Why You Should Read the Puritans: Part Three
Posted: June 9, 2007 Filed under: Joel Beeke, Puritans Leave a commentLet me offer you nine reasons why it will help you spiritually to read Puritan literature still today:
1. Puritan writings help shape life by Scripture. The Puritans loved, lived, and breathed Holy Scriptur
e. They relished the power of the Spirit that accompanied the Word. Their books are all Word-centered; more than 90 percent of their writings are repackaged sermons that are rich with scriptural exposition. The Puritan writers truly believed in the sufficiency of Scripture for life and godliness.
If you read the Puritans regularly, their Bible-centeredness will become contagious. These writings will show you how to yield wholehearted allegiance to the Bible’s message. Like the Puritans, you will become a believer of the living Book, echoing the truth of John Flavel, who said, “The Scriptures teach us the best way of living, the noblest way of suffering, and the most comfortable way of dying.” Do you want to read books that put you into the Scriptures and keep you there, shaping your life by sola Scriptura? Read the Puritans. Read the.Soli Deo Gloria Puritan Pulpit Series. As you read, enhance your understanding by looking up and studying all the referenced Scriptures.
Why You Should Read the Puritans: Part Two
Posted: June 8, 2007 Filed under: Joel Beeke, Puritans Leave a comment
Just who were the Puritan writers? They were not only the two thousand ministers who were ejected from the Church of England by the Act of Uniformity in 1662, but also those ministers in England and North America, from the sixteenth century through the early eighteenth century, who worked to reform and purify the church and to lead people toward godly living consistent with the Reformed doctrines of grace.
Puritanism grew out of three needs: (1) the need for biblical preaching and the teaching of sound Reformed doctrine; (2) the need for biblical, personal piety that stressed the work of the Holy Spirit in the faith and life of the believer; and (3) the need to restore biblical simplicity in liturgy, vestments, and church government, so that a well-ordered church life would promote the worship of the triune God as prescribed in His Word (The Genius of Puritanism, 11ff.).
Doctrinally, Puritanism was a kind of vigorous Calvinism; experientially, it was warm and contagious; evangelistically, it was aggressive, yet tender; ecclesiastically, it was theocentric and worshipful; politically, it aimed to be scriptural, balanced, and bound by conscience before God in the relationships of king, Parliament, and subjects; culturally, it had lasting impact throughout succeeding generations and centuries until today (Durston and Eales, eds., The Culture of English Puritanism, 1560-1700).
Why You Should Read the Puritans: Part One
Posted: June 7, 2007 Filed under: Joel Beeke, Puritans Leave a comment
The Puritans [were] bu
rning and shining lights. When cast out by the black Bartholomew Act, and driven from their respective charges to preach in barns and fields, in the highways and hedges, they in a special manner wrote and preached as men having authority. Though dead, by their writings they yet speak: a peculiar unction attends them to this very hour (Works, 4:306-307).
Whitefield went on to predict that Puritan writings would continue to be resurrected until the end of time due to their scriptural spirituality. Today, we are living in such a time. Interest in Puritan books has seldom been more intense. In the last fifty years, 150 Puritan authors and nearly 700 Puritan titles have been brought back into print.
Puritan literature has so multiplied that few book lovers can afford to purchase all that is being published. What books should you buy? Where can you find a brief summary of each Puritan work and a brief biography of each author so that you can have a glimpse of who is behind all these books?
Lecviticus 1: 1-17
Posted: June 6, 2007 Filed under: Preaching/Speaking Leave a comment
Let me invite you to turn in your Bibles to Leviticus 1
[Read Chapter Leviticus 1]
Background: Today we will deal with only a few important aspects of this passage. I do not intend to break this chapter down, nor do I intend to deal with the Jewish background of dealing with the Law. I will not, therefore, deal in depth with the offerings or the process of them. When going to a passage such as this, and preaching from it, I am concerned with the church, you the congregation, and most of all Christ. For an in-depth study of the offerings and the Law given here I would need a great deal of time and it is something that should be taught elsewhere. I want it understood that since we are not Jews we are not reading this as original Jews at the original time. Therefore, I will look at this passage with the church and our congregations today in mind.
In light of the New Testament, mainly the book of Hebrews, I will show you the significance of the two key messages of this text. I have read this chapter in Leviticus over and over, and not one time did I come away with a different focus. The focus of the chapter concentrates on the LORD, and secondly the offering that is to be given to the LORD. Listen to me when I say this, for this is the key to my message today. I am not going to give you the significance of this passage in its Biblical theology. But my plan today is to look at its systematical importance in the whole of Scripture, which our church has been given by the LORD, in Christ, and through the Holy Spirit. I might add at this point that my dispensational brother would probably become hard of hearing from this point on. For I know and understand his hermeneutics on Scripture is based only on preaching the Word in its original form, from its original writer, to its original hearer. None of us should allow ourselves to be so shallow in our reason to stud. Do not allow the system or methods you use to be the only way. Secondly, the Prophets did not and could not fully understand their writings let alone their readers at given times (1 Peter 1: 10-12). So, why would I continue to only use one verse, one chapter, and one book of the Book, when the LORD has given us all of His cannon? We have more than the original readers of this passage so that we can see how this passage fits into the light of all passages that have been given to the church. Thirdly, I cannot preach just the Law! For we the church live not under the Law but in the covenant of Grace! For me to leave out, forget about, and not mention how this chapter in Leviticus deals with Grace would only belittle our Christ and what He has so willingly done for His bride.
So, therefore, I plan to look at the two major thoughts of this text that I have brought to you. The first issue is the LORD and what he is commanding to be done. The second issue dealt with is the offerings and how they are to be given to the LORD. The passage here shows the intended guidelines of the brunt offerings that were to be given to the LORD. We have listed in this chapter how to give the offering of a bull from a herd (verses 3-9), how to give sheep or goats from a flock (verses 10-13), and lastly the offering of turtledoves and pigeons from birds (verses 14-17). We see the methods in which how the LORD’s people are to go about offering gifts, and what His people are to bring for the sacrifices. We see what the priest and his sons are to go through and what exactly they have to do in the process of these offerings. And lastly the Lord gives direction regarding the mode of the slaying of the offerings.
As the church considers this text in Leviticus, may we compare this with that of Christ! May we look at the Law and how it foreshadowed Christ. May we see the offering in the Law and how it reminds us of the one-time perfect offering of Christ. May we see the blood which had to be spilled for the covering of sins and have it only point us to the perfect blood spilled on Calvary nearly 2,000 years ago for you and me! Most of all, may we look at the difference between these offerings and that of our one-time offering, Jesus Christ.
Propositional Statement (Number, Noun, Application, Action)
I have three key elements to mediate on when looking at our offering in Christ.
I. Instructional Points- the first element is a twofold process; we must look at the offering without blemish, and secondly the blood that must be spilt.
A. Illustration- what does the Bible gives us?
What we have in our text is a way that the LORD makes for man to come to Him. The offerings given to the Jews were merely a hint of what humans should have taken on for eternity. These acts of offerings by the Jews were done willingly on the part of the man in coming to correct worship before the LORD their God. The placing of the hand by the individual was an act of identification with the victim of the sacrifice. The wealth of the man did not matter, for the LORD gave a way in which either rich or poor could partake in this act of worship with the LORD. For the poor a turtledove or pigeon was acceptable. For the Lord has given His people a way to come before Him, no matter their means of wealth.
I want to look now at the key aspects of this passage. We see in the offering of the bull and sheep that the offering must be given to the LORD without blemish or imperfection. This offering is to be complete and sound in the fact that it must be the best and perfect pick from the herd or flock. We also see the blood of the bull, sheep, goat, turtledove, or pigeon must be spilt to cover the sins of the one who is making the sacrifice.
B. Application–what does this mean?
It did not matter if the blood was thrown against the sides of the altar at the entrance of the tent, thrown on the sides of the altar, or drained out on the side of the altar. The importance was that there needed to be the spilling of the blood for the covering of man’s sin. Perfection! The LORD calls for and gets perfection! Blood! Oh! What an image of the perfect sacrifice! Do I dare to remind you today that God called for perfection and His Son Jesus Christ willingly gave! Our LORD called for blood to be spilled for your sins, and Christ willingly gave! The means of sacrifice has changed! Oh, worship and praise be given to the One who made the means of our New Covenant. The sacrifice here in this passage we read of is only but a shadow of the true perfection. The sacrifice is without blemish and complete in all of its self, for Christ was not only in perfection but His pure blood was spilt for you! For me! I plead for you to think on these things! Look at your sacrifice this day and cast all your cares on the cross of Christ. You will need no more. No more bulls, no more goats, sheep, or birds, for Christ has sacrificed Himself so that you could come to Him this day in perfection before the LORD and worship.
