Heidelberg Catechism: The First Part--Misery

This first part is only three Lord's Days, so we will tackle them all at once.  This section is titled Of the Misery of Man.  This will obviously be about original sin, total depravity, the condition of sin, God's Wrath, truly happy stuff.  The point is to demonstrate to us the desperate nature of our situation and to impress upon us the absolute need of some divine help.  Let's begin with Lord's Day 2.

Question 3. Whence knows thou thy misery?

Answer: Out of the law of God. (Romans 3:20)

Question 4. What does the law of God require of us?

Answer: Christ teaches us that briefly, Matt. 22:37-40, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. This is the first and the great commandment; and the second is like unto it, Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Deuteronomy 6:5, Leviticus 19:18, Mark 12:30, Luke 10:27)

Question 5. Can thou keep all these things perfectly?

Answer: In no wise; (Romans 3:10, 20, 23; 1 John 1:8,10) for I am prone by nature to hate God and my neighbor.(Romans 8:7, Ephesians 2:3, Titus 3:3, Genesis 6:5, 8:21, Jeremiah 17:9, Romans 7:23)

If anyone every wants to tell you how wonderful they are, deep down in their heart, just run that last group of verses at them.  Start with the Jeremiah quote and go from there.  It isn't just Paul who says that the Law is impossible to keep.

Question 6. Did God then create man so wicked and perverse?

Answer: By no means; but God created man good, (Genesis 1:31) and after his own image, (Genesis 1:26-27) in true righteousness and holiness, that he might rightly know God his Creator, heartily love him and live with him in eternal happiness to glorify and praise him. (Colossians 3:9-10, Ephesians 4:23-24, 2 Corinthians 3:18)

Question 7. Whence then proceeds this depravity of human nature?

Answer: From the fall and disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve, in Paradise; (Genesis 3, Romans 5:12, 18-19) hence our nature is become so corrupt, that we are all conceived and born in sin. (Psalms 51:5, Genesis 5:3)

Question 8. Are we then so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all wickedness?

Answer: Indeed we are; (Genesis 8:21, John 3:6, Genesis 6:5, Job 14:4, 15:14, 16, 35, Isaiah 53:6) except we are regenerated by the Spirit of God. (John 3:3, 5; 1 Corinthians 12:3; 2 Corinthians 3:5)

Did we create the situation that we are in?  No, Adam as our federal representative did it for us in the Fall.  Are we so completely lost that we are incapable of good?  Unfortunately, yes, but fortunately, we may be regenerated by the Holy Spirit.  Amazing stuff.

Question 9. Does not God then do injustice to man, by requiring from him in his law, that which he cannot perform?

Answer: Not at all; (Ephesians 4:24, Ecclesiastes 7:29) for God made man capable of performing it; but man, by the instigation of the devil, (John 8:44, 2 Corinthians 11:3, Genesis 3:4) and his own willful disobedience, (Genesis 3:6, Romans 5:12, Genesis 3:13, 1 Timothy 2:13-14) deprived himself and all his posterity of those divine gifts.

Question 10. Will God suffer such disobedience and rebellion to go unpunished?

Answer: By no means; but is terribly displeased (Genesis 2:17, Romans 5:12) with our original as well as actual sins; and will punish them in his just judgment temporally and eternally, (Psalms 5:5, 50:21, Nehemiah 1:2, Exodus 20:5, 34:7, Romans 1:18, Ephesians 5:6, Hebrews 9:27) as he has declared, "Cursed is everyone that continues not in all things, which are written in the book of the law, to do them." (Deuteronomy 27:26, Galatians 3:10)

Question 11. Is not God then also merciful?

Answer: God is indeed merciful, (Exodus 34:6-7, 20:6) but also just; (Psalms 7:9, Exodus 20:5, 23:7, 34:7, Psalms 5:5-6, Nehemiah 1:2-3) therefore his justice requires, that sin which is committed against the most high majesty of God, be also punished with extreme, that is, with everlasting punishment of body and soul.

OK, God made us capable of fulfilling the Law, but we blew it.  Because He is just, these sins must be punished, and the punishment is steep.  Yes, God is merciful, but that doesn't mean that justice can be overlooked.

Therefore, we have the problem laid out for us quite plainly: man, since the fall, is incapable of fulfilling the Law, and is therefore doomed under the Law.  God's justice must be satisfied, and the punishment is extreme.  These Heidelberg guys are sounding a bit depressing thus far.  Remember that you can track down the full document from this link called CRTA.  I highly recommend reading the passages.  It is important to see that this catechism and others are taken directly from the text.  The doctrine flows from the text rather than imposing some random doctrine on the text. 

This is the end of part one.  In the next post, we will start on part two, Of Man's Deliverance.

--Troll--

Arminianism vs. Calvinism: The debate part two

Jacobus Arminius was a Dutch theologian from the end of the sixteenth century.  His remarks in a paper published after his death were highly critical of certain aspects of what was becoming the Calvinist doctrines in the Dutch Reformation.  The Synod of Dordt was convened to deal with the Arminian problem, and the resultant Canons of Dordt contain the Five points of Calvinism.  Interestingly enough, Arminius’ document is called the Five Articles of the Remonstrants.  Since I plan to discuss the full Canons of Dordt in the future, this particular discussion will center on Arminius’ work, and the direct Calvinist rebuttal, without diving into the full set of doctrines for either side.

