What Did Jesus Do

Dispensationlism: Arminian or Calvinist?

2008-05-02T12:15:00.002-04:00

I have never really thought of it before, but it seems odd to me that the idea of premillenial dispensationalism is so much more popular with Arminians but not so much w/ Calvinists. Granted that there certainly are Calvinists who do hold to the premillenial dispensationalist view, as well as Arminians that do not. But in my experience I would be willing to bet money that an American Arminian is also a dispensationalist and that an American Calvinist is not. Perhaps this is incorrect, and if anyone has evidence to the contrary feel free to correct me.

In any case, this observance seems odd to me because the idea of premillenial dispensationalism, or at least the treatment of national Israel in that system, is simply an application of the five points of Calvinism applied to a nation instead of an individual.

For those unfamiliar with Calvinism, those five points are usually abbreviated as TULIP, and are as follows:

Total Depravity: Basically, this is the teaching that after the fall into sin, there is no inherent good in a person. The same could certainly be said of Abraham and his fleshly descendants. The history of Israel as detailed in the Bible certainly confirm that they were a depraved nation who constantly turned away from God, and God continually called them back. Without God's grace, there was no good in Israel.

Unconditional Election: This teaching states that God elects certain people to salvation without any condition that needs to be fulfilled on their part. The decision is completely up to God, and man has nothing to do with it. It goes without saying that dispensationalists see Israel as being unconditionally elected to be God's chosen people throughout eternity.

Limited Atonement: This teaching of Calvinism states that the atonement Jesus won was only won for the elect of God. Although dispensationalist do not state that Jesus atonement was only for Israel, they certainly state that Israel will receive certain blessings from God that are not for all of humanity in Christ. Dispensationalist hold a view of "Limited Favor" in which God has certain favors or blessings which are limited to Israel only. Even though speaking of different things, atonment vs. blessings or favor in genera, the concept is at least similar.

Irresistible Grace: The teaching that God's grace is effective on those whom he has elected, and that the elect are not capable of rejecting it. The dispensationalist believe that God's grace will be effective on the nation of Israel, and that the will not be able to reject that grace. They believe that "all Israel will be saved" and that they will not be able to reject that salvation, this is irresistable grace.

Perseverance Of The Saints: This teaching is basically "once saved always saved" with the condition that those who seemed to be saved but fell away were never really saved, or elect, to begin with. This too is applied to Israel by dispensationalists who stat that once Israel became God's chosen people, they will remain God's chosen people for eternity, they will persevere.

It is therefore interesting to me that the majority of those who believe in some form of dispensationalism are not Calvinists, but Arminians. Why is it that the very ideas which these people find to be absolutely repugnant in speaking of a person's relationship to God are completely accepted in speaking of a large group of people's relationship to God? Is there some sort of disconnect there, or am I misunderstanding something?

Alternatively, is there a disconnect here for calvinists who do not accept the teachings of dispensationalism?

Answered Prayer

2008-04-02T15:47:00.001-04:00

Sometimes there is nothing better than an answered prayer.

Thanks and Praise be to God our Father who provides for us, his own dear children.

Other Versions Of the Parable Of The Weeds

2008-04-01T10:12:00.002-04:00

A little bit of satire for your Tuesday. The Parable of the Weeds from Matthew 13 is written as follows, from the English Standard version....

24He put another parable before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, 25but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. 26So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, 'Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?' 28He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' So the servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?' 29But he said, 'No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"

After reading it, I got to wondering how it would have been written if it was written by certain other groups within Christianity.

The Arminian version:

24He put another parable before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who had a field of neutral plants, 25some plants decided to be wheat, while others decided to be weeds. 26So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, 'Master, did you not sow a good seed in your field for the other plants to follow? How then does it have weeds?' 28He said to them, 'I did, but only some decided to do so' So the servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?' 29But he said, 'No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"

The Calvinist version:

24He put another parable before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed seed in his field, 25When the plants came up and bore grain, weeds appeared also. 27And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, 'Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?' 28He said to them, 'I did not sow good seed only, but I sowed some good wheat seeds and some bad weed seeds' So the servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?' 29But he said, 'No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"

The "Left Behind/pre-millenial/pre-trib/dispensationalist etc." version:

24He put another parable before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, 25but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. 26So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, 'Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?' 28He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' So the servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?' 29But he said, 'Not yet, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30Let both grow together until the first part of the harvest, and at the first part of harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the wheat first and bring them into my barn. Leave the weeds there for a while to be stricken by plagues and blights, until the second part of the harvest. When the second part of the harvest comes, go and pull the weeds, bind them in bundles to be burned, but some of the weeds will have changed into wheat, leave that wheat in the field. Then replant the wheat from the barn back into the field for 1000 years. After the 1000 years a plague of locust will attempt to attack the wheat, my son will kill the locust and then you can put all the wheat back into my barn.'"

Blood

2008-02-20T15:44:00.001-05:00

It is interesting to note the prominence of blood in our culture. The idea of a "blood brother" has been around for most of history and has been commonly held to be the closest platonic relationship into which two people can enter. When speaking of family, there is nearly always a distinction made between those who are relatives by blood, and those who are only relatives "in law" or by marriage. When referring to our blood family, we commonly use the phrase "blood is thicker than water."

