Orthodox Nativity Fast

Today is the first day of the season of the Orthodox Nativity Fast.

Fasting for the feast

I spoke with my Priest about fasting during the 40-day period. My concern was related to my history of Type 2 diabetes which in in remission due to a Low Carb diet. When I tried the fast for Lent I gained 20 lbs and was concerned about my health. The fast is essentially a high carb diet and being normally low carb/carnivore I was always very hungry on the standard fasting diet.

My Priest gave me guidance during Lent to add eggs and dairy for the fast. I bought Low Carb tortillas and will eat egg and cheese burritos for three meals a day for the fast.

Fasting from Social Media

I will be off social media but will keep my DMs open for friends to reach out to me directly. It's not fair to disappear from people's lives completely. X and Facebook take up way too much of my time. I enjoyed being off both for the Lenten Fast.

I will keep up on world affairs by watching The Duran, Alex Christoforou, and Alexander Mercouris every day as I currently do but won't be posting on social media about them. That will be hard since they are very insightful.

Prayers

My priest gave me guidance for prayer. The guidance was to pray the prayers three times a day. I have not been doing that but I want to pick up the practice during this fasting period. At the very least pray The Lord's Prayer before my icon wall three times a day.

Reading

I want to do the daily Epistle and Gospel readings. They can be found here.

I've got a lot of books to read. First of all, I want to read the weekly Catechumen class reading from The Orthodox Faith, Worship, and Life book.

I'd also like to finish the book I recently started, Rock and Sand: An Orthodox Appraisal of the Protestant Reformers and Their Teachings, by Father Josiah Trenham. It is a great book. I've just got through the first chapter.

Cleaning my House

I got a dog and my house is a mess. I'd like to spend more time with the dog and clean my house.

Blogging

I'm planning to blog this season here.

Orthodox Eschatology Series

Fr. John Brown presents a series of lectures on "The End Times: A comparison between the Orthodox understanding and Evangelical Protestant Teachings."

Anabaptists Go Crazy - The Dark History of Münster...

Wikipedia article 

Apostolic Succession: Common Objections Refuted w/ Perry Robinson

 

The Confession of Dositheus (1672)

The Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 soundly rejected any further attempts at reformulation of Orthodox teachings and strengthened Orthodox beliefs against both the Protestant Reformation and Catholicism. The Synod produced its own confession, The Confession of Dositheus (Patriarch of Jerusalem), in which point by point it refuted Cyril's' eighteen points. Orthodoxy’s Official Response to Calvinism — The Confession of Dositheus (1673)

Orthodox Apologist Responds to Tony Costa's Critique of Eastern Orthodox Theology

Orthodox Apologist Perry Robinson has a five hour response to Reformed Baptist Tony Costa's critique of Eastern Orthodox Theology. (Perry on Ancient Faith Today podcast with Kevin Allen).

Gospel Preached to the world?

Sign of the end?

Matt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Fulfilled in the time of Paul

Col 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Currently Reading

The Lord of Spirits: An Orthodox Christian Framework for the Unseen World and Spiritual Warfare (Ancient Faith store link).

 

Perpetual Virginity of Mary

I've had a change in my view of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. I now believe it is more than an optional doctrine, but a necessary one to guard the virginal conception of Jesus. 

PV of the BVM

For those with access to theological libraries, or who can get the document through the Theological Research Exchange Network, the thesis that I found was by William Essey and is dated March 1973. The title is “Mariology in the Fathers: Apostolic Era through Byzantine Synthesis”. In the paper the author notes the influence of the Protoevangelium of James on the theology of St Clement of Alexandria (ca. 215) who then influenced Origen (c. 253). Here’s the relevant quote from the thesis:

Although not playing so great a role in the Mariology of the first three centuries, the “Protoevangelium of James” was known by some Fathers and planted the seeds which would bear fruit in a few generations. (p 10)

 He then proceeds to list the things that are found in “the apocryphal text” including “references to her [Mary's] ever-virginity”. Thus, my central thesis, that the source of the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary rests upon the Protoevangelium of James finds support in the scholarly writings of St. Vlad’s Seminary. In fact, I did a search of the thesis on file at the library and could find none that support a contrary position. However, there may be some that are not on file at the theological library.

The Church in the Wilderness

If the writers of the New Testament were to use a Greek word to describe a gathering together of the people of God in the Old Testament they would naturally use the Greek word ekklesia which means assembly. 

Act 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

 The word has a “holy” meaning to us today, but if we just use the word “assembly” we can see how absurd the claim is that the church was born that day. The people of God have always assembled together and the Greek word could even be used to describe the assembly of Jews in a synagogue.

The same Greek word is used in this passage translated as “assembly” and it’s not about the church at all:

Act 19:32 Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was confused; and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together.

Someone else put it better

Someone else put it better than I did/could:

A forgiving person is ready to forgive and desires that the scenario for forgiveness to take place will develop in time.

One who has been wronged can learn to still be considerate and compassionate ( that is the fruit of love) when true repentance has not taken place .

However, we need to affirm to the one wronged that they were wronged and seek to help them communicate to the wrongdoer that repentance is the only acceptable response when it comes to the specifics of what took place.

Repentance and forgiveness takes place before God and openly between the human parties.

Without such a process we demean the righteousness of Christ and undermine the redemption He has effected and open the gates wide open for narcissism to prevail within the company of saints.

 Well put.

Parable on Forgiveness

Mat 18:23-35

Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants. And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents. But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest. And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done. Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses”

People read the last sentence but don't often take the time to read the context of the parable.

Each of those examples of forgiveness involved an exchange between two persons. The one who was owed the debt gave up the debt because the other person repented. When it turned out that the repentant really wasn’t the first one withdrew the forgiveness of the debt.

Nothing about secret forgiveness in the heart without any external interaction. That’s pure imagination and foreign to the Scriptural idea of forgiveness.

Someone asked me to put forth my position. See Matt 18 above.

• Master was owed a debt
• Master demanded payment of the debt.
• Man could not pay and begged patience.
• Master had compassion and forgave the debt.

 That’s the basic paradigm. The Master is God. The man is us. If we don’t forgive as we have been forgiven we are in trouble. But what about the actions of the Master? He demanded payment and forced the man to beg for forgiveness.

Forgiveness = Good News/Bad News

I think it will be a relief to many people to understand that God doesn’t ask them to forgive those who have abused them. It’s good news.

Of course it’s bad news to the dispensers of religious tradition who think they can control people by keeping them under a guilt trip telling them that about ”forgiveness as an act of Christlike obedience.

Biblical teaching on forgiveness

Someone asked me to summarize my theology of forgiveness.

