The Country Club

A lot of fun for me writing this blog happens through my correspondance by email.  One of these days, one of my dialogues will move to the meta, but for now, email is fine.  This next piece heavily references one such email, the details of which have been sanitized to hide the author's identity, and the editing has been significant.  I think it still has the essense of the original.

I cannot tell you how much I "hate" country clubs.  It is not so much that I hate the facilities or the people who go there.  It's as if some unseen hand described who belongs and who doesn't, and all of us "play the game."  We all can visit, be nice, even interact elsewhere according to open, socially-accepted behavior, or not, but those who belong somehow know it, and I can't stand it.  We know they are clubbers by their smug. 

That was a great paragraph and it is mostly unchanged from the original email.  Let's look at this from the church perspective.  The community church is the Biblical and accepted place to hear the Gospel and receive the sacraments.  That statement is not controversial.  Without picking on any denomination or particular church, I'm sure all of us have experienced being the one who doesn't belong at a particular church.  There are families who have been in the same church for generations.  There are the uber-volunteers.  There are the various staff members and ministry workers.  There are the elders and vestry.  There are many ways to make a clique in a church.  If you are new, you may try as you wish, but you may never fit into a new church.  I attended one church for seven years and never felt as if I belonged.

Some Evangelical and Pentecostal churches have an institutionalized way of doing this.  There are levels of Sanctification taught.  The whole nonsense about jewels in your crown and carnal Christians are examples of this stratification.  There is some experience that must occur to legitimize your faith.  Faith is no longer an intellectual understanding of the truth of the Gospel as described in the Bible, but some endorphin driven experience said to be of the Holy Spirit.  This stratification alienates believers, and yet it is not only pervasive but institutionally condoned.

Without discussing these overt displays, the situation can be encapsulated in a much less obvious, but equally subversive mechanism by examining the coffee hour.  Your church might just have standing around talking without coffee.  That's fine.  The argument here is not against fellowship or against coffee; the argument is against closing your circles and showing your backs to newcomers.  Even those newcomers who have been in church for a decade or more can feel alienated.  This is very much like the country club mentality.  Old money knows new money without effort.  New money recognizes the disdain towards them.  The categories at church may be different, but the same dynamics exist.

Why do we go to church?  To whom are we to minister, and in what priority?  We go to church to hear the Word preached, to receive the sacraments, and to be accountable to other Christians.  We should minister first within the church and secondarily outside the church.  One very important and largly overlooked ministry in most churches is the ministry we owe each other as fellow Christians.  The boundaries we bring into church never really come down.  Paul describes a much different church in the first century, at least he envisions a different church.  He may not actually have witnessed that other church.

Here is my challenge.  Next service, when you meet the people around you, instead of seeing that you have talked to your friends, shaken hands with the most people, shaken the hands of the four people immediately around you, or whatever your routine might be, do this instead.  Slow down.  Make eye contact.  LEARN THE NAME of just ONE other person.  Repeat their name back to them.  Commit to finding this person after church at coffee and actually talking to them.  Don't just go through the motions.  All of the parts of the liturgy exist for a reason.  They deserve more than just our lip service.

Which way do you finish the song?

And they'll know we are Christians by our love, by our love....
or
And they'll know we are clubbers by our smug, by our smug....

--Ogre--

The Good Samaritan

So, you want practical application?  Let's look at the Good Samaritan in Luke 10, shall we?

25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” 27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”

29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ 36 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” 37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”

What can we say about this parable?  This is clearly a Law passage from Jesus; He says as much.  There is an imperative at the end, go and do.  Notice that Jesus says to do this and you will live.  Jesus is amazing.  He can be talking about Law and turn it into a vision of redemptive history.  The question was how do we inherit eternal life.  The answer was follow the Law and you will live.  By living, Jesus is referring to Salvation, eternal life.  What is interesting in this parable is that the Pharisees are represented by the priest, while the rest of Israel is represented by the Levite.  The Samaritan is a most hated neighbor, a Gentile.  It is the Samaritan who shows mercy and loves his neighbor.  The irony is that those that uphold the Law and live by the Law did not fulfill the Law in this parable.  The one who was outside of the Law, who may not have even known the Law, fulfilled the Law. 

Jesus is pointing out the great difficulty of actually fulfilling the Law.  If you were to ask the priest if he fulfilled the Law, he would answer without hesitation that of course he did.  If you asked the same of the Levite, he might have hesitated, but then he probably would have reasoned that through the sacrifices he offered at the temple, he did fulfill the Law.  Jesus' idea of fulfilling the Law was actually very practical.  Just do it, my child.

Every Sunday when we leave church, there, at the first stop light down the street, is a beggar.  I sometimes watch and see who will give to the man.  He certainly looks the part.  His beard is so scraggly that no one would be surprised if a bird appeared and flew out from it.  His clothes are dirty, if not tattered.  He has a cardboard sign with some plea written in ballpoint pen, totally unreadable from a car.  There was a time when I would drive by.  I rationalized that he was going to go buy booze; therefore, I wasn't going to support his habit.  If I didn't give him anything, perhaps he would be forced to get a real job.  I looked away and drove by.

Troll asked me if I had been to any movies lately.  I said yes, of course.  Troll asked if I knew where the dollars for the tickets went.  I said yes, they go to the studio and distributer.  Troll asked me whether I thought that those movie studio people needed my $36 dollars for a family of four more than perhaps this man on the corner needed $5.  I told Troll about my reasons for not giving the man money.  Troll asked me, even if I knew that the man would take my money and go straight to the liquor store, is his need any less?  Is it my responsibility to spend the money for the man?  Do I care how the movie studio guys spend their money?  Anyone watching the news lately?  Charlie Sheen?

Try this passage from Matthew 25 on for size.

The Final Judgment

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

I now give the guy on the corner some cash, even if it is just a dollar.

--Ogre--

The Heretics: Pelagius

The details of the Pelagian heresy are very involved, but I will try to walk through his arguments first. Afterwards, I will present the Augustinian rebuttal. Finally, we will look at the differences between Full Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism, and the presence of both in the modern church. Pelagius was a fifth century monk. He had many detractors, but history records the debate between Pelagius and Augustine of Hippo. The main issues are original sin, free will and salvation.

Let me begin by saying that any argument that is not from scripture will be categorically dismissed by Troll. In order to understand reformed doctrine, the five solas must be considered. To refute any doctrinal position, it is most effective to do so within the hermeneutic of the system that holds the position in question. Does the doctrine stand up to its own internal hermeneutic? The corollary to this statement is that any argument that begins with the supposition that Paul’s writings do not belong in the canon as a defense of Pelagius have been categorically discarded. If the integrity of scripture is your argument against Christian doctrine, then you cannot consider yourself Christian. At least have the honesty to admit this basic assumption: to be Christian has to be based upon something, and we hold the integrity of scripture to be that something.

Original Sin. Pelagius viewed Adam in a much different light than Augustine. Pelagius contended that Adam would have died whether or not he sinned. The argument is that the natural characteristic of man is to die. Genesis does not specifically state that Adam was created immortal. Therefore, death was not the result of original sin, but a natural part of creation.

Pelagius also believed that Adam’s sin convicted only him, not all of mankind. Pelagius denied the federal headship of Adam. The argument is that the OT is full of examples of sin being unique to an individual with no inheritance of sin in any direction of the family. It is said that Jesus never mentions Adam specifically, or speaks of the fall. Therefore, the federal relationship between Adam and mankind is not specifically Biblical in Pelagius’ mind. He goes so far to say that infants are born untarnished by sin, in the same condition as Adam at creation. Therefore, mankind is essentially good, not evil. Adam becomes nothing more than a bad example.

Grace. The role of Grace in Pelagius mind was different than that of Augustine. There is a Roman Catholic term that owes its origin to this debate. This concept is called prevenient grace. The point is that man has a fallen will until God intervenes with Grace that truly frees the will of man allowing him the ability to choose to follow Jesus. This prevenient grace was bestowed on all of mankind by Jesus. This was the action of Jesus on the cross, to make man able to exercise free will in a way to follow Christ.

Free Will. Logically, then, free will begins uncorrupted by Adam. Jesus buys for mankind the ability to have uncorrupted free will once again. Therefore, all people are born with uncorrupted free will and may choose to follow Christ as they will.

Salvation. Following through to his logical conclusion, Pelagius argues that salvation is based upon the meritorious efforts of the individual. Morality and the following of the Law is the key to salvation. After bestowing prevenient grace on the free will of mankind, the role of Jesus is the example of perfection to which man is to aspire. The Law is the pathway to salvation.

Augustine and the Reformers. Going point by point through these arguments again, let’s look at the doctrine as spelled out by Augustine, and later, the reformers.

Original Sin. Pelagius’ argument from silence concerning the term original sin in Genesis is a paper tiger. As always, one needs to be careful when arguing from silence. To say that Genesis failing to specify man’s condition concerning death prior to Adam’s sin necessarily proves that man was created with a shelf life ignores the obvious. Genesis also fails to point out a shelf life for man existing prior to Adam’s sin. An argument from silence only works if the same argument cannot be used against your argument. What Genesis does say is that Adam sinned. The doctrine of original sin is spelled out through many OT and NT passages and is given the label original sin. The word Christian appears nowhere in the Bible either, and yet we accept that the Bible describes what it is to follow Christ. This is a hollow argument that ignores vast amounts of scripture (for instance Psalms 14 and 53, Isaiah 28, 53 and 59, Jeremiah 6, and Exodus 6,) which I will develop in detail in a Building Blocks post in the near future.

The federal headship of Adam is an argument heavily steeped in covenant theology. It is interesting that all groups that hold to the doctrine of original sin will accept this federal relationship of Adam to mankind, but then many will fail to follow through with the covenantal relationship of the rest of the OT to redemptive history. Nonetheless, concerning original sin and Adam’s representation of mankind, Jeremiah, Isaiah and Paul in Romans 3 are the key starting points. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but rather this is a starting point for reading about the condition of man and in particular the inner qualities of the heart of a fallen mankind.

Grace. The role of Grace in Salvation is a look at the five solas of the Reformation as well as the five points of Calvinism. The work of Jesus on the Cross has to accomplish something for mankind, or else God is a cruel and unjust God. The question is for whom did Christ die, and for whom has He risen. Once we establish this, we can discuss who gets the Grace and what does it do. The concept of Jesus’ remnant or elect runs all through the OT and NT. There is clearly an indication that not all people will be saved. So, did Christ die to give us a choice? Is Grace resistable? Or instead, is God sovereign, the Almighty, who decides who will be His. If you accept the idea of Original Sin, then all men are already dead in their sin. Therefore, God in His mercy selects a vast number, too numerous to count, to be His people. Grace is then God through the Holy Spirit opening the minds and hearts of His elect so that they will hear His call. If you are called, it is the demonstration of the Grace of God. In this perspective, Grace cannot be resisted, nor is Grace revocable. Both of those possibilities would damage the sovereignty of God. Therefore, the Resurrection was for all of Christ’s people, but not for all people.

Free Will. Free will is another term that does not appear in the Bible except in the OT context of freewill offerings. There is a large difference between that concept and the idea of free will enabling man to participate in his own salvation. Everyone recognizes that we make decisions every day. If you consider the world in which we live in a horizontal plane, and the Kingdom of God a higher horizontal plane, and interactions with God in a vertical line between them, then it is clear that we exercise free will within the horizontal plane of this world, but vertical interactions between these two planes are the issue. The tower of Babel is a good example of our vertical efforts: futile. Our attempts to fulfill the Law: futile. Our efforts at works: futile. Jesus provides the vertical connection between the planes. He condescends to our plane and He is the ladder between the planes. But only through Him can we ascend. As it turns out, Jesus has better technology in the New Covenant than Jacob. It isn’t a ladder, it is actually an escalator. We don’t even step onto the escalator. The Holy Spirit places us on the escalator. That is how effective our free will is without Grace.

Salvation. Pelagius would have man building the ladder, climbing the ladder and reaching the top, using the blue print of Moses and the example of Christ. We know the futility of building towers and ladders to God from the OT. We need Christ to provide the means, the motive, the Grace, the power, the whole enchilada. Salvation is by Faith alone, in Christ alone, by Grace alone to the Glory of God alone as testified to us in Scripture alone, the five solas of the Reformation.

Semi-Pelagianism vs Full Pelagianism.

The Semi-Pelagian viewpoint is neither Pelagian nor Augustinian on the issue of original sin.  People are born neither good nor bad, but neutral.  Adam damaged the condition of mankind, but did not corrupt it, as Augustine would argue.  The Semi-Pelagian viewpoint of salvation is different in that the resurrection provides the possibility for salvation for all of mankind. It is not an irresistible Grace as in Augustinian or Calvinist thought. There is still a synergism or cooperation between God and man, rather than the monergism of Augustine or Calvin. If man takes one step or half the steps, it is still synergism. Free will is intact in this system. Faith, rather than being a gift, actually becomes a work of man in the exercise of free will. Election, then, becomes a matter of God knowing in advance how each person is going to respond with their free will to the offer of Salvation from Christ. There are similarities between Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism, the contribution of man being a matter of degree.

Modern Protestant Liberalism and Evangelicalism

If you have ever attended these types of churches, there is a lot of the following language. There are altar calls in which people are asked to make a decision for Christ. Ask God into your life. Make Jesus your Lord and Savior. All of these notions are Pelagian in nature, whether semi or full Pelagian depends upon the means of sanctification. It is striking just how Roman Catholic these so called Protestant denominations have become. When the addition of spirituality and mysticism is added to the brew, you have moralistic churches with leaders who invent scripture on the fly without even the scholarship and theology of the Roman Catholic church. There is no one in the church to point out the obvious to the Emperor. This is the logical outcome of this unbiblical theology. Paul, who wrote about half of the New Testament, is either discredited, disregarded or twisted. Law passages get plucked out of context without the indicatives that ground the imperatives. This is the state of the American church.

Summary. It is easy to say that Pelagius lost the battle, but won the war. Augustine, Luther and Calvin would not recognize most of our American churches today, but would consider the vast majority to be either pagan or heretical. The American culture is so rooted in individual rights, freedom and the “can do” attitude, that the Gospel is completely scandalous and offensive. Romans 3 and 9 are so completely foreign to us that we end up shouting that God is unfair. We actually believe that somewhere deep down inside of every person, there is a good and righteous person, and that God will see that goodness and the sincerity of that person’s belief. Belief is no longer in something specific, you just have to belief in something, and that’s good enough. Pelagius was a better Christian theologian than most of the modern liberal thinkers, but he still got it wrong. Pelagianism is the scourge of the American church today.

--Ogre--

Let Go and Let God

In just two months, I have learned that blogs take on a life of their own.  Also, I have learned to be careful whom I quote, they might read it.  This post is a response to a query at this morning’s homily.

The readings for this week were from the Episcopal Liturgical Cycle, Year A, Eighth Sunday after Epiphany.  The Epistle is 1 Corinthians 4:1-5 and the Gospel is Matthew 6:24-34.  For completeness, the OT reading is Isaiah 49:8-16a.  Actually, as the Liturgy is rather reformed in its construction, let’s start with the OT reading as it is important.  In part one, then, I am going to lay out the significance of the prophesy in Isaiah 49 in terms of redemptive history.  In part 2, we will revisit the Sermon on the Mount once again, comparing Jesus' remarks with those of Paul in 1 Corinthians.

In Isaiah, we find the Israelites in captivity in Babylon, the temple destroyed.  This is important to understand in on a number of levels.  To begin, it can be argued that this period in time is clear evidence that the theocracy of national and ethnic Israel has violated the terms of the Sinai covenant.  The punishment aspects of Sinai have been enforced.  Israel is out of the land, scattered and in captivity; the temple has been destroyed.  And yet, in God’s infinite Grace, Isaiah tells of God’s plans to return to Zion and rebuild the temple.

This is a very important shift in redemptive history, easily overlooked, and yet crucial to the understanding of eschatology.  God is promising not to forget Zion.  This is a key moment.  Israel self identifies with Zion, but it is important to understand the difference between what Israel represents and what Zion represents.  There are several ways to set up the two types of covenants in the Bible.  Isaiah is pointing to the symbolism of two mountains: Sinai and Zion.  Through Sinai, Israel received the Law and the Mosaic Covenant.  Israel was intended to be a worldly demonstration of the Kingdom.  Through Zion, the heavenly mount, Israel will receive Salvation.  At this point in redemptive history, God’s ultimate plan has not been revealed, but Isaiah is starting to tell the tale.

Therefore, this discussion of Zion rather than Israel is a direct reference to ultimate Salvation for the people of God.  Now, in verses 11-12, God talks about gathering His people from all corners of the world.  The question is who are His people?  Israel has clearly broken the Sinai covenant, and so it can be argued that Isaiah is foreshadowing a much grander redemptive plan than just national and ethnic Israel.  God will rebuild his temple in Jerusalem one last time, as discussed in Daniel.  But the purpose of Jerusalem this last time will be to play a role in the life and death of Jesus.  This is not so much a renewal of Sinai as an introduction of the Covenant of Grace.  In order to fully understand Grace, the Law must stand in juxtaposition.  And still, it is Zion, not Israel and not Sinai, that God upholds in this passage.

In 1 Corinthians 4:1-5, Paul is discussing the particular role of the Apostle.  He describes the Apostles as servants of Jesus and stewards of God’s mysteries.  Without dwelling for now on the translation of servant, nor on the content of these mysteries, I want to focus on the issue of verse 5.  This is a passage that is a clear reference to judgment on the Last Day.  Paul refers to Jesus revealing what is in the heart, and judgment being based on this and on the works of each person.  This is a LAW passage.  All men in Adam will be judged justly and righteously under the LAW.  It is only through the penal substitution and propitiation of Christ through His death and resurrection that anyone of us can stand judgment in confidence, clothed not in our own self-righteousness, but clothed instead in the true Righteousness of Christ Jesus.  In the absence of the Great Mediator and Advocate, any man will face judgment with no hope of salvation.  

Finally, we return yet again to the Sermon on the Mount.  In our last two trips to this passage, we looked at Matthew 5:17-20 and 5:48.  Reminding you of those points, and here, Jesus did not come to abolish the Law; he came to fulfill the Law.  The standard for fulfilling the Law is perfection.  With that in mind, let’s look at 6:24-34.

Starting with verse 24, we cannot serve two masters.  Either we serve God or we serve sin.  This takes us back to the issue of the translation of the word servant, where the idea is more probably slave.  The relationship between slave and master is what is being referenced here.  In Adam, all men are slaves to sin.  This has been Jesus’ point throughout this sermon.  He is saying, once again, that no man truly serves God.  Note the similarity to Paul in Romans 3:1-20.  And since no man truly serves God, man is in a pickle.  What does Jesus say about this dilemma?

Consider the lily.  Consider the birds.  God provides for them.  Are not men more valued than animals and plants?  Surely God will provide for man.  This is not just a superficial look at food and clothing; this is a snapshot of God’s redemptive plan.  God will provide.  God will do all of the work for us in our Salvation.  God will justify us.  God will sanctify us.  God will do all of this for His people.  This is our first glimpse of Christian liberty.  Don’t sweat the details of this life.  Jesus has you covered for the Age to Come.

And finally, we come to application.  Is Jesus suggesting that we let go and trust God for food, clothing and shelter?  Not at all.  Jesus has much bigger fish to fry.  Jesus is concerned for the Salvation of His Elect.  James says this about this topic: What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes.  The point is not to live irresponsibly in this world; the point is that the Age to Come is a much larger issue.  That is the Kingdom of Eternity.  That is where our concerns should lie.  Verse 33:  But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.  So, if we have trust in Jesus, we have no need for concern.  He has us covered.

The question that was asked this week was this: based on these passages, should we let go and let God?  Or rather, should we continue to be good stewards of this world?  Are they mutually exclusive or simultaneously true?  My answer is that they are descriptions of our actions in terms of the Two Kingdoms.  In terms of the Kingdom of God, let go and let God.  He has already done the work.  We have nothing to contribute to our own salvation.  In that very important, most important venue, we must Let Go and Let God.  In terms of this world, obey the Law: Love God and Love your neighbor.  You will fail from time to time.  Paul describes the Christian conundrum in Romans 6-8.  You accept justification by faith alone, but then you find yourself still in Adam and still unable to keep the Law.  You are distressed and turn back to Jesus.  You are reassured and are confident once again.  This cycle continues until your death or the Second Coming, whichever comes first.  The problem with most discussion of Matthew 5-7 is that people are still looking for a cookbook, seven steps for success, the path to salvation.  Jesus tells the crowd that we are missing the point.  We are all doomed under the Law.  Only through Him will we find salvation.  Remember this exchange between Jesus and Peter at the end of John 6:

60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

--Ogre--

Kline on Framework

I was digging through the online archives of Meredith Kline and came across this treasure.  Framework theology is now the label for this two-register cosmology that Kline is discussing.  This is a great read.  Enjoy!

--Troll--

The Heretics: Arius

The Arian heresy is credited to Arius, a fourth century bishop in Egypt.  Please take note that this is not the same as Hitler’s Aryan, by spelling or meaning.  The true origin of this heresy may be Lucien of Antioch, but the origin is less an issue in this century than the content of the heresy and the response of the rest of the church to it.  The importance of this whole controversy is that it lead to Emperor Constantine convening a council to address this problem at Nicaea, the result of which council was the Nicene Creed.  Some 50 years later, the Nicene Creed was finalized at the First Council of Constantinople (Second Ecumenical Council.)  The whole of the fourth century is punctuated by this debate.  This is a great outline of the events, although difficult to follow without a score card, and isn’t necessary for the discussion, but I include it for completeness.

The major issue of the Arian controversy was the substance of Christ.  Although all of Arius’ writings have been destroyed, his legacy is clear from the arguments against him.  There are two main points in his discussion.  First, the Father is eternal, but Christ is not.  Arius argued that Jesus was the Son of God, and therefore the first creation of God.  Secondly, and as a logical corollary, Jesus was neither fully God nor fully man.  The counterargument here is the doctrine of the Trinity, which was not completely spelled out until the Second Ecumenical Council.  The doctrine of the Trinity is that all three parts of the Godhead, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are both all of the same substance and all eternal.  Let’s look at each component of this more closely.

Arius argued that belief that Jesus was both God and Man meant that there must be two Gods.  Therefore, there must have been a time when there was only one God, and Jesus was his first creation.  All the rest of creation was accomplished through Jesus.  Therefore, Jesus was not fully God, in the sense that he was a creation, and therefore less than God.  Verses sighted to confirm this belief include John 14:28 and Colossians 1:15.  

In the John selection, Jesus says, “…the Father is greater than I.” What did He mean by that statement in that context?  The argument here is in terms of authority or leadership, not of substance.  While Jesus is still on the earth and in His earthly body, in some sense He is under the authority of the Law, that is, the Word of God.  Even if Jesus is participant author of the Word with God, while He is man, He is under the Law, and therefore, for a time, under the authority of God.  Look at John 1:1-4, 10:30 and 20:28.  In the first passage, John states that the Word, or Christ, is with God from the beginning.  Even though we can say that Arius agrees with Trinitarians on creation being through Christ, it is clear that John states that Christ was always there with God.  In the second selection, Jesus clearly states, “I and the Father are One.” This cannot be stated any more clearly.  And finally, Thomas, upon his personal revelation of the arisen Christ states that Jesus is God.  It is difficult to argue, therefore, from the context of John that Jesus Christ is anything less than God, both in substance and eternity.

In the Colossians selection, Paul says that Jesus is the firstborn of creation.  The Old Testament reference for this passage is Proverbs 8, which is about wisdom.  Paul is equating Christ with wisdom, but at the same time, he is not making a statement about Christ’s order in creation as supposed by Arius.  It is the concept of wisdom that is the firstborn creation.  In verse 16, the crux of the argument is that by Him all things were created.  How can He be a created thing if all things were created by Him, through Him or in Him?  

While there is the temptation to leave the argument there, there is another issue that comes from the preceding paragraph in Colossians.  There is ample precedent in the New Testament for the notion that Jesus is the firstborn of the New Covenant, the New Creation, the Kingdom of the resurrected world.  Since all of creation will be resurrected, including the rocks, dirt and trees, the notion of Jesus being the firstborn of the New Creation of the New Covenant is certainly true.  Whether Paul is intending this sort of double entendre in Colossians is questionable, but given the order of the letters, Romans is thought to be five years older than Colossians, and the circulation of these letters throughout the ancient world, it is certainly possible that Romans should be treated as an antecedent to the Colossian epistle.  Verse 14 clearly introduces the Kingdom of the Age to Come to the debate and frames the comments in the next few verses.

In the Second Ecumenical Council, it was made clear in the amendment to the Nicene Creed that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all of the same substance, and all three are one.  This is the doctrine of the Trinity.  Each part of the Trinity is of the same substance, that is God, and each part is only a part of the whole that is God.  As I have mentioned before, all of the Churches of the last 2000 years, whether Orthodex, Roman or Protestant, have shared this Trinitarian view of God.  Despite this, there has always been a thread of this Arian heresy in the theological debate.

There are two very visible and very prominent groups in the US today who persist with some form of the Arian heresy.  They have other issues as well, but clearly this is a part of their problem.  The first group is the Mormons.  The Mormons view Jesus as the physical son of god the father and his goddess wife.  The rest of their theology is not my intent here.  The point here is the clear difference in the idea that Jesus is of the same substance with God with both the Arian view and the Mormon view.  The second group is the Jehovah’s Witnesses.  They actually add the word “other” to the Colossians passage above to make clear that Jesus was the first creation, and then Jesus created every “other” creature.  They view Jesus as the human manifestation of the archangel Michael, that they are the same creature or being.

What is also abundantly clear in both of these examples is that neither group believes in the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura.  This is a powerful argument for this central reformed doctrine.  The Mormons have added a second book, the Book of Mormon, to the scripture.  In fact, this second book is used to interpret the Bible.  This is clearly at odds with Christianity in general and the Protestant Reformation in particular.  It underscores the dangers of the interpretive powers of the Papacy and the manners in which that bad precedent can be corrupted.  The JWs have a second book as well, anything published by the Watch Tower Society as well as their old version of the Bible called the New World Translation.  This translation changes many key passages in the Bible to suit the JW interpretive grid.

Other movements that have some element of Arianism in their thoughts are anything written by Dan Brown and, of course, the Gnostics.  The Gnostics have a full set of beliefs that, again, is outside of this effort, but central among these beliefs is the Arian view of a first-created mediator and secondary creator.  The Gnostic Gospels are thought to be from the third century.  Scholarship that has attempted to tie them to first century Apostles has not been upheld.  The reason for these documents to carry the names of Apostles is to try to give them theological weight that they would clearly lack otherwise.  The authorship in terms of person and timeframe alone would put off inclusion in the canon, if it were not for severe breaks in Christian theology. 

Of particular interest today is the Egyptian situation concerning the Coptic Christians.  The documents found in the library at Nag Mammadi in 1945 were written in the Coptic language.  When the Coptic Christians were excommunicated in 451, it was over the issue of Arianism.  Of note, Origen, who spoke for the Trinity in the fourth century, was also Egyptian, thus it can be said that the Egyptian legacy is not all Arian.  

And finally, words that are used in liberal church circles today smack of the Arian heresy.  Jesus Christ as an example is just such a point.  The so-called Free Grace Movement asserts that a person can accept Christ as Savior, without making him lord of your life.  This notion that seems so foreign to Christian theology has gained much tread in American Evangelical circles.  The idea of Jesus as example of righteous living guts the Gospel of any real significance.  Is the resurrection really necessary to offer us a great example?  Theologically, these types of movements have only one possible endpoint, and that is a denial of Christ as divine.

In summary, the Arian heresy is alive and well today.  It is important as Christians that we recognize it when we hear it.  We need to understand that this heresy was completely refuted in the early church, and has been refuted by all truly Christian theologians since that time.  The divinity of Christ is central to Christian theology.  The denial of Christ’s divinity is equivalent to the denial of Christ’s offer of Salvation.

--Ogre--

Future series

After listening to some ideas, I’ve decided upon two series that I will probably run simultaneously.  I am doing these simultaneously because this will keep both series moving and more interesting.

The first series will be called Building Blocks.  As much as I am trying to make my words as accessible to everyone as possible, I’m still getting feedback that either implies a lack of understanding of my points, or overtly states a lack of understanding of a point.  I know that no one is replying to me on the blog, but I’ve been getting verbal and email responses about almost every post.  Thank you for those words as they sustain me and give me the belief that this effort is worth continuing.  The Building Blocks series will be taking key vocabulary words and Biblical doctrines and devoting a whole article to them with the goal being to see if I can get that one part right.  After we get enough Building Blocks, we’ll start putting them into larger pictures to see how they fit.

The second series will be called The Heretics.  The reason for this series is that it is often most instructive in figuring out what is correct to examine what is incorrect.  We will look at the views of each heretic, focusing on the particular issues that caused problems in the church.  We will also look at their modern theological reincarnations.  My point will be to show that much of what is modern and new, is actually ancient and wrong.  This will help crystallize what we can say that is correct about each issue and the Gospel.

I hope that these two series are enjoyable.  If you have ideas for other topics, Troll is always under the bridge, even if Ogre isn’t.

--Troll--  and  --Ogre--

Recommendation

This is an excellent read. I'm posting it here for my non-Facebook readers. Enjoy.

Tullian's blog.

--Ogre--

Got Milk? A Parable

Martha went to the grocery store and bought some milk.  She brought it home and gave it to Mom saying, “I bought some milk.”

Mom said, “Why?” 

Martha replies, “Because milk is healthy and we should have milk in the house.” 

Mom says, “Everyone who lives in this house is lactose intolerant.”

Martha protests, “But everyone says that milk is good for you.”

Mom says, “Yes, of course it is.  But it is important not just to do a good thing, but to know why you are doing it.  If you had thought about the why, perhaps you would have gotten soy milk instead.”

Martha complains, “I tried to do something good, and you turn it into a failure.”

Mom says, “All effort is a waste of time without first identifying the problem.”

Faith without works is dead.  No one is arguing this point.  This is as clear as the nose on your face, particularly my face with my near proboscis.  James is arguing for works, this is true.  Go get the milk.  But James is not ignoring the facts that the refrigerator is empty and that milk is particularly nutritious.  James assumes that we have already identified these indicatives.  I’ve quoted from Acts 15 before, but notice verse 21.  The law has been preached everywhere since the old days.  People know that.  What was missing was the “why” from the formula.  Jesus gave the why.  Jesus provided the indicatives.  Jesus explained to us that the purpose of the law was to point out just how dire our situation is.  We are dead from sin.  We are dead people walking.  That is the problem that we have to identify.

Next, Jesus tells us what he has done to fix the problem.  Because Jesus did what He did, we now have a reason for doing good works.  Jesus provides the milk.  If you intellectually assert that we need milk to survive, but don’t go get the milk, you will still die.  That is because you have just demonstrated that you truly do not believe that you are about to die.  You do not believe the indicatives.  The object of belief is always an indicative.  Works are the necessary consequence of belief.  There is no category of antinomian believers.  Those people are dead.  They didn’t go get the milk.

The point is this: James is not preaching a revival of works.  James is not preaching that works have any value towards your salvation.  James is saying that works are a necessary byproduct of Christian faith, without which you will surely die.  Got milk?

--Troll--

Hand in the Cookie Jar

Yep, I was caught.  This morning, I was overheard asking a person if they might find time to tell their story to me.  I must say, this will be a great opportunity to appeal to the Word once again.  But before I do, I want to put this in perspective.

After reading all of these blogs I write about sparing me your story, I suppose I should explain myself.  The first point to make is that the context of the request was not a moment of evangelism.  The two people involved in the conversation are both clearly Christians already, and I am happy to call him my brother in Christ.  The context of the discussion is the end of a Bible study on 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, on which I blogged yesterday.  One of the two key doctrines from that passage is the doctrine of separation.  My brother has an interesting tale to tell concerning his own life and that doctrine, that passage of scripture.  The manner in which he worked through his dilemma, knowing both that his separation was over doctrine and that he was in the minority, may help me with my current concerns over doctrine and theology in my local church.  I’m sure I’ll get a little of the feelings involved, but he will probably focus on the issues.  It will be a great listen.

Also this morning, I heard the ever present, and grating on my nerves, suggestion that we should live the Gospel and be an example to non-Christians as a form of evangelism.  As we can see from the preceding paragraph, telling your story can be of some value, some of the time, to some audiences.  Most of the time, to most audiences, most value is obtained from talking about the Gospel.  The key difference is that the story I hope to hear is heavily grounded in scripture.  The story is about scripture and doctrine.  While my brother’s experience will play a central role in the story, the theme of the story will be a doctrinal discussion that led to separation.  These types of examples were common in Puritan communities.  They developed a set of stories, sort of like case law, to discuss particular doctrinal issues that would arise in practical application.  Their thinking was that law, no matter how specific, could not account for every conceivable situation in life.  Therefore, they discussed, worked through and recorded all of these events, creating a journal of applications, each story an example of doctrine in practice.

Coming back to the example, I’ve often wondered what living the Gospel looks like.  Let me get this right, if we just live our lives, loving our neighbors, everyone will think we are wonderful and want to live like us.  That sounds like the Mormons.  They are great neighbors, very trustworthy, reliable, nice people.  They have lousy theology.  But how would you know that by just observing their lives?  

Also, haven’t we discussed how the purpose of the law is to point out our sin?  The law is designed to demonstrate our fallen nature.  We may try and achieve some measure of success at living the “good” life.  I’m not sure I’ll ever perfect it.  If you examine my life, I’m sure you can find all sorts of reasons that I fail at obeying the law.   

But wait!  We are supposed to be living the Gospel.  What does that look like?  The Gospel is news.  It is completed action.  It is history.  It was done by someone else.  How do we live the news?  Am I to walk up the nearest hill dragging a large wooden pole and let my neighbor stab me?  Is that right?  The thing is that you can’t live the Gospel.  The Gospel is in the indicative.  You can try to live the imperatives.  Imperatives require action.  Imperatives are always grounded in indicatives.   

The amazing thing is that the same set of imperatives can be grounded in many different indicatives.  In other words, do Christians have a monopoly on sound ethics?  Clearly not.  Therefore, Christian living, the imperatives, shed no particular light on the Gospel.  The Gospel has to be proclaimed.  The Gospel requires notification, communication, words.  Yes, young people who don’t believe in words any longer, words and ideas are necessary.  People do not die for warm and fuzzy feelings.  People want to have a very clear and well articulated idea of what is at stake before they are going to put their own neck on the line.  I’m not going to die for any moral stake.  I’ll die over the indicatives.  The Gospel is worth my life.  Is the Gospel worth your life?

So, start with the Gospel.  Save your story until someone asks for it.  Even then, ground your story in the indicatives, and make sure that the person who asks remembers the indicatives more than the parts about you.

--Ogre--

2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1

This section of Paul’s epistle is tremendously important to me.  Do not be yoked with unbelievers.  As many of you know, I left the church of my youth for a second time in 2004.  After seven years, I have ventured back on Tuesdays because of my longing for the sacraments and anything resembling true Bible study.  And so this passage where Paul admits that there might be unbelievers within the church in Corinth is particularly timely.

In my world, I have the Episcopal church of my youth with its nominally Christian presiding bishop and the Pentecostal church of my last seven years.  I don’t feel comfortable in either.  The Episcopal Church was described by the Puritans as having reformed articles of faith, Arminian clergy and Roman liturgy.  This confusion was the basis of the Puritan flight to this country.  Now, there is the problem of the liberal leadership, hell bent to lead the church…to hell.  I’d never seen the full blown Pentecostal trappings at my current church until this past weekend.  I had experienced the bad theology taught despite a reasonably well written statement of beliefs.  But the chicanery and sophistry that I witnessed yesterday was a rumor that had remained in the background until now.  I knew that by association with certain less reputable men over the years, that such events were possible at my church, but I hadn’t seen it.  The fastest way to eliminate a “pastor” from consideration for my ears is whether he has a show on Trinity Broadcasting Network; if he has a show on that network, then I'm not going to listen to him any longer.

Getting back to the scripture for discussion, 2 Corinthians is thought to be the fourth letter that Paul sent to Corinth, the first and third being lost to us.  Paul refers to the third letter in this letter in 2:2-3 and again in 7:8-16.  The idea that Paul may not have written the section under consideration here, 6:14-7:1, has no proof, nor does the notion that the portions of the letter had some other order in the past.  What is clear is that this section quotes the Old Testament rather densely.

The quoted section begins with a parenthetical look earlier in the letter to 3:16.  We are the temple of the living God.  This is a huge theological statement, not to be underemphasized.  The temple in Judaism was a place, but this is referring to the Holy of Holies, the inner sanctum of the temple where the Ark of the Covenant resided and God dwelt there over the Ark.  This is same imagery that is referenced in other places by Paul when he talks about atonement.  This is the same root word as we discussed before concerning the Mercy Seat, or covering of the Ark.  The radical idea is that in the New Covenant, God comes down to earth and dwells in and among his people.  When He ascends after the resurrection, He leaves the Holy Spirit to actually dwell within each of his people.  It is important not to take this to mean a sort of Eastern theology idea that we are all gods.  This is a very different notion, that we elect are all visited by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.  What is important is that God no longer is acting aloof, but has come to earth to dwell among and in us.  The temple of the Old Testament no longer has a function; to worship there is idolatry.  This is a huge change to lay at the feet of the Jewish converts.  Paul develops this idea more fully, in a much different tone, in his letter to the Galatians.

The Old testament scripture that is quoted comes from at least six places.  I’ll write the six OT passages together, then write them as they appear here:  Leviticus 26:11-12 (Exodus 29:45), Ezekiel 37:27, Isaiah 52:11, Ezekiel 20:34, 2 Samuel 7:14, Isaiah 43:6.

And I will walk among you and will be your God, and you shall be my people. 

My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 

Depart, depart, go out from there; touch no unclean thing; go out from the midst of her; purify yourselves, you who bear the vessels of the Lord. 

I will bring you out from the peoples and gather you out of the countries where you are scattered, with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, and with wrath poured out.

I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men,

I will say to the north, Give up, and to the south, Do not withhold; bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the end of the earth,

I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
Therefore go out from their midst,
and be separate from them, says the Lord,
and touch no unclean thing;
then I will welcome you,
and I will be a father to you,
and you shall be sons and daughters to me,
says the Lord Almighty.”

It is an interesting mix of passages.  Notice how John states this point succinctly in Revelations 21:3. 

3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.

That’s pretty clear, and it’s also pretty radical for those early Jewish Christians.

There is a second very important thread running through this passage: the notion of separation.  First, don’t be yoked to unbelievers; second, we are not to touch any unclean thing; and third, we will be gathered together.  This is called the doctrine of separation by some and it is truly the focus of my concern.  The summary of this passage hammers home the point in 7:1.

Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God.

At this point, I’d like to go back to Paul’s introduction to this epistle.  See how he addresses the church in Corinth:  To the church of God that is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in the whole of Achaia.  That’s an interesting way to address a church in which there are dissenters and possibly unbelievers.  To the church of God.  We clearly understand by this that Paul is using that phrase as a collective noun referring to all of the people in that church.  He includes all of the saints in the wider area around Corinth.  In what manner can we reconcile today's passage with this opening greeting?  Many consider this a charge for church discipline, to straighten out the problems or toss them out.  The potential for abuse in this section is therefore obvious.  The whole idea of excommunication begins here.  This is a very foreign notion to the touchy, feely, God loves everyone theology of today.  And yet, Paul calls these people saints.

How about looking at this issue of separation from the other direction, as I have over the years?  If a believer finds himself in a church in which the Gospel is not being preached, or the Gospel is being distorted, what is his obligation?  Is the imperative here to fix the problem or to leave that church and find another that preaches the true Gospel?

I don’t know these answers.  I hope to learn these answers very soon.  I’ve heard arguments from both sides of that coin.  I will leave you with Frank Turk’s admonishment.  Do not be so particular about the correctness of the doctrine that no church can satisfy your doctrinal orthodoxy.  This can lead to isolation due to a self righteous idolatry.  There is another imperative and that is the call to corporate worship.  In these lean times, go to a church every week, find a crumb of Grace in what is said, and revere the office of preacher even when that office is betrayed.

Maranatha!

--Ogre--