The Bible too puts a very strong emphasis on Blood, in fact the Bible's emphasis is much stronger. In Leviticus 17:11 God tell us that "the life of a creature is in the blood." God commanded the Jews not to eat meat with blood in it because he had reserved the blood for use in sacrifices. (Lev 3) We are said to be cleansed, made white, by the "Blood of the Lamb" (Rev 7:14). And when Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, he deliberately chose the word's "this is my blood" (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24) to describe the cup which he offered to his disciples in the upper room. Those of us who take Christ's words seriously realize that this is no ordinary sip of wine which is received. It is nothing less than the very blood of Christ himself. Christ's blood, which is his very life is given to us in the Holy cup of the Eucharist. Christ's blood, and his life through it, was given and poured out for you for the forgiveness of sins, and still today we are given the life of Christ in the cup.

Throughout the Word, we are commonly spoken of as "Sons of God," and although Adoption is sometimes used to picture how we become Sons, our relationship to God is so much more than an legal arrangement. Through Baptism we are washed with the blood of Christ, and through the Eucharist we receive the blood of Christ, the very life of Christ. Through the sacraments we are not simply adopted sons, but we literally become Blood relatives of God through the sacrifice of Christ Jesus! Christ is not only our brother legally, but through his sacrifice, we are just as much sons of God as is Christ himself. This is is the ultimate and blessed result of Christ's work, that we are granted the right to be Sons of God, forgiven of all our sins and to eventually spend eternity with our true Father in Heaven.

SOLI DEO GLORIA

A Gift??

2008-01-24T16:29:00.000-05:00

I recently had the opportunity to watch a VeggieTales video. The particular video in question, or at least the story on it which I saw, was entitled A Snoodle's Tale. It was a rather cute story narrated in Dr. Suess like rhyme. The story focused on one young snoodle in particular who comes into being (snoodle's aren't born, they are created and a new one pops out of a tower every Tuesday or something like that) with three gifts, a set of paints, a “snoodle kazoo” and a pair of wings. Yet, when he attempts to use each of these gifts the other snoodles simply make fun of him for his lack of ability. After making fun of him, one of the older snoodles paints, with considerable skill, a picture to remind him of his failure.

After three pictures of him are painted and placed in his back back, the young snoodle decides he has had enough, and climbs a mountain hoping that when he gets to the summit, he will be left alone. However, when he arrives at the top, he is not left alone, but a nice old man invites him in for tea. The young snoodle eventually tells the old man his story, and the old man reveals himself to be the creator of the snoodles, that he in fact is God. He tells the young snoodle not to listen to the older snoodles, because the three gifts are in fact the three things which God specifically chose for that young snoodle to be blessed with. God then paints a picture of the young snoodle as an older snoodle soaring through the air. He removes the negative pictures and places his own in the back pack. This picture does not weigh the young snoodle down as the other ones did, but makes him feel lighter. The young snoodle flies back to the snoodle village to tell of his encounter with God.

I have seen a few VeggieTales videos and as I watched this one, I really had high hopes. I saw the young snoodle doing wrong (In this case the wrong would simply be not using your gifts to their full potential. He was trying to use them, and since he did try to use his gifts I do not really see this as being a good representation of sin. Unless he was able to use his Gifts and yet despised them and refused to use them to God's glory, this is not a sin, although it is caused by one's sinful condition. Yet to many evangelicals, not using ones gifts as well as possible is a chief mortal sin, and I wonder if that was meant to be expressed here), and the law was applied in the form of the pictures painted for him by the other snoodles (no matter that they painted mean spiritedly. It could still be seen as an application of the law). As the law drug him down he could only be comforted by God. Yet when he met God, the “Gospel” was simply not to listen to the mean spirited accusers. To remember that God made you special, and no one can take that away. Yes, the sins were taken away (the negative pictures removed from the young snoodle's bag) but they were removed because he was simply to forget about them, they were not forgiven. Additionally, when God painted his picture of the older stronger snoodle, it would have been much better if he would have painted a picture of someone representative of Christ because when God looks at us and is please, he is only really seeing Christ.

Anyway, a review was not really the purpose of this post. There was a particular line in the movie which struck me as very true and important, even though the context in which it was used made it tragic. At one point in the conversation between God and the young snoodle, God laments that all the snoodle's he created use their gifts to make other feel bad. The young snoodle asks God if he can't make the snoodles love him and one another, if he can't make the snoodles all obey his wishes. God responds with the phrase “A gift that's demanded is no gift at all.” Now, I am nearly certain that this was put in to defend some Arminian notion of free will. (It is terribly sad that the creators would find a need to put in a re-enforcement of their notion of free will, but do not see the need to emphasize the need for a savior).

Now, I do agree with the statement that a gift that's demanded is no gift at all, but the statement simply proves that when we love and obey God, it is certainly not a gift we are giving him, as if he needs gifts from us anyway. Loving and Obeying God cannot be a gift, because it is something which God demands of us. God's ten commandments are an explicit command to obey. The first commandment tells us that He is the only God and that we are to “fear, love, and trust in God above all things.” Doing these things is not a gift, it is the law, to ignore the law is to sin, and to sin brings us the punishment of death. We are explicitly told this in Romans 6:23 where Paul writes “the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Not only are we shown that a love and loyalty towards God cannot be a gift from us, but we are show a true gift indeed, eternal life in Christ Jesus.

Now, if we truly believe that a gift demanded is no gift at all, and we are explicitly told that salvation through Christ is a gift, it should go without saying that salvation is not something which can be demanded. This completely abolishes the very idea of free will in conversion, because the typical Arminian idea of conversion is for the human to make a demand on God for salvation. One simply says the sinner's prayer if they truly meant it they are saved. It may not sound like a demand, but it is. A demand is simply asking with authority and intent to receive. The sinner's prayer (or any way in which one asks for salvation) meets this definition: the person who is “converting” is certainly asking, and certainly has the intent to receive. The sinner's prayer also connotes authority because it puts the person above God in as much as the person is making the step towards God of his own “free will” but God is passive and as far as they are concerned, God does not have the Authority to deny the request. For all practical purposes, this constitutes a demand. People demand salvation from God on the authority of their own free will. As far as they are concerned, free will is freedom from God's will, giving the authority to themselves. The only way for the idea of free will to have anything to do with salvation would be if God's will is equally free to say “no” to their decision. Of course in their minds he cannot say no, if he could it would be called a “request for Christ” instead of a “Decision For Christ.” In their minds their decision is final, giving themselves the authority and effectively robbing it from God.

What they do not see is that for all their defenses of Free Will, they are trying to rob God of the ability to give a simple gift. They insist on their own authority, or free will, at the expense of God's supreme authority. They seek to overturn the idea of a gift, and make it into an exchange. It becomes a matter of getting salvation from God in return for dedicating my life to Him. But this is not how it works, we are passive, God is the initiator. He gave me the gift of salvation, which I received through Baptism when I was just a helpless baby, and in response to that I dedicate my life to Him. But my dedication does not get me anything. My salvation is not dependent on my dedication (darn good thing too). But my dedication, and my love for God and my Obeying God are all simple responses to God's love shown to me in Christ Crucified. “We love because he first loved us.”

God has given us a very precious gift, one which we do not have the right to ask for, much less to demand. But this is what makes it a true gift. It is something which he gives to us out of pure, holy love. On our own, we cannot even begin to desire this gift. We cannot understand the love shown to us. We cannot ask for it or demand it. Yet, God is gracious enough to give it too us anyway. We respond with love and obedience, but ultimately, the gift is from God alone through Christ alone.

SOLI DEO GLORIA

To The One Who Conquers

2007-11-29T12:34:00.000-05:00

The seven letters to the seven churches in the second and third chapters of Revelation have been interpreted to mean some very different things. Many believe that each city's church represents a different kind of church that exists today. Some believe that each church represents a specific period in Church history. Some simply believe that they were churches, and nothing more. To me, the seven churches represent the complete church on Earth, the Una Sancta. I don't think they necessarily each represent a different kind of church, or a phase of church history. However, the number seven is used quite frequently in scripture to connote completeness. There is no reason to think otherwise here. If we look at the seven promises to the seven churches, this becomes even more obvious.

In each of the seven letters, Jesus makes a specific promise to "the one who conquers" (ESV, RSV, NRSV - Most others translate 'conquers' as 'overcomes'). Although it is tempting, and common, for us to try to interpret this as Jesus expecting us to be the one's conquering, this is not necessarily the case. The Greek word here used for conquer, or overcome, (νικωντι - nikao) is one that John uses more than any other new testament writer. When used by John, it nearly always refers, at least in part, to Christ's victory over sin, death and Satan. This is first seen in John 16:33, in which Jesus claims to be the one who has overcome the world, and in so doing brings peace. This obviously refers to Christ's work to overcome sin, and overcoming sin is the only way in which true peace is granted to us.

The idea of Christians overcoming through Christ is central to John's first epistle. In 1John 4:4, John tells us that we to have overcome the world and every evil spirit, even the anti-Christ. It is not by our own power, but as John says "for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world." This though is made even more explicit in 1John 5:4-5. The Apostle says that all who have been born of God, that is those who have been granted faith, have overcome the world by their faith. It is most obvious that the one who truly overcomes, the one who truly conquers is none-other than God himself.

Thus, when reading these seven letters, and specifically the seven promises to him who overcomes, we should not worry that we will not overcome or that we will not conquer. Christ has conquered, and because of his victory, we too shall be the ones who overcome. "Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1 John 5:5)

This message of overcoming or conquering is the central message of the book of Revelation. In these letters to the churches Jesus, through John, makes seven promises which are in fact the entire promise of salvation.

To eat of the tree of life is salvation. To not be hurt by the second death is salvation. (Rev 2:7) To be given food (mannna) from God , and a new name, that of an adopted son is salvation. (Rev 2:17) To be given authority over the nations is salvation. (Rev 2:26-27) To be clothed in white garments, have one's name in the book of life, and be confessed by Jesus himself to the Father is salvation. (Rev 3:5) To be a pillar in the temple of God (read "the church") and have God's name written on you is salvation. (Rev 3:12) To sit with Christ on his throne is salvation. (Rev 3:21)

All of these seven promises make up the complete promise of salvation, promised to the entire church. The book of Revelation is a grand picture of the ongoing battle between God and Satan. And the primary purpose of these letters is to show the readers what the stakes of this battle are. God and Satan are fighting over you and me. The complete promise of salvation will go to him who ultimately conquers. Now that the stage has been set, and the stakes have been made known, the book of Revelation becomes a great comfort in seeing the lamb who conquers. We know the stakes, and we know who will conquer. in Rev 5:5, we are explicitly told that the "Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered." In Rev 6:2, we see our Saviour riding on a white horse "and he came out conquering, and to conquer." The forces of evil will have some victories, and not all will be save from them, they will seem to have won at times (Rev 11:7, Rev 13:7). But in the end, there is only one, the Lamb of God - Jesus Christ, who will conquer all (Rev 17:4). Yet, even in our weakness, we will share in His conquering, we have a part in it because, by our faith we have been made sons of God (Rev 12:11, Rev 15:2, Rev 21:7).

In the book of Revelation, we see the promises of salvation, and we see Jesus Christ our God and Savior conquering the foes to win those promises for the entire church. Amidst all the amazing prophecy and wild imagery, there is nothing more important to take note of, nothing more central and obvious to see, than the fact that Jesus will conquer, and only because of His victory, will we receive the promises of salvation.

SOLI DEO GLORIA

No Posts In The Near Future

2007-10-29T12:28:00.000-04:00

Due to an abundance of circumstances (personal, logistics, and computer issues) I will probably not be posting too much in the near future. I may be able to from time to time, but I wouldn't count on it.

Thanks, and God Bless.

A Great Sermon

2007-10-17T13:01:00.000-04:00

Check out the great sermon from this past Sunday preached by Pastor William Weedon.

The text can be found here.

The audio (as an Issues Etc. sermon review) can be found here.

It is very good, I heartily recommend it. Enjoy!

Why is the Sacramental Union So "Unbelievable"?

2007-10-16T12:19:00.001-04:00

While perhaps it should come as no surprise to me, it is still difficult to understand why so many Christians today cannot even admit the possibility that the bread and wine of the Lord's supper are at the same time the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Their argument makes perfect sense of course, the bread does not look or taste like flesh. The wine (or grape juice) does not look or taste like blood. If one was to run a chemical test on them, they would show no traces of flesh or blood. The cannot be perceived as anything other than bread and wine.

This of course is true. Even in the sacramental union, the bread and wine are not changed. They remain bread and wine. Paul refers to the consecrated bread and wine as bread and wine in his first letter to the Corinthians. Yet our blessed Lord himself calls them His own body and blood. Because we have no physical evidence for the elements to be anything other than bread and wine, it is logical to believe they are merely symbols of Jesus' body and blood.

Why then, is it difficult for me to understand why so many are unable to at admit the possibility of the Jesus' words meaning what they literally say? Because the same people who, when speaking of the Lord's Supper bind their faith to follow their reason, have no problem believing that Jesus Christ is true God and true man at the same time. Looking at Jesus, we see nothing but a poor man. Under the most rigorous of medical examination, no doctor would call him anything but a simple man. There is no evidence for Jesus being both true God and true man other than his word, holy scripture.

Although speaking of two different kinds of unions here (sacramental as opposed to personal) they describe very similar things. In both cases things appear to the wisdom of this world to be only one simply earthly thing. In both cases, to the wisdom of the Spirit and faith, the ordinary earthly things become supernatural, but no less real.

Why is one acceptable to some Christians, but not the other? I have no idea.

SOLI DEO GLORIA

Confession & Absolution

2007-10-13T11:18:00.000-04:00

One of the most common objections I hear from visitors to a Lutheran Church is that they cannot believe the pastor had the audacity to say "I forgive You All Your Sins." It is completely unfathomable, they say, for forgiveness to come from anywhere other than directly from Jesus himself. No pastor has the Authority to forgive sins, and they shouldn't presume to do so.

Of course, what these people don't understand is that the forgiveness spoken by the pastor, or any Christian, is in no way separated from Christ and His sacrificial death. To remove Christ's death and resurrection from atonement or absolution is impossible. Atonement apart from Christ's death and resurrection does not exist. This fact was even true for Christ himself. Whenever he announced absolution to a person, he could not have done so without doing so in reference to His perfect life, His future death, and His promised resurrection. Anytime Jesus told someone their sins were forgiven, it did not just magically (or miraculously) happen because Jesus said so. Forgiveness for these people came exclusively from the cross, just as it did when the apostles forgave sins, when the pastor forgives sins in Church Sunday morning, and when you forgive a brother or sister in Christ.

For those of you who have objections, it is may be helpful to think of forgiveness in terms that we Americans are more familiar with; a presidential pardon. If a president issues a pardon to someone who is in prison, it is only by the president's authority that he may be released from prison. Yet, it is very unlikely that the president himself will deliver the message. He would probably send someone else to release the man from prison. The Person sent could certainly say “By the Authority of the President of the United States of America, I release you from this prison.” The president's messenger has no authority of his own to release the man, he will not be the person to open the cell and let him out. Yet, this messenger can say “I release you.”

In the same way, Christ has sent us and gives us the privilege to tell the penitent “I forgive you.” In the very words of absolution on Sunday morning, the pastor makes it clear that it is not his personal authority that forgives sins, but the authority given to him “as a called and ordained servant of the word.”

Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you." [22] And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. [23] If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld."
- John 20:21-23 ESV

There is no forgiveness without Christ's death. Yet through Christ's Death, He has given all of us the privilege to forgive the sins of repentant Christians.

SOLI DEO GLORIA

Note: The standard words of absolution are as follows:

Upon this your confession, I, as a called and ordained servant of the Word, announce the grace of God to all of you, and in the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ I forgive you all your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

I had a pastor who usually edited this slightly to read as follows (added part in bold):

Upon this your confession, I, as a called and ordained servant of the Word, announce the grace of God to all of you, and in the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ, by virtue of his sacrificial death and resurrection, I forgive you all your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Although this small edit does not really change anything being said, it always helped me to remember and better understand that the forgiveness being announced in absolution was the very forgiveness won by Jesus Christ on the Cross. It was simple way to keep the congregation's thoughts Christ centered and Cross Focused.

Of Sand and The Rock

2007-10-09T12:41:00.000-04:00

Mat 7:24-27 ESV "Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. [25] And the rain fell, and he floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. [26] And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. [27] And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it."

This is a familiar passage to most readers of the Bible. It is commonly brought up in sermons and Bible classes. And the application seems simple, if we do what Jesus says, we are building our “house” on the rock and we will be safe. After all, we did such a great job picking our foundation that our house will certainly not be knocked down.

The real question posed by this passage, is not which is better, to build on sand or to build on rock, but how to build on the Rock. What does it mean when a man “hears these words of mine and does them?” On first glance, it seem like we simply need to hear the word of God and then do what it says. In the things of this world, we hear our master's command and we then fulfill it. Isn't it same to hear God's command and then fulfill it? Yet, look at the demands placed before this statement. It is the sermon on the mount. To “do” the words of Christ which proceeds this statement means to love your enemy as yourself, do everything possible to help your fellow man no matter who he is, to refrain from retaliation, anger, and lust. We are told to fast cheerfully, and to “not be anxious” but to have perfect faith in God our Father. And that is not even the half of it, and yet every single person reading this has broken each of these word's of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have in fact built out house on the sand.

Looking at it this way, we have built our house on the Law, we see what God commands and have tried to do all we could to keep it and we have failed miserably. The rain and floods of the law have come and crashed into our feebly built house. The winds have knocked it to the ground, because its foundation was not on Christ, but on our own works of the law.

What then does it mean to do the words of Christ. I means nothing else other than to repent and believe on Christ, on the Rock himself. In John 6:29, Jesus tells us that the “work of God” is simply to believe in the one whom God has sent. To do the work of God is to believe in Jesus himself. John repeats this truth in the third chapter of his first epistle. The doing of which Christ speaks is the Faith that is created in us through Baptism and the Word!

When we realize that the Rock is Christ himself (1 Cor 10:4) we realize that it is not our works that keep us strong, but the works of Christ on the Cross and the Holy Spirit in us through the means of Grace. To build on the Rock is to strengthen faith, and faith is only created and strengthened by the Gospel in Word and Sacrament. There is no substitution. Working to fulfill the law does not build on the rock, but builds on the sand of our own works. By receiving the gifts of Christ, our faith is being built on the Solid Rock of Jesus Christ.

SOLI DEO GLORIA

Beethoven Symphonies

2007-10-05T19:25:00.000-04:00

Tonight, while at work, I am taking the time to do something I have never done before, listen to the entire cycle of Beethoven's Nine Symphonies. The works individually are each brilliant in their own way, but the impact of listening to them all so far has been a wonderful experience. I had forgotten how much I love the oft overlooked fourth symphony.

I'm just finishing the famous fifth now, and the best is yet to come. If you've never listened to them in a cycle I highly recommend it. It will take around six hours.

If you are looking for a good and reasonably priced complete set, I would recommend on of the following.

Herbert Von Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonic - The 1963 recording is generally regarded as best. It is certainly a classic recording, and Karajan squeezes all the drama he can from the wonderful BPO (I'll never understand how the Amazon Editorial Reviewer calls Karajan's Beethoven "Squeaky Clean" and "Emotionally Cool). The only let-down in this set for me is the Ninth. The performance is superb, but the 1963 recording really shows its age in the finale. The Choir is muddled and unintelligible, the orchestra and Soloists do well though. It is also worth noting that Karajan tended to over-emphasize the strings almost to the point of drowning out the brass. Even with these weaknesses the set is one of the best available for the drama alone.

David Zinman and the Zurich Tonhalle - This is the recording I am listening to tonight. It doesn't quite have the dramatic impact of Karajan, but the performances and recordings (from 1999 I believe, very recent) are still top notch. Zinman tends to keep the tempos very quick, almost to the point of distraction in a couple of places, but overall to very good effect (And likely closer to Beethoven's intentions). These are excellent performances and recordings and for $20.00 on Amazon, you really can't go wrong with them.

Forgive My Lack Of Posting

2007-10-05T19:14:00.001-04:00

I haven't been writing much lately, I have been working a support shift at work (afternoons and evenings as opposed to morning and early afternoon) and it has been kicking my butt. My Bible Study and therefore my postings have suffered as well.

Looking forward to getting back into the Word over the weekend though.

One Stop Shop For Reformation Resources

2007-10-04T19:43:00.000-04:00

Pastor McCain of Cyberbrethren has pointed us towards another great online resource for Reformation Information.

See his post here, or go directly to "Reformation."

The Birth of Moses

2007-09-24T12:24:00.000-04:00

The book of Exodus is one of my favorite Old testament books to read because it is absolutely resplendent with symbols of Christ and his work to come. In it Israel captive and enslaved is a type of all humanity and their captivity and enslavement under sin and the devil. Moses is a type of Christ, sent by God to deliver the people from bondage. There are many other types as well, the passover lamb, the exodus through the red sea, and the birth of Moses.

The birth of Moses is probably one of the more overlooked types in the book of exodus, but it points us forward quite clearly to two things. On first glance, it is quite obvious that the birth of Moses, when all male children were to be killed by order of pharaoh (Exodus 1:22) was looking forward to the Birth of Christ, when all male children were ordered to be killed by King Herod. Each child was born under a death sentence, and each was protected from that death sentence by God.

Yet the death sentence that Moses was under points toward the death sentence we are all under. The wages of sin is death, and each of is carries guilt for sin. Yet Moses was saved from this death sentence through the waters of the Nile. He was placed in the water under sentence of death, yet when he was brought out of the water, he was saved, no longer was he under the law that all Hebrew boys should be killed; he was now a child of the king.

This is an obvious picture of God's work in Baptism. Even as little children, we are responsible for our sin and are rightly under sentence of Death. Yet through the waters of Holy Baptism God puts us to death with Christ, and raises us up to be his children.

SOLI DEO GLORIA

Some people have too much time on their hands

2007-09-13T12:09:00.000-04:00

Leave it to the French to conduct a study on this.

Literal Interpretation

2007-09-13T12:02:00.001-04:00

In the past, I have written a few posts here against the theology of dispensationalism. In all of these posts, I have discussed what is wrong with their theology. Invariably, in a discussion with a dispensaionalist I get accused of “spiritualizing” scripture, that is not reading it literally. This accusation irritates me to no end. Is it true that there are some scriptures which I do not take absolutely literally? Of course, I certainly don't look for a rebuilt temple as described in Ezekiel, nor do I look for the Old Testament sacrifices to be started again. I don't see any reason to believe the thousand years of Revelation 20 is literal seeing as there is no literal dragon, no literal pit or abyss, which will be physically sealed, and no literal chain.

Yet I certainly believe that I interpret the Bible literally. The things described above which are not literal they in fact occur in visions. There is nothing to suggest that things seen in visions and dreams are to be taken literally. There are certainly other times in the Scriptures in which obvious metaphors are used. The Gospel of John is filled with them, for instance in John 15 Jesus calls himself the vine. He is of course not a literal vine, but the vine provides a picture of our relationship to Jesus.

Yet, the fact that they take non-literal things in a literal manner is not the irritating thing. What irritates me beyond reason is the passages that must be taken literally which are in fact spiritualized by most dispensationalists and nearly all evangelicals. The passages which most Christians seem to spiritualize are in fact much more important that the ones which I get accused of spiritualizing.

The first passage that comes to mind is Eph 2:1. It is a simple passage which says “And you were dead in your trespasses and sins.” Yet most Christians today do not believe this to be true, they see themselves as being able to co-operate with God to be saved. Certainly not the same as being dead. While on the topic of free will, the entire ninth chapter of Romans is often spiritualized, if not ignored completely.

Nearly any passage relating to the sacraments is not taken literally. Jesus saying “This is my body” can't possibly mean what it says. “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? “ can't possibly be what Paul really meant to tell the Corinthians.

“Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins” certainly doesn't mean that Baptism forgives sins. “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you” doesn't mean that Baptism has any power. Romans 6 sure does a good job explaining the symbolism of baptism doesn't it?

Why is it that we can be accused of spiritualizing the Scriptures by people who spiritualize, or even ignore, these essential sections of the Bible. These are scriptures that affect the daily lives of Christians throughout the world, and they are ripped apart by those who pride themselves on an absolutely literal interpretation of Scriptures. Its asinine.

Reading From The KJV

2007-09-07T12:28:00.000-04:00

A couple nights ago, for my daily bible reading, instead of using one of the translations I usually use (ESV, NIV or NASB) I decided that I would get out my King James Bible (Authorized Version to my British friends). Although it is not the Bible with which I grew up or which my church used when I was younger, I have always had a deep love for this translation of God's Word. However, I have neglected it for the past few months.

Anyway, the other night, I read through almost the entire book of Romans in the KJV. Not only did I read it, but even though I was by myself, I read it aloud. I'm not particularly sure why I did so, but I did. These things made for one of the greatest Bible reading experiences I have ever had. First and foremost, the message of Romans is absolutely beautiful. Luther says in his preface to this marvelous epistle:

It is purest Gospel. It is well worth a Christian's while not only to memorize it word for word but also to occupy himself with it daily, as though it were the daily bread of the soul. It is impossible to read or to meditate on this letter too much or too well. The more one deals with it, the more precious it becomes
and the better it tastes.

This letter of Paul's always seems to uplift me more than any other. Reading from the KJV only helped to reinforce the message. Many people say that the KJV is too difficult to understand for modern readers and does not have too much use today. I agree that the KJV is more challenging to read than other translations, but this is an advantage. The KJV forces you to concentrate more on the meaning of what is being said. It will cause one to think more about what is being said. It stimulates the mind.

Reading aloud serves the same purpose. The reader must clearly read each and every word. It becomes impossible to skim or skip parts of the text. Each must be presented as equal. And then not only are the words being processed visually, but you hear them as well, giving them even more of a chance to sink in.

Lastly, albeit relatively unimportant, the KJV is an absolute Joy to read. The language is gorgeous and as fit a vessel as exists for the Word of God.

SOLI DEO GLORIA

Why Free Will Matters

2007-09-04T12:31:00.000-04:00

I have, on occasion, been able to discuss the idea of free will with those of an Arminian persuasion. Each and every time I have had a discussion of this nature, it has more or less ended with the Arminian saying something similar to the following: “It doesn't really matter how we come to Christ, as long as a relationship with Christ is where we end up.”* On first hearing, this certainly sounds like an accurate statement. Should I really care how people are brought to Christ?

Although it may seem inconsequential at first glance, the idea of free will has certain consequences which are undesirable to say the least. In the first place, the idea of free will, of making a decision for Christ causes one to put their faith not in Jesus as their savior, but first and foremost their faith is in the decision they have made. Some may say that this is untrue, but when an Arminian doubts his salvation, does he look to Christ for comfort? No! he does not look to Christ, he looks to himself and makes another decision to re-commit himself to Christ. When in doubt, they look towards their decision. For comfort they make another decision. Their own action is their own comfort.

Obviously, this is not Biblical. Our faith is not to be in ourselves or our works or our decisions. Our faith is to be in Christ alone. The law, the ministry of death, tells us to look toward our works and decisions. When directed to ourselves, as we are by the law, we can only see one thing. The only thing we get by looking to ourselves is what we had to begin with, death. By ourselves we are dead in trespasses and sins, and no decision we make or work that we do can change that. It is only an act of God that can make this change. It is only a miracle of the Holy Spirit that can grant us faith in Christ. To put our faith in anything but God is to put something else in place of God, breaking the first and most fundamental commandment. To put your faith in yourself is to make yourself out to be God, to be your own savior.

Does this sound inconsequential to you? Does it really matter how people are brought to Faith? Yes it matters! By making conversion dependent on one's own actions, one sets a strong precedent for making Christianity into a “self-help” religion. Christianity is the only religion in the work that is in no way a “self-help” religion. Biblical Christianity is the only religion in which one's works are not the source of salvation (or favorable reincarnation or nirvana or 70 virgins or whatever delusion the followers of false religions are trying to obtain).

Yet, by teaching that we can even do this one work, or co-operate with God in this one work, the Arminians teach that a person can help himself to salvation by doing this one work. This one work seems to lead to a whole religion of self-help and self-improvement. By beginning the Christian life with a work, they are inclined to go through it and finish it in the same way. Their preaching continues this mind set, and nothing but law-based sermons get preached. The Gospel does not tell you how to lead a “Christian Life” so it is largely ignored.

Does this sound inconsequential to you? I certainly hope not. Arminianism poisons the Gospel, it makes the most blessed news ever proclaimed nothing but another law. It silences those who proclaim the Gospel because it is not relevant. It takes credit from God and gives it to man. It makes man out to be God, and as such is fundamentally anti-Christian. It is no trivial matter, it threatens the Gospel itself and must be taken seriously.

SOLI DEO GLORIA

* This first thing to note is that even the statement “It doesn't really matter how we come to Christ, as long as a relationship with Christ is where we end up” presupposes an Arminian viewpoint. If you notice, they are still stating that “we come to Christ.” Even when they basically say “lets agree to disagree” they still make sure that they are using their own terms and their own theology. If I would make a similar statement saying “It doesn't really matter how the Holy Spirit calls us, as long as we are called to be children of God through Christ.” the Arminian would not find that to be a “lets agree to disagree” statement at all. Why they expect us to accept their statement I don't know.

Prayer Request

2007-08-30T12:44:00.000-04:00

I ask for prayers. It would be inappropriate to say more in this public of a forum.

Thank You

Issues Etc: Worship

2007-08-28T15:49:00.000-04:00

Check out yesterdays Issues Etc. The second hour was particularily good, featuring an excellent discussion on eternal worship.

Highly reccomended.

Relevance and Relativism

2007-08-28T07:31:00.000-04:00

Churches today are obsessed with being "relevant." If looking through ad church advertisement in a phone book, it is almost guaranteed that one will see "relevant preaching." This begs the question of what makes preaching relevant, and what makes preaching irrelevant. The short answer is simple. Relevant preaching is that which speaks to us Law and Gospel, that which proclaims Jesus Christ as the one and only sacrifice for sins. Irrelevant preaching is anything else. After all, nothing can possibly be more relevant to a person than his eternal fate.

Of course, when a church advertises itself as having relevant preaching, they typically go the opposite route. They seem to think that the work of Jesus Christ and the eternal fate of man are irrelevant, and that nearly anything else is relevant, whether it be health, wealth, self esteem, or even sex. These things are all irrelevant in the scheme of eternity. Why then do churches that consider themselves to be relevant preach nothing but irrelevance? Are they lying? Do they truly believe their message to be relevant? Is there some other form of miscommunication going on here.

I don't think that those who call their irrelevant message "relevant" are lying. They in fact do truly believe their message to be relevant, but their idea of relevance is not a true universal relevance, but a cultural relevance. In most cases, the message of relevance is only relevant to a subset of humanity. In most cases a preacher may preach what is relevant to his or (unfortunately) her target audience. They want to draw a certain group of people to their church and they preach a message those people would like to hear. They are in fact tickling the itching ears of they target audience.

Yet, by definition of making their preaching relevant to some people, they are by definition making their preaching irrelevant to others. The preaching of Joel Osteen may be relevant to the middle class, but the upper class don't need it, and most people in the lower class have seen people with great faith, but still have miserable lives. The message of a black liberation theologian is completely irrelevant to those who happen to not feel like they are oppressed because of their race.

Not only does the entire idea of culturally relevant preaching cause irrelevance to be preached. But culturally relevant preaching allows the minds of sinful men to be in full control of what is preached in church. Sermons/messages are no longer based on the Bible, God's Holy and Perfect Word, but they are based on what people want to hear. Sure, the preacher may throw in a few passages to proof text their message, but the message itself did not come from scripture. The message of the Bible, Christ crucified for sinners will never seem relevant, and it does not appeal to a target audience. It is the Gospel and through it the Holy Spirit will bring people to faith.

It gets even worse. The concept of relevant preaching implies that what is relevant for me might not be relevant for you. As long as this message is being sent to church goers, it will not take too much of a jump for them to get to full blown relativism. As long as what is being preached is determined by what the church goer wants and not by the true Biblical message, the church goers ideas become more important in what they perceive to be truth. Instead of "What is relevant for you may not be relevant for me" they begin to say "what is true for you may not be true for me." All of the sudden, instead of learning who God is, church goers are "exploring who God is to me."