• We need to forgive people who are truly ignorant of their sins.
• If someone repents we are obligated to forgive them.
• Repentance includes sorrow, restoration, recompense.
• If someone does not repent, we are obliged to confront and rebuke them.
• If someone refuses to repent after confrontation, there is a process that needs to be followed through until the end.
• If someone does not repent at the end of the process, they are handed over to God. for vengeance, we are forbidden to take vengeance ourselves on the unrepentant.
• God stands with the victim, not the perpetrator of the offense.
• God’s goal is reconciliation of persons but this reconciliation can not happen without repentance.

The Church chooses to not forgive?

If you are to always to forgive then why does the Scripture say:

John 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. 

That doesn’t fit at all with the unilateral forgiveness paradigm. Why doesn’t the church just always forgive if that’s really the right thing?

Doctrine Saves?

Someone wrote:

Some people really think that Jesus said, By their doctrine you shall know them. That always baffles me.

Look these passages up:

Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

Turns out doctrine really does matter...

So, why stay away from Chuck Smith and his disciples?

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

  

Forgive as Christ has forgiven you

Someone quotes (as they always do when discussing the subject of forgiveness)  this passage:

Eph 4:32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.

Yes, I agree 100% with what Eph. ch 4:32 says. But, do you see what it says?

If we refused to repent would we be saved? Nope. God forgave us because we repented, ie, we changed our mind about who Jesus is. We are to forgive others who repent as well.
 

Unilateral forgiveness is imaginary forgiveness

"I was forgiven BEFORE I repented.”

Not exactly. If you were, then you would not need to receive it.

“The penalty/debt was paid and justice was met at the Cross.”

True.

“I simply need to receive that forgiveness.”

If I offer you a dollar and you refuse to take the dollar, who has the dollar? Same with forgiveness. We can offer the gift of forgiveness but it the other person hasn’t taken it there’s been no forgiveness – at least not as used/defined in the Bible. Forgiveness has to be received as exemplified here:

Act 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Unilateral forgiveness is imaginary forgiveness.
 

BENNY HINN CONFRONTS JOEL OSTEEN & OPRAH (Larry King)

Welfare and the Bible Part 3

1Ti 5:3 Honour widows that are widows indeed.
1Ti 5:4 But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.
1Ti 5:5 Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.
1Ti 5:6 But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.
1Ti 5:7 And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless.
1Ti 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
1Ti 5:9 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,
1Ti 5:10 Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.
1Ti 5:11 But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
1Ti 5:12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.
1Ti 5:13 And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
1Ti 5:14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
1Ti 5:15 For some are already turned aside after Satan.
1Ti 5:16 If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.

Welfare and the Bible Part 2

1Ti 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

Gal 4:16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

Welfare and the Bible

2Th 3:10-14 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing. And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

Difficulties of being a pastor’s wife

1. Life in a fishbowl. People notice your parenting, your actions, everything you do. You can’t have a bad day.
2. Husband devoted to his first love – Christ’s church. He’s on 24-hour call.
3. Few real friends in the church in whom you can confide due to rampant gossip in the church.
4. Financial concerns – pastors don’t typically make all that much money. Many pastor’s wives have to work to support the family.
5. If you make close friends in the church others feel slighted.
6. If you make close friends outside the church, women in the church think you think you are too good for them.
   
7. Expected to be the right hand person to the pastor but may not have any call to ministry yourself.
8. Your pastor is also your husband – you can’t count on him to give you the sort of compassion that he gives to his average parishioner.
9. You may be spiritually starving – having to listen to a preacher every week that doesn’t feed you.
10. Husband has grown apart, you married him when he wasn't a pastor and you don't feel like you signed up for this.
11. Pastor’s spend years in seminary (in real churches, not CC) and their wives attend seminary social events. Very few “real-life” training for pastors wives. And I blame seminaries for their ineffective help of training wives on how to be a pastor’s wife.
12. Spouse may feel isolated since the church they are serving may be far from their family.
13. [Added by suggestion] It is particularly hard on the spouse when the pastor is criticized. He or she may feel they cannot say anything to defend their spouse. On the other hand female spouses are increasingly professionals themselves and quite busy. Sometimes far too busy.
    
14. [Added by suggestion] Another issue for the schools is that some women do not want to be a part of a spouses group. Our Partners in Ministry Program has been more effective in some years than others depending on the leadership.
    
15. [Added by suggestion] One final thought: the smaller the church the bigger the problem!

This is all much more common that you might believe.

Suggestions

1. Denominations need to think harder about these things. Find the decision makers. Many seminary Presidents are former pastors themselves but they don't want to "interfere" with this subject. Encourage them to encourage the organizations they already have in place that ministry to pastor's spouses needs to address the issues listed above.
   
2. Invite pastor's wives to speak to these organizations, especially ones that are frank about the problems they had in ministry.
   
3. Let your pastor's wife know you love her. Her husband probably already gets enough praise from people.
4. Denominations need pastor's spouse retreats where the spouse can meet others with the same issues who can help them work through the issues. They will learn they are not alone and find someone safe to share their issues with. This has to happen at local denominational level. There needs to be child care because the excuse the wife gives is that she can't go to a retreat because she's a mom and dad is not able to do the job she can.

Ariz. pastors indicted for not reporting sex abuse

Read more: http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/08/05/2031806/ariz-pastors-indicted-for-not.html#storylink=mirelated#ixzz0wVBMUApb

Eastern Orthodoxy in America unifying

Bishop Basil of the Antiochian Orthodox Church talks about the Episcopal Assembly which met to discuss the way forward to administrative unity between the various jurisdictions of Orthodoxy in America.

PCUSA Ecumenical speaker tells truth

Good stuff.

The Confession of Dositheus

Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem (A.D. 1672)

QUESTION I.

Ought the Divine Scriptures to be read in the vulgar tongue by all Christians?

No. For that all Scripture is divinely-inspired and profitable {cf. 2 Timothy 3:16} we know, and is of such necessity, that without the same it is impossible to be Orthodox at all. Nevertheless they should not be read by all, but only by those who with fitting research have inquired into the deep things of the Spirit, and who know in what manner the Divine Scriptures ought to be searched, and taught, and in fine read. But to such as are not so exercised, or who cannot distinguish, or who understand only literally, or in any other way contrary to Orthodoxy what is contained in the Scriptures, the Catholic Church, as knowing by experience the mischief arising therefrom, forbiddeth the reading of the same. So that it is permitted to every Orthodox to hear indeed the Scriptures, that he may believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess with the mouth unto salvation; {Romans 10:10} but to read some parts of the Scriptures, and especially of the Old [Testament], is forbidden for the aforesaid reasons and others of the like sort. For it is the same thing thus to prohibit persons not exercised thereto reading all the Sacred Scriptures, as to require infants to abstain from strong meats.