While it would be perhaps easy to label Arminius a heretic, Luther thought it important that there be a distinction between being in error over a particular doctrine and being a heretic.  Even if, as in the case of Arminius, you follow his error to its logical conclusion, and that conclusion is a heresy, this is not the same as being a heretic.  This distinction is thought to be very important.  At the end of the discussion, I will come back to this point so as to come as close to an ecumenical position as can be made.

Having said that, the Synod of Dordt declared the Five Articles of Remonstrance heretical.  Remember first, that the Remonstrants were reacting to the Calvinist doctrines of the Belgic Confession.  Therefore, they already had the Calvinists in a foul mood by complaining.  Secondly, this is all happening in the shadow of Trent, which occurred fifty years prior to 1610, when these Articles were published.  Therefore, many of the Reformers were clearly not in the mood to give ground back to Rome on any issue.  And so, without further elaboration, let’s discuss the specifics.

Article 1

That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: “He that believes on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also.

Nice.  At first glance, this doesn’t look that bad.  But if you will remember the recent post that I made about “only” being an important word, look where that word is importantly missing from this article.  First, there are conditions applied here.  Whereas Calvin would say shall believe only, Arminius says believe and persevere in faith.  This is a dangerous precipice on which he has moved.  To persevere implies activity or work on the part of the individual.  While Calvin talks about perseverance of the saints in that Jesus will persevere in the shepherding of His flock, Arminius has turned this into individual humans persevering in their faith.  In other words, although he states that through grace we receive faith, it is by our own works that we maintain it. 

Article 2

That agreeably thereunto, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”  And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

More of the same.  We need to address the Article first and then 1 John 2:2.  Arminius specifically states that Christ died for every man.  This means that the resurrection is not sufficient for salvation for some men.  He requires a work from man.  He has turned belief and faith into a work, rather than a gift of grace received from the Holy Spirit.  Arminius actually contradicts himself from the first article.  The theological difference between Jesus having died for all men, but it wasn’t effective for some, and Jesus having died for His elect, and it was completely effective for them all, is huge.  Can you really worship a god who is ineffective in achieving his ends?  Or rather, do you believe that God accomplished exactly what He set out to accomplish?

1 John 2:2 is a huge passage.  When reading a verse that seems to say something out of step with the rest of the gospel, a good rule is to go back and put the verse back into context.  Look instead at the first paragraph of 1 John 2.  This looks a little different when you read the next four verses.  In the context of the whole letter, it is clear that there are schisms within the early church that John is addressing.  If Salvation was for everyone, much of the rest of this letter would not make any sense.  It makes far better sense that the phrase the sins of the whole world means that these Christians to whom John is writing are not the only Christians for whom the resurrection was effective.  The Christians in the whole world, both of that time and of all times, are the beneficiaries of the propitiation earned by the resurrection.  This is every much as vast and sweeping a statement in terms of numbers and future without compromising the rest of the letter or the Gospel.  Remember, any sentence removed from context is vulnerable to manipulation of its meaning.  This sentence makes perfect sense within its context in 1 John without attempting to apply meaning other than that which John intended.

Article 3

That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of an by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me ye can do nothing.”

This one is interesting.  This is the idea of prevenient grace that you may hear about.  More on this is coming in the next article.  The Romans talk about the same thing in a slightly different way.  What is meant here is that fallen man needs a push.  The grace that saves sort of cleans the slate for you, but then you are on your own for the rest of your life.  So, we need Christ to teach us what is good, but after we are born again, we know what is right.  What this does is say that the curse of Adam is lifted in terms of the condition of sin, and yet we still suffer the wage of sin at death.  It is a truly remarkable contradiction for which no explanation is offered.  The only workable solution is that perfection is required to avoid death, but not for salvation.  I’m not finding any passages that make that work.

Article 4

That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can nei­ther think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. but respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible; inas­much as it is written con­cerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost.  Acts 7 and else­where in many places.

This article that discusses prevenient grace again explicitly denies the doctrine of irresistible grace.  But that is logical to Arminius, isn’t it?  If you do not believe that Romans 3:1-20 means that man’s condition is completely hopeless without Jesus, and do believe that everyone is the beneficiary of the resurrection, then it makes sense that people have to be able to say NO to God.  This is exactly backwards from Calvin.  Calvin thinks that God sees the world as a vast graveyard, and then God stoops down and saves a lot of us.  Arminius thinks that God saves everyone, but we have the ability to turn our backs on God.  Which God sounds worthy of worship to you:  God who does exactly what He sets out to do and is completely effective doing it, or god who tries to save everyone, but many humans are able to resist and defy him?  This is a Holiness of God problem.  Surely, Arminius had a higher view of God that this.

Article 5

That those who are in­corporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well un­derstood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was deliv­ered them, of losing a good conscience, of be­coming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, be­fore we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our mind.

Clearly John 10:28 is a difficult passage for Arminius.  He tries to explain it away.  Essentially, he has to do great violence to the verse in order to make his theology fit.  A rule of thumb: theology flows out from the text; theology is not imposed upon the text.  Arminius is determined to elevate man to the level of God, with just a little hand up from God. 

This is what we are being sold in the church today.  Whenever we are asked to make a decision for God, we are being asked an Arminian question.  Calvin and Luther wouldn’t ask for altar calls because altar calls flow from either Arminian or, worse, Pelagian theology.  The style of worship is a necessary outflow from theology and doctrine.  When we change the way we worship, we are signaling a change in doctrine.  That should always get our attention.

