Peregrinus Veritatis

State of the Church - Part II -

2007-12-27T14:44:00.000-08:00

Many of us, in our battle to preserve the Judeo-Christian morality of our society have forgotten a crucial, indeed, the central truth of the gospel. As Ravi Zacharias says it, Jesus didn’t come to make bad people good, he came to bring dead people to life.

We have gotten to a place where we, for the most part, have focused so much on trying to make society good through political activism, and through moralistic teaching in the Church that we have forgotten that the real point is life. Life must precede morality and morality without life is pointless anyway. We have frequently lost sight of Jesus through our maze of moralisms.

This problem has not only doomed our socio/political activism to failure, it has severely hindered our own spiritual lives and left us impoverished, with a faith that is but a shadow of what was originally delivered.

Do not imagine for a moment that I bring a message of “easy believism”, or a teaching that morality doesn’t matter. It is impossible, IMPOSSIBLE, to really know God, while justifying sin or insisting on living in willful disobedience to Him. The destructive power of sin can not be exaggerated.

Yet the fact remains that we will never find life, nor peace in following a code of morals, we will find it only in the person of Jesus Christ. When you reduce Christianity to moralist teaching, you have essentially made it into Judaism, or Islam. The defining mark of all human religion is the idea that following the proper moral code will result in eternal reward. The profound defining difference that sets divine religion apart is that it consists not in following a code of morals, but in a reconciliation. It consists in being restored to a state in which we know, and are known by God, in which we love and are loved by God.

It must be understood, and would be obvious but for the corrupt state to which we have fallen, that such a reconciliation will always lead to living rightly. For as Jesus himself said “if you love me, you will keep my commandments.” The heart of the gospel is the declaration that Jesus Christ is Lord, absolute and without qualification. That means that we recognize him as our owner, and absolute master. The idea that you can have a Lord whom you love, and yet do not obey, or who’s words you twist to suit your own desires in contravention of his intent is a complete contradiction.

I have been a Christian almost as long as I can remember. I have no time in my life when I didn’t believe the Christian message. I do not doubt that I was saved, but I often find that I look back and regret the shallowness of my faith, and most of all, the fact that though my faith was shallow, I believed it to be deep.

I have always tried my best to live by the Christian moral teaching, and to have correct doctrine but the truth is that for most of my life, I have loved the ideas and the teachings, more than I did Jesus Christ. I have been devoted to the morality and the ideas involved in the Faith, but not to Jesus Christ. I thought that because I had good doctrine, and good morals, I was doing well, and I had the fullness of the faith. The truth was that all the while, I really knew little of God.
When I get to this point, it is hard to know what words can possibly express what I am seeing and feeling. I look at my life to this point and I feel sorrow at all the time I thought I was so good, and yet was so blind, and I feel gratitude and joy that God has given me grace to see myself in the light of truth.

When I get to this place, I’m always reminded of the parable Jesus told to one of the Pharisees, with whom he was dining. A woman of ill repute came in and washed Jesus’ feet with her tears and her hair. The Pharisee thought to himself “if he were truly a prophet, he would know what kind of woman this is, and not let her touch him.” Jesus knew what he was thinking and he told a parable of two people who were in debt to one man. One person had a great debt and the other had a little debt. The man forgave both debts… who will love him more? The Pharisee said, the one who owed more.

For years I missed the point of this parable. The Pharisee was right, he who is forgiven more will love more. However, I always tended to assume that Jesus was speaking in simple factual terms about the two debtors. The one had a great debt and the one had a little debt. In the example, obviously the Pharisee is the one with little debt, and the adulterous woman had great debt.
That, however, is not the point at all. Which truly had the greater debt to God? The Pharisee or the woman? In truth, we can’t really know. The point, however, is that the Pharisee thought his debt was small, while the woman realized that her debt was great.

I spent most of my life believing that my debt was small, and as a result, I had small love for God. I had never really been grossly immoral, I had never really done the really bad things, so I had little to be forgiven of. There was so much about myself that I couldn’t see and at the heart of it all was that I cared more about teachings than about the teacher. I didn’t know how much I had been forgiven so I loved little, and I was not conscious of his great love for me.

The common thread in all this is passion and devotion for the person of Jesus Christ, rather than just commitment to an idea, or adherence to a code. It is an emotional experience for me to look at myself and see how much I have lacked this. It is both frustrating, and sorrowing, to speak of this to my fellow Christians and get nothing but blank stares in return. Or just as bad, people who agree without really listening and then go on as before, apparently ignoring the whole conversation.

It may be that I am projecting my own experience on to the Church at large and really I’m the only one who faces this issue, and this condition. If that is the case I am sorry. I don’t think that is the case, though. As I look around, I don’t see many people who really appear to know God well. I don’t see many people bearing fruit in their lives. I don’t see the Church prevailing against the gates of hell.

I see a lot of comfortable evangelicals searching for meaning in life, trying to figure out what piece of the puzzle they are missing. I see we have forgotten the words, “if you seek to keep your life, you will lose it, but if you lose your life for my sake, you will surely find it”.
If you find yourself agreeing with what I have said here, but having trouble really finding passion within yourself for Jesus Christ. Don’t be afraid, you are not alone. It is not something that comes easily to us, especially when we are living according to our own will. Ask God to kindle this fire in your heart. Ask him to show you how to grow in knowledge of him and how to walk in his life.

Those are things that are always according to his will, and if we ask them, really desiring them, he will accomplish them in us.
If you fall along the way, don’t be afraid because God knows that the flesh is weak, and he knows we are going to fail, as long as you are willing to get back up, he will do the lifting.

State of the Church -part one-

2007-12-18T20:11:00.000-08:00

I recently heard a couple of sermons by a man named Michael Boldea. Mr. Boldea is the grandson of Dumutru Duduman, a Romanian Christian who suffered great persecution under the former communist regime in Romania and eventually came to the U.S. with a prophetic warning for America.
Mr. Boldea carries on his grandfather’s ministry which focuses both on aiding widows and orphans in Romania and bringing a message of warning to the American Church.

It is not my intention here to speak about the prophecies of Mr. Duduman, or Mr. Boldea. I leave that consideration to each individual at their own interest. By far the more important and powerful message, in my opinion, is the simple truth of what Mr. Boldea has to say to American Christians. The few times I have heard Mr. Boldea speak he has shown himself to be intelligent, well educated, and passionate about his convictions. I believe his message is a crucial one for the American Church across the board, regardless of denomination.

Some of you may not be familiar with the prophetic community among Charismatic Christians. There is an entire community of sorts in which it is very popular to claim to be a prophet and to deliver dire messages of warning. Some of the prophets are more credible, many are less. The culture of this group is somewhat unique, however. In most situations people would expect that a person who delivers good news would be more popular and more accepted than a person who delivers bad news. In the prophetic subculture, however, this is usually reversed. Because the biblical and historical model of a prophet is usually seen as the sayer of doom who is rejected by the world around him, this subculture is generally not interested in hearing what a person has to say, unless they are preaching impending disaster and judgment. There are several points of conversation that would be worth pursuing regarding this phenomenon alone and how it affects the attitude of this Church community. Yet the point I’m trying to get at here is one of the major results of the numerous people running around for-telling doom is what might be called cry-wolf syndrome. Eventually most people get so tired of listening that they no longer take any of it seriously. Those who do still listen are mostly people who want the tingly feeling of being part of something dire, and feeling like they are in ‘the inner circle’ because they “know”.

This phenomenon is unfortunate when it comes to a person like Michael Boldea because all prophecy issues aside, his message is well worth listening to. In fact, in my opinion, it is one of the most important messages that the American Church needs to hear.

What Mr. Boldea speaks about is very simply the need for holiness in the Church and the need for obedience in the Church. He speaks about the need for Christians to truly live their lives as if Jesus really was their Lord. Mr. Boldea is popular among the prophetic community because of his prophecies and his grandfather. Yet in the instances where I have heard him speak to the “prophetic community” there seems to be a definite element of saying “its nice that your interested in prophecy and I’ll speak about it, but you guys, just as much as everyone else, need to get down to the business of really living like a true follower and servant of Jesus Christ, and that is the only message that really matters.”

I don’t want to put words in Mr. Boldea’s mouth, and it may be that this is just my perception of what he is saying. However, it underlies a critical truth which conservative evangelical Christians of all stripes MUST get a hold of.

This is important, so pay attention

It is very easy for us as conservative evangelicals to look at the gross sin and apostasy of liberal and humanistic churches. It is easy for us to sit back and bemoan the evils of a church that tolerates homosexuality, or abortion. All the while, we miss the glaring problems in our own lives and our own Churches.
There is NO QUESTION that what we see in some of the liberal denominations is wrong. A few of them at least are to the point where I’m not sure they can even be considered really “Christian” anymore. Yet as we sit decrying the abuses of apostate churches, we are completely blind to the fact that our own Churches are lukewarm and that WE are lukewarm. It does us little good to sit comfortable in the fact that we are not as bad as those other guys, when the truth is that we are not nearly as alive as we should be.

In looking at the black robes of others, we have become satisfied and complacent with our own robes of drab grey.

While the liberal humanist church is being consumed by heresy and apostasy, the conservative evangelical church is being consumed by the love of money and comfort, or the love of knowing secrets, or the love of power, or the pride of life.

I see hardly anyone, anywhere being consumed by the love of Jesus Christ.

There are probably several different things involved with this. One is that we, like the Church of Ephesus have lost our first love. There are many Churches that stand up for truth, and do good works, but they are not consumed with the love for Jesus Christ.
This is true of most of us on an individual level as well. We are living for our own goals and our own vision of what a nice life is. Its not that we are immoral or bad people, we just aren’t passionate about Jesus Christ, and truth be told, we don’t have a deep knowledge of God.

One other thing involved in this is an outgrowth of the first. Our focus when we confront problems like homosexuality and abortion, or any of the other numerous moral problems in our society, is wrong. We are focused on fighting the darkness, rather than simply being the light. There is a subtle but important difference there.

We have spent decades fighting against the evils of abortion, the slide towards homosexuality, the increasing level of immorality in almost every area. Yet we have accomplished nothing. In fact we have steadily lost ground. We think of ways to try and stem the tide of darkness which is washing over our nation, never realizing the simple truth that darkness does not overcome light. Neither does light struggle to overcome darkness… it just shines.
If the darkness is spreading, there is only one explanation. The Light is not shining

I'm back!

2007-12-12T00:14:00.000-08:00

Seasons greetings!

After a long drought I intend to start posting more actively again. I had been tied up with school and work, but I will be making more time to write and post in the future. I have a few ideas rattling around in my head that'll make for good posts, but I'm always looking to help people out with questions, or things they are curious about. If you have anything you'd like to see addressed, please leave it in a comment.

Merry Christmas to all!
and peace on earth to men of goodwill!

ST

Lord of the Rings -cont-

2007-05-19T14:28:00.001-07:00

Now, getting back to the Lord of the Rings.

Tolkien's intent was to write a good story. He believed that obvious stories were not enjoyable, but he also believed that they didn't stimulate the imagination, they didn't invoke the kind of response and the kind of thought he was interested in.

In his own life, Tolkien had been deeply impacted by language. Even as a child the sounds of different language evoked images in his mind and inspired him to imagine stories that might go with the sound of those words.
Most of Tolkien's creative endevours were shaped by his love of language. Particularly he was expert in the norse and germanic languages. He believed that culture, and the character of a people were inseperable from their language. Language could not be properly understood apart from the context in which it evolved. That was his particular expertise, philology. The study of how words developed.

Tolkien was particularly impacted by the Finnish language and the mythology of the norse people. the imagery of it strongly impacted Tolkien's own imagination. So it is no mistake that there is a good deal of Norse influence in the Lord of the Rings. Much of the imagery is taken from Norse folklore and myth. Many of the names used have their roots in Norse epic poetry, such as Gandalf, and most of the dwarves.

In fact the whole world of middle earth and its history began in response to a single line of an old english poem that Tolkien heard in his youth.

"Eálá Earendel engla beorhtastOfer middangeard monnum sended"

"Hail Earendel, brightest angel over middle earth to men sent."

So Tolkien began constructing a whole world and its history which was cast in the imagery of northern european mythos, yet in the end, conformed to Tolkien's beliefs about truth. There was also a very strong element in Tolkien's work of trying to create a story which acted as a sort of Christian myth of northern europe. It took the elements of the northern european mythos, and explained them in a way which meshed with Tolkien's Christian beliefs.

thus for example there are the Valar, the powers of the world who resemble the gods and goddesses of northern europe in imagery, yet in the context of Tolkien's mythos they are explained as archangels tasked with maintaining the creation. Tolkien explains their appearence as gods in human history as the result of man's mind being corrupted and darkened through the influence of the fallen prince of darkness. He estranged men from the Valar through fear and superstition and in their darkness men made gods out of their false knowledge and the lies of the enemy.

Through out Tolkien's works there are several over arching themes. Again, not written to make statements, but simply the fact that Tolkien's own beliefs became embodied in his story.

One of the common themes in Tolkien's work is the graceful white lady.

This one may not be terribly acceptable to protestants but this theme is drawn from two sources in Tolkien's life. One is his Catholic faith. This theme draws strongly on Tolkien's beliefs about Mary. In his belief, Mary embodied true beauty and grace and that is seen in many of the female characters of his stories. The second source is Tolkien's own relationship with the love his life, his wife Edith. The story of Beren and Luthien and the story of Aragorn and Arwen are direct take offs on his story with his wife Edith.

He was orphaned while still relatively young and was taken in and raised by a Catholic priest. His wife was from a protestant family who didn't think that a Catholic orphan was a good prospect. The result was that Tolkien had to work hard and 'bootstrap' himself up in order to earn the right and the ability to seek his love's hand in marraige.

Probably the single most prominant theme in Tolkien's work is the corruptive influence of the desire for power. People always propose various ideas for what the ring might represent. It 'represents' exactly what it is.. the power to dominate others. The power to bend the wills of other people to your own.
Tolkien frequently explores the difference between power and authority. The desire to have power corrupts, even if someone desires power to do good. Yet authority does not.

In the Lord of the Rings specifically, the difference between power and authority is the real issue between Saruman, and Gandalf. They are both of the same order. They are spirits, angels who are sent in human form to minister to the free people. They were specifically forbidden to seek rulership, or to seek to bend people to their wills. They were sent to sway people by wise council, to influence people to good deeds and courage. To inflame the hearts of the free peoples and to inspire truth and courage.

Of all the angels sent, Gandalf is the only one who stays true to his purpose. He remains a wanderer. He never has a home, or a place of his own. He never owns anything except his staff and his cloths. Even his horse was on loan from Theoden of Rohan. On the other hand, Saruman very quickly secures himself a fortress and settles down. He takes in servants to do his will, and while he pretends to study the enemy looking for ways to defeat him, in truth he is looking for ways to expand his own power. One of the most interesting questions, to me, in the character of Saruman is how much of his own motive was known to himself.

The story leaves the question up to the reader, but there are hints that Saruman himself may not have really known his true motives in the beginning. In otherwords, he deceived himself. He allowed his desire for power to grow, but he cast it in terms of power to defeat Sauron, power to do good, to accomplish his mission...

This is a great truth of human existence. We are masters of self deception, and the slide into corruption very rarely takes place all at once. You take a step here and there, justified for good reasons, until suddenly you find yourself serving the very evil that you once thought you were fighting.

The contrast between Gandalf and Saruman is also a very biblical theme. The contrast of the wanderer, the stranger in the land with no settled home against the settled person who makes a home in the world. Gandalf also demonstrates the very biblical principle of the unwelcome prophet. Gandalf is always showing up when things are at their worst and he frequently brings dire news, and for that reason men dislike him and even disdain him. In fact he is bringing hope and aid in time of trouble, but he is charged, like many a prophet, with never having anything good to say. Never bringing good news.

To begin the discussion of Gandalf and magic, I'll give the run down on who Gandalf is.

In Tolkien's world there are two general orders of angelic beings. The Valar and the Maiar. The Valar are the great powers, the Arch Angels, the angel princes. The Maiar are generally lesser angels but they have a wide a variety of greatness, or power. Maiar is a general group within which there are many different types and orders, which are only hinted at.

The characters in Lord of the Rings which are Maiar, or angelic beings include, Gandalf, Saruman, Radaghast, Sauron, and The Balrog. Of course Sauron and the Balrog were fallen angels, having fallen long ago in the original rebellion. Saruman fell to temptation, and Radaghast, though he never became evil, miscarried in his responsability by allowing himself to be distracted.

The Valar, or arch angels dwell in a paradise land in the west of the world. When middle earth was originally created it was a flat world and the paradise realm of Valinor (the undying lands) was on the western edge of the world. when the Numenorean kings, (aragorns ancestors) were decieved by Sauron they attempted to lay seige to Valinor and the Valar took the issue before God, who changed the world. Numenor was destroyed and only the righteous remnant (lead by Elendil, Aragorns direct ancestor) escaped. The world was made round and Valinor was removed from the physical world, yet a way was left by which the elves could sail over the western sea and come to valinor.

At that point the Valar largely ceased to intervene openly in the course of history. So when Sauron, a fallen angel, began to gather power again in middle earth, and the whole of middle earth was in danger of being conquered by darkness, the Valar dispatched five messangers who were sent under cover.

These five were Maiar who were sent secretly to the grey havens in human form. Only Cirdan, Elrond, and Galadriel knew who they really were. Galadriel having known both Gandalf and Saruman in their angelic forms in the first age when the elves dwelt in Valinor.

These five were required to take on human form, and in so doing they were given specific limitations. They could experience pain, they were subject to all the necessities of physical life such as eating and sleeping and they could be killed. Yet they aged very slowly, if at all, appearing for the most part as already aged men. These five became known as "the Istari".

There were two main reasons for the limitations applied to the Istari. In the first age the Valar had intervened openly in the affairs of the elves in order to protect them from the enemy. The result was mixed, but elements of it were disasterous. It played a key role in the elves rejecting Valinor. The Valar basically decided never again to interfere directly and visibly in the affairs of men and elves. Partially this was a realization on their part that God did not intend things to work that way.
The second reason is an outgrowth of the first. Because the Istari were sent to be secret ministers, they were forbidden to openly reveal themselves. They were restricted from commanding mortal beings according to their will etc. They were only allowed to try to influence people through wise council, and to give limited aid.

So Gandalf, Saruman, Rhadagast, and the two 'blue wizards' (they don't appear in any of the stories) arrived in middle earth.
They were organized as a council, each Istari had a color corresponding to his rank in the council. Each also had a staff which was the symbol of his authority (consider Moses and Aaron and their staves).

The names of each of the 'wizards' is a name that was given them by the various peoples with whom they interacted. Thus Gandalf, is not actually Gandalf's true name. His real name is actually Olorin. Gandalf is what the hobbits and the Breelanders called him.

This is thus a reflection of how Gandalf was percieved by those people. The elves called him Mithrandir "the grey wanderer (or pilgrim)", and so on.

None of these people knew who and what he really was, nor were they supposed to.

Looking at Gandalf's uses of magic you will find a few different things. He makes use of 'spells' on a few occasions, at other times he seems just to do things of magical nature, he also makes reference to words of command.

The first point to understand is that middle earth is a magical world. Most of the ancient cultures viewed nature itself, the world around them as magical. Tolkien picks that up and runs with it. Thus the dwarves have a kind of magic which is what we might call 'technology'. Their magic is based on skill with tools, and knowledge of technique.

The elves have a kind of magic which is similar to the dwarves, but it is different in the same way that art is different from technology. They both involve skill and knowledge yet there are significant differences. Thus the elves are able to make many items which have "magical" powers, like the dwarves are, and even much more powerful than the dwarves are capable of. What is really involved is not 'supernatural power' in the strictest sense, but harnessing of nature either through art, or technology.

In addition to that, the elves have a distinctly spiritual element which is mixed with their natural arts. There are two broad groups of elves in Middle earth. Those who went to valinor and those who didn't. The ones who never went to valinor have all the artistry, though probably not as developed, but they have very little of the same spiritual power that the other elves do.

the high elves, Elrond, Galadriel, etc are those who have connections to valinor. They literally lived among angels and in the imperishable light from before the world. The result is that they have significant spritual understanding, insight, and power which they have mixed with their artistry.

So, when Gandalf stands before the gates of Moria and recites all the spells in the tongues of elves, and dwarves, ever used for securing a door, the way it should be understood is that dwarves and elves, in their technology, and artistry made use of words to control things like doors etc. Gandalf is trying to figure out what word they used to govern the door.

An important note here is that we can get confused by the language involved. Tolkien was an expert on language and words. When he used a word like 'spell' he knew exactly what it meant, where it came from etc, and he used it to mean something sepecific.

To us, the word 'spell' just means he invoked magic power. What the word spell actually means is a spoken word or words. It derives from the ancient german "to speak" and in old english spell meant spoken words. The word 'gospel' is an example of this. It means good news. News was communicated verbally, it was spoken words, a message, so the word god spell, which meant "good words" eventually evolved into gospel, or "good news".

the reason spell came to mean invoking a magic power was because the ancients, down through the medieval world beleived that spoken words were powerful, particularly names. Thus when some one 'cast a spell' what it literally meant was they were "throwing words" Casting spells was quite literally just saying the right words to invoke some response.

tolkien knew that, and thats how he used it.

So when Gandalf was trying to open the doors of Moria, he was essentially just trying to figure out what the 'password' was.

Gandalf frequently was known for using magic related to fire. Many of his magic tricks, his fireworks, the words he spoke during the warg attack before Moria etc, were all fire related.

The reason for this is that he secretly posessed the elven ring of fire. The three elven rings each related to an element. Water, Air, and Fire. Elrond's ring was water, which is why he was able to control the river at the fords of Bruinen. Galadriel's ring was air. In addition to that the elven rings had more abstract, subtle powers, such as slowing the passage of time, or at least lessening the impact of change which always comes with time.

Gandalf was able to exercise control over fire, because he had the elven ring of fire.

In most of the other cases Gandalf either uses persuasive power to bring hope to people and courage. Or he invokes spiritual power such as when he fights the balrog and he invokes his authority as an angel, a minister of God, or when he wards off the Nazgul outside of Minas Tirith with a peircing ray of white light.

Lets look at Gandalf and the Balrog, since both are angelic beings.

In the original confrontation, Gandalf senses the presence of the balrog through a door that gandalf is trying to hold shut. Gandalf said that he used a shutting spell, (ie a shutting word) on the door. The balrog perceived gandalf and his spell, and countered it with one of his own. So Gandalf was forced to use a word of command.