Ayn Rand and Christianity - Compatible?

Some Thoughts
I've recently finishing listening to Ayn Rand's "Fountainhead" on audio-book. I've read the book in paperback in the past as well as her book "Atlas Shrugged". I won't pretend to have a completely thought out approach to thinking about this subject of Rand and Christianity, but here's some thoughts.

Economics
Rand's economic theory is Laissez-faire capitalism which means allowing industry to be free from state intervention, especially restrictions in the form of tariffs and government monopolies. Rand's writings strike a particular resonance today with rampant government "stimulus plans" and unprecedented levels of government debt.

There is no singular accepted view of economics with Christians ranging from socialist to free-market capitalists. Thus, Rand's view of economics is not inherently incompatible with Christianity. If anything, the Old Testament model of economics as exemplified by ancient Israel would appear to be very much a free market system with no centralized government.

Governmentalism/Statism
Rand rejects Statism, at least in economics. She does grant there is a role for government in keeping order, ie, the Constitutional limits provided by the original Constitution (national defense).

Few Christians would explicitly admit to be Statists. The history of early Christianity often pitted Christians against the state resulting in the deaths of untold Christians at the hand of the state. Many view the book of Revelation as a discourse against the coercive power of the state. However, many Christians also look to the state for their economic security (social security and unemployment come to mind particularly). The state has created a dependency class which, once started, is notoriously hard to dismantle. In the US, we need to look at how other states, such as Russia, have handled moving away from Statism.

Charity
Unlike the caricatures of her view, Rand doesn't oppose the idea of individual charity. Quite the contrary. Her opposition is more to the implementation of charity than the notion. Charity can't be forced or done to lord one's superiority over the person who is the object of charity. The person doing charitable work should do their work because they get something out of it, rather than the persons who receive the charity.

In Fountainhead, Howard Roark builds a government project, not to help the people in need, but because it's an architectural challenge which he believes he can meet. It's fine that people are helped (although are they really helped the book asks), but should not be the motive of the one doing the giving.

Similarly, Christians would oppose charity which is done for the sake of lording superiority over the one that is served. Overlapping the issue of economics, there are Christians who would see the idea of taxes funding charity as usurping individual charity, ie, not the proper function of government. In a society where people are taxed at about 1/2 of what they make, there's not much left to give in a charitable manner.

Atheism
Rand was an atheist/agnostic. She was an anti-supernaturalist. Rand enshrined reason as the highest value, functioning effectively as a god in her view.

Christians are supernaturalists in principle, but rarely in practice. Although Christians pray for help from God (particularly in times of need), they don't have much expectation of day-to-day intervention in their lives. In the realm of reason, Christians have a belief that reason has an origin with God, in His nature and in the Imago Dei which is given by God to man as part of His creation.

Who is Jesus?
The key notion of Christianity is that God became man in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Rand's main characters (Roark and Galt) are messianic in the sense that they are very strong individuals who are set out as prototypes of authentic human behavior against a backdrop of a mankind which is itself inauthentic. They don't seek to gather followers, but because of their authentic testimony of their humanity, they can't help but gather disciples.

The Nicene Creed

The Nicene Creed has some problems for a memorialist Protestant. One is:

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

Certainly a memorialist Protestant would acknowledge the validity of baptism and believe in the forgiveness of sins, but would have serious problems with linking the two as the creed does. The creed is sacramental and a memorialist is not.

Sacraments are a means whereby God conveys grace to man. If baptism brings along forgiveness, then it's a sacrament, ie, a means of grace. If it's a means of grace then it's more than just a memorial.

For a Christian who holds to a memorialist view, the creed must be re-interpreted to mean something different than what it meant to the people who wrote it. This is a reinvention of the faith.

The Problem With Mexico

The problem with Mexico is fairly simple. It's their government, which is socialist. Until the citizens of Mexico decide to cast of the shackles of socialism they will continue to be poor. Sad, but true. Only with an economic transformation can there be a chance for people in Mexico to be successful.

The Bible on Immigration

I've been following a thread on PP where a select group of passages were presented allegedly on the Biblical view of immigration. All of the passages were against oppression of resident aliens (KJV uses the word "sojourners" to describe them). Here's the passages listed in the post:

“He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.”
(Deuteronomy 10:18–19 ESV)

“You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.”
(Exodus 22:21 ESV)

“You shall have the same rule for the sojourner and for the native, for I am the LORD your God.””
(Leviticus 24:22 ESV)

“Thus says the LORD: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place.”
(Jeremiah 22:3 ESV)

As usual on PP, there are significant factors ignored. It's the usual list of social-justice passages, but for some reason is selective. Nobody in the threads interacts with the whole counsel of God. What does the Bible say about immigration?

Exo 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Let's ignore for the moment what would motivate someone who is doing a lookup of the passages on how aliens should be treated to ignore this and many similar passages. What does this passage itself say?

It says that to be a sojourner in the land of Israel one is required to obey the Jewish Law, including observing Passover. Is this an isolated passage? No, there are quite a few passages which show that the sojourner was more than a stranger in the land - he was a convert to the Jewish faith. Here's another passage:

Lev 17:10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.

Here is perhaps an even stronger passage (if there's something stronger than the death penalty in the previous verse):

Lev 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.

And also,

Lev 16:29 And this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you:

If someone was residing in Israel they had to obey the religious laws of the land. How does that relate to our situation as citizens of a secular state? If anything, if America is a Christian country (a crucial subject now in debate) then there could be a requirement that someone applying to come to the USA must share the national faith.

If the USA is not a Christian nation, then why appeal to the Old Testament as a model for our country? It seems that selective eisegesis (reading into rather than out of the text) is once again at work on the PP.

The Protoevangelium of James

The Protoevangelium of James

Trying to find a good critical commentary on the Protoevangelium of James.

the NT Evidence

Matt 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Matt 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

The key phrase “before they came together” would not make any sense if Mary was under a pledge to remain a virgin even after her marriage to Joseph.

American Flag in the Sanctuary

I was watching a History Channel show on the battle flags of the North and South used during the Civil war. Feeling frustrated by the discussion recently on the subject of the flag in the church sanctuary. Quote "the flag represented their comrades ... who had fallen trying to carry those flags". It is hard to disregard such emotions about the flag.

History of the Canon of Scripture

I was questioned about the Canon of Scripture by an Orthodox person. The Orthodox/Catholic argument goes something like this:

An example of this is the Church proclaiming a certain canon of scriptures. What was the rule used to deem some inspired and true and others not and can we not use this same rule in areas like the veracity of Mary’s ever-virginity?