Is Arminius a heretic?  He clearly errs.  The similarities to Pelagius are striking.  But Arminius maintains a small semblance of grace in his theology.  He at least requires Christ to wipe the slate of sin clean for us.  We are at liberty to muck it up again.  Finally, Arminius runs head long into John 10:28, by his own admission, and just tosses out the verse.  It is a difficult call, but many Calvinists would call many Arminians brothers in Christ.  That will break the tie for now.  In the end, it will not be us who decides.  We are not, after all, given the ministry of fruit inspection.

--Troll--

BioLogos on Calvinism, Part 11

Evolution and our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 11 | The BioLogos Forum

I hope this is winding down. This is going to be very difficult to summarize. I'm going to start working the problem and be prepared for the end.

--Ogre--

For Susan

One of the lines that I often use is "until I die or the Second Coming, whichever comes first." At the end of every life, there comes that moment when the phrase becomes "until the Second Coming." In recent years, there has been a lot of noise about not mourning a death, but instead, celebrating a life.  I want to mourn a death.

I only met her once.  She was 88 and very pleasant.  I'm not sure she remembered me after I walked out of the room, or knew who I was.  I met her on Easter, four days ago.  She died today.  I can't celebrate her life, because I hardly knew her in life.  I can mourn her death.

Some people cry at weddings, any wedding.  This morning, people will be awakening early to watch a wedding of people they will never meet, getting married several thousand miles away.  And they will cry.  Most people cry at funerals.  Strangely, my family seems to be exceedingly British in this regard and tries to maintain a stiff upper lip, as they say.  But we do mourn, in our own way.  Why do we cry at weddings?  Why do we mourn at funerals?

Jesus is called our bridegroom in scripture.  The wedding is used as an analogy for the relationship between Jesus and his elect.  We cry at weddings perhaps because in this analogy, we understand and appreciate the sacrifice that Jesus has made for us to be our bridegroom.  The timing of this wedding after Easter surely was not accidental.  The symbolism is unmistakable.  The bridegroom who sacrifices all for His bride moves us to tears.  At each wedding, we can see that symbolism on display as we listen to the vows.

At death, we suffer the penalty for our condition of sin.  At death, we who survive get a glimpse of the meaning of the Wrath of God.  We are separated from those we love.  And that separation has a permanance to it.  That death cannot be undone by our meager means.  At death, we have every reason to mourn.  That death awaits us, too.  That is why we might cry at any funeral.  Every funeral reminds us that all of us are Covenant members with Adam.

Easter was four days ago.  On that day, some 2000 odd years ago, something different happened.  Death was defeated.  God, whose Wrath we have so justly earned, went on a rescue mission.  We needed saving and He had to do it.  The saving had to be by God, and it needed to be by a human.  Jesus was both.  He died.  But on the third day, He rose again.  He became the firstborn from the dead.  When we talk about Jesus as the firstborn, this doesn't mean that He was in existance before Adam, but after the Father.  It means that of all humans, He was the firstborn from the dead.  He had to be both fully God and fully human to pull off that deed.  But, it is done.

Now, the rest of the humans still die.  We still die because we are all still in the Covenant of Adam.  We are still under the curse.  We will remain under the curse until we die or the Second Coming of Jesus, whichever comes first.  We, the elect, will still die.  For one person who died today, it is now until the Second Coming.  I will mourn her death.  But I will await His Coming in Glory.  In That Death and Firstborn, there is a life worth celebrating.  We will inherit that life on the Last Day, or when we die, whichever comes first.

--Ogre--

Heidelberg Catechism: Introductions

I have decided to go through this classic reformed document next.  Many reformed churches refer to it and use it.  The document dates back to 1563.  It was the result of a feud between Lutherans and Calvinists in the region around Heidelberg.  Frederick III took sides with the Calvinists and authorized this catechism and statement of faith.  The organization is into three large parts; the largest is the second part, concerning the trinity and most of the key doctrines.  I will be going through these parts very slowly.  The proof texts are included in the original document, but in the interest of space, I'm going to link to them.  The document can be found in its entirety at this link.  Scroll down about half way and click on Heidelberg.

Question 1. What is thy only comfort in life and death?

Answer: That I with body and soul, both in life and death, (Romans 14:7-8) am not my own, (1 Corinthians 6:19) but belong unto my faithful Savior Jesus Christ; (1 Corinthians 3:23, Titus 2:14) who, with his precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins, (1 Peter 1:18-19, 1 John 1:7, 2:2,12) and delivered me from all the power of the devil; (Hebrews 2:14, 1 John 3:8, John 8:34-36) and so preserves me (John 6:39, 10:28, 2 Thessalonians 3:3, 1 Peter 1:5) that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; (Matthew 10:29-31, Luke 21:18) yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, (Romans 8:29) and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, (2 Corinthians 1:20-22, 5:5, Ephesians 1:13-14, Romans 8:16) and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him. (Romans 8:14, 1 John 3:3)

In this group, we see the authors starting from a summary position.  We get that we are now slaves to His will, because He has purchased our souls with His blood, paying for our bill of sin.  In return, we can be certain of our eternal inheritance of life with God.

Question 2. How many things are necessary for thee to know, that thou, enjoying this comfort, may live and die happily?

