Is Jesus the Same Substance With the Father? I Have No Idea

I have long thought that arguing over Trinitarian nuances is often a waste of breath. I understand bad things can be said about the Trinity, to the point of blasphemy, but it’s also pretty impossible to explain it correctly, so relax a little bit.

I know an egg with the yoke, white, and shell is not an adequate description of the Trinity, it’s called Modalism and was considered heresy by the Early Church. No problem, I get it, it’s not adequate to the task. At the same time, it’s not a bad way to get the idea across to a kid. But yeah, it lacks strict accuracy.

The problem is that the Bible doesn’t articulate it, so there’s no succinct way to explain it. It’s an extrapolation from many verses.

One of the approved views of the Trinity is in the Athanasian Creed. When someone gives a theological, big worded explanation of the Trinity, it’s usually borrowing from the Athanasian Creed.

For instance, Legonier ministries, RC Sproul’s outfit, has a quote in an article about the Trinity saying this:

“The content of the Athanasian Creed stresses the affirmation of the Trinity in which all members of the Godhead are considered uncreated and co-eternal and of the same substance.”

You will also find this in the Westminster Shorter Catechism:

“There are three persons in the Godhead; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory”

So you’ll hear this word “substance” in official sounding definitions of the Trinity.

You should know that many people have found fault with the word “substance.”

As far as I can tell, “substance” is a word that Augustine used in relation to the persons of Jesus Christ and God the Father. He said that the Son was of the “same substance” as the Father.

Arianism, a classic Early Church heresy, said that Jesus was not divine but was rather a created being. Saying Christ was of “the same substance” as the Father is the way they defended the person of Christ from Arius and his boys.

But guys like Isaac Newton and others found fault with the use of the word “substance.” God is a spirit, how is there a “substance?” Substance is sort of a philosophical word. Newton said it wasn’t a biblical word; therefore, we shouldn’t use it to define the person of God.

I like that! I am a firm believer that as much as possible we should say things the way the Bible does with the Bible’s terms. Unbiblical words to describe biblical things always make me nervous.

Because Newton challenged the idea of “substance” in definitions of the Trinity, you will often see Newton described as an Arian heretic. Don’t be so quick! Just like anyone who questions Calvinism is immediately called a Pelagian, when in reality they are just questioning Calvinism. The opposite of Calvinism is not heresy and the opposite of using “substance” in the Trinity is not heresy.

Be careful of that trap: anyone who doesn’t agree with me is a heretic.

Here’s a quote from an article about Newton’s views of the Trinity on this issue:

He . . . embraced the straightforwardly biblical position that the Father and Son are one. What Newton did not believe, however, was that the Father and Son were one in the sense that they were consubstantial or of the same substance. According to Newton, the Father and Son were one, but this unity was not a metaphysical unity; rather, it was one of dominion and purpose.

I applaud his efforts to want to be biblical! Please, more of this!

“Substance” is a word related to Greek philosophy. Augustine was steeped in Greek philosophy. When he uses words that are not biblical, you must assume he is using a Greek philosophical term. Thus, I have no idea what “substance” means to him, and whoever hears you use the term also has no idea what you mean.

What “substance” does do is make you think of a physical object, a thing with, well, substance. This seems misleading.

I prefer to stick with the Bible, like Newton, and just say that the Lord is one, and Jesus and the Father are one. Simple. Leave it there. When theologians start using many words they complicate the issue and often to the point of not helping.

Keep it simple. Keep it biblical. The end.

Marcus Aurelius and Christian Persecution

Marcus Aurelius was a Roman emperor and also a Stoic philosopher. Stoicism calls for an unemotional view of life, calm and steady. It has lots of fine things to say actually, some find it compatible with Christianity to some degree.

Unfortunately, many Christians were persecuted and martyred under his reign.

Some historians claim he did not have an active part in the persecution, and some claim he may not have ever known it was going on.

Whatever the case, Christians were persecuted. And I don’t just mean that Disney said some stuff that upset them. I mean they were killed in evil, nasty ways.

One man in particular suffered greatly.

A Christian man named Attalus was put in an iron chair over a fire. If you do the physics, the iron would heat up and basically grill the person while alive. After this, he was given a chance to recant, but he did not. He remained faithful in his testimony.

So they threw him to wild beasts in the amphitheater, but for whatever reason, some claim divine intervention others say the beasts were already full from previous eatings, the wild beasts did not kill him!

So, the decision was made to stab him in the neck. And, if that wasn’t enough, he was then beheaded.

Reading about these things is often hard to believe. I would encourage you to find a couple books on Christian martyrs and read their stories. Some are hard to imagine.

Thank the Lord we have not had to face such things. But also ask Him for the faith that would withstand such trials if called to do so.

Using the Historical Context of a Verse to Deceive People

As much as I think it’s vital to understand the context of a Bible passage to know its meaning, there is a popular idea that we also need to know the historical context of the audience it was first written to.

I get the idea and probably mostly agree with it. I’ve also heard it used in weird ways that deny the obvious meaning of a passage.

If I have to understand the historical context, the actual thoughts, feelings, and lives of the original audience, to understand any verse in the Bible, I need to be a history and sociology major to understand the Bible.

History changes as well. Whose history are we going with? We’re pretty good at rewriting history. In my years of listening to Christians I’ve heard a lot of theories about what people did in Bible times that were later proven to be wrong.

A recent example of this historical context deception I heard was a theology professor being told that when Paul says an elder should be the husband of one wife this clearly means elders should be men and not women.

He denied this interpretation. Why? Well, he said it’s only because we live in this time that we view the passage as meaning that. If you were in Africa in the first century you would have known the emphasis of that verse was forbidding polygamy.

How does he know what first century Africans thought of a verse in 1 Timothy?

And even if he was talking about polygamy, it still says the elder is to be the husband of one wife. It still says the elder is a husband.

How come when the professor interprets the verse his way he isn’t also swayed by his culture? No major voice in church history thought women should be pastors until the last hundred years or so. This leads me to believe that women being pastors is a societal emphasis.

Although it sounds good to tell people they need to know the historical context to understand a verse, and sometimes it is, you should also be aware that this idea is being used to deceive people in a biblical sounding way.

Satan can twist the best of ideas to mess us up. Don’t fall for his devices.

Read the Word and ask for wisdom from God. You’ll be fine.

Why The Secret Book of John is Not In Your Bible. Or mine, for that Matter

A few days ago I mentioned the Gnostic writing called, “Jesus’ Digestive System.”

The Secret Book of John, or sometimes called The Apocryphon of John, is another Gnostic book. Gnostics were people who felt they could gain secret knowledge through experiences and visions and so forth.

They were largely condemned as heretics, and, if you read what they wrote, you can quickly see why.

In The Secret Book of John, the disciple John is questioned by a Pharisee who doubts the validity of Jesus’ teaching. John is bummed and goes off to pray.

John sees a bright light that came down next to him. In the light he saw three forms: the Father, Mother, and Child.

Then things get weird. I can’t even summarize, so I’ll quote another summary:

From this divine principle came a thought, a feminine divine entity, named Barbelo. Though typically referred to as “she,” this thought is really the elemental father and mother, completely androgynous. She is known as the first of the Aeons and the consort of the Divine Principle (which is also a feminine word). Together, Barbelo and the Divine Principle, the Monad (the word means “one unit”) brought forth the other Aeons, which were actually further emanations of the Monad. Light (another word for Christ) and Mind were among the first to be created and, under the direction of the Monad and Barbelo, they, in turn, started creating other aeons. Eventually, there would be 365 aeons. The last one to be created was Sophia (Wisdom). Wisdom believed she was wise enough to try creating something on her own. Without any direction or consent from the Monad or Barbelo, she created Yaltaboath, who had “the form of a lion-faced serpent with eyes that flashed like lightning.”