The Jews were split on the OT canon some only taking the first five books and others taking the entire OT. I accept their selection of the entire OT without becoming a Jew myself. I don’t go and get circumcised because I accept that Genesis is part of the canon.

Same with the NT canon. A particular set of early Christians selected the canon from among a number of competing books. I accept the NT canon while not accepting their Deuterocanonical choices (Macabees, Tobit, Bel and the Dragon, etc). That doesn’t mean that I have to accept everything they believed any more than I have to become a Jew today because I accept the OT canon.

Warning Signs of Power Corruption in Organizations

Warning Signs of Power Corruption in Organizations

The Bible and Self-Defense

Seems to me that Jesus was in favor of self defense using deadly weapons under certain conditions

Luke 22:36 Then said he [Jesus] unto them [His disciples], But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Healthcare debate

What I find missing in this whole health care debate is that nobody is stopping anyone else from paying for the health care of anyone that they choose to pay for. What I object to is the idea that someone should be forced to pay for the heathcare of ...anyone else. If someone can't afford to pay for healthcare why should someone else be forced to pay for their healthcare?

ACORN Prostitution/Fraud

Your tax dollars fund ACORN "members" thugs to allegedly develop an underage international prostitution ring.

ACORN Voter Fraud in Chicago

Talk about Mary - Part 2

Calvinist witnessing

Children not named after father

One of the arguments in favor of the children being cousins is the claim that the Jews did not name their children after the father (see note 62 referring point). However, the following shows that is not true:

Luk 1:59 And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.

Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Here's a link to a goarch article on the Ever-Virginity of Mary. Here's their comments on the historical question:

Indeed, to suggest (a) that the tradition about her perpetual virginity could have been introduced after apostolic times, (b) that this tradition would have gone little noticed by a Church in the throes of questioning everything about what it believed in the first millennium, (c) that such a novel tradition should be considered inconsequential enough to pass without discussion before it became universally proclaimed, and (d) that such a tradition should have no discernible literary or geographical origin and yet be universally accepted from very early in the Church's history, is to form a very unlikely hypothesis.

Word for cousin/kin

In this passage, the mother and brothers of Jesus come to see Him:

Mar 3:31-35 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

The Greek word used here is αδελφοι, or brother. There are other uses of the word brother which imply a broader use than brother however, there is a Greek word for cousin/kin, συγγενεις and that word is not used here.

Talk about Mary - Part 1

Piece of an Orthodox and Evangelical conversation about Mary.

Cal the Robot

More Calvinism

Calvinist mumbo jumbo

Elder = Bishop (Titus 1:5-7)

This passage equates the two Greek words, presbuterous (elders) and episkopon (bishop).

Tit 1:5-7 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders (πρεσβυτέρους) in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. For the overseer (ἐπίσκοπον) must be above reproach as God's steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain... (NASB)

Ignatius and the bishop

Ignatius shows quite a different view but claims to be contemporaneous to the other texts. He presents a single bishop and multiple presbuteros (pastors/priests). In The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians Chapter 2, v 12, he writes:

...attend to the bishop, and to the presbytery, and to the deacons....

There is some discussion of the genuineness of these writings.

Here's an even more detailed discussion of the contents and dating of Ignatius.

The seven letters of Ignatius figure prominently in the testimony of most converts to Orthodoxy from Protestantism as well as the Orthodox apologetic for key doctrines of the church. It is used to bolster claims to the authority of Bishops as found in Orthodox Church structure as well as the doctrine of the Eucharist. Therefore its claims should be examined closely.

Polycarp and the Presbuteros

Polycarp (in the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians) describes the duties of the presbuteros (bishops) in Chapter 6. Once again, the focus is not on a monarchical bishop, but on a local pastor:

And let the presbyters be compassionate and merciful to all, bringing back those that wander, visiting all the sick, and not neglecting the widow, the orphan, or the poor, but always “providing for that which is becoming in the sight of God and man;” Rom. xii. 17; 2 Cor. viii. 31. abstaining from all wrath, respect of persons, and unjust judgment; keeping far off from all covetousness, not quickly crediting [an evil report] against any one, not severe in judgment, as knowing that we are all under a debt of sin.

Pastor, Priest, Bishop, Elder

Hard to believe but the four terms Pastor, Priest, Bishop, and Elder are all used interchangeably in the NT to describe the same function/office.

Pastor
The English word Pastor is only used once in the KJV:

Eph 4:11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers,

The Greek word used is ποιμενας poimenas, or shepherd. Matt 9:36 uses this same Greek word:

Matt 9:36 But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.

Priest
The English word Priest is mostly used in the Old Testament. The KJV does not use the word Priest in the NT to specifically refer to Christian ministers although all believers are described as being part of the holy priesthood.

1Pet 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Bishop
The Greek word is επισκοποις or episkopois. It is a different office than that of deacon. Paul addresses both bishops and deacons as distinct:

Phil 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

Elder
The Greek word is πρεσβυτερους or presbuteros. The English word priest is cognate for this Greek word. This seems to be the same office as bishop. It has the same list of requirements. At the direction of the Lord, Paul went into each church that he had previously preached and ordained elders.

Acts 14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

Clement of Rome

Clement of Rome, Chapter 42, is one of the earliest references to bishops outside of the New Testament.

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from Or, “by the command of.” the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from Or, “by the command of.” God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, Literally, “both things were done.” then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established Or, “confirmed by.” in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, Or, “having tested them in spirit.” to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.

This is early evidence that the ministry of bishops continued beyond the establishment in Acts. However, the role of bishops here seems once again to be that of local church pastor.

What is a Bishop?

Key to Apostolic Succession (AS) is the bishop. The bishop has Biblical origins. The role is bishop in the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and Eastern Orthodox Church (EOC) seems to be different than the bishop as described in the New Testament (NT) in several ways.

In the EOC and RCC, bishops cannot be married. In the NT, bishops are allowed to be married:

1 Tim 3:2 The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

In the EOC canons there can't be more then one bishop in a given city. In the NT, there were multiple bishops in Philipi.

Phil 1:1 Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus that are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

The NT bishop is more like the role of priest in the RCC and EOC. His sphere of influence seems to be a city rather than a large area or country.

The differences noted here are studied as the "rise of the monarchical bishop" in church history.

Apostolic Succession in general

As someone examining the claims of the Eastern Orthodox church (EOC), the claim to apostolic succession (AS) by the EOC is an interesting subject.