Answer: Three; (Matthew 11:28-30, Luke 24:46-48, 1 Corinthians 6:11, Titus 3:3-7) the first, how great my sins and miseries are; (John 9:41, 15:22) the second, how I may be delivered from all my sins and miseries; (John 17:3, Acts 4:12, 10:43) the third, how I shall express my gratitude to God for such deliverance. (Ephesians 5:8-11, 1 Peter 2:9-10, Romans 6:1-2, 12-13)

In this group, we see the problem, the solution and the response.  This is really quite simple.  First, we have to recognize the depth of our sin and the miserable spot it leaves us.  Second, we have to know the way out of the problem, our deliverance.  Third, we need to know how to express our gratitude to God for solving the problem for us.  Great stuff.  These are the three major parts of the catechism.  The second part is subdivided into Trinitarian sections and Sacraments.  All the sections are divided into subsections numbered by "Lord's Day." Each post, then, will be one or more Lord's Days.  Any conversation that is generated may cause edits to the main post.

This concludes the introduction.  In the next post, we will explore a few Lord's Days of the first major section: Of the Misery of Man. 

--Troll--

It’s the Only way….

Let’s start with the obvious verse: John 14:6. Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Jesus says that He is the Only way.  But we are going to be talking about more than just One Only; we have five more only’s to discuss.

Everyone who calls himself a Christian believes that salvation comes by grace, through faith, in Jesus, to the glory of God as recorded in scripture.  But let’s pump up the claim.  Let’s make it big.  Let’s make it loud.  Let’s make it “only.”

Salvation comes by Grace alone, through Faith alone, in Jesus alone, to the Glory of God alone as recorded in Scripture alone.  Now, we have something to talk about.  Now, we’ve gone and upset the apple cart.  Now, people are going to scratch their heads and wave us off.  What’s all this alone business?

Grace alone.  Sola Gratia.  This means that salvation, justification and sanctification, are by the action of the triune God alone.  We have nothing to offer to the equation.  We are fallen creatures who have no ability to operate in the vertical direction towards God.  We contribute nothing to our salvation.  What do we have to offer anyway?  Every part of us, every aspect of our natures, every thought, word and deed that originates with us is tainted by sin.  Therefore, all of our contributions are unworthy of God.  We cannot satisfy the perfection required by God.  Our condition of sin, inherited from the federal headship of Adam, prevents any offering from being sufficient to contribute to our salvation.  That leaves Grace.  Fortunately, God’s Grace is sufficient, even for us.  Grace alone.

Faith alone.  Sola Fide.  We receive this grace by faith.  Faith alone.  Receiving only.  We do not seek.  No one seeks God.  No, not even one.  God finds His own.  God gives us the gift of faith.  We receive this faith and believe.  There are no actions that can add anything to this faith.  As we stated above, what could we do that would have any value in God’s eyes?  Nothing.  And so it is faith alone.

In Jesus alone.  Sola Christus.  Faith must have an object.  In Grace alone, we learned that faith has a subject, and it is Jesus.  But there must also be an object.  The object is also Jesus.  Jesus does it all.  What do we contribute?  Nothing.  What can we contribute?  Nothing.  Jesus does all of the work.  His resurrection is sufficient.  His resurrection propitiaties, atones, expiates, justifies, reconciles, sanctifies, saves.  Jesus alone.

To the Glory of God alone.  Sola Deo Gloria.  If we think we can help out with this, then we are trying to steal God’s Glory.  We are attempting to place ourselves on His level.  We are idolatrous of ourselves, our egos.  Of course, this isn’t possible.  It was always about God.  The Glory of God.  The perfect sacrifice to appease the Wrath of God and reconcile His people to Himself is made by Himself to the Glory of Himself.  To the Glory of God alone.

Scripture alone.  Sola Scriptura.  There is no second book.  There is no 29^th chapter of Acts.  There is no continuation of prophesy.  There is no magisterium.  There is no modern day prophet who speaks of things other than Jesus.  The prophets in the Old Testament pointed to Jesus.  Jesus points to Himself.  Revelations and the other Eschatological passages of the New Testament point to the Second Coming of Jesus.  It all points to Jesus.  We have it all already.  It’s called Scripture.  It is our most precious possession.  It is our guide.  It is our teacher.  It is the Word.  It testifies to the Word made flesh.  It is Scripture.  Scripture alone.

Jesus said He is the Way.  The Way to what?  Salvation.  Salvation from What?  The Wrath of God.  Why do we need Salvation?  Because we are born in the condition of sin and doomed to die and to suffer eternal separation from God, and we are powerless to change this.  How do we get saved?  By Grace alone, through Faith alone, in Jesus alone, to the Glory of God alone, as testified in Scripture alone.

Those are the five Solas or Only’s of the Reformation.  Those are the words that make us heretics in the eyes of Rome, since the Council of Trent.  Those are the words that most clearly articulate the message of the Bible.  And the key word is Only or Alone.

Unwarranted confidence in human ability is a product of fallen human nature ... God's grace in Christ is not merely necessary but is the sole efficient cause of salvation. We confess that human beings are born spiritually dead and are incapable even of cooperating with regenerating grace. We reaffirm that in salvation we are rescued from God's wrath by his grace alone. It is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit that brings us to Christ by releasing us from our bondage to sin and raising us from spiritual death to spiritual life. We deny that salvation is in any sense a human work. Human methods, techniques or strategies by themselves cannot accomplish this transformation. Faith is not produced by our unregenerated human nature. - Cambridge Declaration 

For more on this topic, try this link.

By the way, why are the solas in Latin?  So, Rome could read it and be indicted by the truth!

--Troll--

Horton on the truth of the resurrection

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Pet. 3:15)

It seems my version is slightly different, but the meaning is the same.  Here is an article from Mike Horton that appears in Modern Reformation.  It concerns the topic that we have been discussing and cites many of the same sources.

--Ogre--

Greek New Testament Documents

Last week in Men's Bible Study, I was called out for making a statement without sufficiently delineating the limits of the claim.  If you understand that the format of Bible study does not allow me the ability to drone on for minutes, perhaps I can be forgiven.  Let me review the argument and the claim.  Then, I will try to clarify the ambiguity that arose and provide the background that both supports the original claim and was omitted in the original discussion.

The discussion was concerning the authority of scripture.  The issue that was raised was concerning the believability of scripture, particularly in terms of particular New Testament claims.  I responded that the Greek New Testament documents are one of the most historically strong documents by the standards by which academicians evaluate other historical documents or even literature.  In addition, I asserted that secular sources corroborate parts of the New Testament, validating its historical authenticity.  The particular assertion had begun with a reading of 1 Corinthians 15:1-19.  This is Paul's appeal to the historical truth of the resurrection based upon the eye witness accounts of people who, then, were still alive.  The connection was made by the observer between the Pauline quote and the secular corroboration, a connection that was not made by me specifically, but neither was it specifically denied by me.  This was admittedly sloppy scholarship.  This post is an effort to clean up the mess for those interested parties.  There is much to say on this topic, but primarily, I wanted to provide a sort of bibliography or stepping stones to further inquiry. 

Every Easter, A & E, the History Channel, Discovery Channel, even National Geographic Channel, roll out their specials on the life of Jesus with their “respected scholars” telling us the party line.  Make no mistake, there is a cottage industry built on creating doubt in fragile Christians and reaffirming the atheist certainty of the secular world.  The Jesus Seminar is one of the main offenders, and John Dominic Crossan, its founder, is one of the worst offenders.  He seems to appear on all of the shows and speaks with the sound of authority, and his Irish accent, convincing all that Jesus is not a historical person.

Unfortunately, Paul doesn’t agree with him.  Here is the text to 1 Corinthians 15:1-19.  Please understand that I do not mean to prove that any secular sources would confirm the resurrection.  Why would they do that?  What they do instead is confirm particular events in the New Testament, most often from Acts, and attempt to justify these events in the light in which they would prefer them to be seen.

Who were the interested dissenting parties?  First, there were the Jews, particularly the Jewish Sanhedrin and other Jewish leaders.  Their interest was in ending the assumed apostasy of the Christian sect, to prevent the believed subversion of more of their people.  Plus, they had a vested stake in being right; after all, they were instrumental in the death of Jesus.  Second, there were the Romans.  They just wanted peace and taxes.  The trouble was that the Christians and the Jews were such a volatile mix that peace was becoming more difficult to come by.

And so we have these witnesses.  The one that everyone knows about is Flavius Josephus, a historian who twice mentions Jesus in his writings.  It has been widely believed that his documents have either been altered in later years by Christians, or that they are complete forgeries.  It is interesting that other parties will lend credibility to Josephus in any area other than this one area.  An Arabic translation of Josephus was found by a Jewish scholar, Schlomo Pines, in 1972.  The unaltered text of that discovery is translated in this way.

At this time, there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous.  Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples.  Pilot condemned him to be crucified and to die, but those who would become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship.  They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive.  Accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah, concerning whom the prophets had reported wonders.  And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.

Frederick G. Kenyon was a respected Biblical scholar with the British National Museum at the early part of the twentieth century.  Here is an online copy of one of his pertinent manuscripts.  His conclusion is that the New Testament documents, as we move forward in archeology and research, become increasingly more validated, and the gap between the death of Christ and the earliest records has become so small that there is insufficient time to insert the creation of legend into the record.  By the way, the mechanical sound of the audio version of the book in the above citation is difficult to follow, but it does make for an interesting listen if you rather.  I have not read even a fraction of this text as of now, but it was referenced in the bibliography of my source material and I have tracked it down for you.

The Babylonian Talmud gives a great description of the events of Holy Week. 

He shall be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.  On the eve of the Passover, this Jeshua was hanged.  For 40 days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried “He shall be stoned because he practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.” Anyone who can say anything in his favor come forth and plead on his behalf.  But because nothing was brought forth in his behalf, he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.

Ulla retorted, “Do you suppose he was one for whom a defense could have been made?  Was he not a mesith?” [enticer or heretic]

Notice that the appeal is not to deny the miracles attributed to Jesus, but rather to account for them as sorcery.

Gary Habermas is another author who has written on the subject of Knowledge of Jesus outside the Gospels.  Here are some excerpts from his book.  This is an incredible source and worth wading through if you have interest in this topic.  A Lutheran source of good scholarship on the subject comes from Paul L. Maier of the Department of Ancient History, University of Western Michigan, Kalamazoo.  Here is an article he wrote for Issues, etc. 

The intent of this post was not to prove the validity of the New Testament documents.  It was, instead, an attempt to show that scholarship is moving closer to confirming larger portions of the Biblical record, not disproving it.  The resurrection remains the key historical point.  That is not ever going to be upheld by hostile witnesses.  The point is to prove the veracity of the rest of the New Testament so that we can intellectually settle on the authority of Scripture, faith based on public historical events, not blind faith in a warm feeling or events that happened in a closet.

--Ogre--

BioLogos on Calvinism, Part 10

Evolution and our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 10 | The BioLogos Forum

The promise exists now for at least two more posts. I'm going to work on a summary of where they have gone so far with commentary. I plan to share this on their site, so this should be interesting.

--Ogre--

BioLogos on Calvinism: Part 9

Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 9 | The BioLogos Forum

It is actually quite interesting where these arguments are going. It is too bad that framework isn't in his view as a possibility. As usual, there will be more.

--Ogre--

Arminianism vs. Calvinism: The debate part one

One of the more difficult parts about writing this sort of blog is that my readership is from a variety of backgrounds.  While some can quote chapter and verse from the Bible, others can discuss the nuances of theology.  All have some combination of the two that ranges from weak in both to strong in both.  Therefore, while some posts are necessarily redundant for some, the same post can fly over heads of others.  This is a difficult balancing act, and I beg for your indulgence as I launch into this topic.

Jacobus Arminius lived at the end of the theological century, the sixteenth century.  He was a Dutch theologian who challenged some of the positions of the Reformation, particular those enumerated in the Belgic Confession, a document that I will likely review over the summer unless I do Luther or Heidelberg first.  In any case, the Canons of Dordt contained the five points of Calvinism which were drafted to deal with Arminius’ theology and controversy.  Arminius had written the Five Articles of the Remonstrants, published after his death, to which the Dordt Synod was responding.    

Therefore, it is historically accurate to state that these are theologically opposed perspectives. In other posts, I have highlighted and explained the five points of Calvinism.  They are found under the Building Blocks tab on the right, or by clicking on March, for they were all done in the last ten days of March.  But for this particular post, I have some of the typical questions that are asked about Calvinism.  They are a useful framework for this debate.  Therefore, I’ll give the stock answers from the point of view of Calvinism. 

Since God made man in His image, called his creation "Good", and gave us dignity, is Calvin's Total Depravity literal ?   Perhaps “Total Inability” is a more apt expression. 

This seems like the best place to begin.  In the Building blocks section, I have written a more lengthy discussion on Total Depravity, but let us try just this.  Paul believes that the Law is meant to convict us, to show us what is expected of us, and then to demonstrate that we fell completely short of the mark on every count.  Total depravity does not mean that everyone is equally evil.  This does not mean that the reprobate are incapable of civic righteousness.  Oprah Winfrey does wonderful things for many people, but few, only the most liberal, would confuse her with being a Christian.  Total Inability, although certainly true in the sense of what is intended in terms of works righteousness, also fails to make this distinction.  This is a Two Kingdom issue.  While we may do good deeds and help many people, our motives are tainted by the condition of sin.  Therefore, these deeds fail utterly in satisfying the just wrath of God.  This is about the extreme Holiness of God.  We must be perfect to satisfy the Law.  Anything short of perfection is failure in the eyes of God.  This is why we need a Savior. 

Is there a connection between Calvinism and Determinism  -- the idea that what you do is determined by external things like environment & genes, but not by your free will so that you are not really responsible or accountable?

Responsibility and accountability is exactly the problem.  The idea that God is offended by sin, such that God condemns all sin with the death penalty, is often lost in this debate.  Original sin is the idea that all aspects of humanity are tainted by that original sin.  Unless you understand this concept, the rest will not make any sense.  It is pointless to argue about free will without an understanding of Original sin.  Free will is tainted by sin.  We are able to choose on the horizontal plain of man in this world to do what we like, but all of those decisions, in fact all of the observations and conclusions that we make that form the basis of those decisions, are tainted by sin.  Therefore, we are unable to make a decision in the vertical direction of God, a direction that requires perfection.  That is why it is necessary for God to condescend to us.  He must come down to us to save us.  He gave us the Law to try to make us understand this.  He became incarnate to accomplish this. 

What about people around us who are predestined to be excluded from the "elect" and whose souls are condemned to eternal apartheid ?    Why would God bring a soul into this world inherently condemned to eternal damnation with no ability or possibility to believe in Christ? 

Predestination is very often the stumbling block for this debate.  The concept of election is foreign to many, particularly Americans.  Americans have a particular “can do” arrogance about us.  Many think that Franklin’s quip that God helps those who help themselves is actually Biblical.  Obviously, this is not the case.  We must imagine this problem, not from our own perspective, but from the perspective of God.  God looks upon humanity and sees an ocean of lost souls, completely corrupted by sin.  In His goodness and mercy, God sets about the greatest rescue mission in history.  He will save more souls than can be counted.  He will select those whom He will save and leave the rest.  Therefore, from His perspective, we earn eternal damnation by our own doing, but we receive Salvation by His Grace.  As to why not save everyone?  Who can speak for God?  Some things remain hidden from us.

Calvin seems stern & grim.  He emphasized that Christ took on the penalty of sin.  But redemption also makes us Sons of God, like jewels in which God delights, like a spouse.  We're more than ex-cons pardoned from prison;  The Bible tells us God paid double: Christ took on our sins and He imputed His spotless record on to us.

We are Christ’s elect to be sure.  He will not lose one of us whom He has claimed as His own.  That is what is called the perseverance of the saints.  But we are nothing without Him.  We are doomed without the Righteousness given us by Jesus in His vicarious atonement, with the imputations to which you refer.  There were three great imputations.  Adam's sin is imputed to man.  The sin of Man, elect, is imputed to Jesus.  Jesus' righteousness is imputed to the elect, so that we may stand in judgment on the Last Day, confident in the not guilty verdict.  I do not understand how this message is stern and grim.  This is the Gospel message, and it is the greatest news we can ever hear.  Calvin explains to us that regardless of our imperfection, God has reconciled us to Him.  Propitiation and imputation are not excluded by Calvin; they are embraced by Calvin as the essential components of justification.  That is the Gospel, according to Paul.

We will explore this more as needed.  I'll post specifically on Arminius this week.

--Troll--

Beyond Gethsemane Rebuttal

It has become the practice of my family to view Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ annually on Good Friday.  This movie is nothing more and nothing less than a dramatization of the Stations of the Cross, one of the older versions of those stations.  Mel is a Roman Catholic and criticism of his behavior and comments might be best viewed in that context.  Regardless of how you feel about some of the artistic liberties he took with the film, the graphic portrayal of the violence of Christ’s torture and death have an all too realistic feel to them.  The guttural reaction to this film, particularly the lashings, is akin to the reaction of the first twenty minutes of Saving Private Ryan.  And that is the point that Mel intends to make.  Meditation on the brutality of His death and the depth of His human suffering places the context of His life and resurrection into a different light.  In addition, it gives the viewer a very limited, but very powerful, view of the wrath of God.

It is the Wrath of God that is at issue this week.  The Wrath of God, says Brent McGuire, is what Jesus truly fears, not human suffering and death.  This is an interesting and helpful theological point.  The Cup of the Lord’s Wrath is what Jesus is holding, fearing to drink.   Who better to know the depth of that Wrath than One who is of one substance, of one being, with the Father?  In Jesus Christ, we have One man who truly understands into what trouble He is getting.

McGuire leads us through Psalms 69 and tells us about the prophetic need for One to come who can redeem humanity.  God wants to save humanity from its fall.  God understands His own justice and what will be required.  That is why Jesus condescended to become Man.  His vicarious death on the cross means nothing without His vicarious and sinless life before it.  We are meant to know not only that He died, but why He died, and specifically what He believed about His impending death.  It is His humanity that fears not death but His Wholly divine Wrath.  He understands exactly what is at stake.  Do we?

The Holiness of God is profoundly offended by Sin.  This places humanity in a death sentence.  Only God can provide a sacrifice sufficient to Propitiate on our behalf.  The expiation of sin is only half of the formula.  There must be reconciliation as well or it was a complete waste of time.  The vicarious nature of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection is recorded for our remembrance.  But the motives and emotions of God are recorded as well.

I commended Brian McGuire’s piece to you because he points out that the Wrath of God was propitiated for us on Good Friday.  And the New Covenant with its New Cup of Salvation was introduced on Maundy Thursday and realized and begun on Easter.  These are all parts of the historical record of our Salvation, of our justification, of our propitiation with God, of our God condescending to us to save some of us for Himself.  That was a heavy burden on the Humanity of Jesus.

I will watch Mel’s movie again tomorrow.  But I will probably pause the movie after the opening station to discuss this topic.  McGuire is correct in this.  What is the point of understanding the depth of Christ’s human suffering if you have no comprehension of His motives and exactly what was at stake.

--Troll--

A Physician's Journey to Faith: Part 3, the rational

In part one, I told the background to my story.  In part two, I introduced the frame upon which I built my faith.  In this post, I will discuss each of the individual pieces and how they fit together.

As physicians, we are trained to think critically.  We are trained to read journals with an eye to bias and error.  We have a scientific method that demands reproducibility and testability of hypotheses.  The rest of academia has the eighteenth century German philosophers and the nineteenth century Second Great Awakening that has influenced critical thinking to the present day.  Modernity and Post Modernism are the offspring of this thinking and these paradigms have infiltrated Christian theology as well.  John Wesley and Charles Finney have done great harm to the Reformation ideas that are our Protestant heritage.  We must never give into the idea of Kierkegaard that religion is in the realm of the irrational, while science is in the realm of the rational.

1 Corinthians 15 is a vital Pauline text for this discussion.  In this chapter, Paul lays out the historical facts upon which our faith is based.  He goes so far as to say that if these facts can be proved false, then Christianity crumbles like a house of cards.  Uniquely, our faith is not just an endorphin driven religion of experience.  Our faith is based upon historical events that happened external to us, and regardless of how we feel about them.  Our reaction to these facts are independent of the facts themselves.  This is what is at the core of the uniqueness of Christianity.

At the end of the last post, I gave a list of terms:  Covenant theology, Calvinism, Amillennialism, the Five Solas of the Reformation and Framework theory.  Let's look at each of these and see what they are and how they influence our thinking.  Remember, this is always going to be about thinking.  As R.C. Sproul points out, Romans 12:2 is good mantra for all Christians, but particularly for us scientists.