What is going on there is a battle of authority. Gandalf attempted to shut the door by using his authority to command it to be shut. The balrog came up and matched Gandalf with his own spiritual power, ordering the door to open.

Gandalf, in response utters a word of command, which appears to be something above and beyond his own normal authority. the result is so great a release of power that the door shatters and the whole room on the other side colapses.

My conception of it is that Gandalf first used his own authority, then resorted to invoking God's authority, or at least the authority of something significantly higher than himself.

Then again on the bridge. Gandalf informs the balrog that he is a servant of the secret fire, a weilder of the flame of Anor.

this reference is not explained in the Lord of the Rings, but in the silmarillion it is found that the Flame of Anor is the fire that God sent to burn at the heart of the world, it is the fire that gave being to all things. God had thought up the entire creation, and history, and then when he wanted it to come into being, he sent forth the flame imperishable which became the foundation fo the world, of existence itself.

To me a comparison to the Holy Spirit is inescapable. The Spirit of God, linked repeatedly to fire, which energized the creation when He hovered, or 'vibrated' over the face of the deep.

so with that view, Gandalf is essentially telling the Balrog, a fallen angel, that he is facing up agaisnt someone who is a servant of and wields the power and authority of God and he may not pass.

Now, many christians would then say, why does gandalf have to fight so much, why isn't the balrog instantly banished etc.
In answer I would point out the reference in Daniel where Gabriel battles the prince of persia (a fallen angel principality). The prince of persia battles Gabriel for something like 21 days. Even though gabriel is on a divine mission from God. Only when Michael came to help him was Gabriel able to even get past. Even then they did not outright defeat the prince of persia, and Gabriel was on his way back to join the fight again.

Spiritual warfare is not as simple or clean cut as many christians would like to imagine it. Again look at Jesus exchange with his disciples when they could not cast out a demon. He told them that particular kind of demon did not come out "except by prayer and fasting". In otherwords, unless the person attempting to cast that spirit out had actively followed the disciplines of prayer and fasting, they would likely not be able to cast that spirit out.

In other instances the disciples had no such difficulty despite the fact that they had not been fasting etc.

Another common question is why isn't God more visible in the Lord of the Rings. Even in the Silmarillion God is portrayed clearly in the creation story, then rarely referenced anymore.

I think the answer is that Tolkien wanted to portray the subtlety of real life. God is rarely obviously visible in real life. Only those who specifically look ever really see his hand at work.
Jesus said to nicodemus, that people can see and feel the effects of the wind, but they don't know where it is coming from, nor where it is going.

Thats how it is with God. When we look, we can see the effects of his work, and we can feel it, but we can't see him, and his ways are mysterious. We rarely understand why he does, or doesn't do things, until long after the fact.

I think that is exactly what Tolkien is portraying. If you look in the Lord of the Rings, and related works you will find hints here and there, such as Gandalf telling Frodo "there was another power at work, all I can tell you is that bilbo was meant to find the ring, and not by its maker. In that case you too were meant to have it" (paraphrased).

The whole predominating theme of the story is providence. The quest, the central plot point of the story is stated over and over again to be impossible under the power of the characters. They CAN NOT accomplish it on their own. Gandalf keeps pushing them, despite the fact that they can't succeed in their own power, he keeps pushing them to do everything they can, and do what is right, and trust that in the end, providence will carry them through.

Consider how the story ends. It ends with failure. At the last, at the key moment, the cusp of temptation, Frodo fails. He gives in and tries to poses the ring. It is only providence that brings success.. and from the most unlikely source imaginable. Gollum of all people completes the quest.. and he does so despite desiring, and intending to do the exact opposite.

The lesson is that although we have freedom of will, God's plan always comes to pass. Gollum did what he willed, but it still served God's purpose. Frodo failed, but it didn't stop God's plan. In the end, it all worked together like precision clock work. You may call it fate, but when set in the context of Tolkien's world, it is clearly God.

then when you have that in mind, jump back and consider the role of Gollum, particularly his interactions with bilbo and frodo.. both had the chance to kill him, and though he deserved death, they showed him pitty and even tried to save him. Their kindness and pity, was used by God to save the whole world. Even though gollum was a lost cause, and it seemed they would only receive grief for their kindness, God used it to save the world from darkness and domination.

That to me has always made the moment in moria where Gandalf says to frodo "before this is over, the pity of Bilbo, may rule the fate of many", one of the most potent moments of the movies.

It is clear that Tolkien deliberately used the imagery of northern european mythology. Yet he also deliberately cast it in the context of his own christian beliefs. That is why he himself said that the Lord of the Rings was a specifically christian story.

when I read the Lord of the Rings, I find it to be a many layered tapestry of insights and truths. In addition to that, it has impacted me on a level that awakens vision, rather than just communicating fact. I can honestly say, for good or for ill, JRR Tolkien has been probably the single greatest influence, aside from scripture, in shapping my worldview.

The Lord of the Rings (Imagination part II)

2007-05-18T08:20:00.000-07:00

I grew up in a time when two great occult scares gripped the evangelical christian community. One was rock music and occult back masking. The other was fantasy role playing games, and by extension anything fantasy related.

I've been interested to see the degree to which things have changed. I remember a time when even Keith Green was viewed as dangerously upbeat music and anything resembling "rock" be it christian or not was satanic to the core.

While you occasionally still run into a few people who think Christian music is too worldly, or even someone who believes that certain beats are inherently evil, for the most part Christian music of all types is accepted.

Likewise, fantasy literature has experienced a great increase of acceptance in the Christian community. The popularity of books like Eragon are an example of this. Granted Harry Potter has drawn the ire of many in the Christian community, and admittedly its promotion of 'witchcraft' is problematic given that witchcraft is an actual real religion.

The works of J.R.R. Tolkien, and C.S. Lewis have long been accepted in the christian community, despite the fantasy scare of the 80's. Lewis has always been more accepted and more popular because his works are more blatantly and obviously christian. It is nearly impossible to miss the connections between the gospel and the stories set in Narnia.

In the evangelical community, Tolkien has not been well known until recently. He was usually accepted to some degree, though more often questioned and challenged. It was only with the advent of the Peter Jackson movies based on Tolkien's Lord of the Rings that he began to rival Lewis for widespread exposure in the Christian community.

There are several issues with Tolkien's work that are the source of the questions and opposition it has faced in the Christian community. The most commonly raised objection with Tolkien is his use of magic in various forms throughout his stories, and his world.

The real issue, in my opinion, is that Tolkien's stories do not blatantly, or even clearly represent the themes present in the stories. Particularly themes like God, and Christ, etc. Lewis makes use of magic, and mythological creatures, just as Tolkien does, but he gets more of a pass on that score because of the fact that his stories more blatantly portray the gospel and have clear representations of Christ.

The question usually raised with the Lord of the Rings is "if its really Christian, why isn't it more obvious?"

The first, and most basic answer is that it isn't more obvious because Tolkien himself disliked obvious stories. He thought them unimaginative and boring to read. This is a matter of personal taste. For example, I recently went to the movie Spiderman 3. I enjoyed the movie. My friend thought it was terrible. The primary reason he disliked the movie was because the plot was not subtle, it left nothing to mind of the audience. It explained everything in obvious narrative detail. To me, this was ok because I was just looking for something to be entertained by. It totally ruined the movie for my friend because it didn't engage his mind. He felt like he was being beaten over the head with the director's views, rather than allowed to find the message himself.

This is why Tolkien really didn't like the Chronicles of Narnia, and he actually thought that Lewis was going to embarass himself by having the stories published. Not because they were Christian, but because they were, in Tolkien's opinion, the literary equivalent of a club to the head. It turns out that Tolkien was wrong about the reception of the Narnia stories. They have become loved classics. Yet they are distinctly childish stories, as Lewis intended, and don't get much attention or 'play' among adult audiences.

While the hobbit was primarily a Children's story, and the Lord of the Rings began with the intent to be a children's story, Tolkien's world and his ideas about literature were never intended to be for children.

This phenomenon is seen in other forms of writing as well. Most of the great works of political philosophy down through the ages have been very subtle in that they are hard to figure out. The author deliberately cloaks his ideas. This serves two purposes.
Often such authors sought to hide their ideas for the purpose of protecting themselves from persecution. Yet, another very crucial aspect was that the process of thinking about the issues, and trying to understand what was being said, was half the point. Getting people to ask the right questions, and have the right thought process was often times more the point than presenting people with a set of answers. A big reason for this is that when you tell people answers, they may accept them, but they don't really "own" them usually. In order for people to really make an idea their own, they have to think about it and come to understand it on their own.
This is one of the great problems with out current education system as well. Just telling people facts doesn't make them intelligent. In order to truly educate people, you have to make them question and think, not just accept a laundry list of facts.

Now, Tolkien's primary purpose was to tell a story. It must be remembered that the animosity towards mythology and 'magic' is a relatively recent phenomenon in the Christian community. There have obviously been witch hunts and scares before, and the occult has always been opposed in practice. However, mythology was never until recently recognized as occult, and folklore (which is essentially what fantasy is) was never thought of as occult until recently.

Thus the fact that Tolkien, Lewis, and their lesser known friends made liberal use of mythology and folklore (which includes 'magic') is not surprising when put in context. They did not consider such things to be occult. In their minds they were just writing fairy tales the same as Hans Christian Anderson, or the brothers Grimm, except better.

One illustration of this is somewhat ironic. Tolkien and Lewis had another friend who was a christian as well, but he had a tendancy to write mystery stories that involved elements of spiritism (demonic activity, seances etc). Tolkien was very concerned by this and considered it to be a dangerous preoccupation with the occult.

The major issue of contention is thus that the more modern evanglical community considers mythology and folklore to be inherently demonic. People before our time, for the most part, did not. Even going back to the early church, false gods have always been recognized as false, yet it was recognized by many that even 'pagan' mythology contained a great deal of truth. If you remove the worship of false gods, what remains for the most part are stories about the nature of man, the question of fate, the purpose of life, the desire for freedom, and for redemption. All things that people need to think about, and ask questions about. If you begin to look in depth at mythology you can find a shocking amount of insight and observations of life and the world.

It is intriguing that almost every element of both Christianity and Judaism can be found paralleled in mythology and folklore. Many people use this to try and attack christianity as a 'copy cat'. Tolkien and Lewis, and many christians down through the ages recognized a powerful truth in this fact. This fact is actually a powerful testament to the truth of Christianity.

What this means is that all mankind has essentially known from the very beginning the truth of God's plan for redemption. Moreover, it is the hope that all mankind has held out, the desire they have looked for.
Mythology is the expression of man's hopes, dreams, his longings, his fears, and his sorrows. It communicates with people on a powerful level because its themes are drawn from our very soul. Tolkien and Lewis recognized this and they saw in it an amazing thing about Christianity, a powerful truth about Christianity. Christianity is the myth that is fact.

Christianity has all the power of myth. It has everything that every other myth has, and on top of that, it is literally, historically true.

However, we live in an age when myth has died. It has been killed by sterile reason. Not only the myths of ancient cultures etc, but the mythic aspects of Christianity as well. Even the ability to be touched by the power of myth has been blunted because 'scientific rationalism' has crippled that part of us which functions in the realm of imagination and myth.

The philosophy of modernism has made far more insidious incursions into all of us than we realize. Consider for a moment the efforts of creation researchers to prove the flood, and the creation, or the efforts of various books and TV shows to defend how various miracles could have happened.
What most never realize is that even we, as Christians, have been bound into playing the game of the 'rationalists'. It is not enough to point to evidence that these events may have actually happened. Almost invariably the Christian groups feel compelled to suggest natural processes which could account for the events in question. The miracles could have happened by this natural process, or that natural process. The flood could have followed this natural process or that.

The simple truth, which we can not accept in our modern rationalism, is that things don't have to have happened by natural process. There simply is no logical reason why everything has to be naturally explainable. This is one of the KEY differences between post-modernism, and the ancient/medieval model. The ancient/medieval thought process fully accepts logic, but it recognizes that the world has more dimensions than just physical nature. Modernism rejected the idea that there was anything other than the 'natural' or 'material' world. We as Christians are supposed to believe in the supernatural, yet all our efforts are spent trying to explain how the supernatural could naturally have happened. We do not need to reject logic, we need to reject a rationalism which is based on the idea that something must be seen to be believed. It must be observed, to be real. Ironically, the core of modernistic philosophy is a self contradiction. It is the idea that it is wrong to believe that which can not be proven. Yet that idea itself can not be proven. Post-modernism is, in its 'main-stream' form, a rejection not of materialism, or naturalism, but of reason and logic. Reason and logic, however, were never the real problem. It is reason founded upon materialism which is the real problem.

Granted there may be varient elements of post-modernism which are divergent from that, especially within Christian circles. Yet the forms of post-modernism which have taken the academic world by storm and which are making the greatest in roads into society are the forms which are founded upon the rejection of logic, and the rejection of external, objective meaning.

One of the results of this rationalistic straight jacket is that it has stripped our faith of all mystical and mythical aspects.

Now, in response to some of my recent comments Jonathan made a point about the danger of replacing solid theology with ambiguous subjective imaginations etc. This is a valid point. There is a great deal of danger along the path when we begin to seek experience and meaning that is essentially 'mystical' in nature. In my studies on contemplative Christianity this was very clear. Many who try to embrace this aspect of Christianity end up with all sorts of problems because they are leaving the secure forms of theology and delving into the shifting current of subjective experience. This is also evident in the history of Christianity. Christian mystics have often enough gone off into error and deception.

The word mystic, or mysticism means internal experience. Something which is known, or experienced internally rather than in an objective external way.
The problem is that we face a catch 22. On the one hand, it is easy to get caught up in subjectivity and decieve yourself. On the other hand, knowledge ABOUT God, no matter how accurate, is a very poor substitute for knowledge OF God.

It is often said that Christianity is not a religion, its a relationship. The second half of the comment is absolutely correct. Christianity is primarily about relationship. Evangelicals, of course, all know this mantra. Yet few enough of us actually live it when push comes to shove. I've had a "personal relationship" which Jesus as long as I can remember, yet I can count the times in my life, without running out of fingers, when I have truly experienced God. I suspect that the same is true of many others.
Relationship is by nature subjective. Relationship with God, is necessarily mystical.

I can not stress this enough, but the above statement CAN NOT be misunderstood to mean that God is within us, or that we must seek God within ourselves, or any such humanistic, new age blather. It does mean that we can only truely experience God, or relate to God through spirit, and spirit is mystical. Its not allegorical, its not symbolic, its very real, but it is ultimately subjective and internal.
Jesus said that he and his Father would come and abide in us. That is a mystical truth. All of this is essential to our relationship with God and our knowledge of God... and all of it is laid waste by the materialistic rationalism of the modern worldview.

So we must seek that deeply personal, internal experience of God. Yet at the same time we must keep ourselves within the bounds of orthodox theology. It isn't one or the other, both are necessary.

In the end this situation is directly analogous to the relationship between love and truth. Love is the most important, but it is impossible to have love without truth. Likewise it is impossible to really have the truth without love.

We can not have true theology if our experience of God is sterile and impersonal. We also can not really know God and truly experience Him if we believe all sorts of falsehoods about him. If we believe wrong things about God, it very quickly becomes idolatry because we begin to worship our own image of God, rather than God as he really is.

In order to keep my posts of at least somewhat reasonable length, I'm going to split this one up. The next section will deal primarily with a more indepth analysis of the Lord of the Rings. It should be forth coming with in the next day or two.

The Importance of Imagination

2007-05-10T20:43:00.000-07:00

When most people think of imagination they think of kids at play, or maybe day dreaming in an office cubicle. Generally the word conjures thoughts of escapism, wasting time, and indulging oneself in un-reality.

What would you say if I told you that imagination is one of the most powerful parts of the human capacity for thought? and communication?

Certainly most will admit upon more thought, that imagination is at the root of all invention, most art work and creative endeavours. Most would not think of this, but imagination is crucial in most scientific inquiry as well. This is at least partially because the capacity for wonder, which motivates the best science, and the capacity for abstract thought are both closely linked to imagination.

The importance of all those things can hardly be over estimated. Yet there is something deeper that I want to get at. Something about imagination which I think is even more important. This has to do with vision, and communication.
One of the most important things in any human life is vision. God has said in the scriptures, of course, that without a vision, the people perish. This is fairly obvious in the facts of life as well. Life without vision becomes nothing more than an endless string of days bound together by monotony and drudgery. This knowledge is so common and so routinely referenced that it has become cliche. We see on a daily basis, people around us who exist, but do not live. They go through the motions of life, but everything has become blah, and routine.

One of the most famous statements of this affliction was from Marie Antoinette - "Nothing tastes".

This is the affliction of people who do not have vision. Not only " a vision" as in a goal, or a driving desire to accomplish something, but even "vision" in general. The ability to see.
Throughout history we can put forward dozens upon dozens of examples of people who have had "A vision". People consumed with passion to accomplish a goal, to achieve something. Life certainly had meaning for them. Yet even that aside there is just 'vision' itself. The ability to see.

The world we live in is a marvelous, wonderful place... wonderful in the true sense of the word. Full of wonders. Our world is magical, life is magical. Those who exist but do not live have lost the ability to see the true reality of the world around them. They have lost their vision.

A person with vision can see each sunset as a moment of such poignant beauty that words fail to describe it. A person with vision can watch the stars and begin to grasp the ungraspable concept of infinite wonder.

A person without vision can look at a thousand sunsets and see nothing but the end of another day with the promise of more drudgery tomorrow. They can see a thousand starry nights and see nothing but what they didn't get that day, or how early work will come tomorrow.

I have called it vision.. but it could as well be called revelation. The opening of ones eyes to see a reality that escapes most people.
This ability to see rests in the human capacity of imagination.

Most people think of imagination as the ability to see what isn't really there. Ironically those who view imagination only in this way often fall prey to a 'reason' that is most accurately described as the ability to not see what is really there.

It is on the level of imagination that vision is communicated, it is on the level of imagination that our eyes are opened to see new revelations of the true reality in which we live.

What would you say if I told you that perhaps the two most influential christian authors in recent history were J.R.R. Tolkien, and C.S. Lewis?

There have been many authors who have written reams upon reams of theology, and motivational books without end. Yet I would wager that none of them have even come close to speaking to as many people, or speaking with such profound impact as Tolkien and Lewis.
If I said this to many people I know they would laugh me off. How could fantasy novels by influential, or speak profoundly?? The somewhat ironic answer I would give is that they are almost the only kind of books that can!

It is the imaginative part of us that makes things profound. That is where we receive and interact with vision.

Aside from being a fan of Tolkien and Lewis, I am amazed by the clarity of vision they possessed regarding the times in which they lived. They recognized half a century ago the problems and evils of the 'modernist' mindset that had engulfed the world. They recognized the perils attached to a worldview that largely shunned imagination and defined itself by naturalistic realism. Only the visible natural world exists. Only that which can be proven, can be believed.
They recognized then that reason, devoid of imagination and ultimately faith, became unreasonable. They recognized that the core of modernist philosophy inherently and inevitably destroyed vision.
What is more they deliberately set out to combat the philosophy they loathed. While they did not write their fantasy to make statements (that is exactly what modernists would do, and the very type of thing they both loathed), in their fantasies and fictions, they told truth. The conveyed vision. Not agendas, not causes, not propaganda, not moralistic message. Vision, nothing more, nothing less. Vision of life, of the world, of truth.

In his tales of middle earth, Tolkien communicated a vision of our world, more accurate, and real than a dozen scientists who know all about atoms and thermodynamic laws, but nothing about forests and stars and the full moon rising on a foggy night.

Lewis, in a single phrase about "death working backwards" conveyed more vision of redemption than a horde of Harvard M.Div's writing essays on legal justification.

We are currently living at the cusp of a philosophical struggle, when one dominant philosophy is on the verge of being over thrown by a revival. The modernist philosophy which began in the enlightenment and the scientific revolution (and probably the reformation too) is in the struggle of its life with the somewhat unimaginatively named "post-modernism".

Post-modernism is, in many ways, a rejection of the very things that Tolkien and Lewis despised about the modernist worldview. Those dry, vision less ideas have failed. They have utterly failed to provide what people really need. The problem is that post-modernism goes to far in its reaction to the failure of modernism. Both Tolkien and Lewis were medievalists. They were not only scholars of medieval history, language, culture, and literature, they held a medieval world-view. That is likely to be misunderstood by people today who have a rather inaccurate, backward view of 'medieval'. What that meant to Tolkien and Lewis (who understood medieval history and worldview) was a worldview that consists of a marriage between reason and imagination. Each in their proper place.
Post modernism, on the other hand, tends to go overboard in its rejection of reason. Logic and reason were the gods of modernism. The unquestionable arbiters of truth and meaning. Thus in post modernism, logic and reason are viewed as subjective and largely meaningless. Thus it becomes questionable whether anyone can truly know anything.

So, as is the world's wont, it will likely move from one philosophy which stifles vision, to another which relegates truth itself to subjective, isolated, experience devoid of external meaning. Conditions under which vision, also, can not thrive.

In response to Jonathan's comment

2007-02-18T18:54:00.000-08:00

Jonathan,

Begining at the end of your comment, it certainly is possible that I am doing exactly the thing that I lay at the feet of calvinists. I've done it in the past, and I have little doubt that I'll do it again in the future. Trying to prove our own rightness and defend what we have invested ourselves in is a strong impulse of human nature. Also, it is extremely unsettling to get to a point at which you seriously question doctrines upon which you have built your faith.

I know because I've been there. In my journey thus far I have, on at least three different occasions, faced serious challenges to my faith. Challenges of the earth shaking variety.

People, including myself, tend to build their faith on the doctrines they are taught. Thus when the particular body of doctrine to which we adhere is brought into question, it shakes your entire faith. I was raised non-denominational Charismatic, my doctrinal views were decidedly arminian.

The first great challenge I faced was when I entered college. I was raised as a young earth creationist and in my first semester at secular state college I took anthropology which was of course a class on evolution. I was raised to be intellectually honest, which meant that I could not simply dismiss everything I was being presented with. It was an incredible challenge because the amount of 'evidence' and the arguments presented were staggering and far far more impressive than I had ever been prepared for in creation science classes.

At first I was rocked back on my heels. I was forced to question the foundations of everything I believed, and re-evaluate my faith.