Wikipedia defines AS as:

Apostolic succession is the doctrine in some of the more ancient Christian communions that the succession of bishops, in uninterrupted lines, is historically traceable back to the original Twelve Apostles.

The Orthodox Wiki defines AS as:

Apostolic succession is the tracing of a direct line of apostolic ordination, Orthodox doctrine, and full communion from the Apostles to the current episcopacy of the Orthodox Church. All three elements are constitutive of apostolic succession.

Note the three elements of AS are:

• tracing of ordination
• teaching
• communion through time
  

The site catholic.com defines AS as:

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

Further, the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) claim has historically been that:

The Greek Church, embracing all the Eastern Churches involved in the schism of Photius and Michael Caerularius, and the Russian Church can lay no claim to Apostolic succession either direct or indirect, i.e. through Rome, because they are, by their own fact and will, separated from the Roman Communion. - Catholic Encyclopedia

Among the specific reasons for the RCC rejection of EOC claims to AS is:

During the four hundred and sixty-four [sic: years] between the accession of Constantine (323) and the Seventh General Council (787), the whole or part of the Eastern episcopate lived in schism for no less than two hundred and three years: namely from the Council of Sardica (343) to St. John Chrysostom (389), 55 years; owing to Chrysostom's condemnation (404-415), 11 years; owing to Acadius and the Henoticon edict (484-519), 35 years; total, 203 years (Duchesne). - Catholic Encyclopedia

I intend to dig into these claims in subsequent posts.

Apostolic Succession in Sweden

It seems to me that the case of Sweden in this regard is interesting. In 1524, Pope Clement VII, in Rome, consecrated Petrus Magni bishop. Petrus Magni returned to Sweden as bishop of Västerås. In his turn, Petrus Magni, who was one of the last Catholic bishops in Sweden, consecrated Laurentius Petri bishop in 1531 and Laurentius Petri became the first Swedish Lutheran archbishop. As I understand it this succession continues on through the present day.

The division in the 1880s that happened with Waldenstrom and led to the formation of the Free Church in Sweden was over the understanding of the atonement. Waldenstrom took a view, similar to the Eastern Church view, and his followers were booted out of the Lutheran State Church.

A poster on the Energetic Procession BLOG added the following:

Laurentius Petri himself consecrated only two bishops in his whole archiepiscopal career (which extended from 1531 to his death in 1573), both of them in the 1530s; one of them died in 1555 and the other in 1563. Starting in 1540 the king decided to abolish the episcopate, and as bishops died or were removed they were replaced by unconsecrated “Ordinarii” or “Superintendents” who received authority *from the king* to conduct ordinations and oversee the clergy as bishops had done in the past. In 1554 the Bishop of Abo in Finland died, one of the bishops whom Peder Mansson had consecrated in 1528. The king decided to divide Finalnd into two “superintendencies,” and the two men who the king appointed received “a blessing after the Lutheran fashion” (as a contemporary chronicler recorded) by one of the two surviving bishops whom Petri had consecrated in the 1530s. One of these men died in 1563, the other in 1579. After Johan III became king in 1568, those superintendents who held old bishoprice resumed the title of “bishops,” withiout undergoing any form of episcopal consecration. When Archbishop Petri of Uppsala died in 1573, his son-in-law Laurentius Petri Gothus, was appointed his successor. The king insisted on an elaborate consecration of the new archbishop, which happened on July 14, 1575. Four bishops participated in the act of consecration: three Swedish bishops who themselves had received no “consecration” when appointed to their positions, and the one surviving Finn who had in 1554 received the ambiguous “blessing after the Lutheran fashion” when he had been appointed a “superintendent” in 1554 (his title had later been ungraded to “bishop”).

Humanity in a Divine Organization?

I'm struggling to come to terms with the controversies going around in the Orthodox Church. I've added links to the BLOGs on the left side of this page which show both sides. Combat and words are being thrown around that make the Calvary Chapel battles of the past 13 years seem tame in comparison.

The part that scares me is the authoritarian nature of the responses of the leadership of these churches reminds me so much of the unaccountablility of the non-denominational churches of my earlier Christianity. Calls for audits are met by denials of financial wrongdoing as well as claims that it would be a waste of the Lord's money to conduct audits. Heard this story in Calvary Chapel, the Vineyard movement and now in I am hearing it again in Orthodoxy.

How do I come to terms with an organization which has such high claims of authority and at the same time such low professional standards? There are established canons which are appealed to and perhaps are being ignored.

Clergy are mass demoted from bishops to auxiliary bishops under the metropolitan. Is the metropolitan now the bishop? How does it all work out?

Seminary students are withdrawn from Orthodox seminaries days before they are supposed to start classes and told to move long distances to other seminaries. All of this is allegedly because the Metropolitan has a grudge against the seminary because there is a BLOGger they haven't shut down. I feel this personally having taken my family across the country to go to seminary. What would it have been like for me to told I needed to undo that and move to another place days before classes were to start? With a wife days from delivering a child?

Some on the BLOGs say just to wait it out. The current head is old and will someday die. They said that about Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel some 15 years ago. He's still hanging in there at 82 years of age. Still running the show.

Others say that the Antiochians are just the wrong place to be. From what I can tell they are the best place for a convert. Did I choose wrong?

I've long ago given up on a search for the "perfect church". I haven't believed in that possibility in a very long time. Is this pragmatism or am I just disillusioned?

Is this all the fall?

Lutherans, Homosexuals, Minnesota and a Calvinist Prophet

John Piper has stated in his BLOG that the tornados that struck the Twin Cities were God's judgment on the Lutheran body meeting to decide the place of homosexuals in the ordained ministry in the ELCA church. The secular press has picked up the story.

Perpetual Virginity of Mary

The claim has been made by some Orthodox that:

For about 1,600 years the entire Church affirmed the ever-virginity of Mary. The notion that she did not remain a virgin was introduced by the Anabaptists and some Calvinists long after the Reformation was an established reality.

I don't believe that is historically accurate.

The teaching that Mary was ever-virgin is, as Michael Hyatt has noted (MP3) a major sticking point for some in conversion. For me it's the biggest theological point I have remaining. I've studied it and from what I can tell it was not the uniform teaching of the Orthodox church from the beginning.

There was a diversity of opinion about this view at the time of Origen (ca 248 AD), for instance. Origen wrote about the origin of the teaching and the diversity of opinion on the matter:

The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Tertullian taught that Mary lost her virginity in the conception of Christ. (De carn Chr. 23.) Tertullian also believed that Mary had relations with Joseph after Jesus was born (Adv Marc 4, 19 de monog. 8, de virg vel. 6.). Tertullian also believed that the brothers were actually borne by Mary.