You got that?

Yaltaboath made Adam eat the fruit. He sent Eve to make sure he would. Christ came to defeat the darkness of Yaltboath. Etc.

All very weird and confusing.

You will be told many times that there are other books of the Bible that “some Catholics” didn’t let in your Bible. You are missing out on so much revelation.

No you’re not. Your Bible is good. Catholics didn’t pick and choose what you could read. There weren’t really many good options, no matter what the documentaries on The Discovery Channel tell you every Easter and Christmas.

Read the Bible. You’ll be well cared for there.

Valentinus and Jesus’ Digestive System

Gnostics were people who felt they could know things by secret revelation, usually attached to some spiritual experience. The early Charismatics of Church History.

They were largely condemned as heretics because they just made up stuff and most of that stuff was straight crazy.

But some was also highly entertaining.

Valentinus was an Egyptian trained in Alexandria, and rose to some fame in the Roman Church, almost considered for pope.

Valentinus was a good writer and speaker. He wrote quite a bit, but most of it has been lost. There are fragments of his writings that have survived, including one fragment entitled, “Jesus’ Digestive System.”

Now, early church heresies were largely about the person of Christ. Was He divine of human? Some thought Jesus was so divine He had no flesh body. Others thought He was so human there was no divinity at all, He’s just a guy used by God. Then there are heresies all in between those extremes.

Valentinus leaned toward Jesus is more divine than human. This conclusion then led him to pontificate upon Jesus’ digestion. If He wasn’t much human, did He, like, go to the bathroom?

I mean, I think we’ve all had our minds wander there a time or two. Did He mess His diapers when He was a baby? Hard to imagine the Son of God doing that. That’s where Valentinus came down on the issue. I’ll let his fragmentary writing say the rest:

“He was continent, enduring all things. Jesus digested divinity; he ate and drank in a special way, without excreting his solids. He had such a great capacity for continence that the nourishment within him was not corrupted, for he did not experience corruption.”

So, there ya go!

Jesus wouldn’t see corruption in death, therefore, there is no corruption in Him and therefore, food can’t decompose in His system. Sounds logical to me.

And also straight crazy.

Ah yes, Gnosticism. Sure am glad we’ve advanced past this goofy stage.

What Was Noah’s Wife’s Name?

The standard Christian answer to that question is: we don’t know, the Bible doesn’t tell us.

However, the Bible not telling us stuff has never stopped us from answering such questions before, why let it stop us now!?

According to Gnostic lore, we do know Noah’s wife’s name: it was Norea.

I kid you now. Look it up.

You can type “Noah’s wife Norea” into any search engine and you will get more information than you ever cared to get about this dear lady.

Apparently, due to my extensive skimming of several sources, Norea was a daughter of Adam and Eve according to Gnostics.

(Gnosticism, by the way, is a group of people who find hidden knowledge through personal religious experience. They were the early Charismatics of the church. They developed a rather colorful mysticism around biblical stories, for instance, everything about Norea. Typically their myths seemed to try as hard as possible to be counter to typical Christian understandings. They were trying to be weird, and succeeded wildly.)

Anyway, back to our tale.

Norea was the daughter of Adam and Eve, and there’s another Norea who is the wife of Noah’s son, Shem. Somehow or another, the historian Epiphanius reported that Norea was Noah’s wife, and that is how she’s largely remembered by those who remember such things.

You can read all you want about her elsewhere. I won’t go into all the crazy details.

There are at least three Gnostic books that mention Norea: The First Book of Norea, The Thought of Norea, and The Reality of the Rulers. You can look them up, probably even read them. I’m not one who is afraid of people reading such things. It won’t take you long to realize how silly it all is.

The top thing you should know about her is that she burned down the ark three times because Noah wouldn’t let her in.

Yup.

There are many Gnostic tales out there about the Bible. Every Easter the History Channel and such places put out documentaries about how goofy Christianity is and always bring up Gnostic Gospels to throw you off about whether you can trust the Bible and how come evil dead white guys didn’t include Gnostic Gospels in the Bible? What did they know and when did they know it? It’s a cover-up! Probably involved Leonardo Di Vinci paintings and aliens and boy howdy, aren’t Christians the stupidest people in the world for believing this stuff?

So, yeah. Good luck out there.

My advice is to ignore Norea. Stick with the Bible, people! All other ground is sinking sand.

What is the Origin of Godparents?

I’ve always thought the idea of a godparent was a little weird. I never had any. I had humanparents.

Now most people separate the term from its religious origin to just mean the people who will care for a kid if their parents die.

But that’s not at all the idea from the beginning.

Godparents are directly related to the invention of infant baptism. There was no infant baptism in the church for the first two centuries after Christ’s ascension.

Infant baptism was done to allegedly free the infant from the taint of original sin. If the kid died, which many kids back then did, they would go to heaven if they were dunked in water.

This infant baptism was a means of regeneration. But does the kid know what’s going on? He does not. Infants know, like, nothing.

So, godparents were invented.

Godparents literally lifted the child out of baptism, and when the child was questioned about doctrinal issues, the godparents answered for him all the stuff he was not able to confess.

Weird.

Anyway, that’s what godparents originally were. I think more people should stop using this term because it’s a dumb term and also has nothing to do with anything that is actually real or biblical or common sensical.

That’s my two cents on that. Carry on.

John Marco Allegro and Mushroom Jesus

There’s a title for ya.

What a tale we have for you today.

Allegro was preparing to be a Methodist minister, but got sidetracked into studying ancient languages like Hebrew and Greek. I have heard that around there he also renounced his faith and became agnostic.

But, as a scholar in ancient texts, he was invited to be on the team of scholars looking at the Dead Sea Scrolls. He was the only non-Christian on the team.

And, wouldn’t you know it, he came up with some pretty non-Christian ideas while studying them there scrolls.

Through a series of gymnastical leaps with ancient languages and etymology, Allegro came to believe that Christianity was a mix of fertility religions and the result of tripping on mushrooms.

He “proved” that the word Christ is etymologically related to the word mushroom. And, for added measure, so are the names Cephas and Petros. This pretty much proves it.

Christ was a mushroom. You were to “eat his body,” and get high and have your own little trip with God.

And, yes, I am summarizing his conclusions to highlight the ridiculousness of them and putting them in a bad light. You can study his findings if you like. I’m just saving you time.

He wrote a book entitled The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. It caused quite the stir, what with it being insane and all. There were many accusations thrown about that The Church moved to silence him and his book. None of this was proven.

What was proven is that all other scholars of ancient languages rejected his work. The publishers of his book later apologized for publishing it and refused to publish any more copies.

One of Allegros’ friends was F. F. Bruce, who is a well-respected Evangelical scholar. Bruce apparently tried helping his embattled friend out, at one point getting him a new job at the University of Manchester where Bruce worked as well. I don’t know if this was a Christ-like friend service or not. Hard to say since I know neither man. I can see it being good or bad, I suppose.

Whenever I hear about people who reject The Faith and then go on to write crazy stuff about The Faith, it always strikes me as ramblings of insane, tortured men trying to justify their rejection of Christ. This sounds like what happened.

Allegro died in 1988 and now knows that Jesus is not, was not, and never will be a mushroom.

The Escapades of Pope Benedict IX

Pope Benedict IX has a few claims to fame, both of which are pretty impressive and give total confidence in the notion of Papal Infallibility and Apostolic Succession.

First, Pope Ben The Ninth became pope when he was 12-years old. Want to know what I was doing when I was 12? Not having a dad putting me in the office of Pope, that’s what.

Benedict later sold his pope position. That’s right, he let someone else be pope after selling the job to him. Ben later changed his mind though and became pope again.

A painting of the selling of Benedict’s Papal Office

This brings us to the second infamous claims to fame: he was pope a total of three times. Apparently he was quite the creepy guy and his licentious behavior upset many people.