C. Interaction-what would that look like?
I read to you as a reminder of what the writer of Hebrews told his listeners in Hebrews 9:17-22:
“For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.”
May you look upon this and remember what Christ has done for you. Remind yourselves that you are now a living sacrifice to the one who took your place, took your shame, your guilt, your cross, and drink every last drop of the cup of wrath from our Lord. For this is the only means we by which we can come to God. This is the way Christ took in all of you and how you can come here today and worship your God. This brings me to the second element.
II. Instructional Points- the second element of this offering I want to look at is the fact that God makes a way to come to Him.
A. Illustration- what does the Bible give us?
In light of the passage in Hebrews, I want to look now at not only what Christ has done for us but how He accomplished it. For the sacrifice in the Law, and even more today by Christ, we have a way to our God. For with Christ’s perfect blood is the acceptance of the covenant. These sacrifices in the Law were the way that man could come to worship with the LORD. The giving of perfection and the spilling of blood was to cover the sins of man. So, therefore man could now come before the LORD knowing his sin, in all of its guilt, was forgiven and could stand before Him in His entire splendor. For these means of perfection and blood bring about the mode which man is to come to God. This is hard! It is hard to understand why God would allow sinners to come to Him. For man to stand in the presence of the LORD is hard to even comprehend, to even think about. It almost seems unjust for God to allow sinners to come to Him. But these are the means in which God has given us our mode. And our mode is to stand in awe and be happy, be blessed, find our joy, and worship our Lord. Don’t try to grasp these hard, intellectual, uncomprehending measures that almost seem unjust. Just stand in awe and worship God for allowing you–a sinner that was bound to eternal death–to stand in awe of your Savior today.
B. Application–what does this mean?
Hebrews 9:20 says, “This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.” God commanded the Law so that His people could come to Him. Might I say, “Oh” again, Oh how the LORD has given His Son in today’s New Covenant. For there is no need of this command or this Law anymore! I do not say forget the Law in the sense of its need to be fulfilled, but forget the Law, forget the command in which God told His people before. For there is no reason any longer to carry out these commands. God has prepared you a new way to come to Him. It’s Christ! Christ is now our way to God. This way is complete and stands apart from all the sacrifices. For today you have no reason to bring your sheep; we have been given the perfect sheep so that we can come before the Shepherd this day and worship! May we stand in awe once more of our perfect Shepherd which laid down His life for His sheep? Once more we have another shadow here in Leviticus of the way to God. For the Law’s way to God was but a shadow of what we have today. It was only a shadow of what our perfect Savior would provide for us! Let me remind you again that there is no more need for bulls, goats, sheep, or birds, for Christ has sacrificed Himself so that you could come to Him this day in perfection and worship the LORD. And I might that the only way to come to God is through His Son, and it will be the only way you will ever come to God.
B. Interaction-what would that look like?
I hope that you have thanked God today for what He gave you. Thank Christ for giving Himself for you. I hope you have thanked the Spirit for giving you the heart to partake in this. Listen to these words written down long ago from the writer of Hebrews, in chapter 9:23-28.
“It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.”
Christ’s necessity for the payment of sins is your necessity to stand in worship of the LORD. Have you thought on that this morning? For it is not what you have done today that brings you to God. Look upon the hope and foundation of your faith. May every heart and soul bow before the LORD this day in humble adoration of Christ who shed His blood for your sins. Look upon the ultimate sacrifice, for that is where your hope, joy, and redemption lie. Your way to God is through Christ’s death, his cross, and his perfect, pure, sacrifice on the cross. May praise and honor be to Him who has allowed His people to come in communion with the almighty Lord.
III. Instructional Points- the last and final element I want to look at is the significance in Jesus Christ, our sacrifice.
A. Illustration- what the Bible gives us?
We have looked at the perfect sacrifice. We have looked at the pure blood in being spilled for His people in that sacrifice. Secondly I have discussed that this pure blood has allowed us to actually stand before the LORD, and stand firm in our salvation before the LORD. But most or all, Jesus Christ death was different than these sacrifices here in the Law.
First of all, Jesus’s sacrifice was not a continual process. Christ died once! Secondly, there is now no need to having individual sacrifices. Christ’s sacrifice was enough to cover the sins of many sinners! There are many differences between the Lord and that of the Law, and I do not have time to continually break them all down at this time. It is so much more satisfying to find redemption in the blood of Christ than in some system that you have to continually do. And how great is the cross, for from His sacrifice only grace, mercy, and love flowed. Love flowed before, but the Law caused all men to fall short of God. Here Christ’s cross and His sacrifice brought us something we did not deserve. How merciful it is for God to pass judgment on us and give us everyday grace to live in Him! The love of Christ gives us joy and hope in time of need and in time of happiness.
B. Application–what does this mean?
Have you thought about the cross of Christ this week? When was the last time that you read Leviticus and thought of the shadows that Christ not only came to fulfill but to destroy? Let me ask you, hearer of the Word, have you turned your eyes on Christ this morning? Is Christ’s death the center of your life? For this act of sacrifice far surpasses that which is of the Law. Christ came to fulfill the Law, so that you might be fulfilled in Him this day! Think about that! Many of us find contentment in other activities such as sports, TV, movies, music, or whatever might be idolatry in your life. We look for contentment in lust, adultery, pornography and other sexual sins; we look for happiness in ourselves. Look at Christ now! Look at the cross! Look at the sacrifice! Why would you ever find contentment in any other image than the cross? Christ’s image on the cross should be enough to change your heart. May your image be found in Christ alone. May you hold firm to your groom and be satisfied in Him alone. And never place anything or anyone in front of your devotion to Christ, no matter who, what, where, when, why, or how you think you can. We are called to be a living sacrifice. This sacrifice calls for more than bringing something to the altar; this sacrifice makes you a living sacrifice to Christ everyday. May you continue to look to Christ in all of his splendor and glory! For your Christ, my Christ, our Christ, accomplished what bulls, goats, sheep, and birds could never do!
C. Interaction-what would that look like?
Please, I pled with you to look at Christ this day and give him all you have! If you do not know him then there is no better day than today. And if you do, praise Christ today for what He’s done for His people. At this time I can do nothing more to end this sermon than use the words once more from Hebrews in 9:11-14:
“But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.”
Preaching Christ From the Old Testament
Posted: June 5, 2007 Filed under: Book Review Leave a comment
What did you find in the book that would help you preach Christ from the Old Testament?
Chapter One:
Greidanus does an incredible job of not only giving the do’s on how to preach Christ and do it from the Old Testament, but goes as far as explaining the don’ts as well. He shows how the New Testament church in its apostolic preaching had already done this type of preaching. Greidanus gives the reasons behind the meaning of “preaching Christ,” but also tells and gives examples of what preaching Christ does not mean. Sometimes I think it is better to start off by telling people the way you don’t want things to happen, so that they know exactly what you do want to happen. From the person and work of Christ he gives a clear example of the reason for preaching Christ, specifically from the Old Testament. Near the end of the chapter, after giving his reasons on why to preach Christ, Greidanus gives the reasons for why people in today’s culture lack the preaching of Christ from the Old Testament.
Chapter Two:
Greidanus’s reasons on why we are not preaching give great help on keeping the focus pointed towards Christ and not man. Here he shows a way of not just mentioning Christ to make the messages Christ-centered, but actually showing Christ from the Scriptures. What helped me most from this chapter was a way of looking at what God is doing in Scripture and not merely at the work against man. Also he shows the way the Old Testament is often looked at and how it should be seen as the link of Christ bringing the oneness to the story of redemption. Christ is the same all throughout Scripture. Lastly, Greidanus goes deeper than the first chapter in explaining a fuller explanation of Christ.
Chapter Three:
This chapter was helpful because Greidanus showed a biblical view of the way messages should be preached. It is not to be preached with new methods, ways, or other approaches that might lead to another way of study. He deals with all of today’s movements and their beliefs that preaching ought to be from their perspectives; Greidanus shows the correct view of interpretation of the message throughout Scripture. I personally liked the fact that Greidanus goes back throughout history and the early church fathers and looks at the way they viewed Scripture. Giving allegorical and typological views and their different ways of viewing Scripture help one see the do’s and do not’s once again like he has already so many times done throughout his writings. Showing the short comings really made me think of how many people in today’s Reformed Theology branch have sometimes gone too far in their typology of the Scriptures.
Chapter Four:
In this chapter Greidanus starts off by explaining Luther’s hermeneutical method and its principle of sola scriptura. He goes on to explain Luther’s contrast of law and gospel. Once again he not only shows the upside of Luther’s view on interpretation, but the downside as well. He also reviews Calvin and his hermeneutical method dealing with all the areas in which Calvin would look at Scripture. He does this as well with Charles Spurgeon and Wilhelm Vischer. Personally my favorite is how he explains how Calvin would preach a text after many ways of studying it.