At the time of Jerome, there were people who rejected the view. Example, "The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary Against Helvidius," ca 383 AD. Helvidius maintained that the mention in the Gospels of the "sisters" and "brethren" of our Lord was proof that the Blessed Virgin had subsequent issue, and he supported his opinion by the writings of Tertullian and Victorinus.

At the time of Augustine, there were people who rejected the teaching:

Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband" (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

The Antidicomarianity and the Arian Eynomius openly taught that the brothers of Jesus were borne by Mary. Basil of Caesarea did not agree, but admitted that the view was widely held and is not incompatible with orthodoxy (Hom,. in sanctam Christi gen (PG 31, 1468 f.))..

Also, it seems to me that there are two competing and contradictory claims about who the "brothers and sisters of Jesus" were. One is that they were children of Joseph from a prior marriage. Another contradictory view is that they were cousins of Jesus. Both can't be right but both claim ancient origins.

The phrase "ever-virgin" did not come into vogue until post-Nicaea.

Chrysostom pointed out Mary was a sinner (e. g. hom in Matt 44:2, in John 21:2). In fact, at that time, only in Syria was Ephraem calling her free from every sin, like her son (Carm, Nisib 28, 8).

Hilliary denounced those who denied the perpetual virginity of Mary, demonstrating that there were people who denied it at his time (Comm in Matt 1, 3 f.).

Jerome invented the theory that the brothers of Jesus were actually cousins, not his brothers.

Interestingly the heretic Pelagius (who believed in the possibility of living a sinless life) believed that Mary lived a sinless life. Augustine agreed with Pelagius, but taught that Mary was a singularity.

The Lateran synod of AD 649 was the first to stress the threefold character of Mary's virginity.

Thus, contrary to the Council of Trent, the perpetual virginity was not a concensus of the Fathers.

Evidence of prayers to Mary in the first four centuries of the church is almost non-existent (Kelly - Early Christian Doctrines, pp 491-on).

Emergent Theology and Orthodoxy

One of the podcasts on Ancient Faith Radio concerned the four (struggling for the right word here) "angles" on the church. What surprised me was the speaker dealt with not just Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox but with the Emergent Church. I had expected interaction with the other older traditions, but to hear them grappling with the meaning of the emergent (post-modern) movement was unforeseen.

On a different podcast, Metropolitan Philip of the (American) Antiochian Archdiocese was asking questions about shape of the liturgy in the future. He asked if the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom would be used by future generations or if they would have a liturgy all their own. It is interesting to see the Orthodox dealing with the questions of cultural relevance.

The Ancient Faith

A couple of things have caught my attention recently.

Ancient Faith Radio

I've spent the last couple of days listening to podcasts from Ancient Faith Radio. Some great material on there ranging from Liturgies to seminars to preaching and teaching.

Energetic Procession

A buddy of mine, Perry Robinson, has a great BLOG on Orthodox subjects, called Energetic Procession, which focuses largely on philosophy/theology. Sometimes the intricacies of the material can be hard to follow, but if you try hard you are guaranteed to learn something.

There are a lot of different subjects discussed including free will and determinism. If I had to sum up the BLOG in one short sentence the takeaway I get is "character counts". We form what we become by our choices.

Epigenetics and Original Sin

Interesting thought? That there's more to our inheritance than merely the set of genes that are passed down. Somehow our behavior is passed down as well. The old nature vs nurture argument has shifted dramatically in the direction of nurture and away from the old mechanistic view that it's all in your genes.

Nova did a program on epigenetics. The link between epigenes and obesity is explore by BBC News.

"Mystery" and the Bible

Christians often misuse the word “mystery” to describe something that they can’t understand or more particularly something that the believe God has not revealed.

The Greek word, “musterion”, translated in English as “mystery” meant something totally different. Rather than being something hidden to believers, a “mystery” is something which is only hidden now to unbelievers. A “mystery” in the Bible is something now revealed to the believer.

Follow the texts:

Mar 4:11 And He said to them, To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God. But to these, those outside, all things are being given in parables,

Rom 11:25 For I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be wise within yourselves, that hardness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the nations comes in;

Rom 16:25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel, and the proclaiming of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery having been kept unvoiced during eternal times, but now has been made plain, and by prophetic Scriptures, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known for obedience of faith to all the nations;

Check out the rest with a concordance. There are 22 NT uses of “mystery”. They all refer to something that is revealed, not something unknown or hidden. Quite the contrary.

Critiques of Wright

I was asked about the following paper:

http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/nt/NT.h.Hill.Wright.html

The question was "What do I think about this paper?"

Well, since you asked, here's my 2c worth...

The good part is that the author of this paper has the core point of Wright correct. That's not always the case with Wright's critics. The central point is what I have referred to elsewhere in this BLOG as the Sander's Revolution.

The bad part is that he is wrong in his critique of Wright. It's not that he misses the point, but he does not accept the point.

First, I question his methodology of determining the meaning of the word from a Lectionary. Nearly every Protestant Lectionary would tend to have a juridical definition, given our heritage, which is precisely what the Wright/Sander's Revolution rejects. Therefore, stating that all of the author's authorites are on the same side as the author, says nothing that the author is not already telling. Wright admits the "novelty" of his idea against a Protestant backdrop. It would be easier to quote Wright's own admissions that his idea is not historically mainstream and move to the next point.

If you want a good read of the historical baggage that comes with the word, the Catholic Encyclopedia article on justification adds some color and perspective to this issue. Certainly a Catholic Lectionary would probably have a different focus than a Protestant one (I don't have one handy, but I assume it would).

In my experience, there is a better way to determine the meaning of a word and that is through word substitution, which is the methodology Wright follows. Replace the word in question with the test phrase and see if it makes sense and continues to make sense. Wright stands up quite well in that regard.

From Wright, justification, for the Christian, is not about how to become a Christian, but the Justified One, Jesus, and our standing in Him. First century false systems of justification are not about failures of law-keeping, rather they are other systems that a person puts their trust in.

It is clear that for the first century Jew, their trust was in their physical descendency from Abraham and that they possessed the Law of God. There are numerous text which demonstrate this. Here is one example which makes the point:

Mat 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Mat 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
Mat 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

Most people skip the point that is being made here by John the Baptist. The "repentance" that John is calling for here is best understood from the text. In context, they trusted their descendency from Abraham and John acts to cut off that possibility. They were not (at least in this passage) trusting in their works. John is not calling on them to repent from their trust in their dead law-works. He is calling for them to change their minds (repent) about their trusting in descending from Abraham. John is clearing the road for Jesus and they need to be on the right path when He comes. The right path is not trusting in Abraham, but in Jesus.