Supposedly Benedict spent his final years as a penitent in a monastery. Who knows, maybe the old boy came around.

One thing I do know, his church didn’t.

The Apostolic Succession of Popes is a Joke

Although many claim that the Pope has a clean path back to apostolic authority, a brief scan of Church History will prove otherwise!

First off, proving that Peter was ever in Rome is difficult, mostly because Peter was never in Rome and he certainly never ruled its church.

Secondly, the early years of the papacy were pretty wild. The office of Pope was up for grabs and much silliness ensued.

One particularly silly episode is called The Cadaver Synod.

It is exactly what it says it is.

Formosa was a pope whose opponents, led by Pope Stephen VI, needed to officially accuse him of holding the office of bishop in more than one place, thus making his Roman Bishopric (being pope) unofficial and all his papal decisions illegitimate.

Only problem to putting him on trial is that he was dead. So here’s what they did, I kid you not, you can look it up: they dug up his body and put his rotting corpse in papal robes and placed it on a throne and had a lovely little trial.

To everyone’s amazement, he was found guilty! Guilty of stinking up the joint, amI’right?

On top of that, they added injury to insult by removing the three fingers he once used to cross himself. After reburying him, he was later exhumed once again and cast into the Tiber River. His body was caught by a fisherman and reburied once again.

All seems pretty odd, no? Well, you’ll be relieved to know that the people rioted over this and ended up strangling to death Pope Stephen VI who put the corpse on trial. Lots of Papal Bull going on here.

You should read Church History. It’s fascinating and totally helps you lose all confidence in human authority and in church tradition. Put your trust in Christ and stay humble, my friends.

Richard Foster and the Athletes of God, the Athletae Dei

Church History labels a group of Christians as The Desert Fathers. These guys were the early monks, leaving material comfort to go be with God in the desert.

Certainly monks went too far in many cases, and also seem to miss the point: by completely abstaining from material things, they made material things the measure.

At the same time, they knew material things were a hindrance to true worship of God. You cannot serve God and mammon. They knew this. Did they end up worshipping God truly? I guess that’s for God to decide.

These guys seem even more foreign and ridiculous to modern Christians because we are so comfortable with material things. “What’s the big deal? Everyone has this stuff.” But that’s exactly why they went to the desert!

Here are a few quotes from Richard Foster’s book Freedom of Simplicity about them:

“The Desert Fathers renounced things in order to know what it meant to have the single eye of simplicity toward God. They were the Athletae Dei, the athletes of God, who sought to strip away all hindrances. There is no question that there were excesses in the monasticism of the Desert Fathers, but no more so than the excesses evidenced in the Church of today in the opposite direction.”

Point being: They went as far into simplicity as we are into excess. Which one is better? Probably both wrong, but one at least was attempting to deal with it. We are told in Hebrews 12 to run with patience the race set before us, this is done by laying aside every weight and sin that besets us. Every weight is probably material stuff/mammon.

“Detachment frees us from the control of others. No longer can we be manipulated by people who hold our livelihoods in their hands. Things do not entice our imagination; people do not dominate our destinies.”

I believe this is true. This is especially true in terms of debt. Proverbs says that who we are indebted to, we are slaves to. Whether actually financially in debt, or in debt because of our lustful cravings for more stuff, both enslave us.

The fact that monks went too far and whatever spiritual gain they made seems mostly achieved for their own benefit not anyone else’s, doesn’t mean they didn’t have a point.

Hebrews 12:1 is in the Bible. We have made too much peace with the world, and because of that are carrying around way too many worldly concerns that are impeding our progress in Christlikeness.

Kierkegaard and Laughing at Rich Churches

“I went into church and sat on the velvet pew. I watched as the sun came shining through the stained glass windows. The minister dressed in a velvet robe opened the golden gilded Bible, marked it with a silk bookmark and said, “If any man will be my disciple, said Jesus, let him deny himself, take up his cross, sell what he has, give it to the poor, and follow me.” And I looked around and nobody was laughing.”
–Soren Kierkegaard

I haven’t read a ton of Kierkegaard, but what I have read is intriguing. He was a critic of Christianity, but from the inside and I believe he had a desire to help the situation. I think some of his doctrine is a little weird. His critiques of the church are spot on, however.

The church has lost sight of its ridiculousness in light of Jesus and the Apostles’ teaching on money. We’ve made peace with the world and used our richness to prove God’s blessing rather than seeing it as worldly conformity.

This will come up on Judgment Day guaranteed. It’s talked about way too much in the Bible for this not to be a big deal.

But alas, it’s just yelling into the void. We’re too comfortable and peaceable to really care.

Oh well, carry on. Just know that I’m laughing, Soren, I’m laughing.

James Strong of Strong’s Concordance Fame

One of the resources I have found most valuable in my studies of the Bible is Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. Plus I have also found many other resources that are keyed to the Strong’s Numbers.

It got me to thinking: who was the guy who did all that work?

That must have taken a lifetime to number all the Greek and Hebrew words and then compile all appearances of them in the Bible BY HAND! As far as I knew, Strong’s Concordance has been around for quite some time.

So, I did a little searching on the old internet and found out that Strong’s Concordance was first published in 1890, so indeed it was all compiled by hand. I can’t even imagine how this was done and to this point have not found anything telling me how it was done.

But, get this, although compiling all Greek and Hebrew words in the Bible (8674 Hebrew roots and 5523 Greek roots), which would have taken me the better part of my life, Mr. James Strong did quite a few other things! Here are a few:

— mayor of Long Island

— projected and built the Flushing Railroad

— president of the Flushing Railroad

— president of Troy University

— wrote manuals of Greek, Hebrew, and Chaldean grammar

— part of the committee for the English Revised Version of the Bible

— authored a number of other books, was a professor, and taught Greek and Hebrew. He also started out as a medical student.

I’m a complete loser.

BOOK REVIEW: Gentle and Lowly

I’ve been reading Gentle and Lowly: the heart of Christ for sinners and sufferers, by Dane Ortlund. I’ve heard this book praised by many people, not all from the same theological background either.

One of my hobbies in life is to analyze things that “everyone” likes. I enjoy being contrarian! I know that if many people like something, it’s probably wrong!

So, those are my upfront admissions! You know where I’m coming from.

The point of the book is that Jesus is a lot more loving than we think. He bases his points on Puritan writings, which I find slightly ironic. Puritans are Calvinists. Calvinists are the ones who have beaten wrath and judgment into our heads.

One of the reasons people don’t think God is as loving as the Bible says is because of Calvinism! Their stress on wrath and justice in the Gospel has diminished love. You can look at all the verses in the Bible that mention the Gospel and you will see love associated with it way more than wrath or justice. Yet Calvinism has majored on those and minored on love.

So, for a guy to use Calvinist writings to prove God is loving and not so wrathful is kind of odd. You will also notice he can’t quote a ton from most of them!

If Calvinism hadn’t taken over the Gospel, this book would not have been necessary.

At the same time, I also think people like the book because it emphasizes love and mercy. Both are fine things, but in so doing he does kind of make it sound like sin isn’t that big of a deal. I know that’s not the author’s point, I’m not accusing him of anything, I actually like most of the book as it is a needed corrective of the Calvinist wrath motif. But I do know people are hearing him that way.

“God loves to be merciful” sounds to most people like, “Should we sin that grace may abound? Absolutely yes, go for it!”

I think the two reasons people like this book are because for once a Calvinist emphasizes love, and his emphasis sounds like an ok to go sin.

Me, being a not-Calvinist, heard his Calvinism throughout the book. He never harped on it much, so it was not a hurdle to my enjoyment. Then I got to chapter 22! He let it all out in this chapter!

How much less could we comprehend what it meant for God to funnel the cumulative judgment for all the sinfulness of his people down onto one man. But reflecting on what we feel toward, say, the perpetrator of some unthinkable act of abuse toward an innocent victim gives us a taste of what God felt toward Christ as he, the last Adam, stood in for the sins of God’s people. The righteous human wrath we feel—the wrath we would be wrong not to feel—is a drop in the ocean of righteous divine wrath the Father unleashed.

After all, God punished Jesus not for the sin of just one person but many. What must it mean when Isaiah says of the servant that “the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:6)? What was it for Christ to swallow down the cumulative twistedness, self-enthronement, natural God hatred, of the elect? What must it have been for the sum total of righteous divine wrath generated not just by one man’s sin but “the iniquity of us all” to come crashing down on a single soul?

So, there ya have it! Calvinistic wrath in all its glory.

God “unleashed” “divine wrath” on Jesus. It would be more than the wrath we would feel toward a child abuser. God views Jesus as worse than a child abuser is the idea. The “sum total of righteous divine wrath” “came crashing down on a single soul.”

There are no verses that say any of this. Yes, he includes Isaiah 53:6 that our iniquities were laid on Christ, no argument there. But the whole divine wrath on Jesus is a complete abstraction. The Bible nowhere says that God the Father had wrath toward His Son. “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” Isaiah 53 has several mentions of God being pleased with the Suffering Servant. There is no wrath. Why would God be upset with Jesus for doing the most loving, sacrificial work ever done to save us from our sin? It makes no sense.

Several times Ortlund says Jesus suffered hell. Again there is no place in the Bible where it says Jesus went to hell for us. The KJV uses “hell” sometimes instead of “the grave,” but other than that, there is nothing about Jesus going to hell. “Today you will be with me in paradise” is the only mention of where Jesus went after His death. Maybe he’s being metaphorical with the hell talk. That’s my best take, otherwise it’s all speculative.

During his explanation of suffering God’s wrath, Ortlund doesn’t quote many verses. There’s a reason for that! Here’s one snippet he throws in to give seeming biblical support:

And in venting that righteous wrath God was not striking a morally neutral tree. He was splintering the Lovely One. Beauty and Goodness Himself was being uglified and vilified. “Stricken, smitten by God” (Isaiah 53:4).

Isaiah 53:4 has more words in it that Ortlund leaves out:

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

There are some key words in here he conveniently leaves out: “we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God.” See, that’s not saying Jesus was stricken and smitten by God; it means that’s how we viewed it. When Christ was on the cross He was being mocked. “He saved others, he cannot save himself.” This was their ultimate victory. They overcame and killed the one who claimed to be equal with God. Humanity’s view is that God was against this so called Messiah. Is God really for a guy who we just nailed to a cross? I don’t think so! God is clearly against this guy.

So, where does all this orgy of God’s wrath on Jesus come from? It comes from extrapolating a lot out of “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Ortlund talks about this passage for a few paragraphs. Allow me to quote his opening phrase about Jesus being forsaken:

“It’s speculation.” (pg. 200).

Yup, it is!

The whole God’s wrath on Jesus angle is speculation, because it says it nowhere in the Bible. If the point were clear, Ortlund would not have to speculate. But he does.

If you read the context of Psalm 22, which begins with “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” You will note that the forsakenness is dealing with physical death. As the chapter goes on you’ll see many prophecies that were fulfilled while Jesus was on the cross. You will also note that the Psalm ends with a clear understanding that he’s not forsaken by God. Yes, he’s forsaken to the point of physical suffering, but essentially he knows he’s ok. His feeling is not the full story.

For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard (Psalm 22:24).

Jesus did suffer, but God did not despise or abhor the affliction of the afflicted. He wasn’t really forsaken. It looked like He was, we esteemed him stricken, smitten of God, but in the end the Lord was with Him and heard His cries.

I guarantee you the thought of God when Christ was on the cross was not wrath against Jesus; it was sorrow. If our sin grieves the Holy Spirit, how much more must it have grieved God to see what was going on here?

In the end, this chapter refutes the entirety of the rest of Ortlund’s book. Ortlund tells me several times that God is my Father and the Father loves His sons. God only has love and mercy and compassion toward His kids. Except of course for His one Son who never did anything wrong; He blasted Him with His wrath! If God can be that upset with His one perfect Son, what chance do I have?

That’s exactly why Ortlund wrote this book, to balance out the wrathful extreme of Calvinist doctrine. I like that people like the book because he’s right when he’s right. He just can’t bring himself to admit that it’s Calvinism’s gospel that caused the problem in the first place!

Oh well. Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so.

God was never wrathful about His Son this I know, for the Bible also tells me so.

Stick with the Bible. You’ll have a much better understanding of God.

Don’t Confuse Your Favorite Theologian with Jesus

I’ve finished reading the 61-page Introduction to The Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther, a cause for celebration.

Incidentally, I am reading a translation done by O. R. Johnston and J. I. Packer, so if you know those names, I assume they are the ones who wrote the Introduction.

The conclusion emphasized the centrality of denying free will and promoting the concept of monergism in salvation (the idea that God acts alone in saving people; we have nothing to do with it).

Faith is only something God gives you after He regenerates you, they say. Then they say this:

to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works, and the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other.

Eesh. That makes me cringe all over the place. But they go a step further. Disagreeing with Luther is un-Christian and also, get this, don’t know if you knew this or not, but disagreeing with Luther means you disagree with Jesus Himself.

I’m serious. Here’s the quote:

If the almighty God of the Bible is to be our God, if the New Testament Gospel is to be our message, if Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever–is any other position than Luther’s possible?

Double eesh.

Let me answer that question with a very definite “yes.”

Disagreeing with Luther is not disagreeing with Jesus. Statements like this should alert you that you’re dealing with fanboys.

He went through a list of Reformers who held Luther’s views on this issue, including John Calvin, of course. They maintain that all the Reformers, at least the ones they like, all agreed on our inability to have faith and be saved unless God does it all.

One thing all these Reformers, at least the ones they mention, have in common is that they all loved Augustine.

Disagreeing with Luther does not make you disagree with Jesus Christ; it makes you disagree with Augustine. Which is totally fine by the way.

1 John 2:27 says “the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you.” If you have the Holy Spirit you don’t need a man to teach you.

If your doctrine is entirely based on a person, you’re not using the Holy Spirit. If you think you need to adhere to Luther or Calvin or Augustine or me in order to know Jesus, you’re out of your ever lovin’ mind.

People can help teach you, but to think you need a person to know Christ is insane. Never, ever elevate a person’s teaching to a level where you think disagreeing with them is disagreeing with Jesus.

Agree with Jesus; to the extent we agree with Jesus is the extent to which we will agree with each other.

This Introduction has entirely creeped me out.

Wrong Doctrine, Mystery, and Faith

The Introduction of Bondage of the Will is summarizing Luther’s words on two main issues of salvation:

1. Can man save Himself outside of God’s willing it and making Him saved? Luther’s answer is no.

2. How can God send people to hell for doing what God made them do? Luther doesn’t know.

On both points, the conclusion is that God does stuff that doesn’t make any sense to us. In fact, God often does stuff that contradicts Scripture.

I kid you not, that’s what the Introduction says: God does things that contradict Scripture. Of course he tones it down a bit to say “it seems” like it contradicts Scripture, but let’s be real here. Luther says stuff that contradicts Scripture is clearly what is being said.

Here’s a quote from Luther:

If I could by any means understand how this same God, who makes such a show of wrath and unrighteousness, can yet be merciful and just, there would be no need for faith. But as it is, the impossibility of understanding makes room for the exercise of faith.

The author of the Introduction then says in the sentence after this quote:

And it is here, when faced with appearances that seem to contradict God’s own word, that faith is tried; for here, reason rises up in arms against it.

I already had trouble with what Luther has said about free will. I already thought Luther contradicts Scripture on any number of points. But to hear him come right out and admit that he does, AND FURTHER, to say that he has to contradict Scripture in order to have faith is unreal.

Let me throw one verse at you to contrast with the two quotes above, one of my favorite verses because it clarifies so much, Romans 10:17:

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

According to the Bible, God’s Word, faith means listening to God’s Word, believing exactly what God says.

According to Bondage of the Will, Luther’s word, faith means what you have when what you think disagrees with God’s word or when you don’t understand it.

It’s always amazing to me to watch people believe things and then struggle with how what they believe does not agree with the Bible. This is where “mystery” comes in.

Back to the Introduction:

Everything that God reveals about Himself transcends man’s comprehension; every doctrine, therefore, must of necessity terminate in mystery, and man must humbly acquiesce to having it so.

This is completely false. If everything God reveals is revealed to make no sense, then why did He reveal it? What’s the point of God revealing things if even after revealing it we don’t understand it?

God reveals things to be understood; that’s kind of the point of revfelation. The secret things belong to God; the things that are revealed belong to us.

Are there aspects of what God says that leave us with wonder and further questions? Certainly, but to assert that every doctrine God reveals leaves us sitting here not comprehending things is just nuts.

It’s mind boggling when theologians come to see that the Bible doesn’t say what they believe, that they don’t use that opportunity to change what they believe. Oh no! On the contrary, they get busy saying how the Bible is wrong or unclear.

They then use their non-sensical doctrine that the Bible disagrees with to be a sign of mature faith! You have faith when you have no clue what you’re talking about!

The Bible says faith is hearing God’s word. Faith is not what you have when you don’t understand God’s Word. God said stuff to be understood. Understanding God’s Word is actually what Faith is.

“By faith, all the people in Hebrews 11, sat around wondering at the mystery of what God told them to do.” Not what it says.

By faith, all the people in Hebrews 11, did exactly to the letter what God said because that’s what faith is: understanding and acting on exactly what God says. Faith does not show up in mysterious unclearness and uncomprehendingness.

If faith means trusting God when you’re clueless, then Romans 10 is out. I sincerely would mistrust anyone who told me faith is what you have in confusion. “I don’t understand anything, but oh well, guess I’ll push through and just believe.” That’s not faith.

Faith is unshakable confidence that God speaks truth and regardless of what I believe, think, or prefer, what God says is true, right, and understandable and then acts on it.

I fail to see how Luther’s understanding of faith would foster spiritual growth. Luther’s end of faith is complete confusion, not certainty–all doctrine terminates in mystery. That has to mean that the more you grow, the less you know. That’s just crazy.

Grace and Free Will

The other day I wrote a post about the long standing Christian tradition of opposing grace with human effort.

Human effort is the opposite of God’s grace. If you do stuff, you can’t have any relation with God’s grace.

Therefore, the people who emphasize grace the most are the ones who say they don’t do anything.

This explains why Calvinist doctrine, summed up with TULIP, are referred to by them as “the doctrines of grace.”

Calvinists go whole hog on this issue. They don’t think we do one thing on our own. Every single molecule of creation is always doing exactly what God tells it to do. Therefore, you don’t do anything. In their mind, this is why their doctrines are “THE doctrines of grace.”

The Introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will (yes, I’m still reading the Introduction), says:

The denial of ‘free-will’ was to Luther the foundation of the Biblical doctrine of grace, and a hearty endorsement of that denial was the first step for anyone who would understand the gospel and come to faith in God.

The author goes on to say that Erasmus (the guy Luther argues with in Bondage of the Will) thought people had an ability to do a small thing to be saved, we had something to do with it, not meriting our salvation, but there was something we did to initiate it.

Luther says “No.” There’s nothing we contribute. Salvation is of grace. If we did something then God owes us salvation, and God does not have to pay anyone for services rendered.

This is funny. Read the quote above again.

Did you see it?! Luther says heartily denying free will is the “first step” in coming to faith in God! Isn’t that something I have to do to get saved then Marty?!

This is where this whole “there’s no free will” argument just gets ridiculous.

Luther goes on to say that people who think they are saved by work and effort at least put a high price on salvation. Erasmus, who thinks it’s only a little thing we do to get salvation, treat salvation as though it’s cheap.

OK, but if people who do a lot for salvation hold salvation highly, and people who do a little to get saved value salvation cheaply, then please tell me how people who don’t think you do anything to get saved value salvation!

I’m still in the Introduction and I’m about to lose my mind.

Jonathan Edwards and Being Saved by Works

Jonathan Edwards is considered by some to be America’s greatest theologian. I don’t know about that.

What I do know is that Jonathan Edwards is a Calvinist of the first order. John Piper credits much of his Calvinistic preaching to Jonathan Edwards.

If you want Calvinist doctrine; read Jonathan Edwards.

Calvinism teaches that man does not have free will. That God ordained before your birth whether you would go to heaven or hell. You have nothing to do with it. The only people who believe the Gospel are people God previously regenerated.

I don’t know if Edwards went for all that, but many modern Calvinists who worship at the feet of Edwards certainly do.

That being the case, I was shocked to read the following quote from Jonathan Edwards the Preacher by Robert Turnbull. Quote is on page 98.

“The only hope of escape [from eternal punishment] is by the free gift of salvation from God. This cannot be won by man’s efforts, but if one is violent in seeking salvation and diligent in fulfilling all the duties God has prescribed, there is the probability that God will give him saving grace–although, of course, He is not bound to do so. Therefore be violent for the Kingdom.”

Did you catch that? Let me quote one part for emphasis:

This cannot be won by man’s efforts, but if one is violent in seeking salvation and diligent in fulfilling all the duties God has prescribed, there is the probability that God will give him saving grace

This is as unbelievable sentence. Not only does it make no theological sense, I’m not even sure it makes common sense. Words cease to mean things when used like this.

It’s just like the Westminster Confession–God has ordained everything that comes to pass, but He’s not the author of sin. He ordains everything but He doesn’t ordain sin? So does He ordain everything or not? Calvinists are famous for making bold statements that are completely undermined in the next sentence. If you question this, they’ll just tell you you’re dumb and it’s all a “mystery.”

Edwards is going all out Pelagian with this one. I wish people would actually read the theologians they so admire. I guarantee you’ll admire them less after a while! Which is perfectly fine because you’re supposed to be following Christ and adhering to His word anyway.

Later on the same page, the author says about the above quote, “Such discourses Edwards claimed were the ones most remarkably blessed.”

The appeals that worked were the ones that were completely contrary to his Calvinist doctrines. In other words, Edwards was a Calvinist until he wanted results. He pragmatically chucks Calvinism to get the numbers!

The author of this book is a huge fan of Edwards. It was close to a hagiography. So I was doubly stunned when I read this page.

I have never met a Calvinist who was a consistent Calvinist. Calvinism makes no sense and everyone knows it. Even Jonathan Edwards knew it. He was man enough to admit it, and sleazy enough to drop it in order to manipulate people.

God bless us, every one.

Augustine and the Crusades

I am not a fan of Augustine. I think he did more damage to the church than any other human being. The odds that he’s a saint are minuscule, in my occasionally humble opinion.

Focusing in on just one area of his heretical ideas, here’s a quote from a new book entitled Crusaders by Dan Jones. The quote is from page 46-47.

“[Augustine} understood that once Christianity had swapped the status of renegade cult for that of imperial creed, the tenets of faith would have to be made compatible with the demands of an empire built for war. In City of God Augustine put up a robust defense of Christianity’s place within the Roman state, arguing that “the wise man will wage just wars . . . it is the injustice of the opposing side that lays on the wise man the necessity of waging just wars.” Elsewhere he suggested four clearly identifiable conditions under which a war could be considered just: It was fought for a good cause; it’s purpose was either to defend or regain property; it was approved by a legitimate authority; and the people doing the fighting were motivated by the right reasons.”

This rationale, according to Dan Jones, was the foundation for the Roman Catholic Church to do the Crusades.

The Crusades are one of the ugliest chapters in Church History. Any book on the Crusades will leave you shaking your head in disbelief at the stuff done in the name of Christ.

Clearly the church of the day was not listening to Christ, the Bible, or anyone who had the Holy Spirit. They were listening to Augustine, however.

Before Christianity was the official religion of Rome, it was a tiny little cult that was constantly beaten on. With official status came entanglement in politics.

Every time the church gets tied in with politics the church loses. Massively. Before long the church is doing evil things in the name of Christ.

Please read church history. Please keep the church out of politics and politics out of the church. Christianity operates better as an oppressed faction than a ruling party.

Please read Augustine and find out how much insanity in Christianity came from his deranged head.

Please read the Bible. Read and understand and you’ll never listen to Augustine, go crusading, mix politics and religion, or have any level of earthly success, which is always the foundation of eternal, heavenly success.

Let the reader understand.

Reformation Day Reminder

Today is Reformation Day, the alleged date that Martin Luther nailed his 95 Thesis to the Wittenberg church’s door.

Luther was certainly right to have a problem with the indulgences of the Catholic Church and call them out on their profiteering.

As with most reactionary responses, it went to an equally ridiculous extreme. Luther invented the concept of Sola Fide, which refers to being justified by faith alone.

The only problem is that the only time the Bible mentions “faith alone” is in James 2:24

You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

So, you are now left having to choose between Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura. Faith Alone or Scripture Alone? Choose carefully, because it can’t be both!

Guess which one Luther chose? You guessed it: he went with his pet doctrine over Scripture.

“Therefore St James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it . . . The epistle of James gives us much trouble, for the Papists embrace it alone and leave out all the rest…Accordingly, if they will not admit my interpretations, then I shall make rubble also of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove . . . I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any. Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought, ‘Wait a moment! I’ll oppose them and urge works alone.’ This he did.”
–Martin Luther

This Reformation Day, take some time to reflect on your faith. How much is based on Scripture and how much is based on defending doctrines that your guys hold? How much of the Bible do you need to throw away to maintain your doctrine? Is your faith consistent with Scripture? Do you know the Scriptures well enough to answer that question? If not, don’t you think you might want to figure that out before you stand before God and give an account?

Don’t worry about reforming the church; reform your own faith.

Evangelical Christians and Politics

I am reading a book called, The Evangelicals. It is a history of the Evangelical movement within American Christianity, particularly the political involvement they have gotten into over the years.

It’s a 600 page book. The first 200 pages dealt with Wesley through Billy Graham. The last 400 is from Billy Graham to today. It has bogged down tremendously.

One fascinating thing that stands out to me is how ridiculous, from a historical perspective, church leaders look when they get involved in politics.

Politics is driven by fear. There are HUGE problems, so vote for us to solve them. If they solved them; you wouldn’t need them anymore! So, they never get around to solving issues, just changing them and freaking everyone out along the way so they get votes.

When the Church, which is allegedly filled with people with eternal hope, gets involved in temporal squabbles heightened by fear, they look really stupid.

This is especially true when they fall for predictions about the future. There have been so many “threats” to us that should have wiped us out. But none of the major fears ever developed and predictions, predictably (!), fail.

What happened was Evangelicalism, which originally just meant people who were focused on the Gospel (the “evangel” part of Evangelical), got wrapped up with politics. Billy Graham solidified the movement. He thought he was doing the right thing at the time. Richard Nixon broke his heart.

The church got sucked into Republican politics with the Moral Majority and so forth in the 1970’s-90’s. They got carried away and got used, while America continued to remain firmly nowhere near Evangelical ideals.

So, the church learned its lesson. It got tired of being lumped in with rightwing nutjobs. Which brings us to today.

While reading this book about the roaring 70’s-90’s Republican Christian Might, a debate over the Social Gospel erupted.

The Social Gospel, often called Social Justice, Movement is nothing more than leftwing nutjob thinking.

The lesson the church apparently has learned from our losing with the Right, is to join the Left.

I fully expect that in about 40 years all these church leaders fired up over the new leftwing Social Justice stuff will look just as ridiculous as the rightwingers of the 70’s look to us now.

Allow me to posit a theory.

Perhaps the lesson the church should have learned from the disastrous Moral Majority days, is not to shift from the Right to the Left, but rather to stay out of the world’s fray to begin with.

Something like, oh, I don’t know, come out from among them and be separate. What fellowship has light with darkness? Set your affection on things above and not things on the earth. Not falling for the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches that choke out spiritual growth.

Maybe something like that. You know, like, what the Bible says and stuff.

Just a theory.

Health and Wealth is American Christianity

A recent LifeWay study found that 75% of Evangelicals believe that God wants them to materially prosper.

The Health and Wealth Gospel used to be a peripheral message in the church; it is now one of our new fundamentals of the faith.

The Bible is massively against materialism and material success. It, in fact, says that the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke out faith.

If you trace back the Health and Wealth Gospel you will find it originated around a guy named DL Moody.

Moody, in order to fund his revivals and his schools, hit up businessmen constantly for money. In order to get money from rich guys, you have to preach a message that doesn’t make rich guys feel guilty.

Mr. John Wanamaker was a successful businessman. He invited Moody to speak at a lecture for businessman that would be “tailored more than any that preceded it to the needs of business and professional people who wanted to be freed from the guilt of doing what they were doing.”

In other words, don’t make them feel guilty for making money.

Moody dipped into Health and Wealth teaching when he wrote, “It’s a wonderful fact that men and women saved by the blood of Jesus rarely remain subjects of charity, but rise at once to comfort and respectability.”

He later said, “I don’t see how a man can follow Christ and not be successful.”

Clearly, DL Moody was not as extreme as some of our modern televangelists. But he got awful close. There is a dark side to American revivalists, one that seems to follow the tents. DL Moody, Billy Sunday, right on up to the modern televangelists.

There’s something about coming up with a message that appeals to a large audience that seems to feed on materialism. Perhaps because people want wealth and desperately want to get rich quick. If we can make the Gospel sound like the trick, people will “get saved.”

I’m not trying to besmirch anyone’s character, I merely point out Church History facts. The Health and Wealth Gospel didn’t drop out of the sky! There’s a logical and recorded development that got us where we are today.

If you think Christianity is going to make you rich, successful, and respectable, I suggest not reading the Bible, for that will end your dream.

Fundamentalism, Higher Criticism, and Evolution

Christian Fundamentalists are often portrayed as evil, nasty people. Often they get lumped in with Muslim Fundamentalists. Muslim Fundamentalists kill people. Christian ones don’t! Yet many secular sources will tell you a fundamentalist is akin to a terrorist.

“Fundamentalist” is a term that actually means something. Generically the term means someone who boils their faith down to strictly defined core beliefs, or fundamentals. Fundamental basically means foundational, things you build on.

Christian Fundamentalism began in the 19th Century. As with most movements, it was a response to other forces.

The two main forces Christian Fundamentalism responded against were

1. German Higher Criticism
   Higher Criticism treated Scripture as a historical document that needed to be analyzed and checked for errors. It focused on who wrote what, when was it written, and who added what to the text over the years. Not entirely a bad desire, yet ended up denying inspiration. Truth in the Bible became subjective and Biblical authority was undermined.
2. Evolution
   During the same time period, Charles Darwin popularized evolution. This created tension between the Biblical account of Creation in Genesis 1 with supposed geological and biological facts concerning the age of the earth and the origin of life.

When these two forces began clamoring, Christians felt attacked. They doubled down defending the fundamentals of their faith:

*Inerrancy of Scripture
*Literal interpretations of miracles, creation, virgin birth of Christ, the resurrection, etc.
*Belief in the Second Coming of Christ
*The Atonement of Christ

The fundamentals of the faith were put together in a 12-volume set of essays originally called, The Fundamentals. Something often lost is that these volumes were put out by the Presbyterian Church.

Things have gotten more confusing since then! The Presbyterian angle has all but died off, but still exists. There is a dispensational wing of fundamentalism fostered by Lewis Sperry Chafer through Dallas Seminary. A more evangelistic, not quite as theologically rigorous, branch spawned by DL Moody and Moody Bible Institute.

Northwestern College, now called University of Northwestern in St. Paul (where I just dropped off my daughter last weekend to begin her freshman year), had a prominent part in early 20th century fundamentalism. William Bell Riley traveled the nation forming a group of fundamentalist churches called the World Christian Fundamentals Association. It eventually faded away and supplanted by such groups as the Independent Fundamentalist Churches of America.

It is now embarrassing for most to be called a fundamentalist. Most will deny the name and few will point out, let alone celebrate, their fundamentalist past (I also went to Northwestern College and never knew of its role in fundamentalism even though I worked in Riley Hall for four years!).

Although some of the fundamentalist methods are hokey today, their intent was good. They attempted to defend what they believed against secular, modernist, liberal attacks.

Paranoid? Maybe, but history has shown they had a point. Don’t be afraid to learn Church History. It’s fascinating to see how all these things work together as Christians make their way through history.

American Postmillennialism

Postmillennialism is the belief that humans, by revamping society by means of taking over the world with Christianity, will usher in the Kingdom of God.

After this Golden Age ushered in by God’s people, Christ will return (hence “Post” millennium–Christ returns after the Golden Age we establish).

This used to be a standard view of many people, and was particularly popular in America in the 18th and 19th Centuries.

Jonathan Edwards, one of America’s most famous theologians, was a postmillennialist. When he looked upon the results of the Great Awakening, he said:

‘Tis not unlikely that this work of God’s Spirit, that is so extraordinary and wonderful, is the dawning, or at least a prelude, of that glorious work of God, so often foretold in Scripture…. And there are many things that make it probable that this work will begin in America.

The Great Awakenings felt like the start of something big. It also fed into the notion that America was the shining city on a hill, leading the world to the coming of the Lord.

The Millennium, for postmillennialists, is not necessarily 1,000 years. When Revelation 20 mentions 1,000 years 7 times, 1,000 years merely represents an age.

In order to believe Postmillennialism you have to interpret the Scriptures symbolically, or spiritually, or at least not literally. This is true whether you are dealing with the 1,000 years of Revelation 20 or the prophecies about judgment in Revelation before then, or prophecies concerning the regathering of Israel, etc.

You also have to believe in the power of humanity to reform the world and that the church will win in the end. A little too ambitiously optimistic for this guy!

It was a heady time in America when Postmillennialism was popular. The Enlightenment filled humans with grandiose ideas of their potential. America was optimistic and two Great Awakenings swept the land. Christianity was large and in charge. The Battle Hymn of the Republic is pretty much a Postmillennial rally song.

A funny thing happened on the way to the humanly ushered in Millennium: the world wide scope of evil on display in the 20th Century. Pretty hard to come out of two world wars, depression, sexual revolutions, and whatnot and conclude we were making progress toward a Golden Age of Christian Victory.

Very few people are postmillennialists today. But I imagine it will come back if we have a sustained period of peace.

In fact, the modern Social Gospel movement borrows much postmillennial thought.

It is my contention, that when the Church concentrates of societal reform, they will lose their identity and purpose. The Church does not exist for the world. The Church exists for the edification of believers so they can be edified and built up to love their neighbor.

It’s easy to blur that line, or put the cart before the horse on that one, or replace “neighbor,” which is a person, with “society,” which is an unidentifiable mass of people. Regardless of how well the Church does in their mission, I guarantee you human endeavor will not bring Christ back.

Postmillennialism is basically Humanism with a Christian veneer. I suggest not falling for it, or its modern manifestation: the Social Gospel.

John Wesley on Being a New Creation

Here’s a quote from Wesley’s Notes on 2 Corinthians 5:17, which says if you are in Christ you are a new creature:

He has new life, new senses, new faculties, new affections, new appetites, new ideas and conceptions. His whole tenor of action and conversation is new, and he lives, as it were, in a new world. God, men, the whole creation, heaven, earth, and all therein, appear in a new light, and stand related to him in a new manner, since he was created anew in Christ Jesus.

The Gospel isn’t something you believe so when you die you go to heaven. You believe the Gospel so that right now, in this present world, you have new spiritual life that will extend throughout eternity.

The Gospel is life-changing, not just after-death-changing.

Theologians: Making the Bible Complicated for Thousands of Years

I am reading a biography of Meister Eckhart, an Augustinian monk from the 14th century. He was attempting to bring some reform to the corrupt, materialistic Catholic Church.

In so doing, he became one of the foremost mystics in Christian theology and is a little weird. He felt it was important for people to actually know Christ through mystical experience, rather than ritual motions, although he still kept ritual motions.

In a section talking about Eckhart’s education in the monastery, I read this paragraph:

Lectures on Lombard’s Sentences provided Eckhart with his first experience in the sophisticated practice of scriptural interpretation, or exegesis. Most crucially for his own religious thinking, he learned how to move from the sensus historicus, or literal sense, of Bible passages to various spiritual senses that reveal certain ‘deeper truths’ on the reading in question. The allegorical, or metaphorical, interpretation of a scriptural passage, for instance, viewed people and actions described in a symbolic manner, together conveying an essential spiritual truth.

Along with the literal and allegorical sense, there was also the moral or tropological sense, and the anagogical sense.

Each of the four interpretations, according to his teachers, pointed in a different direction . . .  each sense was true, Eckhart learned, but not readily apparent to the casual reader, hence the need for a trained preacher.

The reason we need a trained clergy is because regular people are too stupid to see these “deeper truths.” I like that the author says these senses are “not readily apparent to the casual reader.” Yeah, no kidding!

Seeing these deeper, hidden truths, and needing to be educated by people who are initiated in special ways of reading the Scripture, is the realm of theologians.

The main job of a theologian is to make the simple Scriptural meanings massively more complicated so they can feel smart and sell you things.

Yes, I’m a tad cynical of theologians. People who use big words like tropological and anagogical are not people who are going to help you understand the Bible! Use real words, people!

People who use big words are not trying to help. They are trying to make sure you realize they are smarter than you and you should bow before their awesomeness.

I don’t trust them and neither should you.

Read the Bible. Take the common sense interpretation and put it into practice. You will grow that way.

Theologians can help, but if you find that all they do is confuse you and make it harder, than don’t mess with them.

Pretty much the only reason I listen to theologians is because everyone else is basing what they believe off of what these guys said.

If you want to know where different Christians are coming from; read theology. If you want to know God and follow Christ; read the Bible.

You do not need to read big-worded theologians to know Christ. For many, theologians actually keep people from knowing Christ.

Keep it simple. Don’t let smart people discourage you. Know Christ.

3 Problems With Luther’s Opinion of James

Earlier I wrote about Martin Luther’s problem with the book of James. Luther wants justification to be by faith only. James disagrees with Luther. This led Luther to say the following:

“Therefore St James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it . . . The epistle of James gives us much trouble, for the Papists embrace it alone and leave out all the rest…Accordingly, if they will not admit my interpretations, then I shall make rubble also of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove . . . I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any. Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought, ‘Wait a moment! I’ll oppose them and urge works alone.’ This he did.”

I would like to make several points about this quote.

First, he says James has “nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it.” This is a common attack on James, probably from people copying Luther. James only mentions Jesus Christ twice. He makes no mention of resurrection, Gospel, the cross, or any other Gospely words.

The reason is not because James doesn’t know the Gospel or is somehow opposed to it (his half-brother was the Messiah, people!). The reason is because he’s writing to a group of people, Jewish Christians, who already think they are saved and yet are showing no signs of conversion.  He is writing to defeat easy-believism. He wants people to know that even demons believe! Faith isn’t the whole story.

James is an epistle intended for an audience in our day as well. James is very practical. People don’t like practical; we like the theoretical. We’d rather theoretically believe we are saved than actually have to practically live as though we were. James knows our state today; it was the same state of religion in his day. There is nothing new under the sun.

Secondly, Luther says James gives us trouble because “the Papists embrace it alone.” Most of the push-back I’ve received about questioning justification by faith alone, has been phrased in fears of Catholicism. I have been accused of being Catholic and of dragging my church back into Catholicism. I find this ridiculous.

I am not Catholic. I feel creepy just going into Catholic type places. I am not telling anyone to become Catholic. I don’t want you to light candles, do holy water things, do hand motion kneeling things, baptize babies (which Luther did despite his “by faith alone” bluster), or any other man-made, humanly devised rituals that accomplish nothing but feelings.

Accusing people of becoming Catholic, or undoing the Reformation, for questioning the unbiblical idea of justification by faith alone is merely the modern day political response of your enemy politician being Hitler. I recommend some more thought on the issue rather than a flippant dismissal and fearmongering about being Catholic.

Here’s a little historical fact for you: James was not Catholic.

Third, Luther says “some Jew” saw Christian faith and said ‘Wait a moment! I’ll oppose them and urge works alone.’ This he did.” Notice what Luther did to James’ quote. Luther says James “urges works alone.” Did you get that? Did James ever say people were justified by works alone? No he did not.

The main problem with Luther’s theology appears to be a habit of putting “alone” in places where no one put “alone.”

This is where you know Luther is getting carried away. He’s just making stuff up now. He made up that Paul said we were justified by faith alone, which Paul never said. He made up that James said we were justified by works alone, which James never said.

Slightly rephrasing quotes is quite common in Christianity, and other areas as well. Get original quotes, not people’s quotations of quotes. Go to the source. James and Paul don’t say what Luther says they say. Read the Bible. Seriously. Read the Bible. Check what you hear with Scripture. Test the spirits.

Luther was right to question the Catholic Church, particularly on their idea that you need the Catholic Church, its priests, and systems to get right with God. You don’t. Kudos to Luther for sticking his neck out to fight that fight.

But Luther is just a guy and just as fallible as a pope, which amounts to a lot fallible. I am also fallible. Here’s some news: you are fallible too.

Our job is to read Scripture and help each other understand more and more of it. To assemble together to encourage one another to good works, and so much the more as we see the day approaching.

Why the Church is Talking About Healing so Much

My last few posts have been about Charismatic Healing doctrines. I am hearing Christians talk more and more about healing these days, which got me thinking.

Back in the 60’s-70’s the Charismatic emphasis was on love and happy thoughts, Hippies for Jesus and Jesus People.

In the 80’s Charismatics emphasized speaking in tongues.

In the 90’s it was all about prosperity and wealth.

Now it seems Charismatics are pushing physical healing.

The emphasis did not exclude the existence of these other things, they all go together, but there were definite emphases.

Most of these, with the exception of tongues, since I can’t think of why that was specifically there then, are a direct reflection of culture.

Hippies were big around Jesus People time, we promised getting high on Jesus and not on drugs. Wealth was big around the US’s booming economy followed by recessions and uncertainty. It is no surprise that in our day of constant talk about universal health care and the expense of medical treatment, that the church is pushing free health care by the Spirit.

The church is simply using what flesh people want and then promising those same flesh benefits.

Does it work? The charismatic church has been the largest growing segment of Christianity in the last 50 years, and it’s not even close.

It’s no surprise that if you want to attract people, promise them their fleshly desires at no charge.

Unfortunately, the filled churches are talking about flesh experiences so much, they rarely get around to spiritual teaching.

The church has sold our birthright for a bowl of pottage.

If only the Bible had a warning about how dumb that is.

We should all be in a state of mourning for the condition of the church today.

Definitions of Sola Scriptura Undermine Sola Scriptura

Sola Scriptura, the idea that the Bible is our sole source for spiritual truth, is a fine idea, not actually applied by anyone ever.

We should uphold Sola Scriptura as our aim, yet honestly admit that much of our doctrine is based on other stuff.

In fact, many who hold to Sola Scriptura have never reada the whola thinga. How, pray tell, do you claim to base all your doctrine on a book you’ve never read, let alone endeavored to understand?

“My doctrine is based on the Bible,” say all manner of people who disagree with each other on basic doctrines.

How can this be true? Is the Bible this open for interpretation? Is it that confusing? Or are people using other things to decide what they believe?

Peter does say the scriptures contain many things hard to be understood. Above that, people twist them all out of proportion. (You can read Peter’s take on that here.)

The Bible does need to be interpreted, but the authors had one intent in mind and it would serve us well to discover that.

But that’s hard. So we fall back on other authorities while still maintaining the veneer that we hold Sola Scriptura.

Check out these definitions of Sola Scriptura that come right out and say Sola Scriptura isn’t actually a thing other than in word.

By Sola Scriptura Protestants mean that Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals).

There is one word in there that shoots this whole definition to pieces. Did you catch it? The word is “primary.” Primary implies secondary. Primary means there are other sources. It just does. Words mean things. Something cannot be primary and absolute at the same time. They cancel each other out. So, this is either an incredibly accurate definition of Sola Scriptura based on practice, or it’s bad writing.

Get a load of this definition I saw. This one cracked me up

For the Reformers, “Scripture alone” did not mean “Scripture all by itself.” Rather, Scripture was “alone” as the only unquestionable religious authority, not the only religious authority.

Oh, that’s too much, you guys are killing me. Sola doesn’t mean Sola. Again this is either a really honest definition recognizing reality, or it’s bad writing. I think it’s actually being honest. They know Sola Scriptura is just words without meaning, because they just denied the meaning with their words.

Again, Sola Scriptura is a nice idea, but no one does it. There are some who at least admit as much.

We don’t like Sola Scriptura because it puts the Bible in the hands of the reader, which is out of our control, and who knows what they will come up with.

If you let people find out what the Bible says, they’ll probably disagree with you and cause problems. So it’s best to leave the door open for other authorities so you can smash those who veer out of the way. Welcome to Church History.

Sola Scriptura: it’s a nice idea that no one does. Feel free to be the first.

The Tithingman

Church services are not always the most thrilling events. Everyone knows this, especially pastors who are in charge of such events. You can’t be on your A Game all the time.

You all have it pretty easy today. Most periods of church history had much longer church services. Marathon sermons and prayers that took up a large portion of your Sunday.

What’s a pastor to do if church services are boring and they last a long time?

Invent a new church office: The Tithingman.

The Tithingman’s job was two-fold.

First, he made sure people actually showed up to church. If he caught you somewhere other than church on a Sunday, or saw you walking through town, he’d jump out and drag you into church. How he did this while being in church himself is still beyond my mental capacities.

Secondly, he made sure people in church were behaving, or as was more likely the case, not sleeping. He was given a long stick. One end was sharp and the other had a softer thing on it, like a feather or rabbit’s foot.

A Tithingman and his stick of discipline. Amen.

The Tithingman would go ahead and whack a sleeping man or an unruly child. Women got the soft end and a little nudge. Either way, they woke up. If you persisted in your disrespect to the church, the Tithingman had the right to punish you, often with time in the public stocks.

Although we often look back at history as darker times and people who were backward, the Tithingman seems like a really good idea. I’m all for it.