Chapter Five:
This chapter may show the major lacking theme of American Evangelical churches today. The lack of preaching Christ from the Old Testament is not because they lack knowledge of it, but how to do it. He shows exactly how to do this properly and how to exalt God in all of his glory by first preaching Christ. It is helpful to learn this when dealing with today’s culture which lacks this in so many ways. He does this in a way that does not separate individual stories or books, but makes everything fit together in the work and redemption of Christ.
Chapter Six:
Here Greidanus revels and shows how to use his method: the Christocentric method. This is a huge help in understanding a text in not only its individual story but in a whole of all of the stories. Looking at each individual story, message, and text and then putting them in the plan of God in His story of redemption presents the Old Testament as a clear picture and shows Scripture in a whole new correct lens. The best part of this chapter is his proper job in explaining typology and how to do it correctly. The end examples are key to helping see how this is done as well.
Chapter Seven:
Starting off he gives ten ways to lead you in making the right Christocentric sermon from viewing the Scriptures. He gives several examples and how to do this from Genesis. This chapter is most useful to preachers and their ways or means that they don’t understand for making a Christ-centered sermon, or coming about one. With these proper steps of viewing the Scripture in light of the entire major theme of the Bible, pastors or anyone in study, will be helped in coming to correct God honoring sermons or speeches.
Chapter Eight:
Here examples are given from Gen. 6, Ex. 15, 17, and Num. 19. These examples are ways of showing how this study would look and not look. He tries to clarify this method of studying Scripture. He uses these to go through their proper views like: redemptive history, fulfillments, typology, analogy, themes, New Testament, and looking at how to compare it with other passages. Examining the Scriptures through this lens seems hard to do but after reading Greidanus you can’t wait to get your first Old Testament text to work your way through and use all these study tools to search Scripture deeper, finding much more meat in all of the story that consists throughout all of the Bible.
What did you find to be unhelpful and even a negative influence upon the preaching of Christ from the Old Testament?
This might be a little nick picky. I found it hard after six chapters full of how to preach Christ-centered sermons, to then begin in the seventh chapter with his “ten steps from Old Testament text to Christocentric sermons.” His first step is to select a text from the congregational needs. Maybe this is why I am not, nor do I plan ever to be a shepherd of the Lord’s people. But I do find it very hard to sit down and look for a text to fit the needs of the hearers of the Word. I also find this mindset contrary to his view on Scripture. If one wants to keep Christ first in the sermon, then there should be no reason why to pick a text for the hearer. The influence of this then tends to lead me to believe that the preacher would then meet the needs of his people. I understand in some areas how this can be, but I do not preach the gospel for man’s sake, nor would I ever preach the gospel with my focus on the needs of the hearers. He says, “When church bells ring on Easter Sunday, people need to hear a word from the Lord about the resurrection.” To which I’d say, “Shouldn’t they hear the cross preached every week?!” I just do not see from my view how anyone could explain Christ-centered hermeneutics but then when coming to prepare a message, go to a man-centered way of thinking. I am by no means a preacher or a pastor nor do I have many of the skills to speak as a pastor would. I may be off on this area, but am willing to hear other opinions.
Greidanus mentions to make special sermons for the church year like Christmas, Easter, and the day of Pentecost. I would much rather teach the Scriptures and wait to see how the Lord’s plan will be carried out. Then shortly after this point he says, “Before selecting a text, we should decide which particular need should be addressed in this sermon.” This makes me wonder if in any way he is trying to say that we need to focus on the points and areas we must preach to our hearers before looking at what the Scriptures say. This would also make me believe that he will have assumptions of what “he wants to say” before he ever comes to the text and may allude to something different than what will be in the text. Lastly he states that this process will help us create sermons that are relevant from beginning to end. In no means would I disagree that we should be relevant to today’s church. I actually believe this is one of the largest problems in America. Preachers get behind their pulpit and preach about something that happened 25, 40, and even 50 years ago in culture, which has nothing to do with the man in the pew. It almost seems that the pastor wants to do something to keep the hearer awake or try to appeal to him. The gospel stands alone; the gospel flies alone. The gospel plays a one man band and needs nothing but itself to appeal to the hearer of it. I think that the point Greidanus is trying to make is just not as necessary as he makes it. It seems to defeat the purpose of Christ-centeredness.
Seven Words to transform your family
Posted: June 4, 2007 Filed under: Book Review Leave a comment
1. The first impression I got from the book was, that sometimes we the person or in the book the parent starts giving up. Start saying things like, “to far gone”, or like “I tried enough” shows what’s really within us. Matt. 12:34 Jesus teaches us that the mouth speaks what is in our hearts. And if our true heart was solid enough like the character of Christ then we wouldn’t give in or up like that. Since when has Christ given up on the Jews, the Church? I think not!
2. A reaction I have is wow! In chapter 5 or word five whatever it may be. I see the point or another point of the church. Man how great is the church to have to help us in family life. To be a guide for the relationship between a woman and a man. We need the help of a institution that God created to nurture and support the family life!!! Families can not possibly live with out God’s word teaching them consistency! That and only that is the reason of Gods character and why the character or the church we have for.
3. I tend to get the impression that Love is a choice that continues to keep everything together. Love is protection, and never fails, nor falls part. Love even shows proof of a family and is so powerful on the way it is to be done and show to one another. Lastly he shows on how it’s a production that’s like a action you decide to take everyday. Not a one time decision better a renewing one every morning.
1. That I need to remember on no matter of a situation I can not give up! Not on my wife, nor kids, but continue like Christ did to the cross for us. My heart needs to always be in turn with the Lords will, and his ministry in my life so that my mouth and my actions show that I love not only Him first and far most but yet my wife, and children like he has shown us to.
2. Knowing that the church is there to help me, I need to rely on help from men and families in my church. I need to use what is post to be used in order to make it in a biblical marriage that God has called me to do. I need to focus on what Christ is doing now for the church and also what sacrifices he made and is making for the church. Then I can see what I am called to do and far to go for my wife.
3. Seeing how important the author talks about love and after seeing how the first six words flow into this one. I mean I really need to realize that a woman just needs it more then myself. Seeing how that its something I need to do every day and every hour cause it’s a choice you make yourself, I mean a lot has to ride on myself and my own shoulders and that’s hard to face cause I’m not the biggest lover in the world. But woman needs that and I need to give that in order to give back to God a Godly and biblically relationship that Gods has given me a chance to have.
Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus
Posted: June 2, 2007 Filed under: Book Review Leave a comment
1. His “doctorate” is from an un-accredited school. This is why over the years a number of his books have been published without the “Dr.” – apparently some of his publishers respected the title too much to let him fake it.
1. One thing I read and wonder if it really is true was the fact that women don’t measure what guys may do like big medium and small but yet everything means something and tallies I guess you could say all the same up.
2. Another idea or point that Gary makes in his book is that women don’t always understand that man sometimes needs space. I thought about this and agreed on this point because so many times I need my down time or alone time to think clear things up and think biblical on a situation and not be so fast to action and cause myself to sin.
3. My rebuke is that this is a man made program book. He makes up ideas, thinking and just where he has no conclusion for all of man kind with one program or one of his great ideas.
List how “you” plan to “specifically” respond to or incorporate into your present ministry each of the items you listed above:
1. I guess I need to remember that it is not in what or how I do something as much as I do that action with love and just as long as I do something for her to feel wanted.
2. I need to always think slower and not be fast to reaction and need time to think clearly and do things right and explain to my wife that I need time alone and away form the world so that I can think biblical and not in pressure situation.
3. I mean he has ideas and program like I had stated but in reality I think of God one program that is to fit us in marriage he gave us the church and himself and to use it and to see it and live life after that program which can fulfill all the needs of every marriage.
Bruchko
Posted: June 1, 2007 Filed under: Book Review Leave a comment
2. Olson’s faith is astounding. He didn’t want to be a missionary, but God told him and showed him otherwise. His life reminds me how God uses his weakest people to do his mightiest works.
3. Bruce Olson, only one year into college, then decides to go to South America! With a very long stay, and adventure after scary adventure but he still becomes a man. He becomes a broken, humble man. He surrenders his life and even his own fate over to God and offers the rest of his life in service, transforming a backwards, stone-age tribe into a powerful force, changing even the government that rules them. This shows an excellent example of the concept of the local church and how Christianity can transform culture into the most culturally, morally, and spiritually primitive.
1. After seeing what he does with out a wife almost makes me not even want to get married and just have his passion, going through all he has and doing everything I just need to maintain a great passion to serve Christ like him.