When Scripture is looked at from this point of view, a lot of passages suddenly make sense that did not make sense before. Here's another such test passage:

Luk 13:2 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
Luk 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Luk 13:4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
Luk 13:5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

At first glance this passage appears to be talking about personal eschatology. Like the previous passage, it uses language such as "sinners", "repent" and "perish". But I don't think that is what Christ is saying at all. If I rephrase Christ using Wrightian language it would be something like this:

Do you think that the Galileans were worse than you because they died in that way? Unless you change your mind about revolt against Rome, you will die the same way. How about those that had the two fall on them as they tried to revolt against Rome. Do you think that you can avoid their fate when you revolt against Rome? Nope, unless you change your plans and follow my way, you will die like they died.

Which paradigm fits best Christ's meaning? The individual eschatology or the one that actually reflects the historical situation?

The historical fact is clear from reading outside the NT. The Pharisees did not believe in righteousness due to their following the Law. They thought they were holy because they possessed the Law and were descended from Abraham.

From the Mailbox...

Wright comments that Saunder's correctly understands that the New Perspective has at least one commonality with the Reformed tradition in that "it sees the Jewish Law as a good thing now fulfilled, rather than (as in much Lutheran thought) a bad thing now abolished."

As a theonomist, how do you think you would modify the above (quoted) statement?

Here's how I take the Sander's revolution.

The historical piece that Sanders contributed was the bringing home the idea that the Pharisees were NOT preaching a gospel of salvation by observation of the Law. This was a strawman that the Lutherans had constructed which was mostly based on the personal life and testimony of Luther (a monk who struggled with obedience to God, etc). For Luther, the "discovery" of salvation by grace and through faith then forced a radical dichotomy between Law keeping and salvation.

For Lutherans the only value of the Law is showing your shortcomings to you. The Reformed did not have as a radical a dichotomy as Luther. They saw that the Law had some continuing force even after Christ. This was the root of the eventual disagreements between "mainstream" Reformed and "theonomic" Reformed.

The implications for Lutherans is that they popularly tend to dismiss much of the Bible as "law" and go with the notion "We are no longer under the Law". Walther's book on the Law Gospel distinction is the classic work in that regard.

Walther was the founder of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. He has a methodology of parsing every passage/word in the New Testament into either Law or Gospel depending upon whether it makes a demand on a person. If it makes a demand, it's Law. Where it gets interesting is commands like "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved". Since it makes a demand it is LAW to the Lutheran.

As a Theonomist we believe that the categories must be properly recognized initially. The ceremonial law was gone along with the temple in 70 AD. There are no more high priest, sacrifices, etc. That part of the Law is gone except in memory. Thus, the passages which speak of not mixing wool and linen, for instance, are part of that ceremonial observation and are no longer relevant. The passages a couple of verses later which speak of a man not laying with a man are moral (see below) and still have force.

For Lutherans, this has an immediate practical result in their apologetic for homosexual practices. Both the linen/wool passage and the "men shall not lie with men" passage are law and no longer in force. Thus, the ELCA and other Lutheran bodies are now struggling with issues around human sexuality.

Believing that governments should be organized by the civil part of the Law is what makes a person at theonomist. The theonomist is someone who buys into the idea that the civil part of the Law, while describing Israel and her God, has a force outside of that immediate geographical location. The idea is that the laws and penalties from the Old Testament are God's laws for organizing any nation of people who will follow Him.

The moral part of the law is where the battle happens. Again, Theonomy is a Reformed phenomenon. Thus, they take the moral aspects of the Law as describing things that are reflective of God's character.

These are very practical questions. Thus, you are much more likely to find a Reformed person who takes the Sabbath question more seriously than a Lutheran.

Matthew for Everyone

I am using the Matthew for Everyone commentary by N. T. Wright to prepare my weekly sermons. I am following the Revised Common Lectionary for text selection.

The text for this week is from Matthew 25:31-46. Wright has an interesting way of dealing with this text. The usual way of reading this text is to see it as referring to the judgment at the end of the age. Wright, of course, sees the end of the age as being in the first century. Thus, this judgment scene is one that is best seen, by Wright, as on going.

I think this is a very solid reading of the text. The problem is how to preach it that way. Since the idea will be new to many people their instinctive reaction will be to reject it. Of course, no preacher likes rejection. We all prefer to be accepted and understood.

Where is the exegetical center of this passage? The center seems to be in how the nations treat the church. The nations that are open to the church are blessed. The nations which are closed to the church are cursed. That matches what we can see with our own observation. The best thing a nation can do is open itself up for the Gospel and watch God change the nation.

EG: Unit 1, Day 1

Sometimes I think that Christians use words deliberately intended to confuse people who don't already speak their lingo. I went to a Halloween party at a local church which had a puppet show. There were a lot of non-Christians there but the puppets kept quoting scripture in a series of passages which meant very little to the non-Christians since they were not explained. Some got up and left. There needed to be an explanation for the non-Christians there.

The phrase "saving relationship" is one such Christian expression (EG Workbook, p 8). I don't honestly think that anyone who is not a Christian, and even many Christians, have the slightest idea what this phrase means. There is no analogy in daily life because the word "saving" is not one we can understand easily. The word is theologically loaded.

Perhaps we map "saving" into the idea of "going to Heaven" or some other such notion. This phrase is evangelical-speak, and is not Biblical. Remember the principle in EG where we get our ideas not from experience, but from the Bible? They would do well to apply it to the words in this book. This also scares off non-evangelical types.

I'd say ditch the phrase and replace it with something else. Even a phrase like "loving relationship", which would be meaningful for most people. Or find some word picture to explain it such as a strong marriage. There are marriages of convenience where the two are married on paper, but barely even speak with each other. Then there are marriages where people are in love and eager to be with each other. That's probably what is meant by the phrase "saving relationship", but it's hard to know since it is never defined.

To say that God desires a continuing, love relationship with us (chart EG Workbook p 225 point 2) is better. It brings to mind something that we can relate to better. The nature of the relationship and the duration make it clear that it is not a one time event and that it has real committment involved.

EG: Memorizing Scripture

I really respect people who can memorize. I can't. I have very poor memorization skills. Because I am so back at memorization, I have some tricks that the EG materials don't list.

My best memory trick is to write out the verse on a whiteboard. I then erase words and practice saying the verse. I leave just a few keywords at the end. I can then remember the keywords.

For instance, the keywords I have for Unit 1 are:
vine
branches
abide me I Him
fruit
apart nothing

With these keywords I can reconstruct the entire memory verse.