It took a long time, and alot of learning and thought to resolve that crisis once and for all.

The second great challenge I faced was when I went to a christian leadership conference called The Summit, in Colorado Springs. While there I sat in on lectures and discussions from a fellow who was part of the reformed church and he was a preterist as well. He was a very intelligent fellow and did a very good job of shredding both charismatic teaching, and arminian teaching.

He did a very good job of forcing the students to question their beliefs. As is typical in such situations most people come back with pat memorized answers, but little understanding of the topic other than the doctrines they have been trained in. The result was that many of the people were very angered because they couldn't answer the challenge, but were also unwilling to honestly consider the questions.

These discussions and lectures usually involved the students trying to support their doctrinal views by quoting proof texts from the bible. The same verses that they were taught to memorize and heard in sermons all the time. However in most cases, the teacher was able to show, or at least seriously question whether those verses were being taken out of context and whether they really meant something other than what the students were using them for.

The result for me personally was two fold. First I was forced to seriously question, and even reject some of the doctrinal beliefs I had held up to that point. Secondly it called into serious question the leaders who had been teaching me in church up to that point. After all, if they were teaching me bad doctrines, and had so misunderstood the word on a number of points... what else where they wrong about?

From this point on I was very often involved in debate and dicussion on theological issues. Over the next few years I actually took a very strong swing towards calvinism. For quite a while I referred to myself as a 4.5 point calvinist. I accepted all of the TULIP points except for irresistable grace and there for logically I also had to question perseverence of the saints. However, I didn't say they were incorrect completely, but that they were not necessarily always true. I believed that God could over rule human will when he wanted to (and I still do) and I believed that God would pursue his chosen to such a degree that it was nearly impossible for them to resist. Not that they could not exercise their will, but that God's persistance was such that anyone he persued would eventualy give in.

The reason I took that swing to calvinism was because I was very much into the intellect, and logic, and reasoning. Calvinism is very logical, and very reasonable. I pretty easily recognized in my conversations with different people, and my experiences in church that calvinism was usually far superior logically and intellectually to what most of the arminian church had to offer.

So, I strongly leaned towards calvinism.

Over the course of years, as I studied logic and philosophy more, and studied scripture more, I eventually began to see things in the reasoning and logic of Calvinism which didn't jive. Alot of what I began to see revolved around the fact that things simply aren't as cut and dry as calvinism presents them.

I remember that the transition away from calvinism for me especially began when I started running across arguments and teachings that denied, or interpeted away the face value of scriptures because they didn't fit with the logical construction of doctrine that the person in question had built up.

For example. In the scriptures dealing with the tower of babel it says that God came down and visited the site of the tower of babel to see what the people were doing. I ran across alot of arguments that would run like this...

"well this is an example where the scriptures were written from a human perspective so the ancient primitives could understand it. God didn't really come down and visit because God has no need to do so, he is omniscient, and omnipresent. Therefore it is silly to think that he would come down in order to find out whats going on at the tower of babel. Thus this passage must be understood as a consession to the inability of the ancients to understand such concepts."

That is pretty sound reasoning logically. The problem is it doesn't sit well with me. It is first, very arrogant in presuming that the ancients were incapable of the level of understanding we have today. Most of the time I have found the opposite to be true; the ancients had much better understanding and insight than we do. Secondly, I can agree that God didn't need to come down and visit in order to find out what was going on, and it still doesn't mean that he didn't do so, or that we must therefor believe the scripture doesn't really mean what it says.

Maybe God just wanted to come down and visit. When he judged Sodom, he came down and not only visited the city, but stopped to visit abraham before hand.. he didn't have to do that either.

That is just one illustration. The same principle applies in many cases.. infact I would almost go so broad as to say "across the board".

Calvinism routinely re-interpets scripture as mere anthropomorpic refrences which are essentially condescensions to mans inability to understand God's true nature (until of course the arrival of Calvinism).
Any point in scripture which talks about man making a choice to follow God, any scripture which talks about people departing the faith, or believers being decieved etc etc. All of those become essentially meaningless as they are infact talking about things that are impossible.

When you really logically apply calvinism out to the Nth degree practically the entire new testament becomes an exercise in redundancy. Warnings about things which can't happen, exhortations to do things which you have no choice about.

Calvinism is philosophically deterministic. Calvinism relies upon the argument of God's sovereignty. They say that God's sovereignty does not allow free will. Ok, but if this is true, it must be applied uniformly. Calvinists run into problems here. They will say that in terms of salvation God is sovereign and thus there is no free-will.. but of course people have free will in everything else they do. They decide to sin, they decide what to eat when they get up in the morning etc.

The problem is that this ruins their own argument. If God's sovereignty can allow free-will in all those things, why can't it allow free will in salvation? Or is God simply not sovereign over all of life?

Then as I pointed out previously.. determinism works philosophically, and logically.. it really can't be defeated in the purely philosophical realm, but it just doesn't work in the practical realm and it so obviously doesn't work in real life that almost no one except extreme cases really ever beleive deterministic philosophies when it comes time to run their lives.

Ironicly the only places you will find many true believers in determinism is in Islam and Hinduism.

So, those are the things I began to see and question. So I was at a point where I was hanging somewhere between calvinism and arminianism, and really questioning alot of what I was seeing within the charismatic church.

Then came the third big shake up. I was thuroughly protestant and evangelical my whole life. Then I came to a point at which I was drawn into conversations regarding the traditional churches, and the historical church. In the coarse of my investigations there I found that much of what I had been taught about the historical church and the traditional churches was either based on misunderstanding, or in some cases it was simply wrong.

At this point I had spent years learning and studying doctrine and theology. I was forced to face up to the question, was everything I had invested so much time in, foundationally flawed?

Through that question and the related journey, I have learned a great deal. Things that never made sense before in scripture, began to make sense, and fall into place. I'm still working on this one :)

The point of the little autobiographical section here is to point out that I have looked at Calvinism (as well as a couple other view points) from the inside. I've not just looked at them from the outside, trying to find ways to defeat them, or to defend my own position.

There have been times when I've dismissed other people's view points without much consideration because they seemed rediculous etc. However, when presented with reasonable argument and evidence, I have made a habit of trying to consider opposing view points honestly. In a number of cases I have ended up changing my own beliefs because in my judgement the opposing positions turned out to be the truer.

For example, there are some points on which I still agree with standard calvinist teaching. The main one is on the idea that a person can not come to God, unless God first calls that person. Humanity in an unregenerate state is incapable of understanding, or approaching God. As Paul said, no man can even say Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit. I agree with this position because it is clear in scripture, and it is not contradicted in scripture.

I have yet to find any 'school' of theology or doctrine which I would consider completely accurate in its vision, or model of how everything works in scripture. Most have some merits, but all that I have seen also have contradictions in scripture.
The problem that I was addressing when I suggested that Calvinists often defend their view point rather than seeking to find the truth is a problem that occures with every school of doctrine. The heart of this problem is that when someone devoted to a particular school of doctrine runs into a contradiction in scripture, they seek to explain it away rather than really questioning their doctrine.
There are clearly instances in which apparent contradictions can be solved through coming to a better understanding of a given passage. That is where judgement comes in. Is the interpetation of a given passage really better? or is it just what's required to make a given view point work?

In the examples I mentioned in my original post, from 2nd Peter and Ezekiel regarding God's desire that none should perish, the calvinists have an answer to these verses. They interpet the verses to refer only to the elect and not to all people. Their interpetation here, as I said originally, is possible. I, however, don't think it is the correct interpetation. I don't think it is the best interpetation. It is, however, a necessary interpetation if the calvinist view is to remain viable.

The heart of this issue is the nature of God, and his intention for salvation. Does God desire the torment and destruction of some people? Does God create people specificly to send them to hell? Did God intend salvation to be for all men, or only for a select few that he randomly chose?

We can find verses which seem to suggest both. Frankly its easy for either side to proof text this argument, and its easy for either side to re-interpet the proof texts the other side offers.

I already know that there are virtually no verses or passages I could quote that Calvinism doesn't have an answer, or an alternative interpetation of. I have heard them all before. The issue is that I simply don't agree with many of them.

Lets go back to what I believe to be the core of this issue, God's attitude towards humanity. This is a topic that is a focus for the entire bible. In this debate we can toss back and forth a few proof texts about predestination, and I will look at the passage you cited from Romans, but the real issue is not a few verses here and there... its the entire body of scripture. Does the entire body of scripture tell you that God desires the destruction of men, or does it tell you that he desires the salvation of men? Does it tell you why God destroys some and saves others?

This is an interesting discussion if for no other reason than it raises questions and scriptures that stretch the limits of doctrine. There are verses involved here which appear to support the Calvinistic view. There are also verses involved here that appear to suggest universalism, a doctrine held by most to be not only wrong, but heretical.

For example, when considering what God's purpose was in the act of Christ's sacrifice, how can we ignore Romans 5 which tells us that just as all men died in Adam.. all men now live in Christ. Clearly the intention there is for all, not just all of a select group.
Add to that 1st Timothy 4:10 which says that God is "the savior of all men, especially of those who believe". Clearly this also indicates that God's intent was to make salvation available to... "all men".

Hebrews 2:9 "But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone."

In this verse the word "for" as in "he might taste death for everyone" means - 'on behalf of' or 'for the benefit of'. Again the indication is that God's intent in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, was to benefit everyone, all men, not just a special group of men.

Again, Calvinists undoubtedly have answers for these verses. The issue is, what is the best most honest interpetation of these verses?

There are dozens of doctrines, and revisions of doctrines which are based on the argument "well it COULD mean this..." With creative reasoning and argument a given text can be interpeted to mean MANY things. The question is not, what COULD it mean, but what is it intended to mean? What is the clear intent, the face value meaning of the text?

Going back to the verse in 2nd Peter which says that God is not willing that any should perish. The calvinists argue that this applies only to believers because Peter is writing to believers and he says that the delay of Jesus' return and judgement is due to God's longsuffering "towards you".

The argument is that Peter is talking to believers and telling them that God is delaying because he is long-suffering and doesn't want any believers to perish. This is a possible interpetation.

This to me does not fit as a common sense, clear intent meaning of the text. The first and most obvious point is that believers are already saved. There is no need to be long-suffering and delay for the sake of believers because they are already saved. The whole point of predestination is that God chose his elect from the foundations of the world, and that they are saved by no other fact than that he has chosen to show them mercy. Thus there is no need whatsoever for God to delay on our behalf. All the people who will ever be saved already are. Even if they are not born yet, they are saved.
If this verse really does apply to the elect, it clearly implies then, that it is possible for the elect to not be saved, unless God delays, waiting for them to respond to his grace. This is a contradiction with the rest of Calvinist teaching. According to Calvinist doctrine there is no involvement of human will in salvation.

Further, salvation, or "justification" in Calvinist doctrine is held to be "forensic" which means that a saved person is righteous, and "justified" simply because God has declared them to be so. Thus their response to God's grace is irrelevant. Calvinism, of course, teaches that santification follows justification. Anyone who is declared righteous by God will begin to live rightly in the process of santification as God works in them. However, technically this is unnecessary to salvation. A person could die before every showing any sign of sanctification and as long as God declared them to be justified, they would be saved. The idea of predestination is essentially that God declared his elect to be justified from the beginning of time. So technically a person does not even have to be born in order to be saved, so long as God declared them to be justified. The result is that this passage is redundant and unnecessary if understood within Calvinist framework.

I submit that the clear meaning of this verse is that God waits for people to be saved because he desires people to be saved, AND if he did not wait, some people who could be saved, would not be saved. I don't think the verse makes sense any other way. I further submit that if that understanding is true, it requires significant revision of Calvinist teaching.

I believe that this idea is more inline with the entirity of scripture and what it tells us about God.

So then lets look at Romans 9. This passage is often quoted in support of Calvinist teaching because it looks to support both the idea of predestination, and the idea that God creates some people specificly for the purpose of destroying them.

Paul begins the chapter talking about his distress at the fact that his people, Israel, have been cut off from God. This in itself should raise questions because of the fact that through out scripture to this point God has declared (remember forensic salvation) that Israel are his chosen people. He has called them over and over his Chosen and declared them to be his people. Yet this chapter begins by Paul lamenting that they have been cut off. If Calvinism is correct... how is this possible?

So far the only what I have seen this resolved by Calvinists is resorting to replacement theology. The Jews were set aside because the refrences to Israel in scripture are really referring to the church, not to the nation of Israel.

Paul, however, goes against this view in his initial statement of the chapter by clearly stating that the adoption (as the sons of God), the convenants, the patriarchs, and even Jesus Christ himself (after the flesh, or in his humanity) derives from their race. This is clearly a refrence to the physical genetic descendants of Abraham.

Paul then goes on to address the question (which is relevant to Calvinism) does this mean that God or his word have failed? Does the fact that the Jews were chosen, and have now been set aside mean that God or his word failed?

Paul says no, this doesn't mean God has failed because not everyone who is a genetic descendant is a true descendant of Abraham. He uses the examples of Ishmael, and Esau, contrasting them to Isaac, and Jacob. The point Paul makes is that mere genetic descent does not make one a member of the covenant. Membership in the covenant comes through the promise, or being a son of promise. Isaac and Jacob were the ones who carried the promise, sons of promise. Ishmael and Esau were not.

Paul goes on to ask the question... is this unjust? Is God being unjust by choosing Isaac, and Jacob, and not choosing Ishmael and Esau? Paul answers... "No, God is not being unjust because it is his perogative to show mercy, or not to show mercy." He goes on to address the question "If God determines these things by his own will, how can he find fault with those who are not part of the promise". Paul answers basicly saying "Can the pot say to the potter, why have you made me thus?" In other words, we who are the creation do not have the right to accuse or question the creator and what he does with his creation.

At this point things are looking pretty good for the Calvinists.

But then things start to get sticky again when Paul starts quoting from the Old Testament. He first quotes a passage from Hosea which talks about the gentiles being brought to salvation, being as Paul says, grafted in.
The first problem that becomes evident is that this passage from Hosea clearly states that the gentiles at one time were not God's people. In fact it says that God declared to them that they were not his people.

Surely this is a problem for the idea of both replacement theology, and the idea of pure predestination. The gentiles were declared not to be God's people and at some point, he declared that where as they had not been his people, now they are.

The real kicker though is at the end of the passage. Paul closes with this...

"30 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written,
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense;and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

Here Paul tells us why Israel was set aside, and why the gentiles have been brought in. Why?? In so doing he goes back to the whole point of this passage... the question "the jews were chosen and the gentiles were not... yet the gentiles attained righteousness and the jews did not... why?"

The answer is faith. The gentiles attained righteousness by faith, the Jews failed because they lacked faith. The clear indication is that the Jews did not fail and were not unfaithful because God rejected them, or did not choose them. Infact quite the opposite. He did choose them and they still failed. Rather they failed because they did not have faith, and because they did not have faith, God rejected them for the time being and brought in the gentiles.

This raises all sorts of problems for Calvinism. Of course they have their own interpetation of this passage as you are well aware. I just don't think that it addresses the intent of the passage.

The Jews were chosen, but they failed to attain what they sought because they did not have faith. The gentiles were NOT chosen, and they attained what they did NOT seek because they received in faith.

Now, look back at the two examples of those who were not chosen... Esau and Ishmael. According to the calvnist view, they are examples of vessels not made for glory, of people that God does not love. Go back in scripture and read the stories of Esau and Ishmael. Ask yourself the question.. does God love these men? Did he abandon them?

I think you will find that God did not desire their destruction, and he did not abandon them. He blessed them in fact.

That calls into question the idea that Paul is saying God actually makes people for the purpose of destroying them. I would submit that what Paul is doing there is addressing specific questions by taking them to their most absurd degree (props to D. Ketter on this point). Paul is addressing the questions "Is God unjust to have abandon the Jews who he once chose, and who tried to follow him?" "Is God unjust to give salvation to the gentiles who did not seek God, and were not chosen?" Paul makes his point by taking those questions to their most extreme and saying "even if God did completely abandon the Jews, even if he did make people for no other reason than to condemn them, he would still be Just because it is his right as the creator."

I don't think Paul is actually intending to say that God does this, or that this is part of God's character. Which is why, in every case he makes clear that the people God set aside, or the people God destroyed were not simply abandoned for no reason, but they failed through unbelief. In otherwords, they refused to believe God, and rejected God.. not the other way around.

It is especially note worthy in this context that Paul goes on to point out that God will eventually bring the Jews back and he will save them, even though in this passage he appears to compare them to 'vessels of wrath'.

The final example I'll look at in this passage is Pharoh. One of the greatest examples of predistination. God hardened pharoh's heart. God raised up pharoh in order to destroy him.

BUT :)

There are several scriptures that also tell us that Pharoh hardened his OWN heart...
Exodus 8:15, 8:32, 9:34, and 1st Sam. 6:6.

Interestingly the verse in 1st samuel is a warning to the Israelites not to harden their hearts as Pharoh and the egyptians did.

The verse which states that God raised pharoh up in order to demonstrate his power, does NOT say that God created pharoh for the purpose of destroying him, as Calvinism assumes. It says that God raised him up, which refers not to his creation but his coming to his position of power. God made him Pharoh for the purpose of demonstrating his power to the world.

The indication, when you consider all of the information is that God chose a man to become pharoh, he chose a man that he knew would resist him and harden his heart against God. He did this in order that God might show himself to the nations through his dealings with egypt under the leadership of this man.

I do not deny that God did harden pharoh's heart. I also do not deny that Pharoh hardened his own heart. I believe this is a clear indication that God's sovereign will works in cooperation with the human will which he gave us. God maintains his sovereignty, while allowing us freedom.

Pharoh is a stern warning, one that we find in other places in scripture. Seek ye the Lord while he may be found. Pharoh is an example of a person who hardened his heart to God, and hardened his heart through sin, the end result was that God took him, and used him to serve God's purposes. It seems likely that for Pharoh, he passsed the point at which God could be found.

Another similar statement to this is Jesus' statement "offenses must come, but woe to him by whom they come." It is ordained that bad things will happen, just as it was ordained by God that egypt would oppose God, and woe to the person who becomes the instrument of offense, just as it was woe to Pharoh that he became the instrument that God used to demonstrate his power.

clearly there is an element of predestination involved in this. Also there is clearly freedom.

I believe the indication of scripture as a whole is that God desires the salvation of all men and does not take joy even in the destruction of the wicked. We can cite proof texts back and forth, the calvinists can answer mine, and I can answer theirs. In the end you have to judge which view fits better with the scriptures not only each individual scripture, but the scriptures as a whole.

Eternal Salvation???

2007-02-07T15:29:00.000-08:00

One of the great debates in Christianity today is the question of whether or not a person can lose their salvation. Of those who believe that a Christian can not lose their salvation, there are generally two varieties. Variety #1 are the 5 point Calvinists who hold the doctrine of perseverance of the saints, sometimes also referred to as eternal security. Variety #2 are commonly referred to by the acronym OSAS, Once Saved Always Saved. I will look at each of these views in the course of this post.

My own belief on the matter is that it is possible to fall from grace. I don't particularly care for the phrase "lose salvation" because evokes images of misplacing something, like your car keys, or your remote control. As with any issue there are extremes on both sides and I must make clear that making mistakes and failing, even repeatedly doesn't cost a person their salvation. In the bible (proverbs if memory serves) it says that the righteous man is he who falls seven times and seven times gets up and continues on.

The issue is not that you fall, but whether or not you get up. Jesus also told the apostle Peter that we must forgive those who offend us seventy times seven. In otherwords, to the Nth degree. Can we imagine that God would do less?

Having said that there are simply too many statements in scripture which make it clear that we can fall from grace, for me to deny them. In addition to that, I find some of the views which hold eternal salvation to be both logically and theologically flawed.

The first point from scripture is that the scripture, both old and new testaments are repleat with warnings to guard faith zealously less we fall away, or be lead astray. In my opinion it defies reason to believe that the bible repeatedly warns us to be on our guard agaisnt something which is impossible, or that the bible repeatedly makes what would amount to idle threats.

I am well aware that no matter what veres I toss out to support my views here, there are plenty of counter arguments and counter interpetations. I've heard most of them, if not all. Some of them have some merits, but in my opinion, most of the ones I've seen are simply examples of what happens when people begin seeking to defend or prove their school of doctrine, rather than seeking the truth.

These are just a few refrences off the top of my head (paraphrased)...

Paul says - The Spirit speaks expressly that in the later days many shall depart from the faith, giving head to doctrines of devils and seducing spirits.

It is impossible to depart from a place you never were to begin with. If they are departing the faith, they must have been part of the faith.

Paul also tells Timothy to be diligent that he "not make a shipwreck" of his faith as some others had already done.

Paul, in Romans, compares Jesus to an olive tree. Jesus it he root, and the Jews were the natural branch. Paul tells us that God plucked out the natural branch and grafted a wild branch (the gentiles) into its place. Paul's main point in this is teaching on the relationship between Israel and the Church, but he adds another point important to our discussion here. He tells the Romans, essentially not to get cocky about being grafted in and says - if God plucked out the natural branch and put you, the wild branch, in you better believe he will also pluck you out if you fall into unbelief.

James tells us that we can be lured away by our desires, which give birth to sin, and sin gives birth to death. Remember that the unsaved are already dead in sin. James here can not be referring to them. Further it is crystal clear in the context of the chapter that James is writing to believers.

The writer of hebrews says, specificly using the word "brethern" making it clear that he is talking to beleivers, to beware lest an evil heart of unbelief take root in us and cause to depart from God. He also warns us to hold earnestly to what we have been taught "lest we drift away".

The list goes on and on. I believe that people should search these things out for themselves in the word. So my challenge to you is to read through the new testament specificly keeping in mind to watch for verses which warn believers about falling to unbelief, departing from the faith, and being decieved.

This topic naturally leads into a discussion of the human condition.. our fallen state, the nature of redemption etc. I will discuss those topics in my next post.

As I said earlier there are two general views which hold that a believer can not fall from grace. I will look first at the OSAS, once saved always saved, view. Some people who use this acronym may infact fall into the second group, neat catagorizations seldom work neatly in real life.

This group, in general, tend towards arminianism. That is to say they generally believe in free will and some degree of involvement of the human will in salvation. They believe that the believer chooses to accept Christ etc.
There are alot of variations but the two most common views in this group are...

#1 you can not lose your salvation because God's love is so great that once you make the choice to accept christ, no matter what you do after that point, God will not let you go and will forgive literally any act you commit or decision you make. They do not go so far as to say that we are "free to sin" because of grace, but they say that there is nothing you can do, including turning your back and rejecting God that will cause God to remove his grace. They usually teach that actions have temporal consequences.. if you do bad things it will make your life here worse, but it will never cost you your salvation.

#2 The second group are a slight variation which actually comes close to harkening back to one of the original heresies in the church. This group teaches that Christians can not sin because we are no longer under law and all things are lawful for us. Thus there are things you probably shouldn't do because its unwise, and its not what God wants, but it is not sin because there is no law by which it can be counted as sin anymore for the believer. Since you can't sin, you can't lose salvation.

At the risk of offending, neither of these views is very good, or reasonable. The first one ignores vast amounts of scripture, and along with that ignores large portions of God's character as revealed by scripture, turning God into some kind of celestial Dr. Phil/Oprah episode.

Its not that this view over estimates God's love, rather they really don't understand the nature of love, and don't have a biblical view of love. They do severly under estimate God's holiness and his justice.

The second view here is actually very similar to the heresy of the early church known as "nicolaitanism". This heresy is referred to in scripture. There is some debate as to what nicolaitanism was, but the only clear historical refrences we have tell us that it was a sect which followed teachings from the deacon Nicholas. Nicolaitanism was a form of gnosticism and taught that sins were carnal (of the physical flesh) , while the christian believer is spiritual. They taught that since sin was fleshly, while Christians were born again in spirit, walked by the spirit, and salvation was of the spirit, sins which were carnal did not affect, or touch the spirit. Thus they taught that christians were free to engage in any carnal sin without fear or concern for any spiritual or eternal consequences.
If you look for the nicolaitans in scripture you'll find them referred to in revelation and you'll find that Jesus says he hates their teachings.

Both of these views are born largely out of drastic short-falls in understanding the basic issue of the fall of man, and our redemption from the fallen state. If you go back into the traditional churches, and look prior to the reformation you will find that there was a great deal of understanding on the fallen state of man, and redemption which has simply been ignored, lost, and forgotten by most of the protestant world. I'll go into that in my next post.

That leaves the other major camp of people that believes it is impossible to fall from grace. This group is the Calvinists. John Calvin was one of the main figures of the protestant reformation. Calvinism today is usually defined or summed up by the "5 points" of calvinism. The 5 points are represented by the anagram T.U.L.I.P.

Total depravity - man is totally depraved in his fallen state and unable to even seek God

Unconditional Election - The elect (believers) are chosen by God based soley on his discression and it has nothing to do with any merit or participation on our part.

Limited Attonement - Christ attoning sacrifice is only applicable, or effective for those whom God chooses to be among the elect (ie believers).

Irresistable Grace - When God chooses a person he gives them saving grace, and they can not choose to reject it. If God chooses to save someone, they have no choice in the matter.

Perseverence of the saints - When God chooses someone and makes them one of the elect, he also preserves them and upholds them without fail, thus they can never fall from grace.

Now, the Calvinist view is by far the more logical and harder to refute of the two Eternal Security views. The Calvinist view is internal consistent logically, and it has many supporting verses in scripture. The problem is that there are also many contradicting verses in scripture. Calvinists would, of course, disagree and they have plenty of arguments to explain away any verse their opponents bring up. After all, this debate has been going on for 500 years or so. After that amount of time there really aren't any surprises left.

There are three big problems for Calvinism.

#1 the bible has many verses and examples which clearly support, or even require the idea of free-will and human choice.

#2 Calvinism requires that God desires to send people to hell, the bible tells us clearly that God does not desire to send people to hell

#3 Calvinism works in the world of philosophy, it does not work in the real world. In the world of philosophy you can argue free-will verses determinism etc.. but in the real world you still have to make your own choices. The simple fact is that we live out free will every day, pondering whether you really make your own choices becomes a foolish pointless exercise in sophism when you stand in the moment trying to decide.

A.W. Tozer, who technically agreed with calvinist teachings on this matter pointed out in his book persuit of God that while Calvinist teaching may be technically correct (a point I would not entirely agree with) it is not conducive to producing great saints. The reason being that it is not practical. It doesn't help anyone make right choices, or motivate them to take action, or challenge them to take responsability for their lives.

On problem #1 for Calvinism, The bible clearly has passages which support predestination. I don't deny this, or try and explain them away. The bible ALSO clearly has passages which state free-will. I don't deny them either or explain them away. If you take an honest look at scripture, you will find that it supports both predestination and free will. My only choice then is to accept that both are true to some degree. That may seem like a contradiction to some, but I disagree.

On problem #2, the bible clearly says that God does not desire that anyone should perish. The most readily known quote to this effect is from the new testament. "God is not willing that any should perish". Calvinists counter this by arguing that the passage is referring specificly to believers, not to everyone. Thus it is really saying "God is not willing that any believers should perish". (this passage in is 2nd Peter 3)

The Calvinist interpetation here is possible, but not in the least demanded, or even implied. The only way you would come to that understanding is if you already held calvinist doctrine to be true. The far more natural understanding of the passage is that God delays his wrath because he wants to save everyone possible, and does not wish to condemn anyone.

But I grant the Calvinist that this verse COULD be interpeted reasonably within their view point.

The problem is that there are other scriptures which bear witness against this, and clearly show how this verse should be understood.

In Ezekiel chapters 18 and 33 God says - I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but would rather that they turn from wickedness and live

Now, the calvinist will undoubtedly be quick to point out that these verses were given to Israel, warning them to return to God. Thus the argument again comes that these verses refer to the elect.

However, this creates more problems with Calvinism. Many of the reformed churches (infact all that I've ever encountered) hold some form of replacement theology. They believe that Israel was cast aside and replaced by the church.
These verses were given to Israel during a time of apostasy.

Point #1 - These verses are clearly a warning that if they do not turn from their wickedness they will die, in other words God will cast them out, and they will lose their status as his people. Something Calvinists claim can not happen. This is also true of the verse in 2nd Peter. If you demand that these verses refer specificly and only to the elect, then they clearly imply that the elect CAN fall from grace. If the elect can not fall from grace, then there is no point to any of these verses.

Point #2 - Paul tells us, as we saw earlier, that the Jews did indeed eventually fail to turn from their unbelief and as a result they were set aside, exactly as God had warned them in Ezekiel. Thus if these refrences refer only to the elect, this proves beyond doubt that the elect CAN fall from grace because they did. The Jews were elect, they departed into unbelief and wickedness and God warned them to return, they did not and thus they were plucked out. Now, either they were God's elect or they werent. If they were then the elect can fall from grace, if they weren't then the verses in ezekiel do not refer only to the elect.

On a further note, this view becomes very problematic in how people view God's character. This view demands that God creates people specificly to send them to damnation and eternal torment. It requires further that God desires this, and in the past it has produced teachings that God even enjoys this, and that one of the heavenly pleasures of the redeemed wil be to watch the wicked roast in hell. I think these views are clearly inacurate portrayals of God's character.

Well I've rambled enough for this post. :)

Dispensationalism

2007-01-20T23:20:00.000-08:00

This post will give a brief look at dispensationalism (and why it is wrong).

The story of dispensationalism begins in the early to mid 19th century in the British Isles. Usually dispensationalism is depicted (accurately enough) as arising largely from the teaching of a small sect known as the Plymouth Brethren, and one member in particular, John Darby. In the US dispensationalism took off with the support of such famous figures as Dwight Moody.

As with many of the movements in the history of the church dispensationalism grew out of reaction to real problems but went too far in its own teachings. Also like most movements it has its extremists, and its not so extreme members.

In the previous post I talked about the covenants God has made with man down through history. For most of the history of the church this covenantal view has been the predominant vision for understanding the history of God's dealings with man.
One of the problems that grew out of this covenantal view was the idea which is known today as "replacement theology". This view is not an inevitable conclusion from the covenantal view but its development was influenced by many causes.
Replacement theology teaches that the Church "replaced" Israel and thus the Jews are no longer God's chosen people. They are just people like anyone else and all of the biblical promises that God made to Israel now apply to the Church, and not to the Jews.
This view appeared very early in Church history and was undoubtedly partially due to the troubles between Jews and Christians. In the early Church the Jews frequently sought to persecute Christians even to the point of deliberately lying to Roman government officials etc. in order to bring the Romans down on Christians. The strategy worked very well.
The sad result was that Christians eventually turned against the Jews and returned hate for hate and spite for spite.

Dispensationalism seeks to provide an alternative view and thus goes away from the ideas of covenantalism which it identifies as "replacement theology".

Rather than simply organizing the bible history around the covenants God makes, dispensationalism organizes it into "dispensations" which roughly correspond to the covenants. The word dispensation means "economy" or "administration". It is supposed to identify the means by which God deals with mankind during a given time period.

For example dispensationalism usually divides biblical history up into seven dispensations. They are as follows...

the dispensation of innocence - this is the time before Adam fell. God dealt with man through man's innocence.

the dispensation of conscience - this is the time from Adam's fall to Noah. God dealt with each individual person through their own conscience.

the dispensation of government - From Noah to Abraham, God dealt with mankind through governments, God appointed kings etc.

the dispensation of patriarchs - From Abraham to Moses God dealt with Mankind through the Patriarchs of the Hebrew people.

the dispensation of Law - From Moses to Christ God dealt with mankind through the law of Moses given on Mt. Sinai.

the dispensation of Grace - From Christ until the millenium God deals with mankind through the Grace Christ purchased for us with his blood.

the dispensation of the millenium - God will rule man directly as Jesus Christ sits as king over the world.

Also in addition to those, dispensationalists tend to break the history of the world up into "ages" which sort of relate to those dispensations.

the first age is the age of gentiles which goes from the beginning until Abraham
then is the age of Israel from Abraham to Pentecost
then is the age of the Church from Pentecost until the rapture
then is a flash-back to the age of Israel in the tribulation
then of course the final millenial age

Each dispensation ends when the next begins, each age ends when the next begins etc etc.

Now, all branches of Christian theology contain the idea of progressive revelation. This is the idea that God has progressively throughout history revealed more and more of himself and his truth. Just as schools build education by starting with the simple and moving to the complex, so God has revealed his truth progressively, precept upon precept, principle upon principle.

Dispensationalism takes this idea and runs with it to a degree that I don't think is really biblical. It is clear in the bible that God judges people according to the light they are given. Thus he was more lenient with people in the past who did not have the same level of revelation that we do. However, there is no real indication in scripture that God has ever dealt with manking in significantly different ways. That is to say, people from Adam down to us have always been saved by grace through faith. No one has ever been saved by Law, or by Conscience, or by Government.
Just as the new testament writers say of Abraham, he believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. Abraham was saved by faith, just as we are. The only difference is that he was looking forward to the cross in faith, we look back at the cross in faith.

One of the central issues (if not THE central issue) with dispensationalism is the relationship between the Church and Israel. Dispensationalism draws a stark distinction between the church and Israel. Israel is not the church, and the church is not Israel. In dispensationalism they are seen as two completely seperate entities.

In this understanding then the promises made to Israel in the bible apply only to Israel, and not to the church etc.

This issue is complex because both sides are wrong. Thus it is difficult not to get lumped into one side or the other simply because you disagree with the other side.

First, the Church and Israel are not seperate. Second, Israel is not permanently abandoned by God.

Israel was created by the covenant God made with Abraham. God told Abraham that he would bless the whole world through Abraham's house, and he told Abraham that he would become a great nation, numbered greater than the stars of heaven, or the grains of sand by the sea.

It was God's intention from the very beginning to bring all nations into the assembly of his Chosen through this covenant with Abraham.
What the dispensationalists, and the Jews all failed to see in this was that this covenant was one of FAITH not of genetics only. This covenant was made with Abraham BECAUSE of Abraham's faith. Abraham is not only the father of the Israelites, he is the father of all who have faith.

ever sang the song "Father Abraham" ?? "Father Abraham has many sons, I am one of them, and so are you". A simple children's song but it captures the truth that Paul tried to teach in Romans. Paul makes it undeniably clear that ANYONE who believes in Christ by faith is a child of Abraham, and is made an heir with Christ in Abraham's covenant.

Dispensationalists tend to see the church almost as a footnote, a parenthetical note to the old testament. Something unforseen and unexpected. Yet if you read the Old Testament prophets carefully, you can see that God forsaw the church and intended it the entire time. All of the times God spoke through the prophets that in a later day he would do something new, something different than the covenant he made with their fathers etc.

There has ALWAYS only ever been one assembly of the chosen. Further that assembly of Chosen ones has ALWAYS been defined by FAITH.

Further, Paul tells us clearly that Jesus came specificly for the purpose of "breaking down the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile, and to make of the two, one new man." That one new man is the Church.

the dispensationalists, and even the covenantalists err greviously when they see the church as "gentile". The Church is not gentile, it is neither Jew nor Gentile, it is something new.

Now, on the other side of things those who believe in replacement theology have also made a mistake. For some reason or other people never seem to be able to just take scripture at face value.
When Paul says that all who believe in Christ by faith are Children of Abraham and true Jews, the dispensationalists can't believe him.
When Paul says that the Natural Jews still have great benefit and still are set apart and that God will honor his promises to them and call them back.. the replacement theology people just can't believe him.

In both cases they read it and think to themselves... this doesn't fit with my school of theology... thus obviously Paul must mean something else!

The truth is that we as Christians are the assembly of God's chosen, we are the body of Christ, the bride of Christ, we are the children of Abraham.
It is also absolutely true that God will honor every promise he made to Abraham natural descendants. The Nation of Israel will be brought back just as Paul said.

Now, Paul also makes it clear that God "vieled" natural israel. He removed them from their place because of their unbelief. He has prevented them from seeing and accepting the truth because of their unbelief. Paul tells us that in this God is working two purposes. #1 he is using the unbelief of the Jews to save the gentiles. The church is reaping a harvest among the gentiles because the Jews refused to believe. #2 Paul tells us that God is also using this to make Israel jealous.. to rekindle their old zeal and their desire for him. This is just as he did in the past when he sent them into exile.

The time will come when natural Israel will return to God and will be joined into the one Church along with the gentiles and together they will fulfill the one new man.

Now, back to dispensationalism.

There are varying extremes, however, it is not uncommon for dispensationalists to think that there are actually seperate gospels for the Jews and Gentiles. Often you will find dispensationalists who think, for example, that Peter was the apostle of the Jews, and Paul the apostle of the Church (ie gentiles) thus what Peter wrote is the Gospel for the Jews, while what Paul wrote is the Gospel for the gentiles.

Some of the more extreme groups will also argue that the gospels do not apply to gentiles since they were written before the church came into existence at pentecost. Some of the most extreme dispensationalists argue that the church did not come into existence until Paul was converted, and thus anything before that (including baptism) does not apply to gentiles.

All of this is in clear contradiction of what the bible says. There is ONE gospel, ONE baptism, ONE Church, ONE Spirit, ONE God, and Father of all.

Laws and Covenants

2007-01-13T01:15:00.001-08:00

In response to a request this blog post will deal with the question of if we as Christians are required to keep the Old Testament laws.

This is an issue that has been fairly divisive (but then in the church today what issue isn't?). Generally you have two extreme views on this topic, and then a spectrum in between those two extremes. On the one hand you have the legalists who believe that we must keep the old testament laws in order to be righteous. I have rarely met anyone who believed that keeping the old testament laws was a prerequisit for salvation, but there are quite a few people around who believe that if you want to live a righteous life, you must adhere to the Law.

On the other hand there are quite a few people who believe that the grace of God has swept away the law and we are no longer bound by commandments and rules. I have heard some of the more extreme people on this side of things use phrases like "you're not free from sin, until you're free to sin" and things like that.

Then of course there are plenty of people who fall in between those two extremes, leaning towards one side or the other, or possibly right in the middle.

In order to understand this issue, we have to grasp that what we are talking about here are covenants. Throughout the history of God's interactions with man he has dealt with man in terms of covenants, or what we might more commonly call them today, contracts. There are seven different covenants spoken of in the bible (at least that I'm aware of). Each of these covenants was made for a specific reason, with a person, or a group of people. Each one contains specific promises from God to man, and specific requirements made upon man by God.

As a side note, you may notice some similarity in this idea to dispensationalism, which breaks of the history of God's interactions with man into "dispensations" rather than "covenants". There are a couple of important differences. Dispensationalism tends to suggest that each dispensation applies to all humanity, and each one ends when the next one begins. This is nice and neat, but it doesn't really fit with the bible. Some of the covenants God made were with limited groups of people, some were with all people. Most of them have terms on which they would be fulfilled, and come to an end, but in most cases, they have overlapped in terms of time.

The seven covenants generally recognized in scripture are; the Adamic covenant, the Noahide covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant, the Aaronic covenant, the Davidic covenant, and the New Covenant.

Throughout the bible refrences to "The Law" refer to the Mosaic covenant in which God gave a specific legal code to the Israelites and established their religion and worship as an organized, codified practice. Before we get to this I'm going to back through the other covenants and give a brief over-view of them.

Adamic covenant - This covenant was made by God with Adam at the creation. In this covenant God granted man dominion over the earth, and tasked man to be fruitful, multiply, and subdue the earth. Also contained here is the establishment of the husband and wife relationship. It is commonly stated that God performed the first wedding here and in a sense thats true. However, marriage is a human legal contract which is seperate from the sacred relationship that exists between husband and wife. So technically marriage did not exist until human laws were first made. This covenant applies to all people because all are descended from Adam, and it will last as long as the earth does. This covenant is the foundation of both the right to own property, and the rights involved with family.

Noahide covenant - Prior to the flood the world had become filled with violence to the point at which the righteous could no longer survive. The result was the flood. This came about because there was not law. No human law. God had not given authority to man to make laws, or to punnish crimes etc, the result was that the wicked ran wild and the righteous were oppressed. Thus the major point of God's covenant with Noah after the flood was that God granted authority to mankind to punnish crimes up to and including the death penalty. The original intent was that man would be ruled by God directly. When man refused God's rule, God had to give authority to rule to other men in order to maintain law and order. All authority to make governments and laws derives from the Noahide covenant.
Also, in the Jewish view the Noahide covenant contained the basic requirements for gentiles to be 'good people'. Like the adamic covenant, the Noahide applies to all people, and it will endure at least until Jesus returns and we are returned to God's direct rule.

Abrahamic covenant - This is the covenant where God promises to make Abraham a great nation and promises to bless the entire world through Abraham's house. This is the covenant that establishes the Israelites as God's chosen people and the covenant which promises salvation for the whole world to come through Abraham's house. This is the first covenant of faith. This covenant has a definite fulfillment and is enfolded within the new covenant.

Aaronic covenant - this is the covenant where God promises the descendants of Aaron that they will be reserved as priests before him forever. He made this promise in response to the faithfullness of Aaron's descendants. It applies only to the descendants of Aaron.

Davidic covenant - this is the covenant where God promised David that one of his descendants would sit on the throne of Israel forever. This was and is always seen by both Christians and Jews alike as a messianic covenant. The messiah is the heir of David who will sit on the throne of Israel forever. This is why the messiah is called "son of David" because he is the heir of this promise. This applies only to the messiah, and has no end.

New covenant - of course this the covenant that Jesus made with us through his broken body and shed blood. This covenant is both the fulfillment of, and the continuation of the Abrahamic covenant. In both people are made God's people, God's chosen through faith. This covenant is eternal and like the Abrahamic covenant is extended to those who enter by faith.

That brings us to the Mosaic covenant. The one around which all the questions revolve. Like all the other covenants this covenant was made with a specific purpose. When that purpose is fulfilled, so is the covenant. In this covenant God gives a bunch of laws (about 613) to the Jews, and the authority to enforce those laws. The pay off (so to speak) is that the Israelites will build a house for God, and God's visible, special presense, will dwell among them. In addition to that, if they keep the laws, they are promised immense blessing in health, wealth, and general well being.

There are actually two primary purposes in the Mosaic covenant.

#1. To enable God to dwell "physically" among his people. God can not be in the presense of sin, thus in order for his special presence to dwell visibly among the Israelites sin had to be purged or hidden. This is why the laws imposed by the mosaic covenant were so strict. No visible sin could be tolerated. This also is at the focus of the ceremonial law and the sacrificial system and the temple worship.

#2. As Paul points out, the Mosaic covenant was given for the purpose of instructing humanity. The Law served as a teacher and it points us to Christ. Also, again as Paul points out, the Law reveals the sinful condition of the human heart. Sin was in the world since Adam, and with sin came death. Before the law came, however, sin was not counted, it was invisible. There was no standard by which sin could be revealed.

There are also other benefits to the laws given in the covenant of Moses. For example there are many health benefits that the Israelites would have gained from keeping the law. It would reduce the instance of disease due to eating high risk foods, through limiting contact with dead bodies, and through increasing general cleanliness due to frequent ceremonial bathing.

Now, the question asked by so many is, Does this covenant still apply? are we required to live by it? Are the laws of Moses necessary for righteous living?

The short answer is No. I'll explain why.

The covenant of Moses was given for two purposes. Both of those purposes are fulfilled and thus the stipulations of the covenant are no longer in effect.

The first purpose for the harsh laws of the mosaic covenant was to remove sin from visibility before God's presense. This was accomplished in a far better and more thurough way through the ministry of Jesus Christ. Under the Mosaic law sin was not forgiven, it was hidden, or passed on to another. No one has ever been saved by keeping the law because law does not forgive, it is only capable of condemning.

The stipulations of the mosaic covenant are no longer necessary for hidding sin because the Blood of Christ removes our sins.

The second purpose of the law was to be a teacher. All of the law is allegory and example to teach us the principles of truth. Now, however, we who are in Christ have the Holy Spirit who convicts our hearts of truth and He engraves the truth upon our hearts. Thus we no longer have need of the law to force lessons upon us.

Both of the purposes of the covenant have been fulfilled, this means that the stipulations of the covenant cease to be enforced.

One example of this scripturally comes from the example of the woman caught in adultery. According to the Mosaic law, the Jews were REQUIRED to stone that woman to death. Under the Mosaic covenant it would have been a violation of the Law, a sin, for the Jews not to stone her. Yet Jesus stopped them from doing so. Most people see this as an example of God's forgiveness... but they miss the significance that this has for the covenant. In this act Jesus was essentially telling the Jews that they no longer had the authority given under the mosaic covenant to punnish sin with death.

The right to punnish murder with death was given to all men under the Noahide covenant, but in the mosaic covenant the Jews were also given the right to punnish homosexuality, witchcraft, adultery, rebeliousness and disrespect to parents, etc all with death.

All of that ceased to be in effect when Jesus came. Many would answer with "but Jesus said that he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill the law." The issue there is not that the law continues to be in effect, the issue is that Jesus was not the enemy of the law, he was the point of the law. Further Jesus makes the statement that not one bit of the written law will pass away. This is also true, however, it does not mean that the covenant is still in effect. In law, when a contract or covenant is fulfilled and ceases to function it is still kept on record as a witness.

Lastly there are those who argue that even though the covenant is no longer in effect, we still must live by the law in order to be righteous. The assumption here is that the laws given were for the purpose of making the people behave righteously.. thus we should obey them as well.

However, this is plainly shown not to be the case biblically in several cases. The easiest cases are circumcision, and the food laws. In the new testament both are plainly stated to be of no moral value in an of themselves. Why is this?

These things were given as object lessons. To focus on the object is often to miss the point of the lesson. God knew that we in our fallen state have trouble with understanding and percieving spiritual things. The result is that he had to give us physical lessons to teach us spiritual truths. In the case of circumcision the point was not that you must remove physical skin in order to be righteous. The point was that we must circumcise our hearts. We must cut away the flesh (ie the soulish, natural will) from our hearts in order to be set apart to God. The point of the food laws was not that you sin when you eat bacon. The point was that there are many things that are spiritually unclean and we simply can not partake of them and remain clean ourselves. Things like adultery, hate, jealousy, lust.. The same thing with all the ceremonial bathing etc.. its not that your body must be clean in order to be righteous.. the point is that when you partake of that which is unclean, you are tainted by it and you must become clean again by being bathed. Compare this with what Jesus said to Peter when he washed the disciple's feet and Peter refused at first.

A great deal of the ceremonial law in the mosaic covenant has no value whatsoever for making a person righteous. It was given to serve as an object lesson of spiritual truths. This is why Paul goes so far as to say that a christian who gets circumcised(for religious purposes) is going against faith. Such a person is missing the entire point of circumcision and thus it is useless to them.

One issue that can be confusing in this is the fact that there are laws like "thou shalt not commit murder" and "thou shalt not steal" which are obviously moral codes. This is simply the fact that the covenant over-laps and includes the same laws which were given to all mankind. Paul talks about how the gentiles are a law unto themselves etc, The Jews have always recognized a 'lesser' more basic moral code which is applied to the gentiles etc.. the bible is clear that these basic laws have been revealed to everyone and are not specific to any covenant. The fact that they were included in the Mosaic covenant as well does not mean that they ceased to be with that covenant.

The final word on this I will refrence from Hebrews 8:13 referring to how Christ affected the covenant of Moses.

"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."

Eschatology Continued

2006-10-08T15:12:00.000-07:00

The bible is full of prophecy. Approximately one third of the bible is made up of prophecy. The obvious conclusion is that prophecy is important. Yet prophecy is one of the topics in the bible that people know least about, that many people avoid, and that whole denominations largely won't touch in sunday morning teaching.

Why is this?

Well there are two big reasons. #1 Prophecy is very confusing and there is little certainty available for those who seek to interpet it. #2 Prophecied events are frightening and disconcerting.
A third reason many people toss out is that they don't think prophecy helps them with their daily living, or with reaching the lost. I personally think this is largely an excuse which is really covering the two reasons listed above.

Three reasons that prophecy is important. (I'm sure there are probably more)
#1 - God seems to think its important that we have an idea whats comming.
#2 - Prophecy shows forth the amazing glory and truth of God and his word
#3 - Prophecy is really testimony of Jesus Christ.

Enough of the introduction :) in this post I want to start looking at the basics of prophecy to give you a good foundational understanding to work from.

The first rule of prophecy is when the bible explains itself, listen. In MANY cases the bible offers interpetations of its own prophecies, either within or immediately following the prophecy. I have seen all too often, prophecy teachers blatantly ignore what the bible itself says in interpetation of its own prophecies in favor of their own 'revelation' on what it 'really' means.

The second thing to realize about prophecy is that the bible contains "redundant" prophecies. Now, they aren't really redundant in the sense of unnecessary repitition, however the bible frequently will tell about the same event from multiple perspectives. The reason this is done is to give a more complete picture, a more complete understanding. It looks at the same thing from different angles. This is the same reason that there are four gospels in the bible. Four accounts of Jesus' life. Each one of them provides us unique perspective and detail which helps complete the picture.

On this note, there are three great expositions in the bible dealing with the "end times". There are multiple prophecies on this topic scattered through the entire bible. There are three, however, which provide more compelte overviews.

#1 the book of Revelation (of course)
#2 the "Olivet discourse" (contained in each of the three synoptic gospels)
#3 the book of Daniel

Each of these three prophetic revelations cover generally the same topic (the end of days) but each one looks at it from a different perspective, showing somewhat different detail. One of the problems common among prophecy teaching is that the teachers have a tendancy to look at the prophecies in a somewhat disconnecte fashion. If these prophecies are all describing the same time period, and thus the same events, they must fit together like peices of a puzzle. That means we have to look at them together, not individually.

The approach most people take to interpeting prophecy is like taking each individual piece of a jigsaw puzzle and trying to guess what that piece is showing without the rest of the puzzle for context.

The next rule in our examination of prophecy is this. Prophecy frequently speaks in the languge of symbols. This is why prophecy is difficult to understand, and why there is such divergent opinion on what prophecy means. The first point here is that even symbols have literal meaning. Many people say that prophecy can't be taken literally because it speaks in symbols. This is the result of the modern mindset that confuses "spiritual" with "symbolic". It is often assumed that if something uses symbols, its not speaking of "real" physical events. There is, however, no reason to assume this when dealing with prophecy (or scripture in general). Second is the problem that many others take things too literally. They try to fit modern realities like tanks and helicopters into the fantastic and bizzare images seen by the prophets. This view is possible, but is largely, again, based on unjustified assumption.

While tecahing in the modern church in general has its share of bad exegesis, poor logic, and unjustified assumptions.. few areas of doctrine can match prophecy for the percentage of bad teaching available. Probably because there is always guess work involved in interpeting biblical prophecy, teachers of this topic frequently feel free to make huge leaps in logic, and rely upon unjustified assumptions in forming their views.
In most cases, however, the worst are those teachers who claim that their views were revealed to them by God. In some sense all wisdom is revealed by God because it is he who makes us wise and gives us the ability to understand. Yet those who claim special revelation on the meaning of prophecy, in my experience, usually contradict common sense, logical reasoning, and often the scripture itself.
I firmly believe that God gives wisdom to those who ask. I have tried to base my intellectual life on that promise. God, also, however desires us to seek. To delve into his word. To use the faculties he has given us. As the book of Revelation says "Here is for a mind which has wisdom".

The last note on prophecy is beware of dogmatic prophecy teachers. I have alot of ideas about prophetic interpetation, some are hypothesis (educated guess) others I'm pretty sure are right. A very few, I'm certain on. However, there are only two necessary dogma's of prophecy #1 Jesus is coming back physically, #2 There will be a physical resurrection of the dead. Christians must believe these two things. There is room for error on everything else.

"no man knows the day..."

2006-09-23T18:01:00.000-07:00

Virtually every christian who has ever heard anything on the "end times" has heard that "no man knows the day or the hour" and that Jesus is going to return like a "thief in the night". However, I have already shown in previous posts that the concept of the thief in the night is taken out of context and Paul says specificly that Jesus' return should NOT catch believers like a thief in the night. I've shown that in the traditional Jewish wedding the general time of the wedding was known well in advance because it was specified in the wedding contract. I've also shown that the day of the wedding was known in advance and the bride was specificly given time before hand to prepare herself.

But how can this be if no one knows the day or the hour... Not even the angels of Jesus himself??

Well, I knew you'd ask.. so lets look at it :)

Matt. 24:34-44
"36 “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. 37 As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, 39 and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. 41 Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. 42 Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43 But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect."

I looked at this passage partially in my previous posts and showed that everything described in verses 38 - 44 is telling how judgement will come suddenly and unexpectedly upon the wicked, and is a warning to believers to be prepared lest they be numbered among the wicked when the time comes.
That still leaves verses 36-38. They clearly state that no man, nor the angels, nor even the Son, know the day or the hour of the Son's return.

The verses state
"“But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. 37 As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark,"

There is something in this verse of huge significance that virtually everyone has missed. It is a detail that totally changes the interpetation of this verse. The first clue to it is in the words "as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man." and the clincher is in the word "until".

In Noah's day when the flood was coming... no one, not even Noah, knew when the flood was coming. God told Noah... "go build a boat because I'm sending a flood" but he didn't tell Noah WHEN the flood was coming... UNTIL the very day that he told Noah to enter the ark. Lets go back to the biblical account of Noah and see what it says.

Genesis 7:1-4
7:1 Then the Lord said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation. 2 Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate, 3 and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth. 4 For in seven days I will send rain on the earth.

"For in seven days I will send rain on the earth" Noah did not know when the flood was coming, until God told him "go into the ark and in seven days the rain will come".

Going back to what Jesus said in Matthew. We see Jesus speaking in the present tense "no man knows the day or the hour". No man at that time knew the day or the hour.. infact no man right now knows it either. However Jesus goes on to say that no one knows the day because "as were the days of Noah, so will b the coming of the Son of Man. In the those days, no one knew UNTIL the day that Noah went into the ark." At that point who knew? The answer is Noah and his family. Everyone could have known if they had listened, but they didn't. They were unprepared.

So... just as we see every where else.. God's people are not to be taken by surprise.. those who are watching will be for-warned and given time to prepare.

Through out all this Jesus repeatedly tells the disciples, "watch therefore because you don't know when the time is coming". The point of this is NOT that its just suddenly going to happen with no warning, the point is that only those who are watching will recognize the for-warning. Only they will receive the announcement that the day is at hand, and only they will thus, be prepared.

when the disciples asked Jesus how they would know the time was coming, he said to them (paraphrased) "are you so blind? even the farmers can tell what season it is by looking at the signs all around them". He then went on to say "when the trees blossom, the farmers know it is spring and summer is nigh". Jesus expects us to know when the time is at hand. If we are awake, and are watching the signs, we will know when the time is at hand, and we will be for-warned. If not, it is very possible that we will be caught unprepared.

The Jewish Wedding (Rapture Part III)

2006-09-23T16:14:00.000-07:00

The customs surrounding the ancient Jewish wedding are frequently used by those who teach the pre-tribulation rapture view point as support for their position. Therefore we will examine them here and see how things really stack up.

First, it is very appropriate to compare the Jewish wedding to Jesus' relationship with the church and with prophetic events surrounding the return of Christ because this comparison is used frequently by Jesus and his apostles in scripture as an allegory and parable for his relationship with the church. The church is of course referred to as the bride of Christ. In the gospels on several occasions Jesus uses parables based on the Jewish wedding to refer to his return for the church.

In the pre-tribulation view point it is stated that the ancient Jewish wedding was preceeded by a betrothal during which time the groom would prepare the bridal chamber (huppah/chuppah in hebrew) in his Father's house. Then, once the bridal chamber was finished, the groom would come with his groom's men and attempt to take the bride by surprise. The groom would come at odd hours and the only warning given would be a shout by one of the groom's procession moments before the groom arrived. The groom would then sweep in and stage a mock kidnapping of the bride taking her away to the bridal chamber where they would have the wedding feast in secclusion. The wedding feasting would last for seven days.

This is all very lovely, and obviously fits well with the pre-trib view point. The problem is that it fits so well because it has been tailored to fit. Wether knowingly or simply because of over-zealousness to prove their point, pre-trib teachers have conveniently trimmed away inconvenient facts that don't fit well, and apparently made up some as well.

The first point to make is that our historical knowledge about ancient Jewish wedding customs is not very good. There is virtually no surviving historical sources from the time of Christ which describe wedding customs. The only descriptions of such customs that do exist are scattered allusions from rabbinical commentaries. Further, what we do learn from these commentaries gives the appearence that wedding customs varried considerably from region to region.

So, what do we know? Well the first point is that the betrothal period was not an indeterminate time during which the groom could show up at any time. Jewish law actually specified specific time period limits which a wedding contract could be made for. The usual contract period was twelve months. The groom could not come for his bride before the twelve months was up, and if he were to delay too long after, it would be considered a breach of the marriage contract. In some communities the actual day of the wedding was specified in the marriage contract a full year before the wedding. In other's only the month of the wedding was specified.

Secondly, it was customary in many Jewish communities for maidens to be married on wednesday. This was done for three reasons. First was to allow the bride time to prepare for the first three days of the week, and second was that if the groom found his bride was not a virgin on the wedding night (which was a legal breach of contract) he could then take his complaint immediately before the local sanhedrin which met on thursdays. The third reason was also practical, in that it allowed everyone a day to rest (on thursday) from the wedding perperations before preparing for the weekly sabbath. It can be seen here clearly that is was customary for the bride to know on what day the groom would come.

Thirdly, on the day that the groom was supposed to come for the bride, the bride, her bridesmaids, family, and friends would celebrate at the bride's house while waiting for the arrival of the groom. The groom's procession would send ahead young men to announce that the groom was on his way. According to custom he was supposed to arrive one half hour before midnight. This was because it was customary for wedding ceremonies to be performed at midnight at the groom's father's house. Thus picking up the bride at a half hour before midnight allowed enough time for the procession to return to the groom's father's house for the traditional midnight ceremony. (this point will be important later on)

Fourth, the period of seclusion in the ancient Jewish wedding lasted only a few minutes immediately after the ceremony, not seven days as is intimated by the pre-trib teachers. When the bridal party arrived at the groom's father's house they would have the ceremony (which was attended by all friends and family who would have joined in the procession). Immediately after the ceremony the bride and groom would go into the bridal chamber(chuppah) for a few minutes of seclusion. In Jewish culture it was forbidden for unmarried men and women to be alone in a room together. Thus the short period of seclusion symbolized their new status as husband and wife. After the few minutes of seclusion the bride and groom emerged from the chuppah and joined with their guests in seven days of feasting.

The entire idea of the groom trying to surprise the bride with a sudden and unexpected arrival, as well as the idea of the seven day seclusion after the wedding are not found in any historical source and appear to have been invented within the last few decades.

So how does all this really mesh with what the bible says??

First, lets look at the parable of the ten virgins.

Matt 25
25:1 “Then the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps [1] and went to meet the bridegroom. [2] 2 Five of them were foolish, and five were wise. 3 For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them, 4 but the wise took flasks of oil with their lamps. 5 As the bridegroom was delayed, they all became drowsy and slept. 6 But at midnight there was a cry, ‘Here is the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.’ 7 Then all those virgins rose and trimmed their lamps. 8 And the foolish said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ 9 But the wise answered, saying, ‘Since there will not be enough for us and for you, go rather to the dealers and buy for yourselves.’ 10 And while they were going to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast, and the door was shut. 11 Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, ‘Lord, lord, open to us.’ 12 But he answered, ‘Truly, I say to you, I do not know you.’ 13 Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.

The very first sentence of this parable should clue us in to problems with the pre-trib view. The ten virgins took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom. Meet him where? The went to the bride's house to meet him. This fits perfectly with what we know about the Jewish customs, which is that the bride and her bridegrooms knew when to expect the bridegroom. They went to the bride's house because the knew that the groom was coming that night.

Secondly it is important to note that the groom in this parable is delayed. How would the bridesmaids know that he was delayed if they didn't know when he was coming? They all fell asleep while waiting for him because he was supposed to come at a set time but was late. We know from our previous conversation that he was supposed to arrive at the bride's house at 11:30 PM. The parable here tells us that the groom came at midnight instead. He was a half hour late.
If you will notice, it is not that the foolish virgins ran out of oil because they were waiting so long (as is commonly assumed). Rather the took no oil with them. They knew they were going to the bride's house but took no oil. What is the importance of the lamps and the oil? The bridal happenned just before midnight, so it was dark. The procession was halmarked by the friends of the bride and groom forming a huge parade of lights and celebration. The lamps were to light the procession.
The foolish virgins took no oil with them, and the took no effort in the time they were waiting to prepare. Then when the procession began they wanted others to give them oil, but were told "go get your own".
The reason the wise virgins refuse to give any of their oil away is that they are assuming that there will be a half hour long procession back to the groom's father's house. Thus they think they have barely enough to keep their own lamps lit for the full half hour. They thus tell the foolish virgins to run and buy oil for themselves. The assumption again is that there will be a half hour long procession which would allow the foolish bridesmaids time to catch up.
Here we come to the only big surprises of this parable. The procession goes out to meet the groom, and instead of taking the half hour trip back to his father's house, the go immediately into the bride's house and the marraige takes place in the bride's house. Then when the foolish bridesmaids return, they are not allowed entrance.

There are three things about this parable which stand out as odd. #1 the groom was a half hour late. #2 the wedding feast appears to happen at the bride's house rather than at the groom's father's house #3 the 5 foolish bridesmaids are not allowed to enter the feast.

The reason for the wedding being held at the bride's house is because the wedding had to take place at midnight. Because the groom was delayed there was no time to return to the groom's house, he brought the wedding and the feast with him to the bride's house instead.

The notable things about the foolish virgins are, #1 they expect other people to prepare for them and do their work for them #2 they are more focused on their own role in the procession of carrying the lamps, than they are on being there for the bride and groom, either when they first meet, or at the midnight wedding.

Then lets look at Rev. 19 and the famous wedding feast of the lamb.
Revelation 19
19:1 After this I heard what seemed to be the loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, crying out,
“Hallelujah!Salvation and glory and power belong to our God,2 for his judgments are true and just;for he has judged the great prostitutewho corrupted the earth with her immorality,and has avenged on her the blood of his servants.”
3 Once more they cried out,
“Hallelujah!The smoke from her goes up forever and ever.”
4 And the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God who was seated on the throne, saying, “Amen. Hallelujah!” 5 And from the throne came a voice saying,
“Praise our God,all you his servants,you who fear him,small and great.”
The Marriage Supper of the Lamb
6 Then I heard what seemed to be the voice of a great multitude, like the roar of many waters and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, crying out,
“Hallelujah!For the Lord our Godthe Almighty reigns.7 Let us rejoice and exultand give him the glory,for the marriage of the Lamb has come,and his Bride has made herself ready;8 it was granted her to clothe herselfwith fine linen, bright and pure”—
for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints.
9 And the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.” And he said to me, “These are the true words of God.” 10 Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.” For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
The Rider on a White Horse
11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. 12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. 13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. 14 And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. 15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.
17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, “Come, gather for the great supper of God, 18 to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, both small and great.” 19 And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army. 20 And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. 21 And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.

The first point that should be noted is that this entire passage takes place AFTER the judgement and destruction of Babylon the Great whore. This necessarily means that it takes place after the beast ('anti-christ') has been revealed and active on earth.

Then we see that the marriage supper is announced. The bride has made herself ready (again indicating that she was given the forwarning and time of preperation which was traditional).

Immediately upon it being stated that the bride has made herself ready and the marriage supper is immanent, we see the heavens are opened and Jesus Christ comes riding on a white horse. What does he do?
He wages war upon the beast and judges the wicked. He comes down and slaughters the armies arrayed against him by the beast pouring out the wrath of God upon the earth. An angel standing in the sun cries out to summon the carrion eating animals to the "great supper of God" and Jesus slays all the armies arrayed against him.

Now if you remember in my last post we looked at a verse in which Jesus made a strange statement "where the corpse is there will the vultures gather" and I said to remember it.. this is where it comes into play. The disciples asked Jesus where his return and the judgement of the wicked would occur and Jesus said "where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather". That is echoed here when the birds of the air are called by the angel to gather over the place where Jesus destroys the armies of the beast and gluts the vultures on their flesh.

Thus, we see that the marriage supper of the lamb does not occur at the beginning of the tribulation, or during the seven years of the tribulation. It is not announced until the very end and does not occur until Jesus completely wipes out the armies of the beast.

The final issue we must address is that of where the bridal chamber is and where the feast takes place. The pre-trib view holds that the feast must take place in heaven because of the refrences to "my father's house", and the tradition that the marriage takes place in the father's house. However, biblically "my father's house" never refers to heaven. It always refers to the temple or the tabernacle. Further, the parable of the ten virgins seems to also imply that the marriage feast takes place at the bride's house (because the groom was delayed). Also the hebrew word "chuppah" (which is the bridal chamber) is used only once in scripture, in Isaiah chapter 4 and it is used to refer to God gathering his people to mount zion apparently during the millenial kingdom.
Finally Isaiah chapters 24 and 25 which prophecy events of the day of the Lord, contain refrences to the feast and the unveiling of God's people both of which are wedding refrences. This prophecy clearly places the feast at Mt. Zion. (notably the prophecy also contains refrences to the darkening of the sun and moon just as Jesus did in the olivet discourse, and specificly placed them at the end of the tribulation).

In conclusion, the allegorical nature of the wedding feast is obvious, and important to prophecy. However, pre-trib teachers have significantly twisted the story to make it fit their view. They have either removed important details, an in a couple of cases completely manufactured details in order to make their view fit. I'm not alledging dishonesty here, but simply the very common pit-fall that once you have decided what you believe, there is a great tendancy to make the evidence fit your theory, rather than the other way around.
The customs surrounding the Jewish feast (from what we know, which is fairly sketchy) clearly do support the post-trib view point that the church will be for-warned of the Lord's comming and that coming will occur at the end of the tribulation which will then be followed by the marriage celebration in the millenial kingdom.

In the next post I will address the question of "no man knows the day or the hour"

The Rapture (Continued)

2006-09-19T08:40:00.000-07:00

This post continues the discussion on the rapture. If you remember we were in the process of examining the biblical refrences to the return of Christ. We are seeking to answer the question, are there two returns of Christ, a first secret return which is marked by the rapture and the resurrection of the righteous dead, and a final return marked by the judgement of the wicked and the destruction of the anti-christ.

So far we have looked at the olivet discourse in Matthew and Mark and found that both place the return described after the tribulation, and both appear to include either the rapture, or something nearly identical to it.

Now lets move on.

Luke 17:22-37
"22 And he said to the disciples, “The days are coming when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it. 23 And they will say to you, ‘Look, there!’ or ‘Look, here!’ Do not go out or follow them. 24 For as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of Man be in his day. 25 But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. 26 Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, 29 but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all— 30 so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day, let the one who is on the housetop, with his goods in the house, not come down to take them away, and likewise let the one who is in the field not turn back. 32 Remember Lot's wife. 33 Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will keep it. 34 I tell you, in that night there will be two in one bed. One will be taken and the other left. 35 There will be two women grinding together. One will be taken and the other left.” 37 And they said to him, “Where, Lord?” He said to them, “Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.”"

The end of this passage is frequently used by pre-trib teachers to describe the rapture. "One will be taken and the other left" etc (this is also echoed in Matthew). Yet this is one of the classic examples of verses that the pre-trib view point takes out of context, without even realizing it apparently.

If you read this passage carefully, it becomes evident that this is actually referring to the judgement of the wicked, not the rapture of the righteous.

But lets start at the beginning. The first notable thing is that this section cautions against believing in "secret" comings. If someone tells you "the Lord is come and he's over here!" do not believe them because the real return will be like lightning that splits the sky from one end of heaven to the other. The coming described here can not be missed.

Next we are told that this coming will be like the days of Noah (a phrase used to describe the return of Christ in Matthew as well). When the people were eating and drinking, and knew nothing until the flood came and took them all away... Who was eating and drinking? Who was unaware? who was taken away by the flood? The wicked. They knew nothing UNTIL THE DAY that Noah entered the Ark, then the flood took them away.
Then we are told, it will also be like the days of Lot when Sodom and Gomorrah were judged... The people of the city were eating and drinking and going on unaware, even unto the day that Lot left the city and on that day, the fire of judgement destroyed them all.

Jesus then says... It will be just like this when the Son of Man is revealed (note that the Son of Man is revealed! not secret).. one shall be taken and the other left... those being taken here are clearly being taken by the wrath of God.

Another note... In comparing this return with Noah and the flood and the judgment of Sodom, Jesus provides also a clear parallel to the rapture, Noah went into the Ark and on the same day the Flood came, Lot left the city, and on the same day the city was judged. Again just as in Matt. and Mark we have a clear, if implied, link between the rapture and the return which brings judgement.

The closing statement of this verse is cryptic, but important. The disciples ask Jesus "where will this happen" and he replies "where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather" This is a refrence to the destruction of the wicked and the animals of the earth being called by God to devour their flesh. We will come back to this later as this refrence is echoed in another place.

Our next passage is Luke 21:25-28
"25 “And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth distress of nations in perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves, 26 people fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world. For the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 Now when these things begin to take place, straighten up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”"

It is clear that this (again from the Olivet discourse) is refrencing the same event as described in Matt. and Mark, the sun, moon, and stars are listed just as in those, the people of the world are in mourning and distress at the return of Christ, just as in the previous verses.. it is clear that judgement is coming upon them... now look at the final verse "now when these things begin to take place, straigten up and raise your heads because your redemption is drawing near."

The redemption of the righteous, the followers of Christ here again is declared to happen at the same time as the judgement of the world. His return to judge the world is clearly linked as also his return to rescue us.

This passage continues a few verses later in Luke 21:34-36
34 “But watch yourselves lest your hearts be weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and cares of this life, and that day come upon you suddenly like a trap. 35 For it will come upon all who dwell on the face of the whole earth. 36 But stay awake at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that are going to take place, and to stand before the Son of Man.”

Now I'm sure the pre-trib among you are crying out "SEE!! it says that we will escape all these things that are going to take place!" Well lets look a little more closely. The verse begins "but watch lest your hearts be weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and the cares of this life, and that day come upon you suddenly like a trap. For it will come upon all who dwell on the face of the whole earth."

"that day" here refers to what has just been said a few verses before, the return of Jesus in judgement. What is coming upon all who dwell on the earth here is the wrath of God. The warning here is that we be diligent lest we fall and find ourselves subject to God's wrath, numbered among the wicked. Thus what the righteous escape here is the wrath of God (which as we shall see later is entirely different than the "tribulation").

In our next passage Jesus makes refrence to the resurrection of the righteous dead, which we know must occur at the same time as the rapture.
John 6:39-40
"39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”"

When does the resurrection occur? on the Last day... not "in the last days" or "in the latter days". On the last day. (as a note.. the term 'last day' might be seen by some as more symbolic since there will be the millenial reign etc which certainly must be composed of days.. however, in every refrence we've examined so far it has been stated that the sun and the moon were darkend on the day Jesus returns. We also know from other refrences that in the millenial reign in new Jerusalem, God himself is our light, and we have no need of sun or moon. This provides interesting insight into "the last day")

Our next passage is 1 Corinthians 15:23-24
"23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. "

Here we see the resurrection of the righteous clearly described, and it is placed when? at the very end. Immediately after the righteous resurrection, then comes the end when Christ judges the world and delivers the Kingdom to God the Father. If you examine the seventh trumpet of revelation (which we will eventually) you will find that Jesus Christ judges the world and delivers the kingdoms of the world to God the Father at his return at the end of the tribulation.

Pre-tribulation view point commonly relies upon the image of the "theif in the night". They say that Jesus is coming like a theif in the night and will secretly show up and rapture away the beleivers. This refrence is found in the Olivet Discourse, in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In all three of those refrences, as we have already seen, it applies to the wrath of God coming suddenly and unexpectedly upon the world. In all three refrences the believers are warned "be awake, be vigilant, be living rightly so that you too are not taken". So it begins to appear that the theif in the night refrence is not referring to a secret rapture, but to unexpected judgement and wrath... but lets continue and look at the other theif in the night refrences...

We find one in 1st Thess. 5:2 "For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night."

But lets look at the whole passage...

1st Thess 5:1-4
"Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers, you have no need to have anything written to you. 2 For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. 4 But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief. "

From this passage it can clearly be seen that the theif in the night refrence is exactly what we have already said... it is describing sudden judgement coming upon the wicked. Moreover, it should NOT catch believers by surprised.. it is not a theif in the night to US! If you examine the refrence to "theif in the night" in Peter's epistles, you will find exactly the same thing.

But wait.. there is something else important about this passage... Where is it located??? 1st Thessalonians chapter 5... what is immediately before this? 1st Thessalonians chapter 4. Thats interesting... lets read them together (remembering that these letters weren't originally written in chapters, but as one single text)

1st Thess 4:15 - 5:4
"15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.
5:1 Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers, you have no need to have anything written to you. 2 For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. 4 But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief.

Here we find a shocking fact (for the pre-trib view) that the central verse which declares the rapture of the church, is undeniably, clearly linked to the judgement of the wicked!!

Surely by this point it must be becoming clear that all these events, the rapture, the resurrection, the judgement of the wicked, and pouring out of God's wrath all occur at the same time.

To be continued...

Eschatology Part II - The Rapture

2006-09-18T16:25:00.000-07:00

In this post I will be discussing the rapture, what it is, and when it takes place.

The first point is to establish IF the rapture exists, and if so, what it is. There are a growing number of people (at least I seem to be running into more of them) who believe that the rapture is not a biblical concept. They usually champion their cause with the claim "the word rapture isn't in the bible!!!"

This same tactic is often used by anti-trinitarians who frequently lead off their argument with the fact that the word trinity is not found in the bible, as if this must therefore mean that the concept which the word represents is made up. My usual first response is "so?" The issue is not wether or not an individual word is found in the bible or not, but wether or not the idea/doctrine is found in the bible.

In the case of the rapture however, those who put forth this claim are merely show-casing their own ignorance, and lack of study. The word rapture is actually in the bible, its just not in the english bible. The word "Rapture" is latin. It comes from the Latin root "rapio, rapere" which means to seize, or carry away. Many words in the english language (anywhere from 65% - 70%) were either borrowed directly from latin, or are slightly changed versions of latin words. This is the case with the word Rapture. In 1st Thessalonian 4:17 the phrase "shall be caught up" in latin is "rapiemur" this was term was borrowed by the english language (by way of french) in the form of "rapture" to mean "caught up" or "caught away".

Thus, not only the concept, but the word is actually in the bible and it is found in 1st Thess. 4:17.

"Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. " (ESV)

So what is this rapture, this catching up? Lets begin by looking at the passage in more full context.

1st Thess 4:15-17 (ESV)
"15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. "

First we will note that this event encompasses both the dead in Christ and those believers who are alive on the earth at that time. It is accompanied by #1 the Lord descending with a command, #2 the voice of an archangel, and #3 the trumpet of God.

the dead in christ are resurrected, and we who remain alive join them as we all rise to meet Christ in the air, and from that point on, we will ever be with him.

So this is a meeting. What kind of meeting?

The word translated "meet" in 4:17 is in greek is "Apantesis" and it means "to meet one". This word is used only 4 times in the new testament. The first two occurances of the word are both in Matthew in the parable of the ten virgins. In these verses, Matt 25:1 and 6, it describes the processional of the virgins to meet the bridegroom and go with him into the wedding feast.

The next occurance of the word is in Acts 28:15 where it is used to describe the believers of Rome sending a welcoming party to meet Paul on the road and usher him into Rome.

The final usage of the word is in our verse listed above.

From this it would appear that the usage of the word apantesis refers to people welcoming an important person in a procession.
If we go outside the bible, we find that this is also the usage of the word apantesis in other greek sources. The word was used specificly to describe when a dignitary visited a city and the citizens of the city formed a procession outside the city to welcome the dignitary into the city.

Thus the rapture is a welcome procession both for the bridegroom of the church and for the King of Kings.

The next question is, when does the rapture happen?

and here is where we will undoubtedly begin to run into disagreements.

It is my belief that the rapture takes place after the tribulation. I believe this for a number of reasons all of which come from what the bible has to say, or not say on the topic.

Issue #1 This event (the rapture) obviously takes place at the return of Christ. There are several passages in the bible that refer to Jesus Christ returning. They refer to a number of events which occur at the return. The events include the resurrection of the righteous dead, the rapture, the judgement of the wicked, the destruction of the "anti-christ". Now, do these verses all describe one single return of Jesus Christ, or do they refer to two different returns, one of them being a "secret" coming.
First, in some of the verses it is obvious (or directly stated) that the return described must happen after the tribulation. For example, those verses which link the return of Christ with the judgement of the wicked, and with the destruction of the anti-christ can not possibly happen before the tribulation therefore, they must be describing a return after the tribulation.
The question then becomes, do any of the verses referring to the return of Christ refer to a seperate, different return?

In order to answer that question we will have to think about how we can tell from the description of the events if they are describing the same, or different returns.

Starting with 1st Thess 4:17 which is clearly describing the rapture, and probably the key verse in the bible on the teaching about the rapture, we can see that the rapture is clearly linked to the resurrection of the righteous dead. Thus any verse which describes the return of Christ as including the resurrection of the righteous dead must also be describing the return at which the rapture happens.

Secondly it is obvious from the verses which describe the return of Christ as judging the wicked and destroying the anti-christ that these must happen after the tribulation, thus if there are two seperate returns of Christ then none of these verses should include refrences to either the rapture, or the resurrection of the righteous dead (which as we have established from 1st Thess 4:17 occur in immediate succession).

So lets look at the verses which refer to the return of Christ, and see what they say (keeping the above questions in mind). We'll start at the beginning of the new testament and work our way through.

Matt 24:29-31

"29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

The first thing obvious in this verse is that it occurs after the tribulation since the first sentance of the verse is "immediately after the tribulation of those days..." Then appears the Son of Man in the heavens coming on the clouds in great glory, and he sends out his angels to gather the elect from all the earth.

Now, this verse is too obvious to be missed by those of the pre-trib view point. It clearly states that it happens at the end of the tribulation, and it describes something which sounsd a great deal like the rapture described in 1st Thess. 4:17.

The pre-trib view point answers this verse by saying that the book of matthew applies specificly to the Jews and not to gentile christians. Thus the elect in this verse does not refer to the church (as it does everywhere else) but to Jews who have been saved during the tribulation period after the rapture of the church. Problems with this idea include, first, there is simply no evidence for it in the book of Matthew. There is nothing in the book of matthew which suggests that it applies only to the Jews, and a great deal which would suggest that it applies to all christians. Secondly, The pre-trib view relies heavily upon the parable of the wedding feast for its own concept of the pre-trib rapture and that concept is found where? in Matthew 25, the parable of the ten virgins. Thirdly, virtually the exact same description of the Return of Christ occurs in the book of Mark.

Mark 17:24-27

"24 “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, 25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. 26 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven."

There are some extreme forms of dispensationalism which hold that none of the gospels apply to the church, but only to the Jews. This is neither an orthodox, nor a common view so I'm not going to bother going through the bother of refuting it.

There is no reason to assume (unless you have already decided and are simply looking to support your own view) that both these refrences refer to the Jews specificly, and not to gentile Christians. However, the pre-trib view is that, at the very least, these refrences refer to the gathering of "tribulation christians" or people who were saved after the rapture of the church, during the tribulation.

How does this "gathering" compare to the rapture of 1st Thess 4:17?

Both directly state that Jesus is returning in the clouds in glory

both directly state that the believers are brought to meet Jesus in the air

Both involve a great trumpet call which announces the 'gathering' of the elect

The main difference between these verses and 1st Thess. is that these verses do not explicitly mention the resurrection of the dead.

Never the less, there is obviously a great deal of similarity between the descriptions... so much so that I would call them, nearly identical.

It is a basic maxim of reasoning (often stated as Occam's Razor) that in the absense of extenuating evidence, the simple explanation is the best, and usually the correct one. Thus if we see two verses which place the return of Christ after the tribulation, and directly link it to an event which appears to be identical to the rapture, then it is most reasonable to assume that the verses are describing the rapture, and not a seperate events. If we to believe that there are infact two returns of Christ, and also two raptures, we must find fairly significant evidence to this effect somewhere.

to be continued...

Eschatology Part I

2006-09-18T15:29:00.000-07:00

I have been focusing more on topics of devotional/spiritual living nature in this blog thus far, because those are the topics that I am most moved by currently and learning the most in. I thought, however, that I might do something a little more fun. Eschatology is one of my favorite topics and something I consider to be a great deal of fun (yes I know I'm a little unusual). As it happens my eschatological views are generally somewhat unique as well. I suppose there are many similarities in my views to some common views, but I've never found anyone who agreed with me entirely. That is possibly due to the nature and complexity of the topic, or perhaps I've hit on some things that no one else has, or perhaps I'm just entirely wrong!

Although I have reasoned my positions out, and prayed for understanding, and thus believe that I'm right, I don't think eschatology is a topic on which a person can, or should be, dogmatic (barring a few key points like the literal return of Christ and literal resurection). Consider what I have to say, and see if it makes sense.

This post will serve as an introduction to the topic and mainly focus on laying out all the varrying view points to set some ground work.

First I must lay a little basic ground work. There are a number of common positions on eschatology and it may be helpful to define, basicly, what each of them are.

Pre-Millenial (pre-mil) - This label applies to all views which hold that there will be a literal 1000 year "millenial" reign of Christ and that the tribulation, rapture, and return of Christ all happen before the millenial reign. This view is most common among evangelical protestants. There are in turn three main varieties of "pre-mil" views, all named for their view on when the rapture takes place.

Pre-Trib - This view holds that the rapture of the church takes place before the tribulation period, the church is in heaven during the tribulation and then returns to earth with Jesus at the end of the tribulation.

Mid-Trib/Pre-Wrath - Technically these are two seperate views, but they are fairly close, and mid-trib has been somehwat subsummed into pre-wrath. This view holds that there is a distinct division between the period of the tribulation and the pouring out of God's wrath upon the earth. This view holds that the church is present on earth for the tribulation and that the rapture occurs after the tribulation, but before the pouring out of God's wrath.

Post-Trib - This view holds that the rapture occurs at the end, after the tribulation and when Jesus returns to the earth judging the earth and setting up his millenial kingdom.

A-Mil - This view is the official position of the traditional churches (technically the orthodox and the anglican churches don't have an 'official' position but the majority of members probably hold to an a-mil view). This view holds that the "millenial" reign of Christ after his return is not literal but rather is a spiritual allegory of some sort. Within A-Mil positions you will find some who view all biblical end time prophecy as allegorical, however the official Catholic position holds the tribulation and return of Christ and resurrection of the saints to be literal events. In most points the Catholic position lines up with a "post-trib" view discussed earlier except that they do not believe the millinial reign is literal.

Preterist/Historical fulfillment - This view point holds that either all, or the majority of biblical "end time" prophecy was fulfilled during the roman empire specificly surrounding the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple in 70 AD. This view is often considered to be an "A-mil" position because it also does not view the millenial reign as a literal event. Historical fulfillment views rely upon viewing all prophetic writings as highly symbolic and 'spiritualized' or allegorical.
Within the 'preterist' position there are full preterists and partial preterists. Partial preterists believe that almost all end time prophecy has been fulfilled, but that there will be a literal return of Christ which is yet in the future. Full preterists believe that the final resurection and return of Christ are also allegorical, or spiritual, and not literal events which were fulfilled in the past.

At the risk of offending, full preterism is a heretical belief which was condemned by the church from the apostles on down to Nicea and to our day.

Post-Millenialism - this view is primarily held among partial preterists. This view holds that the millenial reign described in revelation is a spiritual description of the church/kingdom of God on earth manifested in the community of believers. They believe that the millenial reign will thus precede the literal coming of Jesus Christ at the end of the world.

The demand of the cross...

2006-09-17T14:20:00.000-07:00

This weekend I came face to face with the cross again. Its an experience most christians have had at least once, but as is the nature of humanity, we forget. Our desires and dreams cloud our vision and the business of life distracts our gaze from the sorrowful cross of Calvary.

It has been said so often, and so often without the passion it truly deserves, Jesus Christ died for us, that the phrase has become prosaic, and the fact behind it, taken for granted. I think that perhaps this is the reason the world so hated the movie "The Passion"; to see the terrible, awful, glorious truth behind the prosaic "Christ died for us" brings people face to face with the demand of the cross.

The Apostle Paul once wrote the words (paraphrased) "for a good man scarcely would anyone die, but you may find someone who would dare to die for a good man, but this is the love of God, that while we were yet sinners, while we were yet enemies, Jesus Christ died for us."

In the course of thinking about this I was reminded of another movie which tells a story of self sacrifice. Many of you may have seen the movie "Saving Private Ryan", but for those who haven't, it is a story set during the Normandy invasion of World War II. A squad of American soldiers is dispatched to find one man and to bring him safely out of the war. Once the soldiers find Private Ryan most of them are killed trying to keep him alive and fulfill their mission. The commanding officer of the rescue squad tells Private Ryan, after seeing his friends die, and with his own dying breaths... "earn this".

The movie ends with Ryan as an old man visiting the graves of those who gave their lives for him and asking the question, "was I a good man"... did I make their sacrifice worth while.

The sacrifice of those men in laying down their lives, sanctified Ryan's life. Their sacrifice set his life apart. It could not be just any life, it was no longer his life to do with as he wanted. Because of their sacrifice, his life belonged to all of them. Their sacrifice made a demand of him.

Now as christians we realize that we can not earn salvation, we can not make ourselves worthy of salvation. We simply don't have the ability or the capacity to do so. Never the less, our lives were sanctified by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Our lives were set apart by his shed blood, by the scourging he suffered, by the nails he took, by the life he laid down. Our lives can not be just any lives, they are no longer ours to live as we see fit.

This is the demand of the cross. When you have come face to face with what the Lord of Creation, the King of Glory, suffered and sacrificed for you, it demands your all, your everything.

Disciplined Devotions

2006-09-09T19:26:00.000-07:00

There are a great many things that divide us as christians. Perhaps I should say that we allow to divide us. There are doctrinal disagreements applenty, but one of the more stark and visible dividing lines is style of worship. Specificly when it comes to liturgical vs. non-liturgical churches. Being raised non-denomiantional, evangelical, charismatic myself, I found the very idea of liturgical worship totally foreign and strange. Having also visited the other side of the fence, I found that many in the liturgical church view non-liturgical worship the same way.

I do not intend to take on the question of liturgical vs. non-liturgical in this particular post, but something related to it. A smaller aspect of that topic you might say. For those who might not be fully aware of what liturgy is, it generally refers to a church service that is pre-scripted. The minister reads scriptures and prayers which are pre-scripted and the congregation says pre-scripted responses. There is a pre-scripted order of events that the service follows, etc etc.

I have been motivated lately to increase my otherwise sadly lacking personal devotions. To institute discipline in my devotional life. In my experience as a charismatic evangelical I have found that many of us struggle with discipline in every area of life, and especially in the area of personal devotions. I think that a good deal of this is because our mode of worship is prone to lacking structure and discipline. In fact in many charismatic circles, structure is practically a dirty word.

In my own family growing up 'liturgy' was synonymous with 'dead'. People who engaged in liturgical worship were generally viewed as nominal christians who almost certainly had no personal relationship with Jesus. Along with this the idea of anything in the service being pre-scripted was anathema. The general view of most from my background is that if something is pre-scripted it removes the freedom of the Holy Spirit to move and inspire, and it is 'dead'.

I have discovered, however, that using pre-scripted elements to a devotional time can be very beneficial. Here are a few reasons why...

First - If you look at virtually any institution, or expert that specializes in teaching discipline, or instilling discipline you will find one of the single most important aspects of learning discipline, is routine. Having a set, established routine in which you do the same things at the same time, over and over and over. I would go so far as to say that without routine it is virtually impossible to learn discipline.
If you've ever tried to start an exercise or weight lifting program you will know that one of the chief elements of success is planning out ahead of time exactly what exercises you will do, how long you will do them, how much weight you will lift, and keeping a schedule. If you look into it you will find this truth repeated over and over throughout life. It is a profound truth of creation that God has made the physical creation an allegory for spiritual reality.
We can not learn discipline without having structured routine. We can not constructively and rightly use freedom, without first having discipline.

Secondly - One of the most frustrating and difficult things about my personal devotions before experiencing Anglicanism was that I would decide to pray, sit down, pray for five minutes, and have nothing more to say. I would forget to pray for important things, I would struggle for words to express the things I wanted to pray for and so on. Including a few pre-scripted elements helps with these problems immensely. If you start out with one or two pre-scripted elements (usually a short opening prayer and then maybe a pre-selected passage of scripture) it helps to calm your mind, to help you put the world behind you, to get yourself thinking about the things of God, and the things you should be praying for.

Thirdly - Our quiet times and devotions are not just times of making requests and supplications, they should also be times of worship. Times when we bless God and minister to God. Using pre-scripted elements allows me to incorperate an element of beauty in the words I speak that would otherwise not be present. Much like singing songs... we sing pre-written songs because they are enjoyable and beautiful and moving. The same is true of pre-written prayers and pre-selected passages of scripture.

Fourth - Without guidlines and fences it is very easy for us to get off base. Either in saying wrong things maybe without realizing it, or even over time drifting on the tides of shifting doctrines. Including pre-scripted elements in our personal devotions (or in our church services) allows us to anchor ourselves to the orthodox christian faith. It gives us safe boundries within which we can roam freely. This is one reason I especially recomend including either the Apostles Creed, or the Nicean Creed in your daily devotions.

In closing, the fact that something is pre-written does not mean in the least that it must be impersonal. Have you never read a poem, or a sang a song that you invested your heart into? Those words became personal to you! Not because you made them up, but because you invested yourself in them. I don't advocate eliminating freeform, extemporaneous prayers from your devotions at all. What I advocate is mixing the best of both worlds. Find some prayers that you can open and close your devotions with, and maybe a scripture or two that is particularly meaningful to you and make them a routine part of your daily devotions. Use those things but also leave time for extemporaneous prayers as well! Its also not a bad idea to leave time for God to speak to you! ;)

My soul waits for the Lord

2006-08-27T16:07:00.000-07:00

1 Out of the depths I cry to you, O Lord!
2 O Lord, hear my voice!Let your ears be attentive to the voice of my pleas for mercy!
3 If you, O Lord, should mark iniquities,O Lord, who could stand?
4 But with you there is forgiveness,that you may be feared.
5 I wait for the Lord, my soul waits,and in his word I hope;
6 my soul waits for the Lord more than watchmen for the morning,
more than watchmen for the morning.
7 O Israel, hope in the Lord!For with the Lord there is steadfast love,and with him is plentiful redemption.
8 And he will redeem Israel from all his iniquities.

--- Psalm 130 (ESV)

We are assured numerous times in scripture of the goodness of the Lord. So often I run to those promises from scripture. The assurance that God desires good for me, that he will hear my cry and grant me what is good.
Yet I have learned in the course of my life that what is good is not always what we desire... even what we earnestly desire. It is often challenge enough to hope in the goodness of God, and have faith that He will not leave you in your troubles, but to have the heart to recognize that your desires may not be the good that God has in store for you and yet to hope and trust... It requires that you have faith, not only that God will minister good unto you, but also that he will change you to desire the good that he has willed.
It is one thing to hope and trust that God will change the things in you that you don't like. It is another all together to trust that God will change the things that you love.

That requires a submission and a faith I have yet to master. God grant me faith.

Spiritual expression

2006-08-24T16:20:00.000-07:00

I was born and raised in the charismatic, non-denominational section of the church. We believed in freedom to be moved during worship, freedom to express yourself in worship etc. For the last two years or so I have been in the Anglican church and learned a great deal. I have not abandon my charismatic roots, but I have added much of value and grown in understanding.

For the last month or so I have been attending a charismatic non-denominational church and enjoying it very much. This last sunday as we received communion I wanted to make the sign of the cross before recieving the elements. I found that I was hesitant to do so for fear of what others there might think of me. I have experienced some prejudices among protestants towards such things percieved as too Catholic, or superstitious etc. The end result was that I did make the sign of the cross quickly and furtively hoping that no one would see. (in all likelyhood most wouldn't care even if they did see, but thats how our minds work :) ) .

I was thinking about all this today. So I wanted to comment on it here. In some churches raising your hands in praise is not allowed, or discouraged, in others making the sign of the cross is viewed as too Catholic or as superstitious and so on. In my thoughts on this I must refer back to my previous post on "real spirituality".

In my last post I spoke a little about how true spirituality is not the seperation of the physical from the spiritual, but rather when the spiritual is manifested in our physical lives. We are both physical and spiritual beings. I spoke of this as related to the fruit of the spirit being made evident in our daily lives, which is the most important aspect of it. However, our physical expression of the spiritual also includes things like raising your hands in worship, and making the sign of the cross.

It is a fact of human nature readily evident to all that physical expression (meaning body language and body motion) are part of how we communicate and react. When you experience great victory, and jubilation the most natural and common response among people is to lift their hands in the air, and to jump, or stand if they are sitting. When we ask people for something in earnest, our natural posture is to hold our hands open in front of us, as if ready to receive.

Is it not interesting then that so often people see it as strange or odd that people use these same expressions when they worship God? Would it not actually be more strange for people to have great victory, or jubilation, and not show any physical expression? It tends to make me think that the real issue is people find not the physical expression odd, but rather they find the emotional response to God, to be odd.

We should make physical expression of the spirit within us. In the case of crossing yourself, it is a sign of reverence and a sign of blessing. Just as raising your hands is a sign of victory and jubilation, and holding your hands open in front of you is a sign of suplication and desire to recieve. We should learn to be free in these expressions, because it brings worship to our full being. We should worship God, with body, soul, and spirit.

Real spirituality

2006-08-13T18:48:00.000-07:00

In our day religion has practically become a dirty word. This is true both in the church and the world. "Organized religion" is blamed by the world for wars, bigotry, manipulation, and power mongering. It is blamed by the church for nominalism, legalism, and all the evils thereof.

In the world the pop culture catch phrase of the day is " I'm not religious... I'm SPIRITUAL!" The Christian varient is "I'm not religious, I have a relationship with Jesus!" or "its not a religion, its a relationship!".

As with most pop culture catch phrases (christian or otherwise) when you begin to look behind these trite phrases, you find that they are, in most cases, devoid of any real meaning. Particularly in the case of the non christian, and sadly more often than should be in the case of the christian, what these phrases really mean is "I make up my own religion".

In this post I will be looking at the questions of what is "real spirituality". What does it mean to be a truly spiritual person? What, if anything, is the difference between religion and spirituality?

Language is one of the most essential traits of humanity. It is one of our unique giftings. As such we should regard it as important, and in a sense, almost sacred. Thus we should avoid the degredation of words in ways which cheapen or impovrish our language.

Thus let us begin with the issue of "religion". This word has been made into a "whipping boy" for virtually every group that discusses anything on the topic. Atheists use "religion" to mean "irrational", Christians often use religion to mean "nominal" or "legalistic", new agers and the rebelious pop culture use the word "religion" to mean an organization which unjustly tries to control people's minds and actions.

what the word religion actually means is...
1. The service and worship of God or the supernatural.
2. Commitment or devotion to 'religious' faith or observance
3. A personal or institutionalized set of attitudes, beleifs, and practices
4. A cause, principle, or system of belief held to with ardor and faith

From this you can clearly see, first of all, that Christianity is obviously a religion and secondly that virtually EVERYONE on earth is religious, including atheists (especially atheists).

If you want to talk about nominalism, or legalism, or works based salvation, or false security.. then talk about those things but stop abusing the word religion. Doing so only confuses your meaning, and opens people up to deception through giving false impressions.

What then is spirituality?

The meaning of the word is fairly simple. It means basicly anything which affects, or has to do with the spirit, sacred things, or the supernatural. That of course is not very suprising. We will keep this in mind and come back to it later.

Earlier I said that most people when they say "I'm not religious I'm spiritual" really mean "I make up my own religion". In the phrase above religion is meant specificly to refer to organized, external religion. A belief system which comes to you from others, and which imposes an external set of beliefs and commands upon you. By contrast, spiritual in the phrase means that the person is drawing their beliefs, their commandments and rules, from within, from their self, which they presume to be their spirit. This does not mean, necessarily, that the person in question is inventing soemthing entirely new, they could be picking a pre-existing system of belief, but the point is that they are picking it, and "believing it" because it is what they like, it is what appeals to them. Very often people like this will end up picking up bits and peices of different religions and cobbling them together into a mish mash based on their personal prefrences.

This is entirely contrary to christianity. While I have portrayed this phenomenon as somewhat new, because it is the pop culture flavor of the day, it is not new at all. It is infact the second oldest religion in the world, and it is the first man made religion. This is the religion of Cain.

In the story of Cain and Abel, what began the strife between them was the fact that Cain insisted on not worshiping as God had perscribed, and instead insisted on worshiping as he himself saw fit. God rejected Cain's self made religion, and warned Cain that his presumption was in danger of leading him into the jaws of sin.

The great message of christianity is "come just as you are to the cross and receive the transforming grace of God..." The heart of all false religion and deception is very similar (as is always the case with good lies). It says "Come on your own terms to God and demand his favor". You can come, just as you are, no matter how wretched, but you can never come on your own terms. You can only ever come to God, on His terms.

What most people seem to mean when they say "I am spiritual" is that they have formed their own terms on which they will come to God. This is the very opposite of what real spirituality is.

In the Bible we are taught that mankind exists in a state of spiritual death. We are seperated from God, and thus seperated from life. Man in this state is incapable of knowing God, or understanding the things of God.
In this state, man is ruled by his soul, the seat of his will and mind. It is this state of self exaltation that caused our spiritual death to begin with, and as long as it persists, we will never know true spiritual life.
This should point out the true irony and utter blindness of those who spout the phrase "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual". True spirituality can not be self made. It must come to us from an outside source.

That gives us one step on the journey to discovering real spirituality.

While it is not correct to say that Christianity is not a religion, it is correct to say that christianity is a religion that is all about relationship. Specificly Christianity is all about relationship with God.

God is a spirit. God breathed the first human spirit into Adam from his own breath. All our human spirits come from God, and they return to God. The life that kindled a soul in man was the life of God. Our spirits come from his spirit. Our life comes from his life. He is the source.

We have seen that true spirituality can not come from self. We can not make it, we do not have it in us. We must get it from some outside source. God is that source. This is where the idea of relationship really comes in. In today's pop christianity the image presented is that the 'relationship' with Jesus is one like you might have with one of your buddies... you hang out together, you have some laughs, you talk.. he comes over to watch the ball game.. etc.
While Jesus is a friend to us who sticks closer than a brother, this imagery of our relationship with God falls WOEFULLY short of capturing the reality of what God desires of us, and for us.

Spirit, is how we relate to God. It is how we commune with God, it is how we worship God, it is how we understand and know God. It is how we receive the life of God, thus it is how God lives in us, and we in him. My words surely fail to describe the difference between an image in which God sits beside you on the couch watching TV chatting with you.. and an image in which God is your very life, your very breath. He is like the air in your lungs, and all around you. He not only talks with you, but he becomes the medium on which your words are carried, the inspiration behind your words. You can see how some people could begin to doubt the idea of human freedom when they see such a close abiding, indwelling relationship. However, the difference is this... he does not think your thoughts... he directs you what to think, and you may follow his direction.. or follow yourself.

Now we come to what I believe is one of the greatest failings of modern christianity. Modern christianity starts from a position of seperating the spiritual and the physical. We tend almost to see the spirit as the opposite of the physical, and visa versa. We see them as two seperate worlds which never really meet. In this view, we have almost become gnostic, but it is also twinged with materialism because inherent in this for many people is the idea that 'spiritual' equals ' symbolic' while 'physical' equals 'real'. I believe this idea which is often subtlely ingrained in the modern mind, hinders christians almost more than anything else from understanding and achieving true spirituality.

The physical and the spiritual are connected. The physical creation is an expression of the spiritual God. The ironic thing of this truth is that while we in our modern materialistic mind tend to equate "spiritual" with "symbolic" it is infact just the opposite. In creation, the physical has become a symbol of the spiritual.
In humanity the relationship between physical and spiritual is brought to a unique pinnacle. Trees, rocks, the sky, are all physical things which reflect, or express, or symbolize the spiritual reality of God. Humans on the other hand do not merely reflect something spiritual... we are something spiritual. In us physical and spiritual are joined. Whats more, every indication of scripture is that this condition is eternal. There is no indication that we will ever cease to be physical beings.

The problem, for humanity, is that when we fell through sin, our spiritual nature died, it ceased to function because it was cut off from the source, God. As a result, we do not naturally function as spiritual beings. There is something in us which knows that we should and even desires to do so, but we do not.
The beginning of true spirituality then must obviously be the "born again" experience. That moment when our spirit is created anew and our communion with God restored. That, however, is just the beginning.

In our fallen nature we function as purely physical beings. Our perceptions, desires, motivations are all dominated by the physical world, and our will rules. This does not simply cease to be when your spirit is reborn. We must be converted. We must be transformed. We must learn to hear, see, and feel the spirit.We must learn to know and understand by spirit. We must learn to be motivated and directed by spirit.
This transformation is not the destruction of the physical, or the removal of the physical, but rather the restoration of balance. The restoration of the proper order in which the physical is the expression of the spirit.

True spirituality is when your physical life becomes an expression of the spirit and life within you.

That sounds nice, but what does it mean practically?

First, Paul tells us that the spiritual man (ie our spirit) understands the things of God, but our natural man (ie the mind and soul) does not. So what we are understanding through our spirit, and what our spirit is expressing to us, does not come from us. It comes from God. It is the will of God. Once again, God is the source. Moreover we do not depend only on internal revelation of God's external will. God has revealed his will, his truth, objectively for us in Holy Scripture and has given us guidelines by which to test ourselves, and test what we consider to be spiritual.
MANY people fall into the trap of self deception. They ignore the word of God, and twist it for the purpose of exalting their 'revelations' which are born of self. (or worse)

That brings us to point two. God has told us already what things he will reveal in our spirit, and what we must be confromed to. Paul referred to this as "the fruit of the spirit". It is the fruit (phhysical expression) produced when you are truly spiritual.
When most people read the scripture which talks about the fruit of the spirit, they get the impression that there are many fruits of the spirit, because a list of things is described. However the word fruit in the passage is actually singular. Indicating that the fruit of the spirit is one thing and each element listed is one aspect of the fruit, like facets of a jewel.

The list is as follows...

-love
-joy
-peace
-patience
-kindness
-goodness
-faithfulness
-gentleness
-selfcontrol

What it means to be truly spiritual is that the truth of God known and understood in your spirit is expressed and visible in your daily physical life.

And here we come to the question of works... am I defining true spirituality as works? no. Because the truth is, no matter how hard and how long you try, you will never produce the fruit of the spirit on your own. As we have come to over and over.. the source if God, not self. You can only get true spirituality, you can only produce the fruit of the spirit if God is doing the work.

We can not produce the fruit of true spirituality in our own effort. All we can do is submerge ourselves in the life of God, and his life will produce the fruit.

Be not afraid...

2006-06-21T21:18:00.000-07:00

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."
---Matt 5:9

The last few days have been very tumultuous in the world of the Episcopal Church USA (now known as simply The Episcopal Church 'TEC'). For nearly the last two weeks the Episcopal Church has been holding its general convention. This particular general convention has been a focal point for much attention and much apprehension. For several years now there has been much debate and controversy over the fact that the Episcopal Church appointed and consecrated an openly homosexual bishop. The rest of the Anglican Communion (the global body of the Anglican church) issued a very polite ultimatum (anglicans do everything politely) to the ECUSA stating that if they desired to continue in communion with the rest of the Anglican church, they must repent of their actions and not continue to follow the path upon which they had begun. This General Convention was the time when the ECUSA would decide how to respond.

In the last few days of convention it has been made painfully obvious that the ECUSA has decided it cares less for its fellowship with the world wide Anglican church than it does for its own socio-political agenda. In a fairly rapid succession of votes the Episcopal Church voted to approve intercommunion with the United Methodists, violating the traditional Anglican commitement to the Historic Episcopate. Elected a Female bishop to be the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church. Not only a female bishop but one who has never pastorally lead a church of her own, one who supports the consecration of homosexual clergy, among a number of other liberal points in contradiction to the faith and character of the Anglican Tradition. In addition to this the Episcopal Church voted down a resolution to cease funding of pro-abortion organizations, and voted down (by a margin of 70% to 30%) a resolution reaffirming the belief that salvation is found in Jesus Christ alone and that Jesus Christ alone is the way the truth and the life.
The new Presiding Bishop followed all this up by giving a sermon in which she referred to christians as children of "Mother Jesus".

All of this, of course, has made it a near certainty that the Episcopal Church will be excommunicated from the Anglican Communion. It has produced a flurry of conversation among conservatives about where they should go from here.. ie which church they should join once they leave the Episcopal Church, and what the Anglican Communion will do to establish an official body in the US. It has made it a near certainty that there will be numerous ugly legal battles as conservative Parishes fight to keep their churches when they leave the Episcopal Church.

It is a turbulent time to say the least.

In reflecting upon all of this, I was very encouraged today.

What? you ask... encouraged by all that doom, gloom, and chaos? Yes, encouraged!

One of the chief virtues of Christianity is peace. The scripture I opened with is one of the beatitudes, Jesus is known as the "prince of peace", Paul said "as much as it is possible, live at peace with all men". So what is peace? How do we have peace?

In order to answer that question let me ask another... what is the opposite of peace? War? Strife? Persecution? no. Undoubtedly those are likely to be the most common answers given, but in the christian sense, those things are not the opposite of peace. Fear is the opposite of peace.

It is interesting that the very next virtue Jesus listed in the beatitudes in Matt 5:10 is...

"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

How can we be have peace, and be peacemakers in the midst of persecution?? how is such a thing possible?
Jesus, the prince of peace also said " I came not to bring peace, but a sword, to divide a son from his father and a daughter from her mother." How could the prince of peace say such a thing?

Fear is the opposite of peace. So what then is peace? Peace is assurance of victory. The sure knowledge that no matter what the circumstance, no matter if you are at war, if you are in prison, if you are being persecuted, you will have the victory, and all will be well.

The bible says that perfect love casts out fear. I never really understood why until I began to see that the only perfect love is God's love, and when we begin to gain an understanding of how perfectly God loves us, then we have assurance of victory. For if God almightly loves me to the heigth, depth, and breadth of perfection, what could possibly overcome me. As scripture says, if God be for us, who can be against us.
Peace is the assurance, the absolute surity, that no matter what should occur in this life, God will work it together for my good and my victory.

This does not mean that bad things will not happen, it does not mean that we will not suffer.

There is a great hymn, well known and loved by christians of all types called "Peace like a River". Many of you may know the story of how this hymn came to be, but I could not find a better illustration of my point.

In the early 1800's there was a man named Horatio Gates Spafford. He was a Lawyer and a friend and co-worker of Dwight Moody in his ministry. After the great Chicago fire Spafford spent much time and effort helping the homeless and impoverished in chicago get back on their feet. After this, he and his family (wife and four daughters) decided to take a vacation, and join Moody in England to help with a crusade there.
Horatio himself was delayed by business but sent his family on ahead and planned to join them shortly in England. His wife and four daughters took passage on the ship, Ville de Havre. However the ship was involved in a collision with another ship off the coast of Newfoundland and sank within 20 minutes.
Horatio recieved a two word telegram from his wife which read "saved alone". All four of his daughters were killed in the wreck. Horatio joined his wife in England to grieve. During that time of sorrow he penned the following words...

When peace like a river, attendeth my way;
When sorrows like sea billows roll;
Whatever my lot, thou hast taught me to say,
It is well, it is well with my soul.

It is well...with my soul... It is well, it is well, with my soul...

Though Satan should buffet, though trials should come,
Let this blest assurance control,
That Christ hath regarded my helpless estate,
And hath shed His own blood for my soul.
It is well...with my soul...

It is well, it is well, with my soul...

He lives--oh, the bliss of this glorious thought;
My sin, not in part, but the whole,Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more.
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, Oh my soul.
It is well...with my soul...

It is well, it is well, with my soul...

And, Lord, haste the day when our faith shall be sight
The clouds be rolled back as a scroll,
The trumpet shall sound,
and the Lord shall descend;
Even so, it is well with my soul...

It is well...with my soul... It is well, it is well, with my soul...

In the midst of sorrow and anguish, Horatio Spafford had peace, and he did not fear.

One more example I would give is from scripture itself. The book of Job to be precise.

I'm sure we all know the story of Job. He was a good and righteous man who lost all that he posessed, his children died, and at last he was smitten with illness and boils.
Through out the book of Job, this godly man seeks answers for his suffering, and understanding of why he has been stricken. His friends supply numerous answers without understanding or wisdom, and finally at the end God speaks to Job and but does not address his suffering at all. He gives no answer to the questions Job has been wrestling with. Rather God asks Job a series of questions. A series of questions that no one other than God could possibly answer.
In this God reveals to Job something of the true depths of God's power and majesty, his understanding, and his glory. Job's response is to cover his mouth in silence and reverence.

He says to God
“I know that you can do all things,and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted."
"‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,things too wonderful for me, which I did not know."

When Job saw the greatness of God, the depths of God's majesty and power, he no longer gave place to his fears, or his doubts. He repented of his turmoil and was at peace.

When we have a revelation of God, when we experience God, fear is cast out, and only peace remains.

Is the situation dark and gloomy? is Doom hanging over head? Are you stepping out of a boat into a stormy sea?

When you fix your eyes upon God, all the rest fades, fear is cast out, and peace remains.

God works all things together for the good of those who love him. All will be well.

Seek Ye First...

2006-05-26T00:16:00.000-07:00

"But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you."

This verse has always been one of my favorites. It always strikes me on two different levels. The first is also the most obvious given the context of the verse. Do not worry about where your next meal is coming from, or how you will get clothing, but seek ye first...

This is clearly addressing the simple concerns of daily life. Making a living, providing for yourself and your family, making money. Its not at all that these things are some how bad for as the verse before says "...your heavenly Father knows that you need them all." These things are good things. It is said in scripture "if a man will not work, let him not eat." and Paul said "let it be your ambition to work with your hands..." Good honest work is a virtue. Providing for your family is a virtue. Paul also said that any man who didn't provide from his family was worse than an infidel.

What this verse speaks about is priority. We should work, we should earn our keep, we should provide for our families. First of all, however, we should seek the Kingdom of God and his righteousness.

Often we common christians are content to sit in the pews on sunday, but leave the theology to greater minds. Our lot is to work, to build something that we can pass on to our children. Really what good is theology to a dry wall hanger, or a carpenter, or a salesman?
This verse stands to remind us that knowing God is EVERY christian's business. It is our vocation.
Dusty tomes of theology and debates on fine points of doctrine are not for everyone, to be sure. The question, however, is not "what good is theology to a carpenter?" but "what good is a carpentry when you reason for existing is to know God?"

Now carpentry probably does have some value when it comes to knowing God. All of life, all of creation, is revelation of God. A tree is not God, a rock is not God, but they do reveal things about God. They were born in the mind of God.

So often we focus on piling up temporal wealth, posessions, and so on, that we leave ourselves little time for seeking the Kingdom of Heaven. What is the priority in your life? If you don't know for sure, it is probably the thing to which you devote most of your time. When you examine your life, do you find that thing to be the Kingdom of Heaven... or your own kingdom?

The second level on which this verse always strikes me is related to another one of my favorite verses. "Seek and you shall find". I take this verse as a promise, but also a warning. Seek and you shall find.. but be wary what you seek, because that is what you will find. We seek for many things in life; enjoyment, fun, comfort, wealth. Probably the greatest and most enduring quest in human history is the quest for Truth and wisdom. You might think truth and wisdom are two seperate things, but truth is ultimately a standard, and wisdom is the knowledge of that standard, and understanding of how it should be applied to life. So they are not very far apart.

I once pondered the question of why, if Jesus promised "seek and you shall find" do so many people who are seeking truth end up in false religions and philosophies. The answer I was given was that these people were not really seeking Truth, they were seeking a truth that pleased them, a truth that they were comfortable with, a truth that excited them. Perhaps the greatest danger humans face on the quest of Truth is that of self deception.

At least three different times in my life I have been in situations where the beliefs I had been raised with and held dearly were seriously challenged. I noted that my first reaction and a very strong one at that, was to simply dismiss out of hand that which challenged me. Beliefs are precious to us, they form the foundation of who and what we are, so when they are challenged it is a threatening and frightening experience.
My second response after the initial urge to dismiss the opposition out of hand, was to find whatever resources I could to prove my beliefs to be correct. Essentially to look specificly for information which supported what I already believed.
Only after getting through those two instinctive responses did I come to the place where I began to examine things with the purpose of finding the truth.

Many people don't get past the first instinctive response, and most don't get past the second.

In my experiences I found one time that my beliefs were vindicated and another time my views were partially vindicated and partially changed. The last time, I found my beliefs to be lacking and was forced to change them. It has never been a comfortable experience. I remember the last time I went through this experience and was convinced that a number of my views were wrong, feeling like I had wasted years learning things that I now had to admit were lacking.

This is not an admonition that you should always consider every idea every time it is tossed at you. It is ok to make up your mind on things but you should becareful about what you set in stone.

I believe 100% in Jesus Christ, that he was the Son of God incarnate and that he died and rose again and ascended into heaven. Nothing will change that.

I believe that the Scriptures are the inspired word of God and are reliable and authoritative in everything they teach.

those things are settled in my mind. There were times when they came into question, but no more, I have decided and will not turn back.

Before you settle on doctrines, and teachings, you should look carefuly at why you believe them, and at what other view points hold. If you are presented with a view point that you had never considered before, consider it carefully and honestly.

Through all depend upon the grace and mercy of God and this promise, which I have relied upon, that God gives wisdom freely to all who ask.

You will get wisdom, you will find truth, if you seek them. You have only to make sure of what you are seeking.

The Cup of Blessing: Part III

2006-05-11T21:47:00.000-07:00

--Continued from Part II---

We were looking at John chapter 6 in which Jesus offends and alienates many of his followers by claiming to be the bread of life which came down from heaven and telling them all that they must feed on his flesh and drink his blood if they wish to have life eternal. Now we look at the conclusion of the chapter where Jesus speaks with the 12 disciples about this issue.

60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said,
“This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in
himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take
offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending
to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of
no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But
there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning
who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)
65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless
it is granted him by the Father.”
66 After this many of his disciples
turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the Twelve,
“Do you want to go away as well?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to
whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 69 and we have
believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of
you is a devil.” 71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he,
one of the Twelve, was going to betray him.

Jesus own disciples (not referrencing the 12 only but the many that followed him) were no less offended and troubled by this teaching than the people in the synagogue. Many of them turned away as a result of this teaching. The truth, however, is that these people turned away because they had not really believed in Jesus. They had been following his teaching, and his miracles, but they did not believe in Him. Never-the-less Jesus explains it once again for his offended disciples. He says "do you take offence at this, then what if you say the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?" Jesus points once again to the fact that the real issue is they do not believe in him. They do not believe he is who he claims to be, and they do not believe in what he has come to do. They saw him only as a teacher and a doer of signs... not as the Bread of Life.

Jesus goes on to say "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life". This phrase has caused many to misunderstand, or has been used by many to misunderstand because they do not see what Jesus has really been talking about this entire time. When Jesus says "the words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" many immediately interpet this to mean two things #1 Jesus' words, ie his teachings are the real food. #2 Everything Jesus has just said is allegory and not meant to be taken literally.

Both views are wrong. In much of the protestant church we have adopted a mindset that "spiritual" means "non literal" it means "allegorical" or "symbolic". None of that is true. "spiritual" simply means that which deals with the spirit. It is no less real, no less literal than that which is physical. If anything it is more so. Further, when Jesus says "The words I have spoken are spirit and life." He is referring not to everything he ever said, but specificly to what he has just finished saying. The words he just spoke are all about spirit, and life. Remember that Jesus began this entire conversation by saying "don't seek physical food, seek spiritual food which will bring eternal life".

Peter recognized this in his response at the end of the chapter "you have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and we have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God." The words of eternal life are those that Jesus has just been speaking. The message that we must believe in him, that he came down from heaven to be the Bread of Life, to give his flesh and blood for the world.

It should be recognized that Jesus is referring directly to his sacrifice on the cross when he says in this chapter "And the bread of life that I will give for the world is my flesh". The breaking of his body, the shedding of his blood are the bread of life.

It is also obvious in this passage that Jesus is fortelling the communion. The communion instituted at the last supper fortold the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Jesus in is forming a connection between communion, and his sacrifice on the cross. As we leave this passage from John keep this quote in mind "he who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him".

I'm sure we all know the story of the last supper in which Jesus took bread, blessed it and broke it saying "this is my body which is broken for you, take and eat all of you" and he took the cup and said "this is the new covenant in my blood, shed for many for the remission of sins, take and drink all of you". The new covenant, eterna life, our spiritual food is provided by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, his body broken, his blood shed. I'm sure you all remember the phrase which Jesus said at the last supper that we repeat today as well "do this in rememberance of me". A simple phrase in english, but with profound conotations in greek. The word translated "rememberance" is in greek "anamnesis".

The prefix "ana" means "again" and mnesis comes from the root meaning "to bring to mind". So the word means to bring to mind again.. ie to remember. So whats the big deal? The word anamnesis carries with it certain conotations that can not be ignored in the context of what Jesus is saying. The conotation of "anamnesis" is re-enactment. Plato used this conotation in a very complex theory he made about knowledge using the word "anamnesis". The idea behind this is that in the act of anamnesis you are not merely thinking about a past event, but rather you are bringing that event into the present. You are making that event present in you.

Does that seem far out, mind blowing.. maybe even far fetched?? Then compare it to what Paul says in 1st Corinthians 10:16

"The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?"

Communion is our participation in the blood of Christ, it is our participation in the body of Christ. When we "remember" him in communion, we are joined to his eternal once for all sacrifice. He is made present in us. Remember that quote from John 6 "he who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him". Remember the disciples on the road to Emmaus "he was known to us in the breaking of the bread".

Take it all together.

It is in the communion that we find relationship with Christ, it is in the communion that Jesus is revealed to us, and made present in us. It is through communion that we are participate in him.
Furthermore, through all this we can see that the relationship Jesus wants with us is not what like we have with friends.. it is much deeper and more intimate. "He abides in me, and I in him".

this is a mystical truth because in it we see that Jesus is revealed to us internally, through faith and participation in communion. This idea seems very strange to the modern, humanistic mind but it is true, it is what the scriptures tell us, it is what the church has practiced and believed. We meet him in communion... thats why its called communion.

The Cup of Blessing: Part II

2006-05-11T20:12:00.000-07:00

"They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?” 33 And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem. And they found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, 34 saying, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” 35 Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread."

--- Luke 24:32-35

The evangelist and teacher Ravi Zacharias has written a number of books. Among them is one called "Jesus among other gods". The point of this book is to examine Jesus Christ and see if he really is unique, or if it is true that all religions are really the same. In this book Mr. Zacharias makes a profound statement. A statement that gets at the very heart of Christianity. If you examine all other religions you will find teachers who point the way. Muhammed says, if you follow my teachings you will be righteous and a friend of God. Buddha says if you follow my teachings you will find enlightenment and freedom from suffering. Hinduisms prophets and mystics claim that their teachings show the way to enlightenment. Mr. Zacharias points out in his book that Jesus alone, among all others says "I am the way, the truth, and the life...". Jesus alone says "I am the bread of life", "I am living water, drink of me".

Too many christians in the protestant world have missed this point entirely. We have confused Jesus with his teachings. Its not that his teachings aren't important, or that they don't need to be obeyed, but HE is the bread of life, HE is the way, the truth, and the life, HE is the water of life. Jesus said "He that believes IN ME will never die".
In protestant circles we talk alot about 'relationship'. We say its all about relationship, not religion. That is true, but we have missed the true significance of those words. When it comes to answering the question "how does one have a relationship with Jesus" we answer with, reading the bible, praying, singing, etc. All those things are good and necessary and they are part of relationship God. They are not what our relationship with Christ is founded upon, however.
Part of the problem here is that we have defined our "relationship" with Christ as like those that we have with friends, but the relationship that Jesus intends is much more intimate and something much greater and deeper than any simple friendship.

So what is this relationship, and where do we find it? The first clue I offer up is the event described in Luke 24 which I have quoted at the end of my last post, and at the beginning of this one. The road to Emmaus. In this passage Jesus appears to some of his disciples who are journeying from Jerusalem to the town of Emmaus. As they walk they are discussing the crucifixion and the rumors that Jesus' tomb was empty. Jesus joins them on the road and asks what they are talking about. They do not recognize him and begin to tell him of the events. Jesus responds by giving them what undoubtedly was one of the greatest teachings on the fortold death and resurection of the messiah, ever given. Luke tells us that beginning with Moses and the prophets Jesus explained EVERYTHING in scripture concerning himself. I can hardly imagine how amazing a teaching like that would be... and yet... these men who had known him for three years, heard his teachings, walked with him... did not know him. They did not recognize him.

So at the end of their day's journey they reached the town of Emmaus and these men asked Jesus to come in and stay with them because night was falling. Jesus came in and as they settled down for supper, Jesus, the guest, became the host. Luke tells us that Jesus took bread and blessed it (just as he had at the last supper) and then he broke it and gave to each of them (just as he had at the last supper). In that moment, in the breaking of the bread, they knew Jesus. Then he miraculously vanished from their sight. They were amazed.. they recalled how their hearts had burned within them at the truths He taught them while they walked, but they had not known him then.
Immediately these men who had spent the entire day travelling leapt up and ran back to Jerusalem that night. They found the Apostles and told them how the risen Christ had appeared to them, and that they had known Jesus in the breaking of the bread.

It is so significant here that we see, Jesus taught them all about himself from the scripures, but they never knew him till he blessed the bread and broke it for them. We can know about Jesus from teaching and study, but that is not how we know Him.

One of the most controversial passages on this topic is John chapter 6. It was just as controversial when Jesus said it as it is now. The result of what Jesus taught in this passage was that many of his followers left him because what he said was to hard and strange for them. We will begin looking at this passage in verse 25.

25 When they found him on the other side of the
sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” 26 Jesus answered
them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw
signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27 Do not labor for the
food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son
of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.”
28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him
whom he has sent.” 30 So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that
we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? 31 Our fathers ate
the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven
to eat.’” 32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was
not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true
bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven
and gives life to the world.” 34 They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread
always.”

The context of this passage is that Jesus has just finished feeding the five thousand. The next day the crowds came looking for him again.
Jesus makes a point of framing the conversation in terms of food. He tells them that they come looking for him not because they saw signs and wonders, but because they themselves ate their fill of the miraculous loves and fishes. He then tells them not to labor for temporal food, but for eternal food, food that leads to eternal life. He says that this food is the food that the Son of Man will give to us.

The people seem to ignore what Jesus is sayin, perhaps they didn't understand it, but they redirect the conversation "what must we do to be doing God's works?". Jesus answers them, redirecting back to his original points "the work of God is to believe in him that God sent." Here again we see the subtle distinction that our belief is not in teachings, but in Jesus himself.

The people continue in their misunderstanding and ask " What sign do you do that we may believe you." Note that they do not get the distinction between believing Jesus, and believing in Jesus. The theme of food continues as the people suggest to Jesus that in the days of the exodus, Moses gave them bread from heaven, mana. Jesus corrects them and says that it was not Moses who gave them bread from heaven, but it is the Father who now, present tense, give them bread from heaven, and that bread is "He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." The people still do not understand that he is speaking of himself, and they ask him to give them this bread from heaven. We continue the passage in verse 35

35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall
not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to
you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father
gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of
him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should
lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son
and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the
last day.”

Here, Jesus finally lays it all on the line. He has been telling them from the beginning that He is the food of eternal life, that the work of God is to believe IN him, and they have not understood. Jesus finally says "I am the bread of life, whoever comes to me shall not hunger and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. He lays bare their own hearts that they have seen and heard him from the beginning but the truth is that they do not believe. This statement, as we shall see angers many, but Jesus has just begun to get controversial.

41 So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came
down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose
father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
43 Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 No one can come to
me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last
day. 45 It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’
Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me— 46 not that
anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread
of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This
is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this
bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the
world is my flesh.”

The people were upset by Jesus claims because they did not believe in him. Jesus goes on to tecah "whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life." The point of this teaching from the beginning has been about spiritual food. It is about food that brings eternal life. The message is that Jesus himself is that food. It is not enough to believe teachings, to do works, (though those things are good and necessary) we must feed on Jesus Christ himself. Jesus makes this final point in shocking terms. "If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." To the jews, as to us today this is shocking. Many try to avoid the shock of this statement by making the same mistake that the Jews had been making all through this conversation, by thinking that Jesus is not talking about himself, he's talking about his teachings. The reason Jesus makes this shocking statement is so that there can be no doubt exactly what he is talking about. He is not talking about moral codes, teachings, or anything like that, he is talking about himself.

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying,
“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them,
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and
drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and
drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever
feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the
living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me,
he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from
heaven, not as the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live
forever.” 59 Jesus said these things in the
synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.

The Jews are already suitably outraged because Jesus has said that he came down from heaven, that he is the bread of life and because he has said he will give his very flesh to be the bread of life for the world. Jesus pushes one step further with the statment "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." Now this conversation has gone beyond offensive, beyond insane, and into sacrelige. Jesus here touched on something absolutely forbidden under Jewish law, drinking blood. Jesus then says something that is crucial to our question of relationship. "for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him."

Food and drink sustain life. Jesus framed this conversation in terms of food and preceeded it by doing a miracle of feeding people. He began the conversation by telling people to seek food that brings eternal life. He claimed to be the food and drink which brings eternal life. The whole point, and what these people can not believe is that its not about works, its not about a moral code, its not about teachings.. ultimatly it is all about Jesus. Does he abide in us? and we in him?

We have just begun to delve into this topic but for the sake of the reader I will make this a to be continued. I will pick up where I left off in John Chapter 6 and continue with the question of how we know Jesus, and what our relationship is really meant to be....

The Cup of Blessing which we Bless...

2006-05-01T20:48:00.000-07:00

"The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?"

----- 1st Corinthians 10:16 (ESV)

In this post I would like to talk about Communion. Growing up in the Evangelical Protestant Church Communion was not often thought about, and even less taught about. In my particular church we celebrated Communion about once a month, although it was not uncommon to pre-empt our monthly communion service for a normal church service. We believed that there was a vague danger in taking Communion unworthily, but that Communion was primarily a symbol meant for a rememberance of Christ's sacrifice. We took Communion once in a while because it was an 'ordinance' commanded by Jesus, but we never viewed it as a normal part of worship.

I remember how strange it seemed to me that the traditional churches (Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic, and Orthodox) celebrated Communion every service, or nearly every service. In the last two years I have learned much about the traditional view point, and I'd like to talk about it here.

The traditional churches refer to Communion as The Eucharist. Eucharist is a Greek word which means "thanksgiving". The main points of traditional belief about the Eucharist are as follows...

#1 Sacramental - The traditional churches believe that Communion is a "sacrament"

#2 Real Presence - The traditional churches believe that Jesus is present in Communion

#3 Central/High Point - Communion is the central and high point of worship

#4 Sacrifice - The traditional churches believe that Communion is a sacrifice.

Point #1 Sacramental

The First issue here is to explain what exactly a sacrament is. In the traditional view a sacrament is a physical action or ritual through which God works grace in the lives of those who participate with faith. It is important to note that although an action is required on the part of the person, the work of the sacrament is done by God because the work is grace and is spiritual in nature. In other words, taking part in a sacrament does not earn you anything, but if you have faith, God will use the sacrament to work his grace in you. The most important point here is that something spiritual is accomplished by God, through the sacrament.

Point #2 Real Presence

The traditional view of Communion holds that Jesus Christ is really present in the Communion. This means that when you take Communion, you are taking Christ within yourself. There are a couple of different views on what exactly the Real Presence is.

Transsubstantiation (Catholic)
Consubstantiaton (Anglican/Lutheran)
Mystery (Orthodox)

The Orthodox prefer to not explain the Real Presense any further than to simply say that the bread is his real body and the wine is his real blood, the how doesn't matter. This is th answer you will receive from virtually any Orthodox person. However, if you really dig into it you will find that the Orthodox really hold with the doctrine of transsubstantiation, they just don't like to define it as rigerously as the Catholics do.

The Catholic doctrine of Transsubstantiation holds that the elements of the Communion, the bread, and the wine, really change from one substance to another. The bread becomes flesh, and the wine becomes blood. This view holds that the bread and the wine cease to exist as substances.

Consubstantiation was originally proposed by John Wyclife and is widely held by Lutherans and Anglicans. Consubstantiation holds that the real body and blood are present in the elements, but that the bread and wine do not cease to exist as substances. Thus both body and bread, blood, and wine are held to exist within the elements of the Communion.

At this point I need to explain a common misconception about transsubstantiation. This doctrine was stated by medieval scholastics who were working based on definitions of Aristotelian philosophy. Thus when they used the word "substance" it had a very specific meaning. Many people today think that Catholics believe the bread and wine physically become flesh and blood. This is not exactly correct. The word substance used by the scholastic means, in simple terms, what a thing IS, not what it is made of. What a thing is, is said to be its substance, what a thing is made of is said to be its accidents. For example the substance of a chair is "chair" but the accidents of a chair could be wood, metal, leather, and so on.
So when they say that the substance ceases to be wine, and becomes blood, they do not mean that it has ceased to be made of fermented grape juice, or that it has become made of hemoglobin and plasma. They mean that while the bread is still made of wheat and glutin, it has ceased to be bread in substance, and become body. The accidents remain the same, only the substance changes.

The importance of Real Presence is wrapped up in what Communion is all about. When the believer partakes in Communion they are taking Christ inside them. When the participant eats the elements, he is feeding on Jesus Christ as spiritual food. This requires that the Communion is more than just a symbol. It requires that Jesus is truly present in the elements.

Point #3 Central/High Point

In the traditional churches Communion is the central point of every, or nearly every service and it is seen as the highest form of Christian worship.

Point #4 Sacrifice

The Communion is seen as a sacrifice in two ways. First it is seen as a sacrifice of Thanksgiving and Praise. This is reflected in the name "Eucharist". In traditional services the Communion portion of the service is referred to as "the Great Thanksgiving".
Secondly, protestants often say that the Catholics are re-enacting the sacrifice of Christ on the cross in the Communion. This of course is seen as a violation of the scripures which state that Christ was sacrificed once for all, and that it is a grave sin to put Christ on the cross again. This, however, is a misunderstanding of the traditional view point.

In the bible it is said that Jesus was "slain from the foundations of the world". We know, of course, that his sacrifice was within time. It was made at a specific time in a specific place. The bible also tells us that his sacrifice was eternal. It is applied to all who have faith in all times and all places. In this sense, the sacrifice of Christ is eternal, it is outside of time.

In the traditional view, when the elements (the bread and wine) of the Communion are consecrated, the sacrifice of Christ is made present in that moment. It is important to note, this is not a re-enactment, it is not a re-sacrifice.. it is making the once for all sacrifice present in that moment. In a sense, the eternal is being brought within time so that the worshipers can partake in it and be in communion with it. While this undoubtedly seems very mystical to us protestants, it isn't the "re-sacrificing" of Christ that it is often alledged to be.

This is a very general look at the Traditional view of Communion. In the next post I will examine some of these ideas in more detail, and look at what the scriptures have to say about Communion.

"So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He acted as if he were going farther, 29 but they urged him strongly, saying, “Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.” So he went in to stay with them. 30 When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. 31 And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight."

-------- Luke 24:28-31 (ESV)

Strangers in a strange land...

2006-04-18T09:21:00.000-07:00

"Of whom the world was not worthy--wandering over deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth."
--- Hebrews 11:38

Wanderers, nomads, sojourners, madmen in the desert, such is our heritige in the Christian faith. From the very beginning, Abel was a shepheard, Seth and his line after him were keepers of flocks, while Cain founded the first city. It is in the line of Cain that you will find the fruits of settled civilization.
Abraham was called out of the great civilization of his day to roam and wander after the flocks. Moses also left his place as a prince of Egypt to tend sheep as a nomad in the desert before he was called to lead God's people in the desert.
The exodus is a parable for the journey all God's people must make. To leave the familiarity and security of Egypt, comfortable despite its slavery, and strike out for the promised land. A dream on the edge of waking. They wander in the desert because they have no home any longer in Egypt and the time of the promise has not yet been fulfilled. So they sojourn as strangers in the land.

We in our settled and secure society tend to forget the stark and wild image that is our heretige as Christians. We follow in the foot steps of prophets who were outcast in their own time, Saints hated and feared by the world around them, and a Lord that men called mad.
Jesus said that John the Baptist was the greatest man who ever lived to that time. John made his home in the wilderness, outside of civilization, wore animal skins and ate bugs as one of his main food stuffs.

If you find that you are at home in the society of this world, I encourage you to take a closer look at the beliefs you hold. How do they compare to those of the saints who have gone before us? Do you find your place among their company, or are they too wild, too crazy, and to unsettled for you?

When we were joined to Christ, we became strangers to this world. We are in the world until Christ returns, but we are not of it. We belong to something higher.

"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel."
--- Hebrews 12:22-24