2. Showing me even though sometimes what I think and what I do is not always God best but its something that I have set in my mind, and head and become cold to the leading of the Lord. He I see what in order to have a successful ministry that I need to first give up all and everything on my own to God and let him leading with opening and closings here and there and show what is best for me in life so that I don’t make fleshly and human mistakes that the world does everyday.
3. I see here that decisions have a huge part to play even more then we know. And that our decisions that we might make for a time or for awhile might become more into Gods eternal plan and last longer then I’d ever guess. So I need to remember in ministry and most of all in family that decision that I make thinking might get by God or even when I make them for God can become changed by his will, and power to something I never saw coming or could have imaged.
Christ-Centered Therapy
Posted: May 31, 2007 Filed under: Book Review 2 Comments
Theology Quiz: Who are you?
Posted: May 29, 2007 Filed under: Theology 1 Comment |
You scored as Jonathan Edwards, You’re the original hellfire-and brimstone preacher and you take God’s justice very seriously. You are passionate about preaching and an accomplished theologian.
Which theologian are you? |
VELVET ELVIS COMPARED TO THE WILD BOAR: Part Five
Posted: May 25, 2007 Filed under: Emergent Church, Martin Luther, Reformation Church History, Rob Bell, Scripture Alone Leave a comment
Bell and Luther do not have much in common when it comes to the Scriptures. Bell sees that time shifts in culture should lead to a change in Scriptural revelation. He may use trendy terms or ways that may seem cool or hip to today’s audiences, but a man without Scripture alone, or a substandard view on the doctrine of Scripture alone, leads to a different gospel. Believing that culture may change interpretation and meaning certainly changes the gospel. Looking for changes in the doctrines of God, Jesus, the Bible, theology and future, change the good news told of in the Scripture. And to alter doctrines and deconstruct the Bible from its original intentions is disdainful to the Lord. You cannot bend the picture too far before it is distorted. One cannot change the message of the gospel in any way, shape, or form. If the message of the gospel has been changed, truth has been changed. In John 14:6, Jesus says “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” If we have changed the basic doctrines of Jesus, truth, Scripture, and what is the way and the truth, then how can man even come to life? False saviors, false views of the Bible and false systems of theology lead to a false gospel.
Luther started the Reformation when he saw the importance of Scripture and its authority. He did not change doctrines that were good but rather he revised bad doctrines back to their original truths and greatness. From the beginning of the Reformation Luther placed Scripture first and foremost before all of his work. Luther states in the beginning of his studying in Scripture:
The writings of all the holy fathers should be read only for a time, in order that through them we may be led to the Holy Scriptures. We are like men who study the sign-post and never travel the road. The dear fathers wished, by their writings, to lead us form the Scriptures, but we so use them as to be led away from the Scriptures, though the Scriptures alone are our vineyard in which we ought all to work and toil.[1]
A correlation between Bell and Luther’s view of Scripture alone is not visible. It would seem that they do not come from the same tradition. Luther dealt sternly with liberal theologians such as Erasmus, saying, “I read our Erasmus and my enthusiasm for him decreases daily… I fear he does not sufficiently exalt Christ and God…; things human count more with him than things divine.”[2] The same can be said for Rob Bell. “I read our Bell and my enthusiasm for him decreases daily… I fear he does not sufficiently exalt Christ and God…; things human count more with him than things divine.” [1] Hugh T. Kerr, ed. A Compend of Luther’s Theology, 13.
[2] Luther, Luther’s Works, 12.
I had e-mailed Mars Hill about contacting Rob Bell on this topic. After my first email, his sectary emailed back saying, that I could e-mail the question(s) to her and Rob Bell would answer them. After I had sent the question of, what is Rob Bell’s stance and view on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. I was given back an e-mail stating, that Rob Bell was now unable to meet. Although, I could send an e-mail to a committee and they would be able to answer my question. At this point I sent my question to them, and this idea that they had proposed now would not be able to happen. From there Rob Bells sectary e-mailed me back saying, if you would like, all I can do is lead you in the direction of one of Rob Bell’s associate pastors. After 2 weeks Nate Dawson, e-mailed me back with their stance. And he stated:
“I realize that you are particularly asking the question of “sola scripture” but as you know that is a reformed doctrine and we have no statement on that specifically.”
Number one, “that is a reformed doctrine”, what in the world is this guy thinking! “Reformed doctrine” Rob stated in the beginning of his book Velvet Elvis, that he was a part of this tradition in his introduction.
Number two, if you have no statement about that “specifically”, then why claim to be a part of what Martin Luther started! This is quite upsetting to me, due to the fact that he claims one thing and then says another!
Number Three, he ended the e-mail to me with this verse:
Is. 1:17 – Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, and plead the case of the widow.
I’ll assume that he is referring to just seek after God and do not worry about troubling issues or doctrine’s in this case. And to this, I am absolutely speechless…
VELVET ELVIS COMPARED TO THE WILD BOAR: Part Four
Posted: May 24, 2007 Filed under: Emergent Church, Martin Luther, Reformation Church History, Rob Bell, Scripture Alone 1 Comment
In chapter two of Velvet Elvis Rob Bells tries to relay how difficult it is to come to grip with and interpret the Scriptures. Bell’s view of Scripture seems to encourage all people to believe what they want. His interpretation of Scripture tends to lend itself to multiple meanings. His use of epistemology ends up deconstructing the text. This ends up leading to a pluralistic relativism view of Scripture. Luther would never have agreed to this way of hermeneutics, nor did he ever practice this in his preaching or teaching of the Scriptures. Bell comments like this:
But let’s be honest. When you hear people say they are just going to tell you what the Bible means, it is not true. They are telling you what they think it means. They are giving their opinions about the Bible. It sounds nice to say, “I’m not giving you my opinion; I’m just telling you what it means.”[1]
Bell’s view here is that men can have many views of the way people teach the Scriptures. Which one is right is left up to the individual. Bell implies that Scriptures cannot have just one meaning or interpretation. Bell’s view of people giving opinions leads to nobody ever being able to hold to a truth as absolute. Previous to this statement he says, “When we are serious about dealing with the Bible as the communal book that it is, then we have to be honest about our interpretations. Everybody’s interpretation is essentially his or her own opinion. Nobody is objective”. Although the Bible may be a “communal book” its purpose is to glorify God by the work and redemption of the Savior Jesus Christ through the enabling of the Holy Spirit. It is not a subjective book left to each reader’s or preacher’s interpretation. All believers must adhere to the truths of the Bible. They should know what they believe and know with surety the truths contained in its pages.
Lastly, Bell’s view of Scripture so sharply contradicts Luther’s view that clearly Luther would not have worked with him. Luther would not work with individuals that differed with him in anyway. Luther refused to work with men of God like Zwingli and Bucker. And it could be argued that Luther would have not worked with Calvin either due to the differences on the Lord’s Supper. One can conclude, therefore, that Luther would have never worked with a man that would say such remarks as this:
This is part of the problem with continually insisting that one of the absolutes of the Christian faith must be a belief that “Scripture alone” is our guide. It sounds nice, but it is not true. In reaction to abuses by the church, a group of believers during a time called the Reformation claimed that we only need the authority of the Bible. But the problem is that we got the Bible form the church voting on what the Bible even is. So when I affirm the Bible as God’s Word, in the same breath I have to affirm that when those people voted, God was somehow present, guiding them to do what they did. When people say that all we need is the Bible, it is simply not true.[2] [3]
Bell’s remarks bring into question what truth is and what its origin is. Bell, as a postmodernist, has a fixed view. After the church has stood on truth and the Bible for nearly 2000 years the postmodernist now believes it is not true. Bell contradicts himself on this view of Scripture. After he says Scripture does not have to be a part of the Christian faith, he makes this remarkable statement: “At some point we have to have faith. Faith that God is capable of guiding people. Faith and God has not left us alone. Faith that the same Spirit who guided Paul and Peter and those people in a room in the 300’s is still with us today. Guiding us, showing us, enlightening us.”[4] Bell seems to not have a Scripture alone mind-set, but it is likely that he believes he will find new truths or a new meaning in the Scriptures. Again, this contradicts the tradition he claims to be a part of. Luther never found Scripture to change over time based on the culture. Rather, Luther stood for one truth, one interpretation, and one meaning. Not only has Bell left truth up for grabs but he has completely become a deconstructionist.[5] And that is something that Luther never was.
[1] Bell, Velvet Elvis, 54.
[2] Bell, Velvet Elvis, 67-68.
[3] Bell, Velvet Elvis, endnotes 64-65, 185.
[4] Bell, Velvet Elvis, 68.
[5] Bell, Velvet Elvis, 40-44.