My other trick is to draw a picture of what I want to remember. I did this with fourth grade boys for John 15:5 and they all got it quickly. Draw on the whiteboard a vine with branches. Put the name of the boys on each branch. Put the name of another boy, not them since it would be traumatic on another branch. Show that branch as broken off and dying. They will remember the picture long after the words are gone.

Experiencing Experiencing God

Who Am I?

I am a pastor of a small church in the upper midwest USA. We have a group of ladies that went through the Experiencing God materials this past summer and asked me to teach it at our Wednesday Night Prayer/Bible Study Meetings.

Thus, I am facilitating a group of about sixteen people going through the book Experiencing God. This is my first time through this material. There are several in the group who have already been through the materials.

The rest of this particular BLOG post can be skipped if you are not interested in facilitating an Experiencing God group.

Early facilitating notes

I am writing these notes a couple of days after our very first Experiencing God class. All in all, it was a great start. For me it is hard to do materials that are not my own invention. But these materials are pretty well put together.

This would be very tough without using the Experiencing God Adult Leader's Guide. I wish I had taken more time to review the Adult Leader's Guide before starting this. I recommend taking about 8 hours to go through the Leader's Guide before the first class if you are new at this material (like me). If you have taken the course but not facilitated you probably could get ready in six hours. If you have taught it before, probably four hours would do. The Leader's Guide is definitely worth the extra $12 (amazon price).

There is a lot of photocopying in the first week. Copy extra. I had to send a student out to copy five more pages - I chose someone who had already facilitated in the past.

I wish we had purchaged new, blank journals before assigning the first week's unit so that I could have passed them out sooner.

For journaling, I like Composition Books. They are cheap ($1 at my local dollar store). They have wide rule so that there is plenty of room in them. In my opinion, the best ones are quad grided page Composition Books but they are pricier. They are a lot cheaper than the nicer bound journals you buy at a bookstore. They also hold together well.

Personally, I really like the smaller 4.5 x 3.25 version of these. Each page is much smaller but always seems to be enough for what I want to write down. If you buy the little ones don't buy the ones that are glued down the binding as they come apart. Buy the ones that look like paper folded - they are sown and the pages don't fall out of them. You can stiffen the backbone with packaging tape if you need to.

When it comes to journaling, the old motto is true: Your Mileage May Vary.

There are some places where the book could use improvement.

When I did Unit 1, Day 1, it asked for the memory verse. It was at the beginning of unit 1 before the day 1. It would have been helpful the first time through to remind where the memory verse was found (at least for this first lesson). I made the assumption that there was a memory verse for each day but it seems like there is one for each week/unit.

We only have one hour and this material does not easily break down into one hour sections. They have a suggestion in the leader's guide how to do that, but it did not seem obvious as I went through the Leader's Guide.

The video tapes are not cheap, they are about $140 for the class. I have to think that they are probably worth it but expensive for our small church to buy. I guess we will "wing it".

With our group size the book recommends breaking up into two separate classes. That's logistically tough for us since we meet before choir and that is a part of why many of the people turn out. We will see how this works out when the sharing starts.

That's about it for the administrative stuff. I'll post some reflections on the materials later.

When is the end?

One of the issues that this passage raises for me is that of timing.

Is this describing the events of the Second Coming of Christ, which is yet future from us now, or is this describing the events of 70 A. D.?

Apocalyptic language is much slippier than we often realize. We tend to read apocalyptic phrases in a way that makes them concrete and that is just not the way that they were understood. Add to that, this passage is a parable and not a concrete description of the event.

If the Bible is the best interpreter of the Bible, then we can look to the Bible for the methodology that we need to understand the Bible.

What are the phrases that make this passage tough? The key phrase "you don't know the day or the hour" seems to be the central point of this parable. But day and hour of what? We have to go to the wider context to see what Jesus is talking about.

The scene appears to be judgment:

Mat 25:31 "But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.
Mat 25:32 "All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats;
Mat 25:33 and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.
Mat 25:34 "Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
...
Mat 25:41 "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;
...
Mat 25:46 "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

This is frequently read as a description of the judgment at the end of time. Particularly taken the phrases "eternal fire" and "eternal punishment".

There is another possible way of viewing these passages, though. They could describe the judgment on Jerusalem in 70 AD. This was taken by the early Christians as proof that Jesus was on the throne, just as the book of Daniel had described.

The ten virgins

Finding the historical center

This passage causes me much difficulty when I try to find its historical center. By that I mean, Jesus referring to something future from Him, but is it past, present or future to us?

If it is describing something in the past, then there are lessons to learn from this, but only if we are the sort of people who will listen to the lessons that the past teaches us.

If it is present, then we sure better be paying attention to what it says.

If it is future, then is it in a future that I need to be concerned about or one that is too far distant to really affect my life.

The idea that this may be describing the present or very near future is what the Tim LaHaye "Left Behind" books are banking on. This way of viewing the Bible is something that I am quite familiar with since I came to the Christian faith in the midst of a group of people who were very apocalyptic minded. This was at the height of the Jesus people movement of the 1960s and 1970s. The group I was a part of read the Bible as if it were a newpaper. The events of the day were clearly fulfillment of the Bible, for us. For the early days of my life as a Christian, there was a great concern about passages like these ones. We saw them describing us and our generation.

When we read this passage, we saw ourselves as being like the five virgins that were prepared for the bridegroom to come. We were in eager anticipation that Jesus would be coming shortly. We saw the reat of the church as slumbering while we saw ourselves as ready.

We had been taught that if the Bible was true, Jesus would return in 1981. When Jesus did not come in 1981, many of us fell away from the faith. This way of viewing passages like this was deadly to the faith of many.

For others, like myself, we dug deeper into the faith in the years before 1981 and we were not unprepared for a long wait. If anything this passage is saying that the time will seem so long that everyone will fall asleep.

Lectionary Text for week ending 11-6-2005

Matt 25:1-13 The Ten Virgins (NASB)

"Then the kingdom of heaven will be comparable to ten virgins, who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom.
"Five of them were foolish, and five were prudent.
"For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them,
but the prudent took oil in flasks along with their lamps.
"Now while the bridegroom was delaying, they all got drowsy and began to sleep.
"But at midnight there was a shout, 'Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.'
"Then all those virgins rose and trimmed their lamps.
"The foolish said to the prudent, 'Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.'
"But the prudent answered, 'No, there will not be enough for us and you too; go instead to the dealers and buy some for yourselves.'
"And while they were going away to make the purchase, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding feast; and the door was shut.
"Later the other virgins also came, saying, 'Lord, lord, open up for us.'
"But he answered, 'Truly I say to you, I do not know you.'
"Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour.