anticipating a lot of discussion and questioning about what the Good News is, not so much (per my question) why the Good News is good. I am not sure if my question was clear enough, or if I should have re-emphasized the question at the end of last week's study as people left. But, I have a feeling we may not touch on Mark ix tonight. We will see how the Lord leads. He may want us all to have a discussion on what the Good News is and why it's good. We shall see.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Letter to Polycarp, Preface (1)

2005-10-16T15:32:00.000-07:00

will begin to translate Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to Polycarp, using the Greek text provided in The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, ed. Michael Holmes (1999). The first section I will go through is the preface to his letter, aka the introduction.

Ιγνατιος, ο και Θεοφορος, Πολυκαρπω επισκοπω εκκλησιας Σμυρναιων, μαλλον επισκοπημενω υπο θεου πατρος και κυριου Ιησου Χριστου, πλειστα χαιρειν.

My translation turns out as follows:

Ignatius, also called Theophorus; deepest greetings to Polycarp, overseer of the church of the Smyrnaeans; rather, who is overseen by God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Trying to translate Koine Greek into American English so the meaning is understood is a difficult task.

(Continued. To read more, click here.)

BBB on chiasmus

2005-10-14T05:15:00.000-07:00

Wayne Leman has written an excellent discussion on translating chiasmus. Chiasmus is a structure you find some times in Greek, and the interpretation of the text depends on how you translate the construction. The example of Philemon 5 is simple and clear. Thank you Wayne for the excellent information you have been passing along regarding translation.

New additions to The Old Book Shoppe

2005-10-13T15:47:00.000-07:00

Here's a look at some of the items I've added to the inventory.

Comment Quorum

2005-10-13T05:35:00.000-07:00

Another edition of Comment Quorum coming your way.

On 5 October, an anonymous commenter thought Phil Johnson's use of "the phrase 'bovine product' while explaining his comment about Bin Laden" was priceless. I think Phil was definitely venting while writing, and not thinking clearly about the implications of beating another man to death with meat products.

In regards to the same post on Phil Johnson's anti-pacifism articles, another anonymous commenter asked for my "of Brother Johnson's main arguments (e.g., that Jesus didn't change the moral law found in the Old Testament) and claims (e.g., pacifism is an "immoral" and "unbiblical" doctrine)." Pacifism is not immoral; nor is the practice unbiblical. The way of Jesus, especially his example, was not to insist his followers be ready with canes and cow thighs for when Pilate or Herod might come along. I am thinking about posting on the issue of pacifism, and some points Phil made. I am not ready at the moment to get into a long article. In due time I will come out with something.

Mikey, in regards to my post The New Monasticism: Homeschooling, seems to hold a dissenting opinion. He expressed I should "[b]e careful with the homeschooling. It's a practice almost totally dominated by christian wingnuts. This is not a balanced or healthy way to educate a child." Well, to all you wingnuts out there homeschooling for the right reasons, I'm on your side. I guess the "balanced and healthy way to educate" my sons would be to let them be one of forty other students in an education system geared towards not teaching them but getting them to pass the graduation requirements, thereby bringing in the extra thousands to millions of dollars the state gives successful schools. I guess spending three hours after school correcting the bad stuff they learned that day is better than teaching them correctly the first time, and moving on in their education.

On 5 October, thefollowingextracts braved the depths of election. I believe his take on this brings up many good issues and would be best read as a whole.

I'd like to chime in on the election issue brought up in a previous blog entry
and referred to here in the "Comment Quorum" blog entry.[Disclaimer: I will not
pretend that I have done a thorough scholarly study on the following topic. My
layman's approach will probably be evident in the terminology I use. Hopefully,
my lack of experience with the terms of this much discussed topic will not
obscure my point. Thanks for your patience.]
It seems to me that both an unconditional election (see the cited sheep passages in John) and a radically choice-based salvation (see the calls to believe for salvation in Acts)are represented in the canonized Scriptures. These are both representative of larger cosmologies that might be described as determinism and free will (or a plethora of other terms). But are the cosmological statements of the Bible meant to
establish absolute cosmologies? Are we supposed to synthesize disparate strands
into a unified cosmology?
To me, the value of the cosmological statements of the Bible is practical. I'm not saying that these cosmological statements are not true or real, but I would say that the intention of these cosmologies--such as when Paul cites the election of the saints to encourage them in their faith in and love for the Lord, or when Peter motivates believers to growth/good works that will "make your calling and election sure"--is to exhort believers toward certain ways of thinking or behaving. Thus, it is not necessary to form a systematized Biblical cosmology out of the various cosmological strands of Scripture. It is necessary to use these cosmological strands appropriately to motivate people toward faith, love and good works.
I realize that the above approach may result in some inconsistent/hypocritical thinking about theology and the Scriptures. But, when we create a systematized cosmology, we often find difficulties in actually hearing/taking in certain statements in the Scriptures that may not reflect our cosmology or synthesis. I think this presents a graver inconsistency/hypocrisy. I guess I'd rather have my readings be more consistent to the intent of the authors of the Text than be entirely consistent within themselves (if I have to pick one or the other). As is now apparent, our
theologies on this issue are determined in large part by our assumptions about
the Text itself, assumptions which are born out of complex mixtures of
experience, community, brain chemistry, and etc.
Humans think precariously in a precarious universe. God gives grace in His Sovereignty.

Here are my thoughts on his thoughts. I do not believe the calls for salvation, as in Luke's Acts of the Apostles, represent the idea of a "radically choice-based salvation." The call goes out to everyone, the gospel is shared with the world, but not everyone can listen and understand the good news. Our “free-will” is not as free as we would like to think, and we would all really want to be. Our will is limited by our nature, with which God created us. The foremost limitation we have as unregenerates (prior to regeneration, or being “born again” as Christ said in John iii.3) is our being spiritually dead. Unless you are made alive by God Himself, you will stay spiritually dead (Eph. ii.1-4).

It was said, “[W]hen we create a systematized cosmology, we often find difficulties in actually hearing/taking in certain statements in the Scriptures that may not reflect our cosmology or synthesis. I think this presents a graver inconsistency/hypocrisy.” True enough, if you have shut off your mind to listening to others--including and especially the Spirit—who can give you guidance and correction where needed. Because I chose not to close myself off from studying the writings of Calvinists, I was able to gain a significant amount of knowledge I believe God used to take me to where I am now. As I understand Paul, he wrote with more than just a desire “to motivate people toward faith, love and good works.” And I agree with the statement that I would rather have my reading be consistent with the intention of the author. I cannot get away from the intense importance Paul placed on knowing the truth and understanding the doctrines he taught. Those doctrines point to God, and help us understand our Sovereign.

In the case of God's sovereign election, I do not begin with the declaration that we have God's election and also man's free-will and ability to believe in Christ or not by their own volition. I will be writing more about election and free-will in due time.

Addendum: I just got one that I thought was of interest. An anonymous commentor wrote in about the Evangelical Outreach site I gave a resounding "Wow!" The commenter said, "Yikes, that cartoon was graphic. So he is opposed to eternal security? Does that mean he believes you can lose your salvation or am I not getting it?" Yes, the author of the site does not believe in eternal security. Also, they openly teach a conditional security, where your continued salvation depends on what you do.

The Old Book Shoppe

2005-10-12T11:09:00.000-07:00

I have opened up a shop with Cafepress.com.

The image will be just to the right of the blog entries. Anytime you want to have a look at the items I've put together, click into The Old Book Shoppe and browse around. This is not a big-money endeavor for me; but it would be nice to get some extra bit of cash while supporting and promoting Church History and theology.

I enjoy playing around with Graphic Design, so if you would like to see a custom item designed, let me know. So far I have an Athanasius and Theosis Mug, as well as a "My God box" T-shirt.

|

"BibleHelp.org" on Calvinism

2005-10-09T20:07:00.000-07:00

on't ask me how I got there, but I bounced into Michael and Janet Bronson's biblehelp.org web ministry. I was on a page entitled "What is Selective Salvation?" They have apparently created sixty-six chapters discussing selective salvation, aka. election or predestination. This first one gave a summary of the doctrine and actually started fairly well.

In summary, selective salvation is the belief God has chosen to send certain people to Heaven and the remainder to Hell. This selection (which was made long before the universe was created) was not based on any qualities of the person being selected. It was not based on the person’s heart or their future love for God. It was not based on God’s foreknowledge of who will eventually choose to accept Him as their Savior. It was not based on their future humility and repentance.

All of that is better stated than someone like Dave Hunt would care to attempt. I would not say God sent "the remainder to Hell," like "I'll save you and you. The rest, blah, whatever." God made the choice both ways; that's double predestination or reprobation. That may not sound good and nice, as if all doctrines are supposed to fit into the little box most people create for God; then they hung a little sign on the outside that reads, "My God box." Notice the qualities being denied to have any relationship to God's choosing: the person's heart, their future love for God, accepting the Savior, humility and repentance. That is correct. God does not choose someone based on that person's personal characteristics or choices in life. You have to remember where election begins: man is incapable of coming to God by their own will. As Christ put it: "No man is able to come (δυναται ελθειν, dunatai elthein) to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (Jo. vi.44, personal translation).

I said the article started well. The unspoken being at some point things began to go downhill. Here is where gravity starts to take over.

This selection was purely random and arbitrary. The people selected to go to Hell (such as Hitler) could just as easily have been selected to go to Heaven.

This is a popular idea, but I have no clue why it permeates so intensely the minds of the non-Reformed. Article seven in the First Head of Doctrine of the Canons of Dordt states the following:

Election is the unchangeable purpose of God whereby, before the foundation of the world, out of the whole human race, which had fallen by its own fault out of its original integrity into sin and perdition, He has, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His will, out of mere grace, chosen in Christ to salvation a definite number of persons, neither better nor more worthy than others, but with them involved in a common misery.

God did not randomly choose anyone.¹ His choice is perfect and purposeful. The case of Paul is one of the greatest Biblical examples of God's election and sovereignty over man's free will. Paul, by his own will, sought to destroy Christ's Church. God stopped him at His appointed time and turned his heart to the gospel of Christ. Was Paul going to convert his heart and ways while on the road to Damascus had Christ not intervened upon Paul's will? Choosing Christ was not Paul's idea, but Christ's. God's choice is by His good pleasure and grace.

Nobody has a say in the matter. The person selected to go to Hell literally has no hope.

No one wants a say. They want to live their lives for themselves. Unless God saves an individual, that individual has no hope. It seems Michael Bronson has forgotten about sin and the depravity of man. These two sentences are designed to pull at the emotion; it does not matter what Calvinists would say about this, only the opinion-based conclusion that most people will not bother to verify. Also of concern is that it appears he has not studied or read the writings (or heard the sermons/teachings) of actual Calvinists. This could be another case like with Jack Graham and his sermon on grace and Calvinism a few weeks ago; he obviously did not read about Calvinism from Calvinists, only from Dave Hunt, Norman Geisler, and the like. If people would take the time to listen to us, not having to necessarily agree with us, they would at least not fall on their faces and present false, misleading information about Calvinists.

Although he may desire to go to Heaven and is seeking deliverance, he has no chance of salvation.

Once again, here is a statement (I can only assume) made out of ignorance to the actual teachings of Calvinists. Who will desire to go to Heaven? Who seeks deliverance? If someone is coming to God, Christ will never cast them out. Let's look at John vi.35-44 once again:

Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. The one who comes to me will never go hungry, and the one who believes in me will never be thirsty. But I told you that you have seen me and still do not believe. Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will never send away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me. Now this is the will of the one who sent me--that I should not lose one person of every one he has given me, but raise them all up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father--for everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him to have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. Then the Jews who were hostile to Jesus began complaining about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven," and they said, "Isn't this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" Jesus replied, "Do not complain about me to one another. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jesus did not indicate that men could come to God, or believe, unless God takes action. Who desires to go to Heaven? Who seeks deliverance? Jesus answers, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." And if someone actually desires entrance into Heaven and redemption? Jesus said, "Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will never send away." That is the message of Calvinism in a nutshell. In those few verses you have the doctrines of grace pragmatically explained (as a side note, see also Rom. iii.9-18 for an excellent proclamation of man's total depravity before God). Keep in mind the words of C. H. Spurgeon: "If you will have Jesus, He has you already."² Those who are actually seeking the Father will not fail to find Him because God will not allow His declaration to come back void. He said those He draws will come, and those who come will not be cast out. Those He does not draw will not come. They will not desire redemption, just as they do not desire redemption now.

Even the person selected to go to Heaven has no say in the matter, he is forced to "love" God.

How foolish a statement, to be honest. Again, written to pull at the emotions, this is entirely misleading. When the heart of man is turned, man will follow and love his Lord. When the dead in spirit is given life, that new life looks and sees the kingdom of God (Jo. iii.3). Only after regeneration can we love God at all. He does not force that action on you. That is entirely yours to do. He saved you; why would you not love Him?

Does the Bible teach this belief system? I don’t believe it does, but you need to search the Bible yourself and come to your own conclusion. Although you can use these 64 chapters to help you in your studies, make sure you use the Bible as your final authority. Don’t assume that what I’m saying is correct.

These are the sorts of statements I appreciate. Sadly, many times anti-Calvinists will simply tell you the (false) teachings we hold to, how they are unbiblical, and even how we cannot be saved if we believe these doctrines.³ I wish they include a statement like, "You can see in their own words what they teach here..." or something to that nature. Why not direct readers to Calvinist writings or sources? That way you can check real Calvinism against the Bible. What does R. C. Sproul say? Or James White? What about others: Spurgeon, Pink, Piper, Owen, Edwards, Ryle, Warfield, Boettner, Hendryx? What do Calvinists teach as Calvinism? Let's try and get away from the strawmen, and get to the truth regardless of that may be. I am willing to be rid of any false doctrines I hold to if I can be shown they are false.

Here is Michael's final statement regarding the summary of "selective salvation":

Think about it; if you really believed everyone who is supposed to go to Heaven will make it there, would you give and live sacrificially to help reach the world for Christ?

Yes, I would. One of the biggest fallacies anti-Calvinists may commit, but not all of them, is lumping all of Calvinism into the abhorent Hyper-Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism is basically fatalism. Do nothing because God will do everything. We do not know who the elect are. God has chosen the presentation of the gospel as the means by which men may listen, learn and believe. We Christians have been given the commission to go and tell all men about this gospel. Do you know of any Calvinists who do not share the gospel of Jesus Christ or believe they must not share because God will save those who He will save no matter what he or she does? If so, please send them my way. I will be more than happy to show Hyper-Calvinists the horrendous errors in their ways. Just do not try to present their heretical practices and teachings as Calvinist in general.

_____________________
¹ One of the other chapters at the site contains a most offensive comparison's to God's election I have ever seen. If you really want to read it, click here.

² Charles Haddon Spurgeon, All of Grace; The complete text can be found at the Spurgeon Archive.

³ In the September edition of The Berean Call Newsletter, Dave Hunt responded to a question about Calvinists and made this conclusion: "Could someone who believes this false gospel of Calvinism be truly saved? Fortunately, many Calvinists (you among them) were saved before becoming Calvinists. They now malign God by saying that He is pleased to damn multitudes though He could save all—and that He predestines multitudes to the Lake of Fire before they are even born. But having believed the gospel before becoming Calvinists, they 'shall not come into condemnation, but [have] passed from death unto life' (Jn 5:24). Those who only know the false gospel of Calvinism are not saved, while those who are saved and ought to know better but teach these heresies will be judged for doing so."

LDS and Romans iv (Part I)

2005-10-09T18:30:00.000-07:00

omans 4 in the Joseph Smith Translation (JST; the inspired version of the Bible created by Joseph Smith, which corrects and clarifies the Bible as needed) is quite a different animal than Romans iv in the Bible. The stark difference here is not on par with the problematic rendition the JST has of John i.1. In that verse, Joseph Smith recreated the text almost entirely so you have an absolutely different meaning. The intention of Smith, as admitted by the LDS church, was to clarify the passage. John was actually not trying to create this picture of Jesus as being with God and also being that God. How foolish of us to think so for so many centuries!

But here in Romans, I cannot accept the idea that Smith was clarifying a teaching. Here first is Romans iv.1-6, 16 as found in the Bible:

What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works . . . Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all. (KJV)

And here are the same verses from the JST:

What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by the law of works, he hath to glory in himself; but not of God. For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him who is justified by the law of works, is the reward reckoned, not of grace, but of debt. But to him that seeketh not to be justified by the law of works, but believeth on him who justifieth not the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works . . . Therefore ye are justified of faith and works, through grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to them only who are of the law, but to them also who are of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all. (JST, using the KJV as the foundational English translation)

Verse 1 is the same, but verse two begins the avalanche. Watch the change in the language. Smith inserted "the law of" in verse 2 as a set up for what comes in verse 4. He also changed the idea of Abraham boasting to his having glory in himself. Not much of a concern, really. It does spring to mind his famous statement:

"I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet." (History of the Church, vol. 6; the whole text of the section can be reached at CARM.)

In verse 4, Smith changed a bit of the language. "Now to him who is justified by the law of works, is the reward reckoned, not of grace, but of debt." Let's understand what he is trying to convey here. Despite the objection made by Gerald Lund in a 1981 article in the LDS publication, Ensign,¹ LDS apologists (mostly the amateur apologists) declare the law of works is neccessarily a different concept than the works you find in James ii. The law of works (as in the JST) or works by itself (as in the Bible) refers to the Law of Moses. In contrast, the works in James refers to the ordinances and commandments as dictated by the LDS church.

...to be continued...look for a discussion on works, salvation and Abraham in Romans iv...

¹ Gerald N. Lund, “Salvation: By Grace or by Works?” Ensign, Apr. 1981, 17. Lund argued "There are two different ways in which Church members typically seek to synthesize Paul’s teachings with Latter-day Saint theology. The first suggests that by “the law” Paul means only the law of Moses. Without a doubt, there is merit in this. There was a tendency among some Jewish Christians to insist that Christianity still required obedience to Mosaic principles such as circumcision, the dietary laws, and the observance of certain festivals . . . However, to limit Paul’s meaning to the law of Moses alone would not be quite accurate. Paul rejects the adequacy of the Mosaic code in and of itself for salvation, but he makes it broader than that too. For example, in warning the Ephesians about concluding that a man is saved by works, he makes no reference to the law: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourself: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Eph. 2:8–9.) So while this explanation is somewhat correct, it does not go far enough."

New Look...yet again

2005-10-07T22:48:00.000-07:00

ell, I decided to try another look for the blog. I kept the three columns, but moved both of the smaller columns to the right side. I will be adding images for headers in those columns, so that should enhance the look. Please, if you have any thoughts on the look I would love to read them. And yes I am still working on enhancing the actual posting.

ADDENDUM! I noticed most folks using Internet Explorer (IE) will only see a sliced up version of the site; the columns on the right are cut off. Sorry. This site looks best by using Firefox instead. You should be using Firefox for your web surfing and enjoyment anyway; but just in case, here is the link where you can download the small yet powerful, simple to use but free, program.

UPDATED: I was able to get IE looking better. Not perfect; Firefox is still superior. But, it will take some time to get it just right.

Translation using "propitiation"

2005-10-06T10:45:00.000-07:00

here is an excellent post and counter post on the subject of properly translating into English the noun ιλασμος (hilasmos), as found in 1 Jo. ii.2. The first post is found at ESV Blog (that's the English Standard Version Bible Blog). The counter comes from Wayne Leman at the Better Bibles Blog. In this case, I believe Wayne has the better card played as far as the best English rendering of the term. "Propitiation" is very technical and difficult for the average reader to understand. Not only will they need to find a dictionary (don't always trust the study notes in the margins; they can be quite skewed and limited), but then try and understand what the dictionary is saying, then bring that back to the Bible verse to attempt apprehension. And you know what happens when you use 21st century meanings to interpret 1st century terminology.

That places a lot of responsibility on the translator. You need to understand the audience; in this case 20-21st century Americans. Here is a note from the NET Bible:

A suitable English translation for this word (ιλασμος) is a difficult and even controversial problem. "Expiation," "propitiation," and "atonement" have all been suggested. L. Morris, in a study that has become central to discussions of this topic (The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 140), sees as an integral part of the meaning of the word (as in the other words in the ιλασκομαι (hilaskomai) group) the idea of turning away the divine wrath, suggesting that "propitiation" is the closest English equivalent. It is certainly possible to see an averting of divine wrath in this context, where the sins of believers are in view and Jesus is said to be acting as Advocate on behalf of believers. R. E. Brown's point (Epistles of John [AB], 220-21), that it is essentially cleansing from sin which is in view here and in the other use of the word in 4:10, is well taken, but the two connotations (averting wrath and cleansing) are not mutually exclusive and it is unlikely that the propitiatory aspect of Jesus' work should be ruled out entirely in the usage in 2:2. Nevertheless, the English word "propitiation" is too technical to communicate to many modern readers, and a term like "atoning sacrifice" (given by Webster's New International Dictionary as a definition of "propitiation") is more appropriate here. Another term, "satisfaction," might also convey the idea, but "satisfaction" in Roman Catholic theology is a technical term for the performance of the penance imposed by the priest on a penitent.

This supports the position I lean towards on how we should translate the ιλασμος. I do not necessarily like "atoning sacrifice," but that is far better than "propitiation." While I will not absolutely disregard the ESV's point and the general use of "propitiation," there are alternatives that we can arrive at.

Phil Johnson on Pacifism

2005-10-05T16:16:00.000-07:00

The Pyromaniac has three blogs running (click here for 1, 2, and 3) on pacifism, and his personal views on this issue. Talk about sparked a wild fire! At last count he had 141 comments on his three posts! Check them out. Not only is he not a pacifist; but, my oh my, look at what he says about Osama bin Laden.

The New Monasticism: Homeschooling

2005-10-04T21:25:00.000-07:00

his spawned from several posts I read from others on this subject weeks ago. Those articles talked about the trend of American Christians turning to homeschooling, and that attitude of separation from the world being the same as that of the monastics and desert believers. The belief is that we as Christians should be a great influence in our society, being in it but not of it, and affecting the society in a way that brings glory to God and helps people. Of course few tend to give us any substantive, practical ways of doing that without falling into compromise or corruption. Homeschooling is considered another way that Christianity seperates itself from society, not dealing with the harsh ways of the world, and also choosing not to influence the culture in a good, ethical way.

My wife and I will homeschool our children (we have two so far). We plan on joining in with other homeschoolers so that certain educational subjects can be shared. I for one cannot do high school level math. I can do geometry and trig because they are logical. Forget the rest. My kids will be exposed to Latin, Koine Greek, Spanish and hopefully French, German and Arabic (a few languages I hope to start and pick up soon). Our reasons for homeschooling lie in our distaste for the public school system, and the fact that the private schools are too expensive and just as bad as public schools. The education in the public school system, in general, is poor.

I just saw a report that 100,000 California high school seniors failed the new graduation requirement exam; basically, a test implemented to see if the seniors were truly ready to graduate. All of them are in danger of not graduating unless they can pass the exam soon. And what do legislators want to do in light of that? Lower the standards even more and gear the education in the classrooms specifically towards passing that one test. Hence, a true education, one like you found in the 17-1800's, is all but forgotten. In today's schools, teachers have a difficult time giving a quality education to 30-40 kids each class period.

I have seen arguments against homeschooling that cover the spectrum. One argument states that by enrolling their kids in public school, those kids will evangelize their fellow students. I'm sorry, but an 11-year-old boy has other girls...I mean things on his mind ("Here's a gospel tract. I'd write my number on it but I lost it. Can I have yours?"). Another snag to that argument is that an 11-year-old is not going to necessarily understand the evangel--the gospel message--he is supposed to be teaching. A false gospel is not a good thing to minister, nor is it effective. Another argument is that we are being disobedient to God's commission for His people to give charity to their neighbors. The problem with this idea is that it assumes a total seperation from society for the children. Nothing could be further from the truth. The children still have access to their neighbors. In a good program they can socialize and develop relationships with believers and non-believers anywhere.

What happens if you take out all Christian influence from the public school system? That I think is the enigma perceived by those who criticize Christian homeschooling. That will never happen, but I would love to see Christian homeschoolers come together and develop the schools of learning that can become something greater.

For my family, our children's education is vital. I want them to learn well, and be able to take that knowledge and, Lord willing, wisdom, go out into the world on their own and make a great impact. We are not withdrawing from the world around us, but doing what is right for our family and for the Church. We will train our kids up in the way of the Lord, He will take them as far as He wants them. If critics only bring up homeschooling as part of the attack against Christians withdrawing from societal influence (which includes politics and business), then I say move along to another subject. Christians should not seperate from society en toto. We still need to give that charity and show that love for our neighbors. I just don't know what that has to do with homeschooling. I absolutely agree that homeschooling is a new form of monasticism. I have no problem with that, as long as you recognize it is a new form. It sure isn't the way true monasticism used to be, or is today.

If you can think of a practical way of being engaged in the culture, here in America, without compromise and corruption, please let me know. Do not just give the rhetoric. Come with solutions and ideas.

This site get's a wow

2005-10-04T20:43:00.000-07:00

Check out Evangelical Outreach if you have a minute. Especially the Calvinism Refuted section. This guy has got quite the site on his hands there. Click on "An Eternal Security Teacher With A New Convert" and watch the amazing little cartoon to the left of the screen (if you have a flash player installed). I did not know John Calvin, Charles Spurgeon and James White were in the same ranks as Dave Hunt, Norman Geisler, Pat Robertson and even Hank Hanegraaff.

This site gets a "Wow" from me. That's not really a good thing, but I doubt Evangelical Outreach will take much concern with me. I'm not on the list of wolves in sheep's clothing...yet.

Comment Quorum

2005-10-03T17:14:00.000-07:00

From time to time, maybe once every two weeks, I will blog responses to comments folks leave me. And I do appreciate the comments.

On my post "Pelikan on Tradition and Scripture," wwyd asked, "How should the two points you make in the final paragraph affect the way we (in 2005) understand the "inspiration" or relevance of the scriptures?" The inspiration of the Scriptures is subject to a wide variety of interpretations itself. The fact that oral tradition came before written Scripture may or may not affect one's personal understanding of inspiration. In my view, there is no affect at all as God has always directed His revelation and been in control of His gospel. As far as relevance goes, the ideas proposed by Pelikan should help us consider the Scriptures just as relevant to us as it was to the mid to late first century Church; just as relevant to the Reformation; just as relevant to the Anabaptists. The oral tradition has always had a place in the Church; we must not confuse the idea of oral tradition with tradition as taught in the Roman Catholic Church. Oral tradition is passing along the good news, the gospel of Christ, and teaching others, especially the next generation. While in the mid first century, while the oral New Testament was going around, the OT was there with the people. As we pass along the oral tradition today--the message of the gospel, our interpretations and commentaries--we have the NT with us. Ultimately, the NT comes out as the objective reference; but how poor would it be to simply give someone a Bible and tell them to read it and "you'll know the truth." If they don't have guidance, someone to help them understand, their not going to know the truth. Likely they'll be more confused than anything.

On my "Layman's TULIP: Limited Atonement," wwyd asked me to "please explain the significance of the following comment so I'm sure I'm tracking with your logic: 'But see how Christ never said He would bring in those who will be the sheep.'" The most popular non-Reformed teaching includes the idea that Christ died for all people of all time, giving everyone the opportunity to believe and receive salvation; the condition being that the individual takes action and comes to Christ. Tied into Election, this same teaching goes on with the idea that God saw beforehand who would believe; based on that information, He chose them. I took the analogy of the sheep and extended it to make a point. Christ talked about His sheep in a definite sense, not in the sense of "Once someone believes in Me they become My sheep." As He told the Jews in Jo. x, they did not believe because they were not His sheep; not, they were not His sheep because they did not believe.

I noted in being Blogspotted by Phil Johnson (which is actually the second time; I searched back through and rediscovered I have been blogspotted before) that Phil misspelled my last name. Always bad to do to an Calvinist Latino. You just know they'll point it out. Craziest thing is he commented "Fixed the spelling. Sorry. I should learn to cut and paste rather than trying to spell." See; that's a good man.

Blogspotted by Phil Johnson

2005-09-30T05:12:00.000-07:00

For those of you who don't know, Blogspotting is the occassional check in the internet world for blogs that link back to yours, be it for a comment you made or an article you wrote. I saw on Phil Johnson's blog (Pyromaniac) I was on his latest list. While much appreciated and always nice to be linked by the "big daddy blogs," I did notice he spelled my name wrong: it's not Eddie Gonzales but Gonzalez...two Z's. But, that's cool. Can't go wrong with the artwork he posts on there. Thanks, Phil. Keep up the good work.

Good Knowledge or Good Skill?

2005-09-29T12:36:00.000-07:00

I have recently been training or assisting trainers with classes on a new computer system our hospital will be using come November. In that time, I have had the opportunity to see 6 or 7 different styles of teaching, and 6 or 7 different levels of knowledge with respect to the trainers. During one of the sessions today (as an assistant; catch people up who are lagging), I noticed the trainer had a lot of knowledge, but had poor teaching skills. Thinking back to other trainers, I noticed one or two had relatively little knowledge (just the basics, enough to give us what we needed to know for that class session; no help if we had other questions) but were extremely good communicators and instructors: patient, spoke with a good tone, defined terms well, etc.

What's the point? I will be the facilitator for our Home Fellowship Bible Study tonight (first part of Mark ix by the way. the transfiguration). I will do some teaching and try and guide the questions and discussions, and attempt to keep things on track, on topic, and allow folks to learn and grow (myself especially). But in a Bible Study, what is a better situation: to have a teacher with a lot of knowledge but poor teaching skills, or one with great teaching skills but lacks Scriptural knowledge above the basics? We all would love to see the perfectly balanced teacher, with great knowledge and great skill. But let's get real. Most Bible studies are not going to have R.C. Sproul come along and be their leader. Maybe we can get close to a balance, but we tend to be to one side or the other. Admittedly, I am towards the knowledge side; I have teaching skills to work on.

While that is not a problem in and of itself, the direction of a Bible study most of the time depends on the teacher (or facilitator). A group with a good communicator will go one way. A group with a braniac will likely go another. In this morning's session, the instructer had a lot of knowledge but was such a bad instructor and communicator, people were falling behind left and right, simple concepts were confusing, and so forth. I would hate to think that with the knowledge I have (not saying it's a lot, but I'd be dishonest if I said I haven't done my share of study and research) I would fail to communicate that knowledge in such a way that others could actually benefit. But with those with good skills and little knowledge, they are able to engage with you and get you interested, but incapable of taking you any further, or helping you get deeper.

I don't have an answer to that question in a world where the perfectly balanced instructor is hard to come by. We should all strive to have both great knowledge and great skill, but until then, what do we do?

These are just some ramblings of thoughts today.

UPDATED: Well, the Bible study went fairly well last night. We went over the transfiguration and had some time to discuss what the "Kingdom of God after it has come with power" was and that phrase's relationship to the transfiguration event. I think I fell short of doing a good job, honestly. In hindsight, I allowed myself to be more of a teacher than a facilitator. There were some great dialogues and even a couple of disagreements on key portions of the transfiguration tale as told by Mark, but at the end, when discussing the Kingdom of God, I probably came off sounding more like someone who believes "I'm right and your wrong." That was not my intention, and I hope no one perceived it that way, but I can see why someone might. Despite this, I learned a lot and hope others learned as well. Also, I do wish we had had more time for prayer; but I trust the Lord's leading and the Holy Spirit's guidance during our meeting times. Some nights we study a lot. Some nights we don't study at all, but pray together and sing hymns and worship songs. Let the Lord do His will, then He'll take care of the rest.

Adopting the World's Ways for Evangelism

2005-09-28T05:25:00.000-07:00

Phil Johnson posted a great response to an e-mail he received recently:

And that's what I want to respond to: the notion that adopting the fads of a juvenile, egomaniacal, shallow, self-destructive, worldly culture "works" better as an evangelistic strategy than a lifestyle that gives more prominence to the principle of Matthew 5:16 and 1 Peter 2:9.

He points out the logical conclusions or possibilities of taking that approach.

Can we agree, for example, that it wouldn't really be good or necessary to get a sex-change operation in order to reach the transgendered community? OK, you might dismiss that as something inherently sinful and wrong for that reason. Well, how about pulling a few teeth and adopting the trashy patois and tasteless lifestyle of Jerry Springer's guest list in order to have a more effective outreach to the underbelly of the cable-TV community? How serious are you about your strategy of accommodation and conformity?

And why is it mainly the lowbrow and fringe aspects of Western youth culture that this argument is invariably applied to? Why are so few Christian young persons keen to give up video games and take up chess in order to reach the geeks in the chess club? or give up heavy metal and learn the cello in order to have a ministry to the students who play in the orchestra?

We should follow the example of Christ. We can be a friend to those of the world, but we never have to abandon the way of faith and truth. We are supposed to show those of the world the way of Christ.

Odysseus' Tomb Found

2005-09-27T13:29:00.000-07:00

An archeaological find on par with that of Troy's discovery is finally reaching the news of the English speaking world. This article from the Madera Tribune talks about the discovery of the tomb of Odysseus and the city of Ithaca. This is an amazing find for ancient and world historians.

But two pieces of fairly recent evidence suggest archeologists were looking in the wrong place. In 1991, a tomb of the type used to bury ancient Greek royalty was found near the hamlet of Tzannata in the hills outside Poros. It is the largest such tomb in northeastern Greece, with remains of at least 72 persons found in its stone niches.

One find there is particularly telling. In Book XIX of the “Odyssey,” the just-returned and still disguised Odysseus tells his wife (who may or may not realize who she’s talking to; Homer is deliberately ambivalent) that he encountered Odysseus many years earlier on the island of Crete. He describes in detail a gold brooch the king wore on that occasion.

A gold brooch meeting that precise description lies now in the archeological museum at Argostoli, the main city on Kefalonia, 30 miles across the island from Poros. Other gold jewelry and seals carved in precious stones excavated from the tomb offer further proof the grave outside Poros was used to bury kings.

Greek archeologists also found sections of ancient city walls extending for miles through the hills around and well beyond Poros. These surround both the village and a steep adjacent hill which bears evidence it once served as an acropolis, what the Greeks called hilltop forts in most of their major cities. The stones of the walls date to about 1300 B.C., the approximate time of events described in the “Iliad” and “Odyssey.”

Most likely, the royal capital at Ithaca was a much larger city than Poros or any other town on either modern Ithaca or Kefalonia. It would have needed a major source of water. There is none on modern Ithaca, but streams abound near Poros, where there is also a small man-made lake. This area had the necessary water. The island now called Ithaca likely did not.

Several other ancient settlements found elsewhere on Kefalonia also suggest the island was a major population center at the time of Odysseus.

This is exciting. I hope that more details and photographs, even videos, are made available soon.

Rare Jewel Magazine: Review, Sept-Oct 2005 edition

2005-09-26T19:18:00.000-07:00

The September/October 2005 edition of Rare Jewel Magazine arrived and presented the question of can another Great Awakening happen in America. As a student of History--Church History to be exact--the theme of this edition enticed me. Truly, what greater era in the history of America was there than the seventeenth thru the nineteenth centuries? Looking back at the awakenings, we can review the good and the bad, the wheat and the chaff.

Let's look at the question posed on the cover of the latest issue: "The Next Great Awakening...Can it Happen Here?" To answer this question, the magazine presents a number of articles, an interview, historical surveys, and quick analyses directed primarily at the target audience: Christian Patriots. While I would not qualify as a Christian Patriot, I can look at the information as it is and learn, whether through application or criticism.

The key article (in my opinion) is actually two; one follows right after the other and they have similar points. The two are Kerby Anderson's "The Great Awakening and the American Revolution" and "A Fourth Great Awakening" by Bill Lewis. Both put forth a history of the original revival periods, and the names that hallmarked the respective era; no name to this day has been bigger than Jonathan Edwards in the mid-1700's. The attempt of the former article was to tie the American Revolution in the late eighteenth century, and the radical separation from British colonialism, to the sentiments and mindset established by the religious fervor of the Great Awakening. While there definitely is that connection between the two events, I do not know that Edwards or George Whitefield cared as much about the sovereignty of the seperatist American colonies as they did about ministering the need to be born again and justification by faith.

The latter article infers that the leaders of the three Great Awakenings were Christian Patriots (also referred to in his last paragraph as "kingdom patriots"). After giving a quick survey of the history, Bill Lewis concludes that leaders like Edwards and Charles Finney and Jeremiah Lanphier "are desperately needed in this hour as well; men and women willing to pray and act sacrificially for the sake of the spritiual welfare of America" (9). This conclusion is not one I would agree with as it seems to miss the mark on the practical side of the Great Awakenings themselves, within their time periods, and rely heavily on what happened years down the line as a result of the revivals. The actual revivals were not so concerned with "America" as a land, nor were the goals to exact a revolution in the government. The concern was the spiritual status of the people.

I believe readers would benefit from more writings on the history of the original Great Awakenings. Before we can look ahead (to either anticipate another or to create one) we have to understand what the originals were like in their own context. Today, we just do not have spiritual leaders like we did then, for whatever reason. The pluralism and liberalism that is so vital to America today infiltrates (and definitely has infiltrated) the Church and hurts our ability to raise up good, solid leaders who are grounded in the true Gospel of Christ (yes, we have many great Christian leaders, but who can you think of could be an Edwards or Whitefield?).

For the Christian Patriot, the target audience of Rare Jewel Magazine, I think this is an OK edition. There could have been more on the details of the history, at least by my take. For the conservative American, this will have plenty of useful information. The next issue will be on "Training the Child in the Ways He Should Grow." For a father of two, this issue will be quite inviting. For this edition though, there could have been more. This is such a great subject, and I think the submissions were limited. The design and look is very pleasing and easy on the eyes. Overall, 2.0 Tulips.

**This subscription was provided to me by Rare Jewel Magazine through Mind and Media. I received a year long subscription in return for these reviews, and nothing more.**

Layman's TULIP: Limited Atonement

2005-09-26T06:00:00.000-07:00

Once again I take up the task of presenting a layman's explanation of the beautiful TULIP of Calvinism. Here we are at the L: Limited Atonement. This sole letter causes so much confusion and strife for the non-Reformed. (One of the strangest things you find, however, is when the arguments come against Limited Atonement, dissenters actually end up arguing against election, not the scope of the atonement...anyway).

Limited Atonement can cause confusion simply with the use of the phrase "Limited Atonement." Better, the idea is Definite Atonement or Particular Redemption. The concept is not negative, as you might get from limited, but very positive, as with definite. The L talks about the scope of the atonement being limited to some, and not all. The ability of the atonement is not limited; the atonement atones completely and perfectly. That's not the concern. The problem has always been the some: who is atoned for? Hence the confusion dissenters have regarding what they truly don't like: unconditional election.

We of the reformed camp believe the some are the elect. Contrary to popular (mis)representation by folks (i.e. major theologians) on the non-reformed side, we do not interpret passages like John iii.16 as saying, "For God so loved the world of the elect that He gave His only begotten son, that all of the elect will not perish but have everlasting life." That's an age old argument made against Calvinists, and just plain foolish. As you may have read on this blog before (see my post on Particular Redemption in John iii.16), the verse you always see at football games, concerts, on T-shirts, banners, is one of the clearest portrayals of a limited or definite atonement in the Gospels. The verse is not evangelistic in the modern, popularized-Christianity sense (evangelism being solely the idea of missionary work, or getting people saved, or having crusades; going out and winning sinners to Christ). The verse does have the evangel in the true sense of the word: the good news, the gospel message.

Still, is a limited or definite atonement truly Scriptural? Or is the atonement as Dave Hunt once said, "conditional?" Christ's teaching on the sheep is a great example of the Scriptural message on this. In John's Gospel, Jesus declared to the Pharisees and others listening,

"I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.. . . I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep" (Jo. x.11,14-15).

The good shepherd (Jesus, I am) lays down His life for the sheep. Better, He "lays down His life on behalf of, in the place of, the sheep." Jesus laid down His life, the shepherd to the slaughter on behalf of the sheep, so they might live. The sheep are the shepherd's. He lays down His life for them, not for others. The shepherd does not lay down His life for anyone but His sheep. Notice on this point that Christ even said He has "other sheep, which are not of this fold" (Jo. x.16). Of course here He is talking about the Gentiles who will later be brought in. But see how Christ never said He would bring in those who will be the sheep. On the contrary: there are the sheep, His sheep, the whole of which (the Jews and the Gentiles) will be one flock.

For even more help in understanding the limited or definite atonement found here, look at Christ's statement to some of the Jews present:

"The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock" (Jo. x.25-26).

Those Jews did not believe because they were not part of His flock. If they needed to be part of the flock in order believe, how could they ever believe? Jesus lays down His life for the sheep. These Jews were not sheep. So, did Christ lay down His life for them?

And as Paul wrote,

but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life (Rom. v.8-10).

There is nothing conditional in the idea of the redemption by the death of Christ. The scope of the redemption (atonement) is limited to some (the elect), and very definite. You can be sure that if Christ died for someone, they will be redeemed. There are plenty of other passages (see Jo. vi.35-45 for another definitive look at this idea), but I think the point has been made so we can better understand what is meant by Limited Atonement.

Funniest Religious Joke?

2005-09-26T05:13:00.000-07:00

At shipoffools.com, the following joke was voted the funniest religious joke out of 951 submitted by Christians, Buddhists, Atheists and so forth. I don't know it it's the funniest I have ever heard, but when you think about it, it's sooooo true.

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump. I ran over and said: "Stop. Don't do it."

"Why shouldn't I?" he asked.

"Well, there's so much to live for!"

"Like what?"

"Are you religious?"

He said: "Yes."

I said: "Me too. Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

"Christian."

"Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

"Protestant."

"Me too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

"Baptist."

"Wow. Me too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

"Baptist Church of God."

"Me too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"

"Reformed Baptist Church of God."

"Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"

He said: "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915."

I said: "Die, heretic scum," and pushed him off.

Pelikan on Tradition and Scripture

2005-09-24T18:00:00.000-07:00

I picked up Jaroslav Pelikan's Jesus Through the Centuries from the library earlier today and started reading. I did not get too far (page 10) before I had to get what I had just read posted and into the discussion a little bit. Here is a bit from Pelikan on tradition and Scripture:

Even without settling all the thorny problems of authorship and of dating, we must recognize that in the several decades between the time of the ministry of Jesus and the composition of the various Gospels, the memory of what he had said and done was circulating among the various Christian congregations, and probably beyond them, in the form of an oral tradition.. . . But it is noteworthy that, except for the words of the institution of the Lord's Supper themselves, Paul does not in any of his epistles quote the exact words of any of the sayings of Jesus as we now have them in the Gospels. Nor does he mention a single event in the life of Jesus . . . between his birth and his death on the cross. From the writings of Paul we would not be able to know that Jesus ever taught in parablesand proverbs or that he performed miracles or that he was born of a virgin. For that information we are dependent on the oral tradition of the early Christian communities as this was eventually deposited in the Gospels, all of which, in their present form at any rate, probably appeared later than more or all of the epistles of Paul.

And here we arrive at Pelikan's declaration:

Everyone must acknowledge, therefore, that Christian tradition has precedence, chronologically and even logically, over Christian Scripture; for there was a tradition of the church before there was ever a New Testament, or any individual book of the New Testament.

Did you catch that? Chronologically (a concept important to students of history and historical theology), Christian tradition has precedence over Christian Scripture. This is absolutely true. Keep in mind that no Scripture was written specifically by the authors to be Scripture; Paul did not think to himself (as far as we know, though we can be pretty sure), "I'm gonna write me some Scriptures." The same with Peter and John and Luke and so forth. The letters came as needed. Paul himself told the church at Corinth the evangel he received (1 Co. xv.1-7) which is traced back to a hymn or creedal statement sometime in the forties. This was oral tradition within a Christian community--distinct from Jewish--without a written form of Scripture.

What's on my desk?

2005-09-24T15:59:00.000-07:00

For no particular reason whatsoever, I thought I would post the books I have on my desk right now. At this time, some of them are here because we just came from the public library. Others are for study.

All of Grace, C. H. Spurgeon: an awesome piece of writing; I'll be posting a review on this classic work soon.
Cruelty and Civilization: The Roman Games, Roland Auguet: one I bought real cheap at the library sale they had; the information is up my educational alley.
Constantinople in the Age of Justinian, Glanville Downey: another cheap purchase from the library with relevant info.
The Gospel According to Paul: the Creative Genius Who Brought Jesus to the World, Robin Griffith-Jones: checked it out from the library.
Jesus Through the Centuries: His Place in the History of Culture, Jaroslav Pelikan: on loan from the library; already started it and will soon have blog on a great comment he made (he got his PhD from U. of Chicago before he was 23).
The Creeds of Christendom, Volume III: The Evangelical Prostestant Creeds, Philip Schaff: a great series from another great historian.
The Story of Christianity: the Early Church to the Present Day, Justo Gonzalez: a great survey of Church history, with some fascinating bits of analysis and interpretation.
Writing History: A Guide for Students, William Storey: a great little book for students of History; picked it up for my Historiography course a few years ago.
A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, Zerwick and Grosvenor: a great little aid for my GNT reading.
NASB Study Bible from Zondervan: this one is my wife's.
NASB Ryrie Study Bible: that's mine; don't scoff at the "Ryrie" part; it's a great Bible regardless.
Greek New Testament, UBS 3d edition corrected, with dictionary: I like the 3d corrected over the 4th because it is by far easier to read.
The Chronicles of Narnia, C.S. Lewis: no introduction necessary.
J. Vernon McGee Thru the Bible commentaries (all volumes except 7 of them, I think): this is a permanent fixture on the desk; it actually has a vast amount of sentimental value because of the previous owner and my wife; this set will never leave us, plus it's fun to read in McGee's voice (especially because he writes like he talks).

Soon I hope to have some more room for extra books I need readily accessible for my studies and readings (especially when I move off the library books).

Tyler Williams on Historiography

2005-09-24T07:40:00.000-07:00

Over at Codex Blogspot, Tyler has written an excellent post on the subject of historiography and how we should view the Bible, or Biblical texts (an introductory post, I understand, but significant). Mid way through, my own conclusion popped into my mind and was pleased to see Tyler come out with exactly my point: "The Bible is a foreign and ancient book. When approaching the historiographic books in the Hebrew Bible we have to take into consideration how ancient historiography "works" as well as the different ancient literary conventions and codes it employs." No matter what era we look to for an understanding of their writing and telling of history, we have to understand how they tell history. Unfortunately so many today blind themselves and others by applying present day methods and theories to ancient and foreign practices and cultural norms. They lose the truth about what the Scriptural texts are presenting. Especially for those of us who spend our time in Scripture, and for those like me who's passion is history and looking at the Scriptures from a historical perspective, we have to travel back in time, learn from their teachers, and interpret accurately. Our biases will always be there; just make sure your bias is correct.

From Catholicism to Christ: Audio Sermon

2005-09-22T13:23:00.000-07:00

I am listening to an incredibly fascinating testimony of and by Richard Bennett, a former Catholic priest who was turned to God's grace and mercy. Anyone with something of a background in Roman Catholicism will probably appreciate listening to this testimony. He gives an amazing perspective on the RCC and how the Protestant world looked to him.

If you would like to listen (61 minutes), click here.

Charles H. Spurgeon's Personal Library

2005-09-21T21:21:00.000-07:00

Here's an image Charles Spurgeon's personal study way back when. There were more than 12,000 volumes in there. And I've got, let's see....

CH Spurgeon's "Defense of Calvinism"

2005-09-21T04:52:00.000-07:00

This morning, my mind was taken back by Philip Johnson to one of Spurgeon's great works, The Defense of Calvinism. I remember reading this a few years ago when I first asked the question, "What do Calvinists really believe...in their own words?" Always having been an insatiable reader of the Prince of Preachers, God turned my sight on this short piece and to this day I believe it to be the perfect description and summary of Calvinism.

If you are a Calvinist, I doubt you will disagree with me. If you despise Calvinism, I doubt you will come away with any less hatred. Regardless, Spurgeon is right: "Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."

If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who were lost before He died. If the doctrine be true, that He died for all men, then He died for some who were in hell before He came into this world, for doubtless there were even then myriads there who had been cast away because of their sins. Once again, if it was Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!

Spurgeon, while directing his thoughts here towards those who we call Universalists, carefully displayed a general defense of true redemption against Arminianism. Arminians will so often say that "Christ died for all men!" Then His death was not enough to save the lost. You would have to believe that Christ did His part, now you need to do yours. How disturbing a thought, that Christians would believe they had any ability at all to participate in our own redemption. And yet, I know all to well the trappings because I once believed that way as well.

As with Spurgeon, I thank God that He has turned me to His sweet doctrines of grace at so (relatively) young an age. I would urge you to read not only his Defense of Calvinism, but also of other descriptive works by my fellow Calvinists. Why not learn from the teachers themselves, instead of from Dave Hunt or Norman Geisler or Hank Hanegraaff what the doctrines of grace really are? You can always drop me a line.

The First New Testament and Christianity's Reactionary Tendencies

2005-09-19T15:00:00.000-07:00

The New Testament we have today, as most Christians recognize, was not formally conceived of as a "canon" until around the fouth century AD. There were earlier collections of our NT letters, but none of them looked like they do now. The earliest New Testament we know of would be considered outside of "orthdoxy."

Marcion, in the mid-second century, wanted to have a legitimate collection of texts containing the uncorrupted, true Christianity presented by Christ and the Apostles. The overtly anti-Jewish gnostic (believing that the material or flesh was evil) rejected the thought of the Hebrew Scriptures (the OT as we know it) being used by Christians for instruction and guidance in the true way. He ultimately settled on a compilation of the Gospel of Luke and the letters of Paul. Of course all OT references in those texts were rejected, considered later Jewish infusions to corrupt the truth. With this New Testament, he preached his message of the uncorrupted gospel of Christ.

Some of the early Church Fathers prior to Marcion definitely display knowledge of many texts we would include in our NT's today. They even present passages, e.g. from Paul's epistles, as authoritative, along side the Gospels. An example that enters my mind is Ignatius of Antioch (m. c. AD 107), who quotes and paraphrases passages from many of the letters of Paul, as well as the Gospels of Matthew and John. The difference, though, is Ignatius did not have a compilation available of those letters and manuscripts. In the early second century, there was the Old Testament--whether in Hebrew of the Septuagint--but nothing like even that of Marcion. Here is where the reactionary tendencies of Christianity is exemplified yet again.

The Church had to respond to Marcion. This was a challenge they needed to deal with. This was the spark that began the formation of the canon of accepted Christian Scripture. Leaders of the Church, all over, began to create lists and make collections. Gnosticism was constantly being refuted and dealt with, but the idea of the canon had not been a concern to the Church yet. Once the concern was raised, they took up the task and did what they believed was necessary.

This is truly no different than the typical way Christianity handled controversy in the early centuries; nor is it in any way a problem. The councils and creeds were created in reaction to pervasive and immensly challenging heresies or abhorrent teachings that were seeping into the local churches. The very construction and explaining of the nature of God as a Trinity was a reaction to extremely horrendous and detrimental doctrines that grabbed hold of churchmen; especially leaders. That does not mean the Trinity was created or simply did not exist before the fourth century. The explanation of the Trinity is a reaction to teachings that Jesus was not divine or the Son of God; His divinity was explicitly portrayed in the Gospels and Paul's letters.

The Church reacts to what is going on in the world and within her body. The Church will continue to do so until the Lord returns. When challenges come and the Church has to defend, we are not talking about creating something that was not there originally (well, let's not get into the RCC and such teachings as Purgatory and how we treat Mary; I'm not RCC and am speaking of the Church in general). The teachings are there, grounded in the truth of Christ. Certain challenges just help us bring to light some of the things we have not yet realized.

Ben Witherington on America's Christian Founding

2005-09-19T06:14:00.000-07:00

I just read Ben Witherington's recent post on America's Christian founding (click here: Ben Witherington: A Myth of Origins: America's Christian Founding Fathers?). That is a good and challenging blog on the subject.

I just returned with my wife and kids from a trip up to Bakersfield. I read some really great stuff during our stay up there, information I will be passing on as I go here. Plus, the Gators ate up the Tennessee Volunteers on Saturday (college football), and Michael Owen scored his first goal for Newcastle en route to a victory (real football).

Defining your terms

2005-09-13T12:39:00.000-07:00

Read over the following creed.

We believe in one God,
the Father Almighty;

And in the Lord Jesus Christ, his Son,
who was begotten of him before all ages,
the Divine Logos,
through whom all things were made, both those in the heavens and those on the earth;
who came down and was made flesh;
and suffered;
and rose again;
and ascended to the heavens;
and shall come again to judge the quick and the dead.

And in the Holy Ghost;

and in the resurrection of the flesh;
and in the life of the world to come;
and in a kingdom of heaven;
and in one Catholic Church of God which extends to the ends of the earth.

Would you agree to those words? Would you even hold the creed as your own, like the Apostle's Creed? Here is a little more background on the creed to help you out: it was written after the Council of Nicea.

Still need more information? OK, this was the creed of Arius. Let me ask those questions again, knowing the background and authorship of the creed: do you agree with the words? Would you hold it as your own?

How easy it is to be deceived, or even deceive others, merely by the words you use to communicate your message. Even after the first Nicene Creed was written and agreed upon, some Arians (whether actual followers of Arius, or those who agreed with Arius' teachings on the nature of Christ) chose to sign in agreement with the inclusion of ομοουσιος (homoousios) but secretly held to a different meaning for that word than did the Orthodox believers. In Arius' creed above, the Arians poured a specific meaning into γεγεννημενον (gegennemenon), in such a way that the resulting interpretation differed from the Orthodox, though on the surface it looked just like any other creed not considered anathema.

You find the same idea in any discussion on salvation with a Mormon. Our use of the words "grace," "justified" and "faith" differ immensely, yet a Mormon will not hesitate agreeing with you that we are "saved by grace" and "justified by faith." Only once you press the issue are you able to get them to admit the differences. Those investigators not willing to ask them to define some of their terms ("Well, what do you mean by faith exactly?"), or are simply ignorant of the tactics the LDS church uses, can easily fall into the trap of believing they are just like Christians.

These cases merely illustrate that important principle of defining your terms in discussions. You could end up on some strange fields if you assume the other person means something they don't. You can get a lot further if you take the extra time to understand eachother.

Interpretation and Translation compared

2005-09-13T11:44:00.000-07:00

Over at the Better Bibles Blog, Wayne Leman has a great look at the relationship between Bible interpretation and Bible translation, and comparing the two processes.

I went ahead and copied the post and placed it here.

I see a direct parallel between the processes of interpreting the Bible and translating it. Of course, we cannot translate until we first understand the original meaning, so translation is, to that degree, dependent on interpretation. But I am referring to a parallelism between the two processes which is sometimes missed in the animated (and often not adequately informed) discussions concerning Bible translation and styles of translating, such as literal versus idiomatic, formal equivalence, paraphrases, etc.

I am a detail person. I really enjoy working with the details of Scripture to do good Bible translation. But sometimes I like to summarize details so that I can see the big picture, the forest, clearly, even though there are many trees, details, which must eventually be referred to.

In summary, Biblical interpretation consists of three steps:

1. What does the text say?
2. What does it mean?
3. What does it mean to me?

Step 1 can involve textual criticism (choice of which original language texts to regard as most reliable). Step 2 is interpretation, often called exegesis, and is the step where there is sometimes disagreement among Bible scholars as to what a particular verse of the Bible most likely means. Step 3 is application. Bible study should never be an end in itself. Otherwise we become Bible sponges, never releasing the lifegiving water of life to others (and sometimes not even to ourselves).

Bible translation consists of three parallel steps:

1. What does the source text say?
2. What does it mean?
3. How do we best express that meaning in the target language?

There is often a big difference between 1 and 2, as people speak language in ordinary ways. For instance, if I say to our son, "It's sure hot in here," I may simply be complaining about the room's temperature. But knowing me, I'm more likely asking our son to open up a window to let in some cooler air. This is an instance where my actual words, that is, what I literally say, has one meaning, but what I mean by what I say has a different, although pragmatically related, meaning. This happens to be an example of what linguists call indirect speech. In many languages indirect speech would not work exactly the same as it would for me here with my English words. In those languages, if I am going to translate the meaning of what I have said accurately, I would need to find some way in that language of (rather strongly) hinting to the listener that I want him to open a window. This example clearly illustrates that literal meaning is often not the same as actual meaning. In translation we always want to translate actual meaning. Sometimes, but not always, it can be the same as literal meaning.

By "best" in step 3 we refer to saying something in the target language which is accurate to the original meaning, and stated in such a way that it sounds clear and natural. A translation should not sound like a translation. Too many versions of the Bible sound like "church language", that is, they sound a little foreign. They talk a dialect of English or another language which is different from the dialect of that language spoken in everyday life. This recalls the period of time when the religious hierarchy felt that the common person was not capable of correctly understanding the Bible if he heard it in his own native language. So the Bible remained in a foreign language, typically Greek or Latin, understandable only to the clergy who had studied the classical languages in school. But Martin Luther, John Wycliff, and others had the vision that the common person could and should hear the Bible in their own language. That vision continues today as the Bible is translated into hundreds of Bibleless languages around the world. But that vision needs to be periodically refreshed within the larger national languages, such as English, as well, so that the ordinary speaker of the language can hear God's Word clearly in their own language, the way they ordinarly speak, their own dialect, not a dialect of slang or vulgarity, but ordinary everyday language, as found in our newspapers, Reader's Digest, letters, and e-mail. God's written revelation is special, true. But it has always been intended to speak to all people, not simply to a special few who have been trained to understand it. God's word is not always easy to understand. Some of its concepts are difficult for our minds (and spirits) to comprehend. But its words should always be as accessible to our understanding, even if the concepts framed by those words are not so easily accessible. We should not require pastors, seminary professors, or Bible teachers to tell us what Bible words mean. That job should be taken care of by accurate, natural, and clear translations. Every word in the Bible should be part of the average person's everyday speaking and understanding vocabulary. We will often need the assistance of those who have special Bible training to help us understand the implications of the words and the ideas behind the words, but the words themselves and the ways they connect to each other (grammatically and semantically) should be part of our everyday language.

Let us thank God for his written word. Let us especially thank him if it is already in your own language. And let us encourage the work of those who translate his word into Bibleless languages and the work of those who translate new versions into clear everyday language which can be understood by each new generation of speakers.

Da Vinci Code: Book Review

2005-09-11T20:47:00.000-07:00

Here it is at last: my review of Dan Brown’s popular and controversial The Da Vinci Code. At last check, the novel was at #14 on Amazon.com’s top sellers list. While that may not be #1, try saying your book is in the top 15 two years after it was first published.

I am a late comer on this book. Da Vinci Code has been reviewed over and over, and most everyone knows the basic premise of the story. This is a murder mystery which turns into a search for the Holy Grail. Along the way, we learn about how the Church has suppressed the truth and forcibly conformed history to fit the Christianity’s goal of domination and making sure women were subjugated and never given equality. I will not spend time on the details of the story. My concern is with the presentation of Church History.

The story is fiction. Simple. Being fiction, I really would not fret too much over the "history" in the book. But Brown has gone on record as believing as fact the conspiracies and historical revisionism the Church (to Brown, the "Church" is the Roman Catholic Church; keep that distinction in mind) has done. He really believes the Holy Grail is Mary Magdalene, that she and Jesus were married and had children, the Church has suppressed that fact, they’ve rewritten history to hide the truth, the four Gospels in the Bible are corrupt and do not contain the true words of Christ, and what are known as the Gnostic Gospels promote Christ’s true teachings. Because he believes his own story, and many (many, many) Christians have bought his bill of goods, I have to take a position on this, educate myself, and be able to defend the truth.

At the center of the novel Robert Langdon (the main character, symbologist, educated in the history of Christianity) and Sophie Neveu (leading lady, cryptologist, ignorant of Christian history) meet with Leigh Teabing (most knowledgeable man alive on the Holy Grail and Christian history) to discuss the Holy Grail, and educate Sophie. This is where we start to see where Dan Brown did his research…but solely on the secret cults and rituals and all of the conspiracies he now believes in. There is no evidence he picked up any sort of scholarly work by an educated Church historian. What he presents is very matter-of-fact, presuppositions galore. There is not a hint of an opposing idea; only that this is truth. Had Brown taken some time to look over any relevant works by Jaroslav Pelikan, WHC Frend, Justo Gonzalez, Henry Sheldon, Philip Schaff, or any primary text of the Early Church Fathers, putting to paper what he did would be a little more involved. There would (or should) at least be a presentation of the opposing story (in this case, orthodox) and then a refutation. Moving on, I will deal with points that Christians are buying into.

"The Bible is a product of man, my dear. Not of God.. . . Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book."¹

A bland attempt, at best. We have numerous Koine Greek manuscripts for the New Testament. We have OT manuscripts in the original Hebrew and Aramaic languages (and that includes the Dead Sea Scrolls). The "countless translations" are into English and languages that the masses can read. Additions? Revisions? Sounds like classical Mormon arguments, with the classical lack of evidence for the claim. There really is not much to say about that because each time I have asked for proof when presented with that claim (and in LDS circles, that one comes up all the time), I am given nothing. Not "nothing" by my opinion, but actual silence.

"History has never had a definitive version of the book." Of course that is based on who you ask. But, how is that related to the Bible being a product of man? Really, that statement was thrown in as a side bar, an extra jab, having nothing to do with the point of what he is saying.

"More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John among them."²

What’s not included is even a sample of what these "gospels" would be. Yet they are all legitimate gospels? Not the four chosen, of course.

The person of Constantine and his role in the creation of the suppressive Christian canon and the orthodox Christian tradition takes center stage in this tale. But, Brown again failed to do his homework. Constantine was not baptized against his will. He did not call the Council of Nicea to cease a battle between Christians and pagans. And he definitely was not the individual who changed the Christian worship day from the Sabbath to Sunday "on account of the pagan Sun-god’s weekly tribute."³ For an excellent review of Constantine and his relationship to the Church in the fourth century, Brown and everyone else interested should read Henry Sheldon’s History of the Christian Church, Volume 1, starting at page 331. That will give you a plain, easy to understand as well as historically accurate view of Constantine the Great.

The real kicker in this section was the depiction of the Council of Nicea in AD 325:

"During this fusion of religions, Constantine needed to strengthen the new Christian tradition, and held a famous ecumenical gathering known as The Council of Nicea."

Sophie had heard of it only insofar as it being the birthplace of the Nicene Creed.

"At this gathering," Teabing said, "many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon—the date of Easter, the role of the bishops, the administration of sacraments, and, of course, the divinity of Jesus."

"I don’t follow. His divinity?"

"My dear," Teabing declared, "until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet . . . a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal."

"Not the Son of God?"

"Right," Teabing said. "Jesus' establishment as 'The Son of God' was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicea."

"Hold on. You’re saying Jesus’ divinity was the result of a vote?"

"A relatively close vote at that," Teabing added. ". . . By officially endorsing Jesus as the Son of God, Constantine turned Jesus into a deity who existed beyond the scope of the human world, an entity whose power was unchallengeable."

". . . Many scholars claim the early church literally stole Jesus from his original followers, hijacking his human message, shrouding it in an impenetrable cloak of divinity, and using it to expand their own power."⁴

Indeed, the Council of Nicea was meant to unite Christianity on matters of doctrine and practice. The reason Constantine called for the council was for keeping some peace and unity within the empire. The immediate reason or cause was not the toppling of paganism, especially when "paganism" was not in question at the council. While many items were on the agenda, the divinity of Jesus consumed the majority of the focus and time during the council.

Contrary to Brown's researched understanding of the history, Nicea did not steal Jesus from his originally human state among his followers and establish him as the Son of God in order to expand their power. The first thing to note in Brown's retelling of Nicea is that this was not a battle between Christians and pagans. This was between Christians and Christians: orthodox and arians. Pagans were not involved. Secondly, there was no vote in the same sense Americans undertand within the republican/democratic system. There were debates and discussions, creeds were presented, and one creed was formulated by those discussions, and a final creed agreed upon. You were then to sign off on the creed; if you did not sign, you were anathematized. If you still consider that a voting system, here's a little more information. There were over 300 bishops present, over 95% of them from the East (which, interestingly enough, should have given the arian side more support; turned out not to be the case). Only two people did not sign, and Arius was one of them. Over 300 in favor, with only two dissenting on the creed. Now, if Brown is correct, 300-2 is considered a "relatively close vote." Relative to what exactly?

The Nicene Creed did not refashion the human Jesus as this new Son of God, fully divine. The creed codified what the vast (and I mean extremely vast) majority of Christianity already believed. This arian doctrine that had seeped into some churches had gone beyond the wiles and schemes and falsehoods of Gnosticism. It had to be dealt with in an authoritative way. Hence the creed. Through the character of Leigh Teabing, Brown declared that until AD 325, "Jesus was viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet . . . a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal." This could not be further from the truth. Let's see what Jesus' followers were saying about Him:

Ignatius of Antioch, c. AD 107: "united and elect through genuine suffering by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God,"⁵ and "For our God Jesus Christ is more visible now that he is in the Father."⁶

Polycarp, c. AD 107: "the Eternal High Priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith."⁷

Martyrdom of Polycarp, c. AD 156: "For this one [Christ], who is the Son of God, we worship."⁸

Epistle of Barnabas, before AD 135: "the Son of God came in the flesh for this reason."⁹

Epistle to Diognetus, between AD 150-225: "In whom was it possible for us, the lawless and ungodly, to be justified, except in the Son of God alone?"¹⁰

And that is only a miniscule sampling of the comments made by Jesus' followers about His divinity, well prior to the Council of Nicea. Not even the Gnostics considered Christ a mere man, but divine and outside of the evil, fleshly realm. And, Dan Brown, the vast majority of the other "gospels" not included in the New Testament do not present Him as a man, but more than a man. Yes, even Arius did not agree with Brown.

Lastly, Brown mentions that "Many scholars claim the early church literally stole Jesus from his original followers." What about the many more scholars who claim otherwise? Trying to play the numbers game is a logical fallacy. Of course, Brown may consider five scholars "many," but he does have a tendancy towards fuzzy math (300-2 is how close?).

I do believe Christians should read The Da Vinci Code if they want to discuss the issues with their friends and family, as long as they also pick up a copy of Justo Gonzalez's The Story of Christianity, or a similar, highly acclaimed work, to help you understand the truth. Dan Brown is so strait-forward it can be deceptive. However, the failings are almost laughable.

Despite the lack of legitimate historical or theological value, Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code is a definite page turner. The story is riveting for the most part, very fast moving, and mixed well with occassional twists in the mystery. While you are able to catch up with the lives of the characters via flashbacks, some of them are not timed well and hurt the flow of the story. Though the novel fails to be historically accurate, he obviously intended to be one sided and use the short time he had in the story to promote his presuppositions. I was very happy not to see a love story throughout (that was saved for the end, though there were minute hints of the developement here and there), but understand he wanted to keep the lead characters human.

Don't let the hype fool you. It's not great; it is good. The popularity and controversy alone should have you reading this book, but the possibility for discussions and sharing the truth were the nail in the coffin for me. 2.5 TULIPS from me.

__________

Brown, Dan, The Da Vinci Code (Doubleday: New York, NY, 2003), 236. This is the advanced reader’s copy, so my pages will be different than the regularly published edition, but the content the same.
Ibid., 236-237.
Ibid., 238.
Ibid., 238-239.
Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians, intro.
Ign., Romans, iii.3.
Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, xii.2.
Martyrdom of Polycarp, xvii.3.
Epistle of Barnabas, v.11.
Epistle to Diognetus, ix.4

New Review Rating System

2005-09-11T10:50:00.000-07:00

With the book, magazine and movie reviews I will be doing on this blog, I thought it would be beneficial and fun to create a standard rating system. What better symbol for the ratings than one based on the great Calvinist creed: TULIP? I can think of none more profound and perfect.

I decided on a rating level from 0-4, with half's included. Here is the image you'll see at the end of my reviews, after the summary (temporary; I plan on changing it down the line):

As an example, if I give a rating of 2.5, you'll see this image:

To be honest, I tend to be a tough grader. I think far too many people will give high marks out of kindness. In this system, anything at or above a 2.5 is a recommendation, or "Thumbs Up" in Robert Ebert lingo.

I have a couple of reviews upcoming, so I look forward to testing this new system.

Soli Deo Gloria

Robert Funk's passing

2005-09-04T14:22:00.000-07:00

At the Biblical Theology blog, Jim West reported that Robert Funk, founder of the Jesus Seminar, died last night.

U.S. clinches a spot in World Cup 2006

2005-09-03T20:13:00.000-07:00

The US mens national team clinched a spot among the final 32 teams going to Germany in 2006. And they did so in style. What better way than to best your archrival, Mexico?

What was the score again? Oh yeah: 2:0!

If you don't know about the Mexican national team, let me sum up their style. They are the dirtiest, cheapest, most disgusting national soccer team in the world; bar none. US absolutely dominated the match, from start to end. You could see Mexico being outclassed and outplayed. US simply has too many skilled players right now, and they are playing well as a team. Mexico decided to continue their dispicable style of play: jumping for balls with elbows up to the opponent's head or back of the ribs; knees always high, attacking the midsection and the groin; coming from behind and sweeping the legs high at the knees; slide tackles with spikes up; shirt pulling with both hands.

With all of that garbage, the US played a strong, skillfull match. I was impressed with their patience and composure, especially enduring the consistently bad calls by the ref. It really took twice as much pressure by the Mexican players to get a call than it did for the touches by the US players.

I am happy with the result. I look forward to what the US team can do in Germany. They truly have some strong, skilled players. They are playing well together. They can be dangerous. Maybe they won't win the trophy, but look for them to go pretty far.

Looking to the "Cloud of Witnesses"

2005-09-03T05:31:00.000-07:00

In the letter to the Hebrews is a peculiar phrase most Bible readers know quite well. In xii.1 we find, "since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses," after the author went over the lineage of faithful followers of God, and those who were persecuted and tortured. Looking at this phrase in the Greek New Testament, we can see why it is so peculiar.

τοσουτον εχοντες περικειμενον ημιν νεφος μαρτυρων (tosouton echontes perikeimenon heimin nephos marturon)

These witnesses, or martyrs (μαρτυρων) in the early sense, were Jews, Hebrew people, not Christians. These were the predecessors, who did not receive what was promised because that time of completion had not yet come (xi.39-40). The description given of all of those witnesses together is peculiar: "so great a cloud of witnesses." This is not a Biblical metaphor, but a Classical metaphor. This phrase would have been quite familiar to an educated audience in the first century AD. As Vincent's points out, you find this phrase in some classical Greek works. In Herodotus' Histories, Themistocles gave a speech to the Athenians, saying they had "driven from the shores so great a band of enemies" (Hrd. Hist. viii.109). The Greek is the important part:

νεφος τοσουτο ανθρωπων ανωσομενοι (nephos tosouto anthropon anosomenoi)

The same idea is evident: so great a cloud, or band, or group of people. This is a large, vast amount of people. In Homer's Iliad we see some more imagery, then an explanation and expansion of the metaphorical language.

αμα δε νεφος ειπετο πεζων (hama de nephos heipeto pedzon)

This is from book 4; notice what's being described as a "cloud" and how that could apply to the Hebrews passage.

and a cloud of footmen followed with them (αμα δε νεφος ειπετο πεζων). Even as when from some place of outlook a goatherd seeth a cloud (νεφος) coming over the face of the deep before the blast of the West Wind, and to him being afar off it seemeth blacker than pitch as it passeth over the face of the deep, and it bringeth a mighty whirlwind; and he shuddereth at sight of it, and driveth his flock beneath a cave; even in such wise by the side of the Aiantes did the thick battalions of youths, nurtured of Zeus, move into furious war--dark battalions, bristling with shields and spears (Hom. Il. iv.274-282).

The amount of people was so large, the best description the classic authors and orators could give was that of a cloud: encompassing, everywhere the eye could see. And with that cloud comes the wind, powerful, thrusting.

This is not an Old Testament idea. νεφος is not found in the LXX (only in Heb. xii.1) and conveys a different meaning than that of νεφελη (nephele). νεφελη speaks about an actual cloud; whether or not the passage as a whole is metaphorical, the word is used to tell us about an actual cloud (see Ex. xl.38, Lev. xvi.13, Mt. xvii.5). On the other hand, νεφος is metaphorical, used to convey a symbolic message in a passage, as we have seen above. Most importantly, this symbol is of darkness.

The cloud is not merely something above and consuming, but ominous, looming, dark and bringing rain and winds. Let's not think of darkness as just a lack of light, but in the sense of evil or bad versus good. The darkness is the enemy, the wrong side of the battle. Darkness is the wrong that's been done. Compare the language in 2 Clement:

So while we were thus wrapped in darkness and our vision was filled with this thick mist, we recovered our sight, by his will laying aside the cloud wrapped around us (ο περικειμεθα νεφος τη αυτου θελησει, ho perikeimetha nephos te autou thelesei) (2 Cl. i.6).

These words were written within probably a half century after Hebrews. Combined, these two passages are the only "Biblical" references to such a metaphor. So how does this all apply to the Hebrews passage? How should we interpret the popular phrase?

The "great cloud of witnesses" are those who had gone before Christianity and gave witness to their faithfulness to God and the true way. They are called "so great a cloud" because of the way in which they became martyrs or witnesses: tortured, mocked, flogged, chained, stoned, killed (xi.35-38). Their witness had an underlying tone, a foundation, of darkness. Now, they were encompassing and covering the people of God as a cloud, as a vast band of martyrs.

As a side bar, seeing such a classical reference in this letter reinforces in me the likelihood of a Pauline authorship.

Blogs on Ambiguity

2005-09-01T21:00:00.000-07:00

The two latest blogs at Better Bibles Blog are on ambiguity in the Scriptural text, and they are a fascinating read. If you're interested, have a look.

Blogless

2005-09-01T11:59:00.000-07:00

I noticed I have not blogged in a while. I actually have had some in the works, incompleted, but have not been able to get to them yet.

Things have been difficult to think about since Katrina's devastation of New Orleans and other towns. Also, people have actually blamed George Bush for what happened. There will likely be around 1,000 dead when all is said and done, and Democrats choose to point the finger at Bush and make this a political thing (hmm, just like they did when planes hit the WTC and Pentagon).

There has been little coverage of the Iraqi stampede where around 1,000 Iraqi people died when someone yelled there was a homicide (suicide) bomber in the crowd. The pictures will make your heart sink.

Well, I'm sick at home, with a sick family. Blessings in the Lord.

Sad day in World Football

2005-08-29T07:47:00.000-07:00

Please allow me this interjection. The world of football is taking a hit today with the announced retirement of Pierluigi Collina, aka the world's greatest ref. The true "Italian Stallion" made an extremely classy and upstanding move in retiring when he did. He signed an endorsement deal with a company that also supports Serie A powerhouse AC Milan. The likelihood of challenges to fairness and the conflict of interest led him to his decision.

He was an imposing figure. His authoritative, "You will not walk over me," stare made all else stop until he said they could continue. I remember watching him call a foul, but instead of running after the guilty party, he would stand, stare at the felon, and simply use his finger to call them over. Like obedient children to a father you just did not mess with, the players would go to him, many times with their heads hanging down. Collina was accurate and fair. He could see everything going on, and would let the players play the game. He had a perfect balance between control of the rules and the fun of the sport.

I will miss his presence in next year's World Cup.

James White v. John Dominic Crossan

2005-08-26T07:38:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow night, James White and John Dominic Crossan will hold a debate on the question, "Is the orthodox, Biblical account of Jesus of Nazareth authentic and historically accurate?" I am sure within a month after the debate, audios and videos will be available.

For more information, click here: The 2005 Alpha & Omega National Conference

On the images of White (left) and Crossan (right), I did not have a larger one of White, plus in color, intentionally. Similarly oriented images of Crossan are not available on the web, as far as I could find when I wrote this. Of course I would be more aligned with the position of White, a Calvinist (Hey, like me!), but that has nothing to do with the images I posted. If you take exception, let me know.

Papal Brew

2005-08-25T14:34:00.000-07:00

See, this is just too funny. This is posted at professorbainbridge.com. It gives new meaning to the popular bumper sticker you see around town, "Papas & Beer."

Taking up your cross and Mark viii

2005-08-25T05:45:00.000-07:00

This Thursday our Home Fellowship will go over the first half (verses 1-23) of chapter vii, and next Thursday we'll cover the second. The following week (unless the Lord chooses to turn us a different direction that week; it happens) we will start into chapter viii. I will be facilitating the discussions in that chapter, so I thought I would delve into a particular portion of the chapter here, to develop some thoughts and ideas.

As a whole, chapter viii can be looked at in five parts, some larger, some smaller. In 1-10, Mark brings up the feeding of the 4,000. In 11-13, there's a condemnation of the Pharisees for seeking a sign. 14-21 discusses a teaching of Christ on leaven and the lack of understanding the His disciples, who have already been called apostles (οι αποστολοι, hoi apostoloi), had with respect to what Christ was doing and Who He was. In 22-26 there's another healing by Jesus, of a blind man in this case, and yet again in a different way than He healed other people. We then reach verses 27-38.

And Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. And on the way he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that I am?" And they told him, "John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets." And he asked them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered him, "You are the Christ (Συ ει ο Χριστος)." And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him.

And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things (πολλα παθειν) and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, "Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man." And he called to him the crowd with his disciples and said to them, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me (Ει τις θελει οπισω μου ακολυθειν, απαρνησασθω εαυτον και αρατω τον σταυρον αυτου και ακολουθειτω μοι). For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it (και του ευαγγελιου). For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? For what can a man give in return for his life? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

While the two paragraphs break the section into different parts, this as a whole is an awesome section of Mark's Gospel. After asking His disciples who they think He is, He teaches them for the first time about the suffering He will endure, as well the suffering they must accept for His sake. "The Christ" told the people if someone wants to follow (or "come after") Him, first that person must deny himself (απαρνησασθω εαυτον, aparnesastho heaton), then take up his cross (αρατω τον σταυρον αυτου, arato ton stauron autou) and follow Him.

To deny yourself is to say "no" to yourself; to refuse or utterly reject yourself. Following Christ is not about what you want or desire, or even the preservation of your own life. Remember that Christ is saying this in response to Peter's attempt to rebuke the Lord for talk of His suffering and death. Peter tried to pull the Lord away from His cross, His destiny, and deny God. On the contrary, we must deny ourselves. The Christian life is not about conquering or gain, but about utterly rejecting yourself for the sake of Christ.

The cross is, in my opinion, one of the ideas in the Gospels so often misinterpreted and misapplied in today's American Church. Let me be very clear: the cross is no mere burden or struggle. When Christ said, "take up your cross," he by no stretch of the imagination meant, "carry your burdens" or "be vigilant in your struggles." The cross is not your financial lows, car accident, five children, 9-5 job you can't stand, wheelchair, or hearing aids. The cross was known by the disciples and the crowd as a way of execution. They knew to be crucified was to be humiliated (likely naked) and in sheer pain (from the nails and broken bones) while suspended for days until you asphyxiated. The cross signified suffering and death. Jesus had just talked about His own suffering and death. The cross for His followers stems from the denial of the self. That denial results in true affliction and suffering, and possibly even in death. That cross we must agree to carry is that affliction and suffering. And if you have denied yourself, you will not lay that cross down. This is not the nicey-dicey Christian persecution most Americans will suffer, e.g. your boss tells you take take the Bible off your desk, or to change the radio station from that Christian talk or music.

Please do not be misled by the addition of "daily" in Luke ix.23. "Take up," αρατω, is in the aorist tense, meaning an action in the past. He is not saying, "Take up your cross one day, then lay it down at the end. The next day, take it up again." You take up your cross, and each day you carry it. You can never lay down the cross as a follower of Christ. You persevere and endure in your afflictions and suffering, even if that cross takes you to Heaven.

The confessors and martyrs of the early centuries of the Church, the Church of the persecuted, knew all too well what these words of Christ meant. They suffered immense persecution for denying themselves and calling themselves followers or disciples of Christ. Many were killed; them we call martyrs. Many others were allowed to live; they are known as confessors. These confessors were left most of the time with a personal stigmata, whether it was an eye having been gouged out or a severed limb, etc. They took up their cross proudly, but not for themselves. They did so for their Master, as Peter and the Apostles did in Acts v.41.

After, Jesus said, "For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it." Those who save their lives, who do not deny themselves, who hold on to what they have and who they follow now, will lose their life. Their life will not be saved. But those who deny themselves, who give up their lives for the sake of Christ and the Gospel, will save their lives. Here again the Church of the martyrs exemplified and amplified the words of Christ. They rejected themselves for Christ and the Gospel, and though their physical life was taken, their true lives were saved. Their crosses took them to heaven.

KJV Humor

2005-08-25T05:30:00.000-07:00

Here's a little KJV humor (especially if you're a KJV Only kind of guy, or gal), courtesy of Dan Wallace, via Better Bibles Blog. Enjoy!

One of the ironic facts about the KJV is that it is impossible to honestly speak about the first printing, because there never really was a first printing! “The revision and correction process began immediately in 1611, … even before the first printed edition was completed and put together. The pages of these two editions [the actual first edition and the corrected second edition]… seem to have been accidentally mixed before either was assembled and bound.”¹⁴
Thus, the first edition of the KJV is actually more of a first-and-second-edition hybrid. But there are ways to tell whether one possesses a ‘first-second’ edition or a completely second edition. I won’t go into those details here. I have seen what is probably the finest example of the so-called ‘first’ edition of the KJV surviving today. It is part of a private collection in Texas.

Besides these two editions, the Authorized Version went through at least two more in the first year alone. In the first three years, it actually went through fourteen minor editions due to the frequent mistakes in the process of translating, revising, and printing. But these are not really revisions by today’s standard. Two larger overhauls were completed in 1629 and 1638. Within fifty (50) years “the need was presented and an effort was made to officially revise [it once] again”—this time more thoroughly than the previous two revisions. But Parliament decided not to act on this impulse when Charles II ascended the throne in 1660. The shifts of the political winds thus stymied the third revision of the KJV. It would not undergo a major revision again for 100 years. In 1762 and 1769, the KJV was revised for a third and fourth time.

Altogether, nearly 100,000 changes have been made to the 1611 KJV. The vast bulk of these are rather minor (mostly spelling and punctuation changes), but in the least this fact shows how impossible it is today for any church or any Christian to claim, “We read only the original 1611 King James Version of the Holy Bible”!

With all the revisions made to this translation over the centuries, printer’s errors were bound to creep in. Even though the goal was to eradicate all mistakes, every printing of the KJV added more!

For example, in 1611 the so-called ‘Judas Bible’ was printed: In Matt 26.36, the KJV says that Judas came with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane—even though Judas had already hanged himself in the previous chapter!

The very first edition of the Authorized Version is the ‘Basketball Bible’ because it speaks of ‘hoopes’ instead of ‘hookes’ used in the construction of the Tabernacle.

A 1716 edition has Jesus say in John 5.14 “sin on more” instead of “sin no more”!

The next year, the famous ‘Vinegar Bible’ appeared; this name was attached to this printing because the chapter title to Luke 20 was “The Parable of the Vinegar” instead of the “Parable of the Vineyard.”

In 1792, Philip, rather than Peter, denied his Lord three times in Luke 22.34.

Three years later the ‘Murderer’s Bible’ was printed: It was called this because in Mark 7.27 Jesus reportedly told the Syro-Phoenician woman, “Let the children first be killed” instead of “Let the children first be filled”!

In 1807 an Oxford edition has Heb 9.14 say, “Purge your conscience from good works” instead of “Purge your conscience from dead works.”

A printing of the KJV in 1964 said that women were to “adorn themselves in modern apparel” instead of “modest apparel” in 1 Tim 2.9.

But none of these printing mistakes can equal the Bibles of 1653 or 1631. These are the two ‘Evil Bibles’ of the King James history, for they both left out the word ‘not’ at key junctures. The 1653 edition—known as the ‘Unrighteous Bible’—said “the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God” in 1 Cor 6.9. And the 1631 edition, the infamous ‘Wicked Bible,’ wrote the seventh of the ten commandments as “Thou shalt commit adultery”!

The Wicked Bible was such an embarrassment to the Anglican Church that the archbishop ordered the Bibles to be burned, and he fined the printer, Robert Barker, 300 pounds—no small sum in those days. Barker, who had been the king’s printer since the Authorized Version came out, died fourteen years later in debtor’s prison.

Not only have there been these occasional but bizarre printing mistakes, but several errors in the 1611 edition have never been changed. For example, in both Acts 7.45 and Heb 4.8 the name “Jesus” appears when Joshua is actually meant! Hebrews 4.8 in the Authorized Version says, “For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.” The passage is saying that although Joshua brought his people into the promised land, he could not give them the eternal rest that they needed. But by having “Jesus” here, the KJV is thus saying that Jesus was inadequate, that he was not able to save his people from their sins. In Greek, both ‘Joshua’ and ‘Jesus’ are written the same way— jIhsou'". The issue is not one of textual variant, but of inattention to the details of the interpretation of the text.

Or consider Matt 23.24 the Authorized Version reads, “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” The Greek text here means to “strain out a gnat”—not “at a gnat.” Jesus’ point is the same as what he says in Luke 6.41— “Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?” The religious leaders focused on the tiny problems of others without taking care of the big issues in their own lives.¹⁵

Now, please understand: I am not listing these errors to make fun of the KJB! But I also don’t want anyone to have the illusion that it is a perfect translation. No translation is perfect—not the KJV, not the RSV, not the NIV, not the NET Bible.

In fact, just to play fair, allow me to mention an error that made its way into the second printing of the NET Bible, New Testament, in 1998. This translation has more notes in it than any other Bible in history. There are half a million words of notes for the New Testament alone! And at one of them, the typist accidentally hit a second ‘s’ when he wrote the conjunction ‘as.’ I won’t spell it out for you, but you can well imagine the name this edition of the NET Bible would be called! Not only this, but as the senior New Testament editor of the NET Bible, I have to take full responsibility for this note. Besides, I was the one who actually typed in this word!
Footnote 14: Minton, Making, 330. He adds some other fascinating information as well!

Traditions of Men

2005-08-22T06:02:00.000-07:00

We have reached Mark vii in our Home Fellowship Bible Study. There is actually quite a bit packed into this chapter. You have more on the Pharisees, the idea that what comes out of a man is what defiles him, casting out a demon based on the answer to a question, the Jew-Gentile issue, and healing a man in a yet another different way. The first matter I am concerned with is in verses 5-9:

And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition (παραδοσιν, paradosin) of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?" And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men." And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!"

Traditions are powerful and deceptive creatures. They are extremely difficult to track down if you are not careful. While we all may carry certain biases and presuppositions, for example, which we bring into an interpretation of Scripture, a tradition is something altogether different. A tradition is a teaching or practice based on "how it's always been." A tradition is passed along over the years, changing little by little. These traditions seep into your theology and make camp. When outsiders try and get rid of the squatters, they hear the dogmatic, "Uh Uh. This is how it is."

Christ gave the Pharisees an example of what they were doing. He said

For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' But you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban' (that is, given to God)-- then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do. (vv. 10-13)

This practice allowed for the money to be used by the giver of the gift--that wonderful follower of God, who gave such a humble and thoughtful gift--and never reach the father or mother in need. This tradition, and a vile one at that, trumped the commandment of God. Over the centuries, as the tradition built up and kept being perpetuated, whether orally or written, later generations simply assumed the authority of the teaching. While a tradition may have started with Scripture--like all myths began with some truth--time and people (who are unwilling to go back and check the origin and validity of the tradition) cause the tradition to get out of control.

There is no difference with what is going on in today's Christendom. Traditions, regardless of the source and how they get there, can dominate our theology and practice. For example, the idea of the rapture of believers before (or during) the tribulation. This "doctrine" was created in the 19th century, but for whatever reason caught on with the majority early on and has become the dominant eschatalogical theory today. Ask a pre-tribber to find the rapture in Scripture and receive empty responses and eisegesis to no end. I used to believe a rapture absolutely because of what I was taught by others. They were taught by others also, and so forth. Another similar example is the altar call or coming forward to pray the sinner's prayer to receive salvation. Again, this is entirely based on tradition, not Scripture.

One of the complaints non-Reformed "apologists" have against Calvinists is in that title: Calvinist. I have heard several arguments from non-Reformed people that include, "They call themselves Calvinists. They choose to follow John Calvin. I will follow Christ. I'm not a Calvinist, or an Arminian. I'm a Christian." What they will say is that we Calvinists are the one's following tradition. Call yourself a Calvinist, you ipso facto follow the traditions of men. Besides the absurdity, this is far too common. What do we Calvinists say? They are the ones following the traditions of men. So, we have a constant battle. Of course I believe the Calvinist side to be correct in this debate, but that could just be my traditions talking for me.

This does not only apply to Roman Catholicism. The RCC openly embraces and instructs the fact that tradition is on par with our Bible as Scripture. Sadly, the majority of Christendom is blind and unwilling to search themselves out, and be rid of squating traditions. It's much easier to learn from a Pastor, especially if they've written a book with a fancy title, and have "Ph.D." after their name. "They know what they're talking about. Look; he even has the Greek and Hebrew!" Traditions are blinding. We need to search the Scriptures, and test everything we see and hear, but only hold on to the good (cf. 1 Thes. v.21; Ac. xvii.11).

Jesus brought the Pharisees face to face with the commandment of God, and held their traditions up to God's light of truth. Their traditions failed; that's the easy part. The hard part is deciding what to do next, when you know your traditions cannot stand by the light of truth.

Novum Testamentum on εντος υμων

2005-08-21T10:50:00.000-07:00

Over at Novum Testamentum, Brandon Wason posted an excellent examination of the translation and interpretation of εντος υμων (entos humon) in Luke xvii.21. Read it over carefully, though it is not long at all. While I agree with Brandon's conclusion, an exploration of the debate would be beneficial.

The entry in Robertson's Word Pictures disagrees with Brandon on this.

Within you (entos humōn). This is the obvious, and, as I think, the necessary meaning of entos. The examples cited of the use of entos in Xenophon and Plato where entos means “among” do not bear that out when investigated. Field (Ot. Norv.) “contends that there is no clear instance of entos in the sense of among” (Bruce), and rightly so. What Jesus says to the Pharisees is that they, as others, are to look for the kingdom of God within themselves, not in outward displays and supernatural manifestations. It is not a localized display “Here” or “There.” It is in this sense that in Luk_11:20 Jesus spoke of the kingdom of God as “come upon you” (ephthasen eph' humās), speaking to Pharisees. The only other instance of entos in the N.T. (Mat_23:26) necessarily means “within” (“the inside of the cup”). There is, beside, the use of entos meaning “within” in the Oxyrhynchus Papyrus saying of Jesus of the Third Century (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 426) which is interesting: “The kingdom of heaven is within you” (entos humōn as here in Luk_17:21).

However I do not believe this can adequately account for the immediate context showing us that Christ is talking to the Pharisees. To say Jesus told the Pharisees "to look for the kingdom of God within themselves, not in outward displays and supernatural manifestations" is either to miss or disregard the presentation of who the Pharisees were (why would the kingdom of God be within them in any sense?) and that the kingdom of God was not presented as an inward, purely individualistic spiritual idea. While the phrase εφθασεν εφ υμας (ephthasen eph humas) is metaphorical--the kingdom of God does not literally "come upon" a person in a physical way--that empowers the idea that the kingdom is outward, among the people, not inward, within the individual. Christ was saying that He casts out demons by the power of God and therefore the kingdom of God is here.

Now, the argument could take a turn at this point. If you still believe the intended meaning is "within," υμων could possibly be in question. You would need to argue that υμων is not a direct address to the Pharisees, but a general, plural "you" intended to include everyone. Though that may be a possibility, that would also be diificult to pin down. There is still the problem of the kingdom being within everybody when you take into account everyone individually.

As with John iii.16, the dominant or popular interpretations are based on the KJV reading. Luke xvii.21 in the KJV reads "the kingdom of God is within you." Unfortunately, so many of the commentaries we have base their interpretations on the KJV. According to John Wesley's Explanatory Notes, "Look not for it in distant times or remote places: it is now in the midst of you: it is come: it is present in the soul of every true believer: it is a spiritual kingdom, an internal principle. Wherever it exists, it exists in the heart." The JFB has "is of an internal and spiritual character (as contrasted with their outside views of it)." Both of those miss the mark. What about one of my favorites: John Gill? Here's his interpretation:

for behold the kingdom of God is within you: in the elect of God among the Jews, in their hearts; it being of a spiritual nature, and lying in righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.. . . it does not lie in external works and duties, but it is an inward principle of holiness in the soul, or spirit of man, produced there by the Spirit of God, and is therefore called by his name.

I would struggle to wholly agree with that. The kingdom of God is an outward concept. While the expression of the kingdom, or what we see, begins with the people of God, the kingdom would be limited if it was not predominately outward in nature, present among the people. The kingdom is something you see. In John iii.3 Christ told Nicodemus, "Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." If you have the kingdom within you, why would you need to be born again in order to see it? Why not just look inside?

I appreciate what Vincent's Word Studies has in it's entry:

Better, in the midst of. Meyer acutely remarks that “you refers to the Pharisees, in whose hearts nothing certainly found a place less than did the ethical kingdom of God.” Moreover, Jesus is not speaking of the inwardness of the kingdom, but of its presence. “The whole language of the kingdom of heaven being within men, rather than men being within the kingdom, is modern” (Trench, after Meyer).

The kingdom was there with Christ, in the presence of the Pharisees. The kingdom of God is among you.

Rare Jewel Magazine

2005-08-19T17:03:00.000-07:00

Last week I received my introductory package of the Rare Jewel Magazine I will be reviewing for the next year. Rare Jewel is a relatively new, bimonthly periodical focusing their attention on restoring the idea of America's Christian foundation. The subtitle or motto of the magazine is "The Christian Patriots' Guide to Restoring our Culture." The means to that end are articles about subjects they believe every citizen should be concerned with in today's society: judicial tyranny, preserving marriage and the family, creation and evolution, abortion and so forth.

The package arrived with four magazines: the most recent issue (July/August 2005), and three prior issues (Mar/Apr '05, Jan/Feb '05, Jul/Aug '04). Each issue is thematic, selecting a topic and giving us a wide variety of articles on that topic. While the articles tend to have a decidedly Conservative American Christian bend to them, they vary in their scope and spotlight so you are not reading the same thing over and over. For instance, the most recent issue is focused on Creation. There are articles, interviews, book reviews, cartoons, editorials, news updates. One of the articles is by D. James Kennedy from Coral Ridge Ministries; another is by Kan Ham, President of Answers in Genesis. They even have an interview with B.C. cartoonist Johnny Hart (who also chimes in on the evolution debate).

The issues are very colorful; the pages are filled with images and graphics related to the article. At times the background images are too much of a distraction, even to the point of making the text hard to read. They are limited, but those distractions are there. For the most part, the magazine layout is simple and basic, which is something I appreciate. I cannot stand it when magazines break up articles, and put pieces of them on all different pages and sections. You do not start an article on page 6, and when you get to page 8 you are told to continue the article on page 25. When you flip over to page 25 you realize you passed over two articles you have yet to finish.

My position on many things associated to the relationship between Christians and America has been clearly set forth here on the blog. I definitely have a bias and my own experiences having engaged people and writings on many of the issues that will come up in future articles. I believe I can be fair in spite of my biases. I always enjoy a good, valid argument, regardless of the source and goal of that source. I am always looking to learn and grow in knowledge. I want to be well versed on the issues. The hope is that there will be some scholarly articles that will challenge me to think about some ideas, especially on the religious history of America. The Sept/Oct '05 issue will be on "The Next Great Awakening"; hopefully there will be historical writings about the original Great Awakenings.

An Article on Scripture from Karen Armstrong

2005-08-19T15:47:00.000-07:00

Karen Armstrong write an article in Mail & Guardian Online on the topic of Scripture and how people see and use written Scripture. This is a good article, and makes several strong points. Click here to see the whole article: Mail & Guardian Online. Here is a paragraph I thought would grab some attention:

People do not robotically obey every edict of sacred texts. If they did, the world would be full of Christians who love their enemies and turn the other cheek when attacked. There are political reasons why a minority of Muslims are turning to terrorism, which have nothing to do with Islam. But because of how people read their scriptures these days, once a terrorist has decided to blow up a London bus, he can probably find scriptural texts that seem to endorse his action.

Particular Redemption in John iii.16

2005-08-16T09:34:00.000-07:00

Instead of John iii.16 being the often championed verse (i.e. proof text) for Arminianism, this verse is quite the supporter for Particular Redemption, aka Definite Atonement, Limited Atonement. First, of course, let us have a look at the text (be sure to switch your Character Encoding to Unicode in your View menu):

For God so (ουτως) loved the world, that (ωστε) He gave His only begotten Son, that (ινα) all who believe (πας ο πιστευων) in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

The usual translation that comes to mind when you hear "John 3:16" or see the sign at a football game is the KJV's

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

The KJV translation is problematic if you are trying to grasp what the passage is saying here. Not that the KJV is wrong, but the words used are misunderstood in today's American English. Again, this is a great opportunity to use a tool for studying and knowing the Scriptures of our Lord: reading the Greek New Testament. Do you need to know Greek to rightly understand Christ's words here? Of course not. This is only an additional tool. However, if you can only read English, you need to have at least three different translations to lead you in the right direction, along with at least three commentaries coming from different theological backgrounds. That seems to be a good guideline.

Arminians, or generally those who hold to libertarian free will (e.g. Dave Hunt, Hank Hanegraaff), are very quick to jump to this verse when challenged with the idea that Christ died only for the elect. Funny thing is this verse more strongly promotes the case of the Reformed follower than it does the free-willer. Those who think a Calvinist cannot show Limited Atonement from the Scriptures should a look at this verse again. The Greek will help us; not put the nail in the coffin (of Arminianism), but be an aid.

"For God so loved the world" should not be interpreted like the Rock Church (here in San Diego) commercial I hear sometimes saying "God loves you so much." Nor should those words be understood like The Message has paraphrased: "This is how much God loved the world." The word for "so," ουτως (houtos), is not that sort of "so." ουτως refers to the manner in which God loved, or how God loved. With that understanding, "For God so loved the world," or "For God loved the world in this way" can be viewed as a setup clause of Christ, giving the motivation God had for what He did.

"that He gave His only begotten Son" should be understood in reference to the prior clause, "For God so loved the world." Christ is describing up the way God loved the world: He gave His only Son. "That" is ωστε (hoste) in the Greek, representing the start of a new clause dependent on the prior one. The idea is the action based on the motivation: God loved so He gave.

"that all who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life" is the reason, the ultimate goal God had in mind when He gave. "That" in this final clause is not the same as "that" in the prior one. Here, the Greek word is ινα (hina) which denotes a purpose or aim. The purpose or aim of the giving of the Son, the reason God gave His Son, was not directly His love for the world, but "in order that all who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life."

God gave His only begotten Son in order that all who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life. This is because of God's underlying motivation: His love for His creation. He did not give because He loved. He gave because He wanted to save those who believed in Him.

But we are not done with the text yet. While we can readily see the definite atonement in this passage, a portion of this that is far too often misunderstood has to be clarified. "all who believe" is typically a new phrase for Bible readers. The phrase most everyone is used to, "whosoever believeth," causes far too many struggles when interpreting this passage. The dominant reason for the struggle is that the English language has no good equivalent to the grammar here in Greek.

The Greek construction is a participle. Literally, the translation of πας ο πιστευων (pas ho pisteuon) is either "everyone who is believing" or "all the believing ones" or "all the ones believing." Notice, this is difficult to say in English. The idea being conveyed (like in verse 15, and similarly in verse 18) is that Christ speaks about all of the people who believe in the God who gave His Son to save them. The KJV used the word "whosoever" to try and convey the message. In our American English we tend to see "whosoever" as an indefinite designation of people. On the contrary, πας ο πιστευων, "all the believing ones," is very definite indeed. Christ was not giving an invitation to whosoever would listen. There is no invitation involved. To Nicodemus, Christ made the declaration that God gave His Son in order that all who believe in Him (again notice how definite that is) should have eternal life.

Those like myself who believe in a definite atonement (limited atonement) see this verse as another link in the chain. The sweet doctrine of salvation by grace through faith is purely grounded in Scripture. This verse is part of a passage, which is part of a Gospel letter. Remember the whole when you look at the parts.

As simple a text as so many make this one out to be, there sure is a lot packed in there if you stop and take a look around. My hope is that more and more people realize this verse is not a solid foundation of salvation by free will. If you still believe that, if you believe this verse contains a open invitation to all people, let me know and show me how you arrive at your conclusion. I enjoy a quality dialogue over the text. This happens to be a great text to discuss.

WHC Frend, RIP

2005-08-15T16:09:00.000-07:00

A bit of sadness to report on this otherwise wonderful day. I learned that the great William Frend passed on to be with our Lord on 1 July. He was an awesome historian of the early church. His work Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church is an absolute must for studying martyrdom and is a blessing of information and analysis for a general study of the first centuries of the Church. Below is an article in the UK's Daily Telegraph.

__________
The Rev Prof William Frend
(Filed: 11/08/2005)

The Rev Prof William Frend, who has died aged 89, combined the roles of Early Christian historian, archaeologist and theologian in a career of such startling optimism and diversity that some were inclined to dismiss him as 'a holy fool'.

Encouraged by his Low Church inclinations and experience of digs in North Africa, he genially denied papal claims to primacy in the first centuries AD, and retained strong sympathies with those who had fallen out with Rome. Before his pre-war Oxford thesis was published as The Donatist Church in 1952, patristic scholars had generally viewed Donatism, which appeared at Carthage early in the fourth century, as a heresy which prompted St Augustine to formulate aspects of Catholic sacramental theology.

But Frend saw it as a valid theological stance which allied itself with the rural poor against their largely Catholic landlords, and he gloried in the resistance of the early Christian martyrs to Roman persecution. He further suggested that Donatism, rather than St Augustine's Catholicism, was the inheritor of the traditions of pre-Constantinian African Christianity. While such ideas about the social basis of Donatism have been qualified by subsequent scholarship, Frend's interpretation is still respected.

His Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (1965) dealt with a wide canvas of sources from pre-Christian Jewish texts until the fourth century, though it attracted criticism from specialists. The Rise of the Monophysite Movement (1972) was a study of the opposition to the Council of Chalcedon, which defined the doctrine of the Incarnation in 451; and The Rise of Christianity (1984), covering the first six centuries of the Church, remains the most substantial work of its kind written by a British scholar for more than half a century.

For more of the article, click here: Telegraph | News | The Rev Prof William Frend

The Megachurch and Building Projects

2005-08-13T08:05:00.000-07:00

I was just reading over a 2004 article from Outreach Magazine titled "The Exponential Church," which discussed the largest 100 churches in America. The article goes into the megachurch complex this country is in right now. This topic is near and dear to me because I was a member of a megachurch here in the San Diego area for quite a few years. I have immense concerns with the tendency for the megachurches to be about the show and presentation of the "good to you news" over and against doctrine and the forthright good news, the euangelion.

According to the article, we can define a megachurch as a local body of 2,000 attendees. As of 2004, there were over 830 such churches (over 30 with 10,000+ attendance). That gives us around 3 million churchgoers each weekend who call a megachurch their home in the US. The largest church in America, packing in over 25,000 each weekend is Lakewood Church in Houston, TX, pastored by Joel Osteen. The second largest, at just over 23,000, is lead by none other than Creflo Dollar. Then you have Rick Warren's Saddleback and (oh my!) T.D. Jakes's Potter's House. Over 18,000 each weekend go and listen to T.D. Jakes espouse his heresy, and then support him financially. But, that's not the reason for my writing this.

Lakewood Church now talks of over 30,000 people in attendance each weekend. They just completed a renovation and held a grand opening of their new facility in mid July; over 57,000 attended that. The cost was only around $95,000,000! Let me spell that one out: $95 M-i-l-l-i-o-n. Who paid for that? Well, when you have 30,000 people coming each week in a state that loves for things to be big, it is not hard to get the donations, pledges and offerings.

Sadly, such endeavors are all too common with growing churches. Some of the problems I see in all of this are a loss of focus on the gospel message, lack of growth and equipping of the local body members, and a failure to be good stewards of the offerings of the people. When you are trying to raise $95,000,000 to build a facility, you will have to spend a lot of time talking to the people about getting the money in. A lot of time! One of my previous churches was deep in a "building project" and they had to do everything they could to ask folks to make pledges, follow up on those pledges, get the tithes turned in, make special offerings, fund raisers, sales, and so on. That time horrendously takes away from the ministry of the Gospel. While you could be talking about grace, love, relationships, exhorting people to grow in their Bible study, how John vi.44 does not mean "wooing" and John iii.16 is not an Arminian proof text but a Reformed cornerstone, you are instead centering the focus on the physical church structure and infrastructure itself. Eyes and hearts are off of Christ and the people, and placed only on the cement and wood.

The people, young to old believers, are lost in the shuffle. Churches are trying to grow their numbers. Why does any one church need to have 30,000 attendees each week? Why are these people not being instructed on the ways of Christ and His mission, and sent out to do God's mighty work? In Mark's Gospel, Christ selected His twelve disciples whom He called apostles in iii.14, and by vi.30 they had already been sent out and returned to give a report. In Acts we see the continued germination of the apostolic activity, after Christ ascended and the Holy Spirit descended. Are the people of Lakewood Church waiting for Joel Osteen to die (or ascend)? Well, with the loan Lakewood will be paying off they will need as many "supporters" as possible.

As far as stewardship goes, this is a far cry from the parable of the talents. $95,000,000 on a building is properly using the money of the church? What about spending $26,000,000 to build a $6,000,000 structure? Taking the money the church body and using that to fight legal battles? That is money taken away from the international missionaries who are struggling and need major support. That is money taken away from educating members of the body who need to learn the doctrines of the Church. What about the needy in the body? Or the widows? How can you say, "Now, we only have $10,000 this year for miscellaneous needs (you know, we had to increase our pastor's salary to $200,000 this year), so speak up quickly," yet turn around and have millions set aside so each staff member can have an office space?

The megachurch phenomenon going on in Protestantism right now is dangerous. Now, do I fear a downfall for Christianity? Of course not. I do believe that many people will feel burned and hurt by what can happen in a megachurch. Sadly, so many can be truly deceived by the message of some of these churches. Getting wrapped up in the hype can cause you to lose sight of the truth. We need to keep our eyes and ears open to what is being taught in our churches, regardless of the size. But for those who are in a megachurch, be sure you are grounded in the faith and Scripture, and not just going with the flow.

Addendum: here's a good article on T.D. Jakes's Potter's House.

Elders, Pastor, Bishop: Who Should Lead the Local Church?

2005-08-12T05:45:00.000-07:00

A topic of constant discussion and debate in today's Church is Church government: how a local church should be structured and the roles to be played by the local congrgants. One facet of particular intrigue is the debate over who should be the head of the church body. Should the church be directed by a bishop, a pastor (also can refer to a priest), or a council or plurality of elders?

The vast majority of evangelical churches have a senior pastor as the local head, then a group of other pastors: usually an executive pastor (like a vice principle) and a youth pastor; depening on the size of the church, there may be other roles to be filled by "pastors." The senior pastor is the shepherd of the people. He, or she in some cases (an update from the Barna Group in January 2004 placed female senior pastors in Protestant churches at 6% of the total), teaches on Sunday mornings as well as some nights, and has the majority of control over the direction and mission of the church. Many times a council of elders or deacons will be in place to keep the checks and balances.

My church, Grace Fellowship of San Diego, holds to the plurality of elders. We have six elders right now, and they each fill a role and do their part in and for the local congragetion. Just off the top of my head, Pheonix Reformed Baptist Church, the home of Dr. James White, holds to a plurality of elders. That model looks good, very non-democratic; shared authority, responsibility, and deserved submission and respect for each individual elder. They work as a team to support and direct the local body. One of the downfalls for a group that tries to hold firmly to this model is the tendency for the lay congregation to look toward one man as the princeps, the first among equals, and place that man as the unofficial pastor, whether or not that person plays such a role or not. The church taking the plurality of elders model stays away from putting one of the elders in any sort of superior role over the others.

Regarding such an idea, the way a local church should be organized, and who the leaders should be, and so forth, I will not pretend to be a wise man and give you my own conception of exactly how the church should be governed. I know that Christ is the head of the body, and the body is the Church. The Church is the totality of believers, who are all over the world, meeting together in relatively small, local bodies. Initially, I look to the historic Church to find how my ancestors in the faith have discussed and dealt with issues, and how they have understood Scripture and the teachings of Christ.

In a soon to be completed post, I will be discussing the position of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, martyred c. AD 107. He has played an integral role in our understanding of the era he lived and lead in. His letters are packed with teaching and guidance for the church, and wonderful exhortations as he is led to his glorious reward, as he would see it. In his letters, he left us important information about church structure at the time and what he believed to be some of the vital issues involved in keeping the church unified and strong, and able to persevere not only persecution but also heresy. The discussion will focus on the Ignatian model for the local church hierarchy. Of course, the era was slightly different then, but easily applicable to today's society.

New Look

2005-08-11T12:23:00.000-07:00

You will notice the look of Reformatus Sum has changed. I am liking the look and feel, the color scheme and organization. Maybe some tweeks here and there will help, but this is much better than before.

The title image at the top is cool, in my humble opinion. Please, drop a comment and let me know what you think.

Soli Deo Gloria

Reformatus Sum is Changing

2005-08-10T11:35:00.000-07:00

My posts have dropped off recently. I have been looking seriously at my choice of study, examining new and different aspects of the Church and Church History, the Scriptures, manuscripts and even textual criticism. So, in the future, posts here on Reformatus Sum will reflect more so what I will be studying. Truly, this is not a divergence from what I have been studying for years; the difference is I am becoming more focused. I am kicking out some of the extraneous stuff.

My focus will be Church History, from the New Testament to the time of Augustine. In my humble opinion, that was the most pivotal and formidable time of our Church, and a majority of Christians today neglect a proper study of our true heritage. Indeed the Reformation period was immense. There is no way to deny the importance of the fourteenth through sixteenth century period not only to the developement of Christianity, but to the effect Christianity has had on the world. However, without the strong foundation of the Early Church Fathers, and their determination, perseverance, and love of Christ and the Church during the tentative, painful decades, the Reformation would have nothing to stand on.

Overall, my study of martyrdom is all encompassing. I am examining and comparing martyrdom and persecution in the first four centuries to those of the Inquisition and Reformation era.

The Greek New Testament will play a bigger role in my study, along with the koine language as a whole as I delve into the Fathers.

I anticipate some fairly involved studies and writings. I take joy in writing, especially research papers. Heh; maybe I will even write and submit an article for a journal in the near future on Ignatius of Antioch and the role of the Bishops, Elders and Deacons. That would be exciting.

The True Beast in 2006?

2005-08-09T04:27:00.000-07:00

I was sent notice of this new movie coming out on 6-6-06, The Beast, directed by Brian Flemming. The story follows a young girl, whose father, a Bible scholar, dissappears after discovering a dreadful cover-up by Christendom: Jesus never existed. Apprarently the cast is kept secret also, so we do not know yet who will be in the film. For some more information and even a trailer, go to thebeastmovie.com. With the controversial Da Vinci Code film due out 5-19-06, next Summer should be quite the time for talk of the Gospel message. Probably also good for the theaters.

While The Beast will be just another movie, The Da Vinci Code will be the talk of the town. After I get through the Chronicles of Narnia in prep for December's visual feast, I will dance through the historical accuracy wasteland of Dan Brown.

I still love soccer

2005-08-03T23:40:00.000-07:00

While this evening's kick-around could have gone better, I still love the sport. I do believe I have not played as bad as I did today since my first year of learning the sport. I had no energy, my feet weren't doing what I was thinking, I thought too much instead of letting instinct and skill take control, I changed my mind mid move, my passes were weak, and I was unable to think (especially about how to get around the defence I faced). There were many opportunities and I just didn't take advantage. I started to get frustrated at my playing and it was downhill from there.

To add injury to insult, I got injured. Feels like at worst it's a minor sprain of the ankle. No swelling, so that's a good sign. But, it initially felt like someone jabbed a knife into the side of my foot, then pulled it out slowly. That's actually my first turned ankle in a few years, so you cannot blame the shoes.

Besides the injury and the pathetic play, I still had fun and love the sport. When I am able to get out there again, I will.

New post on Nachfolge Christi, on the sword

2005-08-02T06:17:00.000-07:00

I just posted a piece on the sword and Balthasar Hubmaier's position and teaching. Have a look; but be reminded that I can get pretty passionate about things like this. Von dem Schwert

Ben Witherington: Inspired, but not Truthful

2005-08-01T14:09:00.000-07:00

Ben Witherington wrote a very pithy yet formidable article on his blog regarding 1 Jo. iv.4-6 and the relationship between truth and inspiration. Ben Witherington: Inspired, but not Truthful

The US Christian Flag

2005-08-01T12:08:00.000-07:00

This flag is apparently becoming a popular item in Christian circles. Here is an article from WorldNetDaily on the creation of the US Christian Flag. From the creator's website, uschristianflag.com, I found this passage:

Please become a member of the "Operation Band Together" movement by flying the National Christian Flag as a Wave Offering. The time is right for this dynamic concept. It will be effective when Christians for God and country boldly identify with Christ and each other by flying the U.S. National Christian Flag right under Old Glory to represent Christ as our foundation and Christian heritage.

In addition there is a Pledge of Allegiance that goes along with this.
I pledge allegiance, to the Christian flag, of the United States of America, and to the Lord, who made us great and free, I purpose, to band together, with all believers, to protect the truth and liberty of God.
To this she placed a disclaimer because some people were misunderstanding the use of the new pledge:
Please note: there is clearly confusion among many. This pledge, flag, and its mission is not to replace our government pledge OR Old Glory. We are NOT trying to overthrow our government or force anyone to be a Christian. We are, however, honoring our LORD and protecting our Christian heritage and liberties. We are allowed to do that under our Constitution. The State cannot dictate to our church that we may not. When that day ever comes, You and I will all be in a desperate condition. May we please agree upon that much?
I posted this more as an FYI. I will not be commenting on this. This is the first I have seen of the flag.

Leviticus Scroll Fragments

2005-07-30T16:41:00.000-07:00

For those interested in ancient manuscripts and discoveries, look over at Codex, the Biblical Studies blog of Tyler Williams on some Leviticus fragments: Leviticus Scroll Fragments.

Greatness of Greek (NT)

2005-07-26T09:11:00.000-07:00

From the time I really began to get NT Greek down (not in the first two years), I have realized the vast benefits of knowing how to read and understand the language, especially when I do a Bible study.

For example, the Home Fellowship group I am a part of is going through Mark. Tonight we will be covering Mk. vi.6b-13. In verse 7 we have "And He called together the twelve and began to send them out two by two; and He gave (εδιδου, edidou) them authority over the unclean spirits." By a plain reading of the English, you may be led to believe that Jesus performed a one time granting of authority to the disciples. We may be tempted to assume the simple past tense of the verb "give" here, forgetting that what we have is a translation from an ancient language that handled their grammar a little differently than we who primarily deal with the English language.

εδιδου is in the imperfect tense. Without going into too much detail, the imperfect tense is talking about an action that occurred in the past, however moreso in an ongoing way. While the aorist tense gives you a snapshot of the past (e.g. this happened, he went or "He began to send them out"), the imperfect gives you an event or activity that was going on. The duration of an action in the imperfect tense is typically longer than one in the aorist tense. The action is on going.

In the case of Christ giving or granting the disciples the authority over the unclean spirits, he did not merely give them this authority, in whatever form it was, and send them away two by two. Mark is communicating that Christ was giving them this authority to do the very same things He had been doing: casting out demons, healing the sick, doing these sorts of miracles (Mk. vi.13). This was an on going action on the part of Christ in giving the twelve the authority to do the work.

Without the Greek, would readers of the English Bible be left to interpret this text to mean Christ gave the disciples authority like a grab-bag of goodies, and sent them on their merry way to fight evil demons wherever they lay? Christ was working with and on His disciples. These twelve still did not understand who Christ was. They struggled to grasp who it was that could heal so many, from so many ailments, could raise a dead child, calm the storming sea, and have so much authority over the leaders of the Jewish population. Who were they to be sent out to preach the message of John the Baptist and their own Master: "Repent?" Who were they to go and cast out demons and heal the sick? Christ needed to be with them and empower them to do His work.

Welcome to Blogging, Dr. Ben

2005-07-26T05:37:00.000-07:00

I did not notice Ben Witherington had joined what's known as the blogosphere: Ben Witherington. My apologies. Welcome.

Phil Johnson: More on Church Fads

2005-07-26T05:30:00.000-07:00

I noticed Phillip Johnson blogged about the Time article "The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals," however they choose to define that term. He makes a great point, in particular with the example of Bruce Wilkinson who was an immensely popular name just a few years ago, yet he was not on the list. Here's a link to Pyromaniac's blog: PyroManiac: Shall we sell our birthright for a mess of faddage?.

My Soccer Wishlist

2005-07-25T05:37:00.000-07:00

Well, I do have a soccer wishlist; thanks for asking.

I decided to post up some of the items I have engraved in the back of my mind to make sure I keep an eye out for. Am I looking for random people who check out my blog to buy and mail me some of this? No way. Although we all must do as the Lord leads us, right? I want to promote the sport as much as I can. Soccer (and I am using soccer instead of football here for less confusion) is wonderful exercise, a great fix for that person who's just itching to compete at something, and the best way to humble someone that you think needs to be a little more like Jesus.

First up is the Adidas F-50+ X-TRX SG. To date this is the greatest boot (soccer shoe) ever created. The style and design is superior to that of Nike, who tend to value look over comfort. Personally, Adidas shoes in general fit me best. In soccer there is no difference. I have some F-10's right now. They are very comfortable, stylish, and it almost feels like I am playing barefoot; not quite, but almost. This will be a great pickup some day; at $160 that day may never come. Either way, when you buy your shoes, after you think about how they fit, the comfort, the price, and the longevity, think about the reaction of your opponent when he sees you put those on. This is part of the mind game.

We now move on to the core of the game: the ball. This item is of course the most important in the sport. Without it, there's not only nothing to kick, but nothing to put in the goal. And if you are going to nutmeg a hotshot midfielder who's been talking all game long, then Maradona or rainbow by a defender who uses both feet to slide tackle your shins in a pickup game, and finish the strike off with a side-step and flick over the oncoming goalie and drop the ball perfectly into the lower right corner of the net, why not do it with some flair.

The Nike T90 250 HI-VIS is much like soccer itself, and in the fanciful, beautiful, dancing style one might only find in Brazilian soccer. Can you just imagine no-looking the ball between the legs of your defender to a teammate making a run? Or doing a step-over, backheeling the ball off the wall and behind your defender as you run around him and speed down the wing? Again, it has to be done with flair. Plus, the game can be that much more fun when your playing with a sweet looking ball, and not just some white ball with occassional black spots. You're playing soccer, not eating Breyer's Cookies and Cream.

The last item is what any striker or offense-minded midfielder loves to see: the goal. Now, sure you can use a garbage can, cones, someone's car, a spot on the fence, whatever's in reach. But there's something extra when you see your ball hit the back of a net, curl up and roll out. Everyone saw it. They cannot deny it. The 6 ft. Pugg goal is perfect for a pickup game. They setup anywhere, collapse easily and compactly, and are used by professional and national teams for practice.

Well, that is my wishlist. I don't need anything fancy like jerseys, shingaurds, training aids, bags and so on. That's one of the great beauties of this game. You simply do not need anything special. But if you are going to play, bring some water and your imagination. The one thing this game will never be is boring.

USA: Gold Cup 2005 Champions

2005-07-24T20:22:00.000-07:00

Interesting how the idea that American athletics frowns upon (penalty kicks deciding a championship) was the road taken to bring the US their third CONCACAF Gold Cup title. The States battled with Panama for 120 minutes but both sides failed to place the ball in the back of the net. I will not say this was the prettiest of matches, but the severly outmatched and underskilled Panamanian squad held their own and showed a lot of guts out there, and both goalies made some terrific saves.

The US, now ranked #6 in the world, did not have their best players (expect the World Cup squad to be a tad different). Panama, who jumped up to #83, made a great and surprising effort, put away South Africa (#38) and Colombia (#25) to just reach the finals. They choked in the penalty kick's, blanking on their first two attempts. Of all the kicks taken, Landon Donovan's firm and decisive try, the second goal of the period, epitomized the afternoon: the US was established and Panama was scrapping. The US knocked in 3 of 4 and won the match and title 3:1.

Would you like to win a Soul a Month?

2005-07-22T08:58:00.000-07:00

Did you know only $48 will get someone saved? $96 will get a couple. Well, Bailey Smith has the key. Join his Soul-a-Month club and for only $48 one person will be saved each month. Plus, it's tax-deductible.

Oh my word. Do you think I am joking? Check out BaileySmith.org for an explanation of this divine Soul-a-Month club. In fact, this $48 is a discount. According to Mr. Smith, at "some churches it cost[s] $100,000 to $300,000 to see one convert."

Oh, while you are at the site, have a look at the 23 Steps to Having a Crusade.

How does he have any kind of following, and even have people send him money believing that in so doing someone will be saved? Is that what the cost of salvation is, $48? That's the price of the human? That's an expense equal to sharing the message of Christ and truth, which can supplement even the work of the Holy Spirit?

How dare he say such a thing?

How dare people actually listen and send in money?

USA 2:1 Honduras

2005-07-22T05:17:00.000-07:00

Well, well. The US pulled off quite the come back victory yesterday afternoon in their semifinal match of the CONCACAF Gold Cup. The States were down 1:0 until the 86th minute, then pulling out a win in stoppage time off the head of relatively unknown defender Oguchi Onyewu. Exciting stuff; I really am happy for them. They are not my favorite soccer nation (England easily holds that honor, then comes Brazil), but I do hope they can succeed.

I understood a little better how they pulled out the win when I noticed Bruce Arena (the coach for the squad for the last too many years) had been ejected in the 58th minute. I have not been a fan of coach Arena for a long time. His strategies and player selection is sorely lacking, and obviously has not garnered the US any true international prestige. He will not be on the bench on Sunday when the US plays Panama for the Gold Cup Championship.

London Struck Again

2005-07-21T08:15:00.000-07:00

This morning, London was hit again. The reports state there were four explosions. Thus far, these attacks are nowhere near the toll taken over a week ago; no fatalities, no serious injuries (that I am aware of so far). Either this was a botched effort (some explosives did not detonate) or this is another set up. This still shows that the terrorists do not just sit back after an attack. They move on and prepare for another, and always try to use the element of surprise.

Please continue to pray for the people of London, especially for the families of those effected. Pray the people of God stand up and show themselves as strong leaders in the community, will help the people in anyway, and stay away from the thoughts and emotional rush for retaliation or retribution. As people of God we must not waiver from doing what He has instructed His people to do.

Jewish Catacombs

2005-07-20T20:13:00.000-07:00

An AP article this afternoon (Jewish Catacomb Predates Christian Ones - Yahoo! News) shared some news about the possibility of Christian catacombs being preceded, particularly the idea itself, by Jewish catacombs in Rome. Using carbon dating (a method I do not hold a lot of awe for due to the amount of variables that can effect the outcome, and people tend to rely so heavily on that single method), researchers found that the catacombs of Jewish people in Rome were around anywhere from the first century BC to the first century AD.

Now, here is a portion of an article written in 1908 on the Roman Catacombs and found in the Catholic Encyclopedia (New Advent):

The Romans cremated their dead and deposited the ashes in a family tomb (sepulcrum, memoria), or in a vault or common sepulchre (columbarium); but the Jews living in Rome retained their native method of burial, and imitated the rock-graves of Palestine by laying out cemeteries in the stone-like stratum of tufa around Rome. In this manner Jewish catacombs were laid out and developed before Christianity appeared in Rome. Connected with the two chief Jewish colonies, one in the quarter of the city across the Tiber, and the other by the Porta Capena, were two large Jewish catacombs, one on the Via Portuensis and one on the Via Appia, as well as some smaller ones; all are recognizable by the seven-branched candlestick, which repeatedly appears on gravestones and lamps.

Until after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (A.D. 70) the Christians were regarded as a sect of the Jews; hence those Jews who were converted by the Apostles at Rome were buried in the catacombs of their fellow-countrymen. The question arises as to where those converted from heathenism by the Apostles found their last resting-place. It is a fact to which Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio Cassius, and other pagan historians bear witness, that as early as the days of the Apostles members of the higher and of even of the highest ranks of the nobility had become Christians. These converts of rank from heathenism had their own tombs, and permitted their brethren in the Faith to construct, in connection with these family tombs, places of burial modelled on the Jewish catacombs. This is the origin of the Christian catacombs. The catacombs of the Apostolic Era are: on the Via Ardeatina, the catacomb of Domitilla, niece of the Emperor Domitian and a member of the Flavian family; on the Via Salaria, that of Priscilla, who was probably the wife of the Consul Acilius Glabrio; on the Via Appia, that of Lucina, a member of the Pomponian family; on the Via Ostiensis, that of Commodilla, connected with the grave of St. Paul.

So, is the AP report really anything new? Have the researchers found something we did not already know? Or did we just find evidence giving extra support for what we already understand from history?

Morris Cerullo

2005-07-20T06:21:00.000-07:00

Well, I missed this bit of news on 13 July. I am more than familiar with Morris Cerullo, an immensly popular "evangelist" from my very own San Diego area. Cerullo was indicted "on three counts of filing false individual income tax returns, which allegedly underreported his income by $550,000." Click Here for more of the story.

Like much of what goes on in the Word of Faith (WoF) circles, out of which God dragged me, the corruption of the leaders will not stay hidden. What amazes me time and time again is that people wrapped up in the WoF vines, like ivy that slowly grows around the stumps and grabs hold pretty tightly, will defend their "leaders" almost to the death. Do you know how many times Benny Hinn's false teachings, false prophecies, corrupt money handling, and false miracles have been exposed to the world? And yet his people do not hesitate to send him their bank accounts.

If there ever was a word stronger in pure meaning than anger, that would describe me when I see and hear the goings on of the WoF teachers and followers. But, if I am to imitate Christ (nachfolge Christi), then I need to remember that I myself was a follower, trapped or deceived just like them. I need to leave my anger and turn to the grieving (Mark iii). I pray I can still help any out of that world of disorder and pure heresy, if God so desires. He pulled me out, and it was as if I went through fire for the next two years or so as I read and studied the Scriptures, theology, and apologetics. I had so much junk on me and in me, it hurt to go through what I did. But God (the most powerful phrase in all of Scripture) brought me through. His will over mine and here I am today.

Real Football

2005-07-18T16:34:00.000-07:00

CAUTION: PASSIONATE SPORTS STATEMENT

Of all the facts and truths that are well known world wide, passed down from generation to generation, from epoch to epoch, a few have managed to change the way the world works. God created man, Jesus is God, salvation is only in Christ, and football is God's game.

Nothing beats taking a ball with a bunch of friends out to a field or street or alleyway or basketball court, breaking into two teams, setting up a garbage can on both sides, and calling the game on. What other sport is there that you can play anytime, anywhere, and the only thing you need is a round object to kick (and being round is really only a preference)?

No other sport will test you physically like real football (aka soccer to Americans) will. No other sport, when played with the skills usually only developed and found in the streets, will toy with your mind and self-esteem like real football. No other sport is capable of uniting the entire world, bringing every eye and ear to one green field of civilized, pacifist-esque battle. No other sport's premier championship, the World Cup, can legitimately stake claim to the title, "The pure alternative to World War III."

That is football: poetry in motion. That is football: passion without fear.

Ronaldo, Beckham, Ronaldinho, Owen, Zidane, Henry, van Nistelrooy, Shevchenko, Adriano, Carlos, Figo, Raul, Khan, Del Piero, Rooney. All of them modern day legends. The name Beckham brings more awe world wide than that of Jordan and Woods combined.

In the United States, we have the still young Major League Soccer (MLS). While not on par talentwise with England's Premiership, Spain's Primera, Germany's Bundesliga or Italy's Serie A, MLS is becoming more exciting as the years progress (especially with last year's addition of the teen phenom Freddy Adu). Football in the US still needs to develop. The fan base is heavily sided toward baseball and American football at the moment. Rumors are stirring that Beckham may come and play in the MLS in near future.

Next year, the World Cup will be held in Germany. My hope is that England finally breaks through their choking habits with their absolutely stacked-with-talent starting 11 and takes the cup. Brazil may yet again be the victors and rightfully keep their place as the single world super power. Either way, next summer will be more exciting than all other sports events combined. On 9 July for about 2 hours, the world will stop.

I Love Soccer

2005-07-18T14:07:00.000-07:00

Even when the rules change around as you play, and goals don't really count unless your the opposing team, playing the game is just fun and and an awesome workout.

A bunch of us "youngsters" from my church got together to play some soccer. A group of ten Mexicans came to us and asked if we wanted to play against them. We had the guys, and apparently the guts, and said, "Let's do it." So the ten of us stood on a make shift, grassy football pitch with goals made up of ice chests, trash cans and trash bags (the usual look for a pick up game), with our opponents ahead of us. They wanted to play with their flat ball and rules. We were fine with that.

The rules started with no out-of-bounds, no off-sides, and goals are below the waist (about 3 feet or so) through the "posts." As the match progressed, the rules began to change. No out-of-bounds became "no out-of-bounds unless it's behind the goal"; later, an addendum was made that even if the ball goes behind the goal off of one of their players, it's their ball.

We scored first. A friend of mine received a sweet setup in the middle of field, about 5 yards out, and struck the ball firmly. That ball hit the inside half of the trash bag and went straight over. The unwritten rule of pickup games is you give the benefit of the doubt to the opposing team; they decided it was not a goal. So, still 0:0 (though we know it was 0:1).

They scored next. They had a lot of energy and loved to shoot the ball up as quickly as possible. They always kept 4 men back in defense while our team tended to scramble around. The ball ended up in front of the net, some nice passing ensued, and it squirted by our goalie. Now, 1:0 (or 1:1).

We scored again. Our tendency was to bring the ball up on the wings, and draw some of the midfielders and defensemen. That usually left us two strikers open in the middle, or at least with a two on one advantage. This time, the ball was crossed in to my teammate, who then pushed it to me. My back was to the goal, I got the ball to my left, I did a pivot, spun, and struck the ball square. The ball went through the goal, easily two feet in from the right side, and barely 1 foot off the ground. My team and I were celebrating, going back to our positions, and they said, "No goal." Whatever; we were having fun. So, still 1:0 (sure; 1:2).

They scored again. Much like their first, they got the ball up quickly, had a large scramble in front of our net, moved the ball from left to right by passing, had an open net to the left, and knocked the ball through. 2:0 (or 2:2).

That's when we had to leave. A lot of us stopped playing and started walking off. I already shook hands with a bunch of them and was headed out. They kicked the ball up and knocked in goal number 3. They celebrated a little, and one of them yelled, "Mexico wins" (unlike the real Mexican national team that was upset yesterday in the quarterfinal round of the Gold Cup by the no longer soccer power Columbia). We were just happy to have played and had a great time.

We had great exercise and enjoyed the competition. We all had wonderful attitudes, which is something I appreciated from my teammates.

Is this sport not one of the greatest gifts God has given us humans?

More Dead Sea Scroll Fragmets

2005-07-17T08:00:00.000-07:00

Here is some more exciting news for Dead Sea Scroll scholars:

Jerusalem Post | Breaking News from Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World

Side note on Islam

2005-07-16T22:28:00.000-07:00

This week, Michael Medved (some times I listen to him on my drive home from work; very sharp minded individual, and I like his movie reviews) posed the statement that Islam is the most violent and dangerous religion in the world, and asked his listeners to call in and challenge him if they felt he was wrong. A few people called in and tried to make their points that Medved was wrong. One older lady, a convert to Islam, tried to state the Muslim religion was a peace loving religion but that suicide (homicide) bombings were to show people the beauty and truth of Islam. Unfortunately I did not get to enjoy her reasoning behind that belief because she bounced from subject to subject that Medved had to move along. Another young gentleman called, who identified himself as being in Christian ministry work (from the sounds of it, a Youth Pastor most likely), and considered Medved to be espousing hate speech against the Muslims. He decided to add in a massive amount of bad history, another failed attempt to use the Crusades to prove Christianity was a violent religion, and when his faulty arguments were pointed out he bounced to some other argument.

I did not get to hear the rest because that's when I got home and went on with my life. I just find it funny that many people are not able to adequately respond to a statement like that. So many people are quick to cry out, "He's wrong! He's wrong! That's hateful!" But, when asked why, they are unable to give themselves any support. Especially if you are gutsy enough to call into a nationally syndicated radio show and challenge, on air, a very popular personality whose job it is to understand beforehand all the possible arguments that may come his way.

That is a fascinating question, though: is Islam the most violent and dangerous religion in the world? If not, then why have the leaders of the Islamic community or the Islamic nations not publicly condemned bin Laden or all of the suicide (homicide) bombings? In the last few years before he died, Arafat was asked repeatedly to make a statement in Arabic to the effect that he condemns the violent acts of the Muslim extremists, especially against Israel. He flat out declined to do so. All of these Muslim representatives you see and hear on the news, who are experts in their faith; have they ever condemned what has gone on?

One person actually tried to argue that Christianity was the most violent and dangerous religion. It's silly statements like that that you cannot refute directly. All you can do is ask them to prove it. When they can't, then you show them what Christianity is all about.

Islamic Nations Slaughter and Enslave Christians - Tom Barrett

2005-07-12T17:05:00.000-07:00

Check out this article by Tom Barrett on national Islamic persecution of Christians:

Islamic Nations Slaughter and Enslave Christians - Tom Barrett

This is a good article; surprisingly not as gung ho with the US patriotism as I thought it would be at the beginning of the piece. I appreciated the last line (and no I do not agree in a just war, just for clarity):

The war against terrorism is a just war, but if in our zeal to punish international terrorists we ally ourselves with religious terrorists, what have we gained?

23 June have any importance?

2005-07-12T05:02:00.000-07:00

You know what day we passed right by? 23 June. What is so important about 23 June? That was the birthday of the president and prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Gordon B. Hinckley. How old is he now? 95

Soon, there will be a changing of the guard. I hope that people will pray of Mr. Hinckley. If he believes in the doctrines he and his church teach, then he knows not the true Christ. Whether you have the faith the size of a mustard seed or of the statue of Moroni atop the temple steeples, if that faith is placed in a false Christ or not in Christ at all, that faith cannot save you. If your method or formula of salvation is by grace dispensed on a meritorious basis, after all the works you can do trying to achieve salvation, that foundation of works righteousness cannot save you.

When the guard does change, look forward to seeing more changes in LDS doctrine and practice, or really just how those are presented to the non-LDS community. For a good peek into the attitude changes recently in Mormonism, check out James White's (aomin.org) postings on the comparison between the Millet and McConkie book, Sustaining and Defending the Faith, written in 1985 and the recent Millet work, A Different Jesus?, which was able to lure Eerdman's into it's trap.

The people trapped (and yes they are trapped) in the LDS church need our aid as much as Muslims or Hindus or Atheists.

Persecuted Nation: Sri Lanka

2005-07-11T16:47:00.000-07:00

Sri Lanka is a small island nation off the coast of India, in the Indian Ocean. The island is dominated (70% of the population) by Buddhists, but the extremist activity is shared by the Buddhists and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, who are Hindus for the most part. More and more this nations anti-Christian activity has grown.

See this recent article from Agape Press for a perfect example: VOM Reports Increasing Persecution Against Sri Lankan Christians.

Persecuted Nation: Yemen

2005-07-11T07:15:00.000-07:00

Yemen is another Islamic state that does not allow non-Muslims to proselytize or even conversions, and heavily restricts the building of churches. There is some relative freedom with respect to gathering together in your private home, but trouble is met when you step out and live the Christian life. VOM considers this one of the least evangelized countries in the world.

As in Egypt, Shari'ah is the source of legislation. Conversion from Islam is punishable by death, making proselytizing so much harder because you not only contend with the idea that Christianity is a hated religion in and of itself, but also the act of converting from Islam is alienating and an automatic death sentence. More evangelicals are needed there, but I pray they go with the wisdom of Christ and share His gospel with patience, and help bring unity, strength and support to the Church that is there.

Persecuted Nation: Egypt

2005-07-11T05:15:00.000-07:00

More people probably recognize Egypt as a nation that persecutes Christians, but it fascinates me to see such things going on knowing the early history of the Christian Church in Egypt. To this day you still have the Coptic Christians, who have survived so many persecutions for so long.

In the early centuries following the Incarnation, Alexandria quickly became the core city of intellectual Christianity. In the tenth century AD the Muslims took over control and altered the practices of the government for the next millenium. In 1980, the constitution was amended to state Shari'ah (islamic law) is considered the source of legislation.

While the Coptic Christian population numbers at approximately 7-10 million (10-13% or so of the total population, the largest in the Middle East, the laws do not allow for any Christian churches to repair or rebuild their buildings. If you want to build a church, one of the conditions you need to meet is acquiring the signature of the President; today that would be Hosni Mubarak. Anyone Muslim converting the Christianity will be persecuted by not only family but also the police. Muslim women are required to divorce a husband who has converted to Christ.

These people need our prayer and also more of an evangelical or "free church" influence (to borrow from my Anabaptist studies). While the Muslim domination is at the forefront of everyone's vision, I personally don't believe the Coptics align themselves completely with the freedom in Christ. Just as in Cyprus, the form of Christianity found is one of tradition and ritual, along with the attitude of works righteousness and the need to do these things.

PyroManiac on the emergent church

2005-07-11T04:51:00.000-07:00

I had to interrupt my regular posting for this. If you have not heard of the emergent church movement, this is a great summary. I plan on writing a little about it later on. Really, Phillip Johnson nailed it, and quite eloquently might I add.

PyroManiac on the emergent church: "All week, I was continually asked to give my opinion of the 'emerging church' movement. Here's the short answer: I think it's little more than the twenty-first century equivalent of 'The Church of What's Happenin' Now,' and the movement's true patron saint is Reverend Leroy. You can put whatever pretentious mask you want on it; you can dress it up in a tweed jacket with a pipe and teach it to speak in avuncular tones; or you can put it behind a pasty-white complexion and dress it in Gothic black with a full array of tattoos and body piercings. But at the end of the day, it still owes more to Flip Wilson than to 1 Corinthians 1:21-25."

Persecuted Nation: Cyprus

2005-07-10T18:24:00.000-07:00

This will be the start of some postings on nations many folks may not realize have Christian persecution.

Cyprus is a historic island in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. The southern 2/3 of the island is what most people would consider Cyprus. The area is dominated by the Greek Orthodox Church, but there is a strong contingent of Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormon missionaries. Evangelicals amount to about .2-.4%. In the northern 1/3 you find the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. There you have a 99% Muslim population, with the controlling government body being from Turkey, the island's nearby neighbor to the north. There is active limitation there of Christian influence, let alone the Church's existence. I have read around that persecution is quite heavy on Christians who take an active role in missions there.

There is very little evangelical Christian missionary activity (and by "missionary" in this case I would include those who choose to reside there and live out their Christian lives) on the island as a whole.

Response to Islamic Terrorism?

2005-07-07T19:00:00.000-07:00

How do we respond to these Islamic terrorists that bombed London this morning? The same was asked in 2001 when the United States was racked by Islamic terrorism. No matter the situation, the response must be the same: do not fight.

I am a pacifist. I detest war; but so do the vast majority of people. But my pacifism was created by Scripture, not my opinions about what is going on in the world. Being a pacifist does not mean you go and hold a sign on the street saying, "Heck no we won't go." Being a pacifist does not mean you go spouting off ignorant statements about the President, the government and the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. A pacifist does not retaliate when he or she is attacked. A pacifist does not repay evil with evil. A Christian pacifist endures persecution and attack knowing that God gives them strength, and will use their testimony for the good of His kingdom.

Please understand this important note: I do not mean to belittle or ridicule the men and women who are in the military, and are even now fighting and unfortunately dying in Iraq, Afghanistan and the many other nations around the world where US military personnel are stationed. We are all humans, created by God, and we all make choices. While I do not agree with a Christian's choice to join the military, that is still their choice and I must respect that. I also must respect the family members and other loved ones involved, no matter whether they agree or disagree. I love my neighbor. Out of this same love, however, I must speak my convictions. I cannot condone that which I find is contrary to the command and teachings of Christ and Scripture. I hope this serves to provoke thought and a better understanding of the teachings of Christ.

War is the prerogative and tool of government. There is no mandate for Christians to be in the military, or to show patriotism by supporting the war efforts of either the country you live in or any other. Christians are citizens of Heaven, not Earth; here we are merely aliens. Our allegiance cannot be to Christ and to man, especially a government controlled by man. If you claim Christ as your Lord, how can you then leave the control of your life to man?

Specifically, how are we supposed to respond to our enemies when they attack? Christ gave us this command: show them love (Mt. v.44). He was very clear, and these words cannot be played with. Love your enemies. No matter how evil, how vile, how cruel: show them love. When did Christ say, "Give them what for. They attacked you; you go attack them because it is now justified. An eye for an eye." Never. In fact, here is what Christ said about the eye for an eye:

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? (Mt. v.38-46)

"Do not resist the one who is evil . . . Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." Those were the commands Christ gave us, His followers. If you repay evil for evil, do wrong for a wrong done, what does that make you?

A pastor in Clinton, MA said the following in one of his sermons:

When reasonable efforts at peace have failed, war is the most loving thing to do. War is love for one's neighbor.

That is admittedly not based on Scripture, but on a treatise written by Martin Luther in the sixteenth century. War is love? How disgusted Christ must have been when he heard one of His shepherds say that. This pastor went on to speak a little on the Matthew passage I quoted.

Doesn't this contradict Jesus teaching that we should "turn the other cheek" and "not resist the one who is evil" (Mt 5:39)? Not at all. In that passage, as in all of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is speaking to individual Christians. He is telling them that if they themselves have been wronged or are threatened, and only they have suffered harm or injustice, they should be willing to suffer the wrong and not seek vengeance. If, however, their neighbor has been attacked or wronged, love demands that they fight on their neighbor’s behalf to protect and help them – the very thing that a just war does.

I think you will agree with me that this is an example of poor exegesis; in fact this is eisegesis. Do you see the contradicting ideas here? If I am attacked by my enemy, I am not to strike back, but am to suffer the wrong. But if my neighbor is attacked by his enemy, I am supposed to resist them, even slay them with the sword. Even if we have the same enemy (Here's a question: is Islam an enemy of Christianity?), as long as we do not join the fight because of a personal attack we are OK. This can turn into quite the convoluted situation.

On the Fox News website, people have written e-mails to show their support for the people of London. Many of the e-mails I saw are from seemingly Christian people. Here is one that grabbed my attention:

My prayers are with all of you in England. You have been our steadfast friends and allies through many, many adversities. Now is the time for all of the civilized nations to stand together against the terrorist PIGS!! We must never, never waiver in our resolve to defeat them, or they win and life as we know it will no longer exist. GOD BLESS ALL OF YOU.

So, indeed, the battle is ours to fight, is it? Unless we resist the enemy, "life as we know it will no longer exist." I understand that people tend to allow their emotions to energize what they want to say; and this is an emotional time. Yet, these words are exemplary of what a majority of Christians believe: the fight is ours, as given to us by God. If we do not fight, who will? People tend to forget that the Lord of all is still Lord over all. The fight is His.

I am reminded yet again of the words of Michael Sattler in his trial:

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.

Listen here to the clip from the movie The Radicals. I know that I have been referencing that movie and the life and teachings of Michael Sattler a lot lately; but until I can be shown that what is taught or said is contrary to Scripture, then I would ask you to listen and think about what is said.

Click here for the clip: Michael Sattler on trial.

Those who call themselves Christian must listen to and follow the words of Christ, our Lord. We must not resist evil. We must not show hatred towards those who hate, or anger and revenge towards those who let their anger and vile control them. Search the Scriptures for yourself. If I am wrong, then please show me from the Scriptures. Do not allow yourselves to be caught up in the dealings on nations and governments, but in the commission to go and make disciples.

We do pray for those families in London effected by what happened. God can give His people the strength they need. God can also use a situation like this for good. We need to trust in Him, and to seek His will. I was in San Diego, CA when the planes hit the World Trade Center buildings. I watched on T.V. as the buildings fell. I felt the sadness then that I do now for London. But just as back then, God will judge. We must pray.

London bombed

2005-07-07T05:13:00.000-07:00

London has been hit by several bombs. There are reports of "many casualties." To keep track of what is going on, head to the BBC.

Lord, be with Your people in London. Be with the families and loved ones of those who have died.

Addendum: Latest news shows that over forty people have died, and 300 have been injured. The sadness keeps growing.

And as always, Soli Deo Gloria!