VELVET ELVIS COMPARED TO THE WILD BOAR: Part Three
Posted: May 23, 2007 Filed under: Emergent Church, Martin Luther, Reformation Church History, Rob Bell, Scripture Alone 1 Comment
“By Scripture alone” is the essence of the of the sixteenth-century doctrine. Many scholars see this doctrine as the main principle of the Reformation. For this is where the Roman Catholic Church erred. The Roman Church in their apostasy and perverted popes had distorted this doctrine and tried to find revelation in other means than the Scriptures. Luther by no means tried to repaint this doctrine but rather restore it to its biblical mandate.[1] Keith A. Mathison wrote this about Luther and this key doctrine of the Scriptures:
Men like Martin Luther and John Calvin did not create a new doctrine when they began to combat the tyranny and apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church with a call to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. The classical Reformers were, in fact, calling the church back to its earlier teaching, back to a one-source concept of revelation, back to Tradition. They asserted that Scripture was the sole source of divine revelation, and they denied the existence of a supplementary source. They also asserted that Scripture was to be interpreted in and by the church, in accordance with the ancient rule of the faith, as summarized in the Christian creed.[2]
The reason that Mathison can say this is because Luther himself had said this before. Mathison, as well, uses a letter written on the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, written by Martin Luther himself.
This article moreover has been clearly believed and held from the beginning of the Christian Church to this hour – a testimony of the entire holy Christian Church, which, if we had nothing besides, should be sufficient for us. For it is dangerous and terrible to hear or believe anything against the united testimony, faith, and doctrine, of the entire holy Christian Church, as this hath been held now 1,500 years, from the beginning, unanimously in all of the world. Whoso now doubted thereon, it is even that same though he believed in no Christian Church, and he condemneth thus not only the entire holy Christian Church as a damnable heresy, but also Christ himself and all the powerfully attested this article, where we say, “I believe in a holy Christian Church”; Christ namely, Matthew 28:20:” “Lo I am with you always, even to the end of the world”; and Paul, 1 Timothy 3:15: “the Church of God, which is the pillar and ground of truth.”[3]
Luther did not bring about something new to the Christian Church. Luther’s intentions of reforming the church were to bring back what was found in Scriptures. Luther’s passion for Scripture alone is seen all throughout his work. He saw that Scripture was the final authority of the church and made this clear in many of his paradoxes that he used to make known the gospel. He illustrated the paradoxes of Scripture like the hidden God and the revealed God, theology of glory and the theology of the cross, outer man and the inner man, and faith and assurance. But his main two that dealt with Scripture alone were the paradoxes between law and gospel and the distinction between the word and the spirit. Luther saw that separating either of these two from the other led to what had happened to the Roman Church. Luther strongly emphasized the fact that when preaching the Word, you cannot separate the Word and Spirit. He made a point to show that Scripture must be taught in accordance what the Spirit had done in the Scriptures. Luther’s cry for the gospel by Scripture alone was a passion he carried throughout all of his works.
So it is not at all in keeping with the New Testament to write books on Christian doctrine. Rather in all places there should be fine, godly, learned, spiritual, diligent preachers without books, who extract the living Word from the old Scriptures and unceasingly inculcate it into the people, just as the apostles did. For before they wrote, they first of all preached to the people by the word of mouth and converted them.[4]
Luther’s passion of the Word was something he could never separate from the Spirit. He believed that bringing the Spirit and the Word together demonstrated the gospel. Luther states:
Gospel… means nothing but a sermon and a crying out of the grace and mercy of God, earned and won by the Lord Jesus Christ with his death. And it is really not what is in books and composed in letters, but is more an oral sermon or the living word, a voice which sounds in all the world and is publicly cried out so that one hears it everywhere.[5]
Luther saw the importance of Scripture alone. He saw the importance because he lived in a time period in which the Scriptures were not read, practiced, or even heard of. He knew this first hand, and would not back down from making the Scripture clearly shown, so that the gospel would further in its work. Luther believed that the Scriptures were enough to bring man fully to God and that no other book and writer compared to that of the divine writers and books of the Bible. Luther based his doctrines all on Scripture alone. Luther, when writing to Erasmus, shows us not only his beliefs in the sufficiency of Scriptures alone, but goes further in showing his fear of how Erasmus would use other means in revealing the Scriptures.[6] Luther was in fear of men that used the popes’ words as equal standing to the Scriptures. He recognized the pride of men who claimed the Spirit’s name but used their own spirit in interpretation of the Scriptures. He says:
Here is my answer to you. What you say is part truth, but not all of it. It is true that we shall not detect the spirits by appeals to learning, life, abilities, majorities, distinction, or to ignorance and lack of education, or numbers, or standing. However, I do not applaud those who take refuge in bragging about the Spirit. I fought last year, and am still fighting, a pretty fierce campaign against those fanatics who subject Scriptures to the interpretation of their own spirit.[7]
Luther in fear of himself misusing the Scriptures was conscientious of those who would divide doctrines because they were hard to handle. Luther dealt with this much in his time, especially with Erasmus. Erasmus viewed some truths as clear but he was still searching for the wisdom of God in other truths.[8] Luther explains first that God and His Scriptures are two different doctrines. He then goes on to explain how God is incomprehensible to man; many things are hidden.[9] But to speak of Scripture the same way would be incorrect. Luther states this problem in dealing with Scripture in his day. Today dealing with the emergent movement is similar for they are looking to find ideas and doctrines that are not revealed. Luther states this at its best:
But the notion that in Scripture some things are recondite and all is not plain was spread by the godless Sophists (whom now you echo, Erasmus) – who have never yet cited a single item to prove their crazy view; nor can they. And Satan has used these unsubstantial specters to scare men off reading the sacred text, and to destroy all sense of its value, so as to ensure that his own brand of poisonous philosophy reigns supreme in the church. I certainly grant that many passages in the Scriptures are obscure and hard to elucidate, but that is due, not to the exalted nature of their own subject, but to our own linguistic and grammatical ignorance; and it does not in any way prevent our knowing all the contents of Scripture. For what solemn truth can the Scriptures still be concealing, now that the seals are broken, the stone rolled away from the tomb, and that greatest of all mysteries brought to light- that Christ, God’s Son, became man, that God is Three in One, that Christ suffered for us, and will reign for ever? And are not these things known, and sung in our streets? Take Christ from the Scriptures- and what more will you find in them? You see, then, that the entire content of Scriptures has now been brought to light, even though some passages which contain unknown words remain obscure. This it is unintelligent and ungodly too, when you know that the contents of Scripture are as clear as can be, to pronounce them obscure on account of those few obscure words. If words are obscure in one place, they are clear in another.[10]
Luther’s view of Scripture alone is not a new song or a new idea. It is not repainting the Scriptures, but restoring them to their rightful authority in the believer’s heart and then to life. Luther dealt with the Scripture like no other. Luther’s desire was not to repaint a doctrine, but we see from his writings that his goal was to bring the church back to its biblical authority. Scripture was to be the final authority in the Christian life. To say Luther repainted his time or this doctrine is preposterous. It is outrageous to even think that the man called a “reformer” or any of the “reformers” would have wanted to be known for bringing new doctrines to the table of Christendom. Luther attempted to reform the Roman Catholic Church and its theology. He left whatever was not Scriptural. Luther was reforming at the time, and now we say “reformed,” not because he was coming up with something new, but because Luther reformed the church from the corrupt popes, councils, doctrines, and theology that the Roman Catholic Church created and used for its own pleasures. Luther summarizes Sola Scriptura to Erasmus:
But, if many things still remain abstruse to many, this does not arise from obscurity in the Scriptures, but from [our] own blindness or want [i.e., lack] of understanding, who do not go the way to see the all-perfect clearness truth… Let, therefore, wretched men cease to impute, with blasphemous perverseness, the darkness and obscurity of their own heart to the all-clear scriptures of God… if you speak of the internal clearness, no man sees one iota in the Scriptures but he that hath the Spirit of God… If you speak of the external clearness, nothing whatever is left obscure or ambiguous; but all things that are in the Scriptures, are by the Word brought forth into the clearest light, and proclaimed to the whole world.[11]
Rob Bell parallels Erasmus in many ways. If Luther did not even think of Erasmus as a believer, surely a man such as Rob Bell cannot call himself a contemporary of Luther nor claim to be a part of the tradition that Luther started.
[1] Ps. 119:1; Ps. 138:2; II Tim. 3:14-17.
[2] Keith A. Mathison, After Darkness, Light (Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2003), 35.
[3] Philip Schaff, The Principle of Protestantism, Vol. I. (ed. Bard Thompson and George H. Bricker, Lancaster Series on the Mercersburg Theology, (Philadelphia: United Church Press, 1964), 117n.
[4] Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 33 (ed. by Philip S. Watson Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972), 26.
[5] Luther, Luther Works, Vol. 30, p. 3.
[6] Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, (Translated by J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston. Grand Rapids: Revell, 1957), 123-25.
[7] Luther, The Bondage, 124.
[8] Luther, The Bondage, 70-74.
[9] Matt. 24:36; John 13:18; Acts 1:7; 2 Tim. 2:19.
[10] Luther, The Bondage, 71.
[11] Luther, The Bondage, 25-29.
VELVET ELVIS COMPARED TO THE WILD BOAR: Part Two
Posted: May 22, 2007 Filed under: Emergent Church, Martin Luther, Reformation Church History, Rob Bell, Scripture Alone Leave a comment
When reading the works of both Bell and Luther it seems that there is a clear distinction between the two. Although a multitude of major differences exists between Bell and Luther, looking at one of the major doctrines will be sufficient to reveal that there is no theological unity amongst them. The five solas of the Reformation are “Scripture alone,” “God’s glory alone,” “Christ’s work alone,” “grace alone,” and “faith alone.” To be a part of this “movement” Bell would need to believe all these core doctrines. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that when addressed will show the differences between Luther and Bell. Luther’s reformation was against the Roman Catholic Church. And to be a part of this Reformation or as Bell puts it, “tradition” one must stand firm on the same core doctrine that had started it all. The question would be if Rob Bell believes in Scripture alone as a core doctrine.
II. A History Overview of the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura means “by Scripture alone.” It is the belief that the Bible is the Word of God and is clear to any reader. Scripture interprets Scripture and it is the sole source of Christian doctrine. Luther above all other theologians during the Reformation and today is known for standing firm on this doctrine. But Luther did not repaint this doctrine of Sola Scriptura but restored it back to its proper doctrine. Although Luther in the sixteenth century was first to bring the doctrine to the forefront, the apostolic and early church fathers held to the same doctrine. The apostolic fathers saw Scripture as their authority because they sat under the feet of the apostles and their writings. Keith Mathison states, “Scripture and tradition were co-inherent concepts.”[1] The apostolic fathers would have not seen a difference in their doctrines because they were strictly all from the apostles and their writings. They did not need a systematic doctrine of Scripture alone, for they already believed in Scripture alone, for that is where their practices came from. During the second and third centuries the church fathers, mainly Irenaeus, fought for the correct view of Scripture and their traditions at the time against the Gnostics.[2] Also in the second century Clement of Alexandria wrote a letter called the Stromata of Clement of Alexandria. In chapters 16 and 17 of this letter Clement defends the absolute authority Scripture has over everything. In addition, men such as Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Athanasius, Hillary of Poitiers, and Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, and Augustine all believed in the authority of Scripture and that Scripture was the only authority to be given in the life of the Christian faith.[3]
During the Middle-Ages when the development of the papacy had taken over, the need for Scripture declined. Between A. D. 500-1000 the popes and their councils replaced the authority of Scripture. Around A.D. 1300, the doctrine of the papal infallibility was in place, for there was no reason to have Scripture when people believed that the pope could tell them all they needed. With the late Middle Ages, scholasticism and humanism brought a whole new way of looking at Scripture. In the first 500 years of church history, the church was the sole truth of faith for it interpreted the Scripture. Now men like Thomas Aquinas and Duna Scotus began a new way of looking at Scripture. Their view differed in that they relied on extra-scriptural sources of revelation as equal and as authoritative as the Scriptures. This made a number of changes in the late 1300’s to many different areas for the church and empire.
As Scripture’s role changed during the Middle Ages, Martin Luther’s fight was to bring it back to its authority in the Christian faith. His intent was not to repaint the faith. Luther’s first hint of restoring the church’s view of Scripture was stated at the Diet of Worms, when he says:
Since the Your Majesty and your lordships desire a simply reply, I will answer without horns and without teeth. Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason- I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.[4]
Luther would not die for anything but what he believed to be true in the Word of God. Luther as well as standing firm in his belief stood firm on restoring the Christian Church and reforming it back to its rightful state. Luther wanted to echo that which the ancient church had stood so strongly for. The 1500’s would become the time of this well-known doctrine. During the next 300 years Scripture was seen as the final authority, and not many questions arose.
Since the Reformation the doctrine of Sola Scriptura has been more heavily debated than ever before. The Enlightenment in the late 1800’s brought a philosopher mind-set and led to attacks of the revelation of Scripture. Then with the modern mind-set in America and movements like higher-criticism, people continued questioning what exactly was true in Scripture. In post-modern times we have individuals even asking what “truth” is because many people have been influences by these ideas or lines of thinking. Today’s postmodern culture has led to everyone’s own personal definition of truth. Exactly when the doctrine of Scripture alone came to be an actual doctrine in the churches can be argued. However, the importance is not when the doctrine came in to the church or not when someone repainted the view of Scripture but that Sola Scriptura has actually been a part of the Christian church since its origins.
VELVET ELVIS COMPARED TO THE WILD BOAR: Part One
Posted: May 21, 2007 Filed under: Emergent Church, Martin Luther, Reformation Church History, Rob Bell, Scripture Alone 2 Comments
I. Repainting or Restoring?Rob Bell states:
There are endless examples of this ongoing process, so I’ll describe just one. Around 500 years ago, a man named Martin Luther raised a whole series of questions about the painting the church was presenting to the world. He insisted that God’s grace could not be purchased with money or good deeds. He wanted everyone to have their own copy of the Bible in a language they could read. He argued that everyone had a divine calling on their lives to serve God, not just priests who have jobs in churches. This concept was revolutionary for the world at that time. He was articulating earth-shattering ideas for his listeners. And they heard him. And something big, something historic, happened. Things changed. Thousands of people connected with God in ways they hadn’t before.[1]
Although there is no apparent problem within this statement made of Luther and the beginning of his reformation, Bell goes on and adds:
But that wasn’t the end of it. Luther was taking his place in a long line of people who never stopped rethinking and repainting their faith. Shedding unnecessary layers and at the same time rediscovering essentials that had been lost. Luther’s work was part of what came to be called the Reformation. Because of this movement, the churches he was speaking against went through their own process of rethinking and repainting, making significant changes as a result. And this process hasn’t stopped. It can’t.[2]
Would Luther agree with Bell’s analysis of the situation? Luther would assuredly see himself rethinking the faith, but it is highly unlikely that he saw himself repainting the faith for indeed he did not. To clearly understand Bell’s statement one must know his definition of “repainting.” It appears that by “repainting” he means to change, correct, or bring something new in to the situation. Bell’s following comment supports this theory.
By this I do not mean cosmetic, superficial changes like better lights and music, sharper graphics, and new methods with easy-to-follow steps. I mean theology: the beliefs about God, Jesus, the Bible, salvation, the future. We must keep reforming the way the Christian faith is defined, lived, and explained.[3]
Bell’s idea of repainting faith is to change doctrines, theology, and truths. Arguably, however, if one changes the truths of God he ends up with a different God. If one repaints Jesus, there is a different Jesus. If one changes the truths of the Bible, the natural consequence is the doctrines of God and Jesus are changed. And to repaint salvation causes the gospel to be something of man’s own making. Luther would disagree vehemently with such actions.
Bell goes further in his view of Luther and the Reformation stating:
I’m part of this tradition. I’m part of this global, historic stream of people who believe that God has not left us alone but has been involved in human history from the beginning. People believe that in Jesus, God came among us in a unique and powerful way, showing a new kind of life. Giving each of us a new vision for our life together, for the world we live in. And as a part of this tradition, I embrace the need to keep painting, to keep reforming.
Bell’s flaw is that he equates “repainting” with “reformation.” Furthermore, he claims the Reformation repainted theology. The Reformation did nothing of the sort. It may be more accurate to say Luther “blew the dust of the painting.” Luther did not bring new doctrines and theology into play, but blew the dust that was covering the church for much of the medieval time period between 650-1400 A.D. Luther brought the church back to life and restored that which had been corrupted during the Dark Ages. Luther’s Ninety-five Theses were not to repaint the faith. His goal was to restore the faith. He was beginning to blow the dust off the church which the Dark Ages had covered; this was the magnum opus of Luther’s life. Luther from the time he stated his Ninety-five Theses to the end of his life never tried to create or bring new doctrines into the church; he did not attempt to repaint but rather restore that which was already written in the Word. In fact, if Luther’s intent was to repaint the faith he would have continued in Catholicism. At the time the Roman Catholic Church had repainted the church. With the tradition of popes, councils, and indulgences over a period of 800 years they watered down doctrines and theology. Biblical truths began to be covered by the dust of popes, councils, the oneness of church and state, and rules regarding sacraments and indulgences. If Luther wanted to repaint God, Jesus, the Bible, theology and the future he would have stayed with what the Roman Church was doing at the time. Luther did not repaint anything. He restored the faith of early church fathers like Polycarp, Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Constantine, Athanasius, Basil, Jerome, Augustine, Patrick and Columba.
Luther stood not only for what he believed to be true at the time, but what had been true throughout time. He did not tolerate new doctrines but restored doctrines that had been covered or forgotten about by the Roman Church. Luther stood firm for the faith that was already revealed. He did not ask questions to lead him to new doctrines or new theological systems. Luther’s work was to restore what had been forgotten. In some ways reform did bring many questions to the table. Some of them would have gone like this: Who is the mediator between man and God? When Christ said, “Repent” is that meaning a one time or constantly? Who is the forgiver of sins? Salvation and grace comes through whom? These could have been some of the questions Luther asked at the time of the Reformation.[4] In contrast, Bell’s outlook on Luther’s reforming the church is quite different than restoration. He states:
In fact, Luther’s contemporaries used a very specific word for this endless, absolutely necessary process of change and growth. They didn’t use the word reformed; they used the word reforming. This distinction is crucial. They knew that they and others hadn’t gotten it perfect forever. They knew that the things they said and did and wrote and decided would need to be revisited. Rethought. Reworked.[5]
Bell makes a point in his statement that the contemporaries of Luther were continually changing. It is important to consider what they are changing. Are they changing theology for theology’s sake or are they changing what had been practiced and taught incorrectly in the Roman Church at the time? The answer is clearer when the difference between the two words “reformed” and “reforming” are meted out. “Reformed” is to change for the better. “Reforming” is simply the process of doing that. The contemporaries of Luther were in the process of changing the doctrines of the church. A key point, however, is that they did not try to make something new to appease the cultural change from the medieval time period to the reformation period. Much change was due to the lack of knowledge of in the Roman Catholic churches. Luther and his contemporaries were in the process of changing doctrines but not in the process of creating new ones. They were in the process of correcting what had been wrong. They were in the process of restoring what the Catholic Church had cleaned out of their churches. These men wanted to right what had been wrong. Their intentions had nothing to do to the changing of doctrines like God, Jesus, the Bible, and theology.
Bell goes on right after his statement about Luther’s’ contemporaries to say, “I’m part of this tradition.”[6] One would conclude, therefore, that Bell must look at the doctrines of God, Jesus, the Bible, and theology the same as Luther did. Furthermore, he must promote change according to Scripture alone. He must desire change for God’s glory alone. He must have a theology of grace alone and faith alone. These are what Luther believed and lived. Luther did not repaint the Reformation with these doctrines but restored them in the churches at the time and so did his followers. Bell’s book Velvet Elvis does not indicate that these are doctrines he holds to.
Luther stood for all these core doctrines in his process of restoring the church during the Reformation. He saw them as an importance in Scripture. For these were not new doctrines of God, Jesus, the Bible and theology. Theses doctrines of the five solas were always in Scripture. Bell’s claims of comparison to Luther are erroneous if he does not agree with Luther. During the Reformation Luther wouldn’t have anything to do with groups that differed from him in beliefs such the Jews, Anabaptist, Catholics, and peasants. Would Luther work with Rob Bell? Zwingli and Luther agreed on almost every doctrine but on one occasion after three days of discussing theology, Luther found his difference in the Lord’s Supper. He henceforth refused to work with Zwingli in the Reformation.[7] It is hard to envision Luther allowing Bell to work with him in these processes of restoring or as Bell says, “repainting” the Christian faith. Bell cannot be compared to Martin Luther, the founder of the Reformation.
[1] Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 11.
[2] Bell, Velvet Elvis, 11.
[3] Bell, Velvet Elvis, 12.
[4] Walther von Loewenich, Luther’s Theology of the Cross (Belfast: Christian Journals Limited, 1976), and Jan D. Kingston Siggins, Martin Luther’s Doctrine of Christ (New Haven and London 1970: Yale University Press, 1970).
[5]Bell, Velvet Elvis, 12.
[6] Bell, Velvet Elvis, 12.
[7] Bernhard Lohse, Martin Luther’s Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), 167-77.
The Carolingian Church
Posted: April 19, 2007 Filed under: Patristic Church History 1 Comment
After Europe started to decline, the papacy started to become corrupted, the royalty’s standards for life and religion waned and the clergymen’s intellectual and spiritual state deteriorated. In the 8th century the much needed revival was started by the flourishing
Anglo–Saxon missionaries from Frankish Gaul. Also doing missionary work in the 6th century were the Irish missionaries, one of which was Columban, in Gaul and Italy. Although they were many these European missionaries did not consolidate their work resulting in a complete do over by Christianity later in the 7th century. After these men continued in their work a new era resulted in a “new royal house”, the taking of office of Martel’s heirs, who had been raised in the monastery of St Denis near Paris. These men, Carloman and Pepin, were two Frankish rulers that carried out a major restructuring of the Frankish church. These two men created reforms of the clergy and church organization that brought on a rekindling of religious and intellectual life. Religious growth in the East made possible the opportunity for the papacy to break free.
Meanwhile, in the west Pope Gregory II not only rejected the edict banning the use of icons. Later, the pope’s claim to sovereign rule in Italy and independence from the Eastern Roman Empire was backed up what is known as one of the great forgeries of the Middle Ages, The Donation of Constantine. This document supposed that Constantine had bestowed Rome and the western part of the Empire. The Donation was not exposed as a forgery until the fifteenth century.
On Christmas Day 800, Charlemagne, was crowned the next emperor by Pope Leo III. Although this decision revived the Empire in the West, Charlemagne did not delight in the thought of owing his crown to the pope. The new emperor kept educating the new reform in the church as his father, Pepin along with His chief educational adviser Alcuin of York. The empire that Charlemagne started did not last much past his own life it brightened European culture during a hard dark time that came to be in that time. This ‘Carolingian Renaissance’ turned to classical ancient times also turned to early Christianity for its model. The deepness of this new Carolingian Renaissance and the political vitality of it revived the Empire and stimulated new theological activities.
There were many theological disputes during the time of the Carolingian Renaissance. Some of these areas that Alcuin had to fight against were: alleging that Christ in his humanity was only the ‘adopted’ Son of God, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the question of predestination. After Charlemagne died the new Carolingian Empire was destroyed by civil wars. The state of the political and church standings threatened the independence of the bishops. A new system laid down by the now ruling laymen in the church, ‘proprietary’ system, provided the land and erecting of the church building. Although during the tenth and the first half of the eleventh century the popes were many timed corrupt the papal institution continued to function and to be valued throughout the West.
The Celtic Church and the Synod of Whitby
Posted: April 18, 2007 Filed under: Patristic Church History Leave a comment
Martin of Tours, who died in 397 inspired monasticism in the West. After living a military life he spent time in a solitary place in France, which also inspired many others to join him till they had a semi-community. Against his will, he was convinced to become the bishop of Tours in 372, and then transferred to living as a hermit in a small room, or cell next to the church. After enduring many criticisms and questions from the people, he moved to Marmoutier and started a monastery to help facilitate evangelism in much of the still–ungodly country France. A popular biography written up about Martin is one of the reasons this way of life was promote, and was later exalted as a Saint of the early church. It was said that, “Martin of Tours set the pattern for the Dark Age ‘holy man’”. Later, Augustine of Hippo, along with Jerome and Rufinus belonged to a similar groups put a new way of thought and living structure to Martin’s hermit-like living; the agreement whereby a grouping of celibate clergy lived together and served a local church.
In Egypt a more organized and armed group of monks took sides in theological battles and took part in a more political fight. In the front of this more active movement was the man, Schnoudi, who later would be destined for heresy at the council of Ephesus in 431. A great writer in the west on monasticism was John Cassian. His writings included much detail in instructing, promoting the monastic movement extensively. He covered not only subjects such as what clothing was to be worn but some of the very practices of Monks. This detailed writer also examined extensively the temptations which a monk had to fight against in living each day. Cassiodorus, another great man in the history of monasticism placed a vast emphasis on the copying of manuscripts and also the study of the ancient writings.
Although the roots of monasticism in Ireland and surrounding area are very vague it was said that Patrick was the founder or starter of this movement. When looking at the severe severity of Irish hermits and the arrangement of living compartments or cells, within an outer boundary wall, it strangely reflects Egyptian influences, brought on by Martin of Tours’ monastic ideals. What provided the ultimate rule for monasteries in the west was a man named Benedict of Nursia. In the late sixth century his system gradually outdated other Western monastic rules. Benedict promoted a rule that is founded on the two activities of prayer and works. In order for a monk to show high moral character, they had to hold strictly to these precepts along with remaining in the same monastery where he had taken his vows. The monasteries’, with their emphasis on worship, and stable, well–ordered communities deeply assisted to keep up spiritual standards during these centuries.
Patrick and the Evangelization of Ireland
Posted: April 17, 2007 Filed under: Patristic Church History Leave a comment
Patrick, the great missionary to the Irish, lived around the time 389–461. He was most likely born in Roman Britain but sources are not completely positive. Calpurnius, who was Patrick’s father, was a deacon and magistrate. Although we know of Patrick the details of his life and ministry are widely debated and many myths and legends are passed down from generation to generation. The two sources that tell of accounts about this Irish missionary are, The Confession and A Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus. At the young age of sixteen, Patrick was working on his father’s farming property when a group of raiders stole him away to be a slave on the Irish slave market. While being held captive, Patrick’s love and devotion for Christ deepened. Instead of becoming bitter he grew in his heart a vision for evangelizing his dear homeland, Ireland. After six years of shepherding for his captors and masters, he escaped and eventually reached home again. In 432 when Patrick returned home to Ireland, he came as a bishop and spent his next thirty years ministering to the people there. Although he was not a widely educated man he encouraged learning and possibly gained his ideals from the contact with the strict monasteries in Gaul that he came into contact with while in captivity. Later in the Irish church the basic element became the monastery led by the abbot, rather than the bishop’s diocese. He later began to emphasize the ascetic life and monasticism. During the sixth and seventh centuries Patrick was a large encourager of evangelizing of Western Europe.
Leo I
Posted: April 16, 2007 Filed under: Patristic Church History Leave a comment
I. Cyril’s early life
a. Obscure to most historians
b. Accepted into Clergy Ranks by Nephew (Theophilus)
c. In 403 accompanied Theophilus to Constantinople
d. In 412 elected to succeed Theophilus as Patriarch of Alexadria
e. In 431 he headed the Council in Ephesus
II. Cyril’s Theological Talent
a. Preserving Christ’s human nature
b. Christ’s two natures evolved into one
1. Result of that: Blamed for reviving Apollinarianism
III. Cyril’s End
a. Showed himself to be a ruthful antagonist
b. Died in 444
Jerome
Posted: April 13, 2007 Filed under: Patristic Church History Leave a comment
In A.D. 331, Jerome was born to a well to do family that lived in Stridon, an Italian town. Since his family was very well off they would send Jerome off to study in Rome to study grammar and rhetoric. After living in Rome for some time he decided to become baptized and started collecting and reading theology books. The ascetic way of life called to him and he soon become part of a group at Aquileia in Italy. Unfortunately for Jerome, he had acquired a sharp tongue, and lacked tact which caused many rifts in the group that would soon lead to its break up. Jerome left and started out for Palestine but stopped at Antioch where he grew in his knowledge of Greek. By orders of a dream he stopped the Christian way of life and went to Syria to become a hermit. The hermit life did not do him well and many inner temptations plagued him during this time, so through a series of events Jerome ended up in Rome from 382 to 385. He was put to a job by the bishop of Damascus that would end up being his main contribution to western civilization, the Latin translation of the gospels, Psalms and eventually a large portion of the Old Testament. Jerome and a widow woman that he had a ministry with settled in Bethlehem where they established separate monasteries for men and women.
While living in Bethlehem, Jerome become more and more convinced that his translations for the Old Testament must be done with Hebrew and not Greek and so became what is known as the Vulgate. Later John Wyclif and Douay’s versions were based off the Vulgate. Jerome’s theory for translation was to “render sense for sense and not word for word”. One of his literary aspirations was to become a Christian Cicero, who would b a teacher and model of Christian culture. These dream roles in life could be what drove him to his insistent work and contradictions in character. Although he struggled with these things he came up with the first Historic Christian Work, “Lives of Illustrious Men”, which was written to prove to the pagans that Christians can produce distinguished literary works.
Augustine of Hippo
Posted: April 12, 2007 Filed under: Patristic Church History Leave a comment
Although his father was not a Christian at all his mother, Monica was a tremendous influence on him for she was a devout follower even in the years he completely turned his back on her religion. During his young adulthood he would go into the city of Carthage and waste no time indulging himself in the sins of this world. He had for himself a concubine and fathered an illegitimate child before he was 20 years old. Soon he become involved in a religious system known as the Manichaeism, which held to the belief that good, and evil, light and dark, were eternal. This way of thought seemed to deal with evil in a more superior way than Christianity and that appealed to Augustine. The fact that it had less moral burden put upon life let him live as he wanted and desired too do. He soon saw that this Manichaeism way of thought was not as it seemed and many times left him searching for more answers. He found those answers in the bishop of Milan , who helped him see that many of Christianities down faults were not because they were true but because they were misconceptions of the truth based upon the faith. For a small while Augustine dabbled in skepticism and following that was the writings of certain “Platonists”. By seeing the inconsistencies in these other religious ways it gave him the foot stones for the path to Christianity. In Augustine’s conversion he claimed to have heard a voice saying to him to go up and read, so he pick up the volume of the Apostle and read verses that spoke of giving up his old life of drunkenness and lustful youth and picking up the sword of the Lord and moving on in faith. So after being baptized he gathered up his son, Adeodatus, and his partner Monica. Later after both his beloved Monica and son died he studied philosophy and theology. He wrote many a short book including the works, “Against the Skeptics”, “On the Happy Life, and “soliloquies”. Soon he would complete what would be his best work yet, “The Confessions” in the year 400. This book provides a look into his life prior to 387 and shows most importantly the moral of his spiritual journey. “The City of God”, was later written in response to the pagan accusations about the Christians. After the Manichaeans had ridiculed faith as an “activity unworthy of any cultured and educated person” Augustine began to write works stating that all knowledge begins in faith and is a fundamental part of any religion. If anyone is going to understand the history of Christianity it is not possible to skip over the life and writings of Augustine of Hippo, for he laid many new foundations for the faith.
Creed of Constantinople
Posted: April 11, 2007 Filed under: Patristic Church History Leave a comment
1. the significance of the phrase “the Lord and life-giver”?
The contemporary significance of the Holy Spirit is to show that He is no less than the Father and the Son. Understanding this about the Holy Spirit not only leads to the correct view of the triune God, or the speaking through the prophets, and the forgiveness of sins but leads to the correct worship of the trinity. Without a correct view of the trinity leads to an incorrect view of worship.
Basil Against Eunomius
Posted: April 10, 2007 Filed under: Patristic Church History Leave a comment
A Outline of the theological and scriptural argument of Basil whereby he concludes that the activity of the Holy Spirit is conjoined with the activity of the Father and the Son.
a. Creator of the heavens
b. So the Holy Spirit imparts to the heavenly powers the quality of firmness and stability
II. Job Says
a. Spirit of God which made me
b. Speaking about creation but about fulfillment in respect of human excellence
III. Isaiah Says
a. He speaks in the person of the Lord(in respect to his humanity)
1.”The Lord has sent me, and his Spirit”
IV. The Psalmist Declares
a. The power of the Spirit pervades the whole universe
V. Lord Himself
a. Gave to those who received him the power to become the children of God
b. The Holy Spirit- The Spirit of adoption
c. The Father- distributing the activities among those who are working to receive them
1. Both of the Holy Spirit and Father are conjoined in their activity
2. Showing complete authority
Basil the Great
Posted: April 5, 2007 Filed under: Patristic Church History Leave a comment
Basil the Great was a man on a mission, and that mission was to clean up the church that had broken off, and scattered. It was a tattered church and he was there to repair it. Unfortunately he had very little success in the west and he had to call upon the help of Pope Damascus but to no avail, for Damascus refused to help Basil. As the great divide widened in the theology, Basil and Pope Damascus became more and more detached, which put the peace of the west and the east in jeopardy.
Basil, along with his brother Gregory of Nyssa and their friend Gregory of Nazianzus, labored hard over bringing the doctrine of the Holy Trinity to the East. They thought it misleading to encourage the thought of the Father just being equal to the Son, for it made it look like several gods, so they emphasized that the Father and Son must also be recognized as one God. These men’s thoughts on the Trinity were “complex and at points controversial”, and they used examples that were slightly inexact but Basil insisted that Father, Son and Spirit are equal but distinct. The Cappadocians, stated that the three operated inseparably, none ever acting independently of the others. “Every divine action begins from the Father, proceeds through the Son and is completed in the Holy Spirit”. Everything that Father touches the Son touches and inadvertently the Spirit touches.
http://www.satucket.com/lectionary/Basil_Great.htm
The Nicene Creed and Christology
Posted: April 3, 2007 Filed under: Patristic Church History Leave a comment
How does this creedal statement affirm the full deity of Christ?
It states especially in the part that I have Capitalized, the unity of Christ when it states, “and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only begotten, that is from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, OF ONE SUBSTANCE WITH THE FATHER.” He goes on to tell that Christ came down incarnate, becoming man suffered but then rose as only the Christ full of Deity can do, do the heavens.
Is the Christology of this Creed biblical.
Gospel-Centered Musings 