Clearly, it is a short, steep and slippery slope from relevance to relativism.
My hope and prayer is that when you go to church, you do not get a culturally relevant message. I hope you get a truly relevant message that Jesus Christ, true God and true man, bore your sins and suffered and died in your place.

SOLI DEO GLORIA

Of Abraham's Children and Stones

2007-08-27T12:51:00.000-04:00

And do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father,' for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. - Mat 3:9 ESV

What amazing words these must have been to the Jews hearing them. They were the descendants of Abraham, didn't that mean anything anymore? Why shouldn't we say to ourselves “We have Abraham as our Father”? Why would God raise up Children of Abraham from stones?

All these questions and more must have been going through the minds of those who first heard them, whether the Pharisees in Matthew, or the entire crowd in Luke (3:8). These words made no sense, and they certainly do not make sense to most who read them today. The problem is that the Jews didn't (and still don't) understand what it means to be a child of Abraham. Most Christians today are equally unaware of what makes a person Abraham's descendant. It is obviously not your bloodline, if it were so the Jews would certainly have been able to say to themselves “We have Abraham as our father.” They would have been correct.

Yet this sentence spoken by John the Baptist so many years ago implies that it is not bloodline that makes one a son of Abraham. In John 8, Jesus confirms this as well. When the Jews assert there that Abraham is their father, he tells them that if that were so “you would be doing what he did.” But what was it that Abraham did, how was Abraham made righteous? By faith, trusting in God was Abraham made righteous. By faith Abraham became God's son (Gen 15:6, Gal 3:6).

The Jews, especially the Pharisees and their followers, were not able to say Abraham is their father because they had no Faith. They looked to themselves, their physical ancestors and their works as their salvation and the way to please God. They trusted the law, not the promise.

If the Jews are no longer the children of Abraham, who in fact does that title belong to? It belongs to all those who have faith in Jesus Christ. Through faith, we have become the heirs of Abraham. (Rom 4). All who have faith are children of Abraham, and all of us were raised up to this status from stones, so to speak.

Twice in speaking to the faithless descendants of Abraham, Ezekiel tells them that God will remove their Heart of stone and replace it with a Heart of Flesh. (11:19, 36:26) Even now, anyone without faith has a hardened heart, a Heart of stone. (Rom 2:5, Eph 4:18) Even now, the only solution is for God to create in us a clean heart, a Heart of Flesh, not stone. Only through this new Heart, which is completely the gift of God, is there life, salvation, and peace.

God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. - Mat 3:9 ESV

God is not only able to raise up Children for Abraham from stones, but he does. Every conversion is a miraculous event in which a child of Abraham is raised from a spiritually dead stone. Every conversion is a heart transplant in which we receive a new heart of flesh, and our dead heart of stone with all of its sins and filth is given to Jesus Christ to bear. Jesus took it all on himself, and suffered the punishment we deserve. My old dead heart was crucified and buried with Him, a new man united with Christ arose.

SOLI DEO GLORIA

Do Lutherans Teach a Prosperity Gospel

2007-08-20T12:44:00.000-04:00

I believe that God has made me and all creatures; that He has given me my body and soul, eyes, ears, and all my limbs, my reason, and all my senses, and still preserves them; in addition thereto, clothing and shoes, meat and drink, house and homestead, wife and children, fields, cattle, and all my goods; that He provides me richly and daily with all that I need to support this body and life, protects me from all danger, and guards me and preserves me from all evil; and all this out of pure, fatherly, divine goodness and mercy, without any merit or worthiness in me; for all which I owe it to Him to thank, praise, serve,and obey Him. This is most certainly true.

Most of my readers recognize this as Luther's explanation of the First Article of the Apostle's creed. Although Lutheran's certainly neither preach nor teach a prosperity gospel, we certainly recognize that all of our needs are met by our Heavenly Father.

Random Thoughts on Offering Placement

2007-08-20T12:39:00.000-04:00

Does the position of the offering in the service make a difference? In Lutheran churches, we typically have the offering placed after the sermon. The offering is so placed because in its position there, because our offerings are given to God as an act of thanks. Our offerings are one of the ways in which we respond to the Gospel which was shared with us in the Sermon.

In most American churches, the offering is placed before the "message." Having been brought up in a liturgical church, this has always seemed backwards to me. Although one can respond to the Gospel before or after the sermon, it has always seemed to me to be best to respond to the Gospel in its fullest and most complete proclomation, the Sermon.

Of course, in many American "evangelical" churches, there is very little Gospel present in their messages, sometimes none at all. If there is no Gospel present in the sermon, the position of the offering becomes somewhat more fluid. It seems that the most common place of the offering in non-liturgical churches is after their 'Music Segment'. This actually makes some sense. It many modern churches the Praise Music and prayers are the only times Jesus as Savior is even mentioned. And it is after this sliver of Gospel that they put the Offering.

Perhaps it is only coincidence, but I find it it interesting that as much as many of today's "Pastors" are little more than motivational speakers, they seem to think that the Praise Music is more of an motivator than their own speaking.

Do evangelicals realize that they are preaching only law and that the law cannot provide a right motivation?

Do evangelicals simply view the Offering as a requirement and therefore do not worry about right motivation. (If they are only offering as a legal requirement, is there giving a truly good work? [motivated by the Gospel] Is it potentialy sinful? [done without faith, as faith is not of the law and the law is not of faith])