Covenant theology is a system of looking at the Bible as a series of Covenants.  There are eternal Covenants that you might read about and there are specific Historical Biblical Covenants.  We are talking more about the latter group.  Hermeneutics is the study of interpretation.  It is the application of rules or presuppositions to a text to assist in interpretation.  The basic hermeneutic of Covenant theology is that the whole Bible is about Jesus and the redemptive history of God from Genesis to Revelations.  This may sound obvious, but we must review what we think about the Old Testament in this light.  This is essentially what it is thought that Paul was doing in his three year sabbatical.  After applying this basic hermeneutic, we can then evaluate the various covenants of the Bible.  The most important Covenants are the Adamic Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant of Grace through Jesus.  An excellent reference for this topic is Michael Horton's Introducing Covenant Theology.

Calvinism has evolved beyond the writings of Calvin to a more complete system.  Often you will read about five point Calvinism.  The acronym TULIP is used as a mnemonic to assist in recall.  I have recently written about this and I will link to those posts as I list the five points.  T is for Total Depravity, which is original sin.  U is for Unconditional election, which means that it is all about God and not about us.  This is where the discussion of predestination comes into play.  L is for Limited Atonement, which is the idea that while the resurrection was sufficient for the whole world, it was actually efficacious only for Christ's elect.  I is for Irresistible Grace, which means that you can run, but you can't hide.  Christ, through the Holy Spirit, will succeed in gathering in the elect to Himself.  P is for the Perseverance of the Saints, which means that you cannot loose your salvation if you were truly justified by faith.  This whole system is about justification and sanctification.

Amillennialism is actually the second oldest view of redemptive history.  The most common view held in the US is still Dispensationism, which is a type of Premillennialism.  Amillennialism is closely related to Two Kingdom distinctions that you will often read on my blog.  In this system, there is no rapture and no Christianization of culture required prior to the Second Coming.  Good references on this topic are these two books from Kim Riddlebarger: A Case for Amillennialism and The Man of Sin.

The Five Solas of the Reformation are a statement about justification that are in direct opposition to positions held by Rome.  In addition, each of these solas is specifically rejected by Rome at the Council of Trent.  Therefore, these are the issues that make us Protestants.  We should not discard them lightly.  The full formula of justification using the five solas looks like this.  We are justified by Grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ Alone, to the Glory of God Alone as testified in Scripture Alone.  They are usually written in Latin, ironically enough.  I have written on these intermingled with other topics, but I will likely go through them in more detail in the near future.

Framework theory is a view of Genesis 1-2 that treats this section of that book as a separate type of literary genre called creation genre.  The basic idea is that Genesis is not a science book, but an explanation or laying out of the order of the Two Kingdoms.  Meredith Klein has written an excellent piece on this that I have sited by a separate post in the past and I will do so again here.  What he calls the two registers is what I will call the Two Kingdoms.  The Framework model is a newer name for this discussion and does not appear in this article.  This discussion actually dates back to Augustine, but has been supplanted in the US by Genesis literalists as the predominant viewpoint.  Framework allows scientists to be scientists and Christians to be Christians and me to be both.  This was the great final piece that made it all fit together for me.

In summary, hold fast to logic and reason.  Christians do not need to retreat to the irrational realm with other religions.  We alone among the religions of the world base our faith upon historical, public events, particularly those that we remember this week.  Application of systematic theology is essential for a scientific mind to be convinced of the truth of scripture.  I believe the set of structured thought that I have outlined above represents a great starting point for having an understanding of scripture that leads to true faith.  Many Protestant denominations have supported most of these tenets, including the Anglican Church.  I hope that by following this line of thought, you will have the opportunity to have a revitalization of your faith in the same manner that I have.

Maranatha!

--Ogre--

BioLogos on Calvinism, Part 8

Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 8 | The BioLogos Forum

In the never ending post, we have the promise of another part. I'm going to ask him how long this will be.

--Ogre--

A Physician's Journey to Faith: Part 2, the frame

In the first part, I tried to lay the background of my journey on the table.  In this section, I going to reveal the framework that I needed to start putting the pieces together.  The last post ended with the word dispensationalism.  This post will begin with the word eschatology.

Eschatology is the study of the redemptive history of God from Genesis to Revelations.  Most people think that eschatology is all about end times, if they know the word at all.  But like any story, you can't have an end without having a beginning and a middle.  Dispensationalism was the Eschatological system espoused by John MacArthur.  It has a lot of momentum in the church, particularly from Tim LaHaye and his Left Behind series.  But it asks a lot of a scientist, too much.  I knew I didn't like it, but I didn't know why.  I heard Tim LaHaye speak about three years ago and I was struck about how defensive he was toward his positions on eschatology.  He was talking to a roomful of his fans, and yet he was busy defending his view from an unseen detractor.  I needed to know who this unseen antagonist was, and what was he saying that so upset LaHaye.

It was OK that I was upset by the Gospel.  I had already learned that the Gospel was offensive to man, external to him.  But I was really surprised to see Tim LaHaye so spooked by some unmentioned theologians.  My answers came from out in left field.  I don't believe in karma or fortune.  But I do believe that the Holy Spirit works to reveal the gospel to the elect.  My son graduated from high school two years ago.  His godfather, who he had not seen maybe ever, sent him a graduation gift.  The gift was a study bible and the recommendation of a radio program in Austin, where my son was to matriculate in the fall.  As any good parent, I decided I needed to know what was recommended to my child.  I found the website that was affiliated with the show and looked into it.  There were a series of podcasts for first time visitors.  I listened.

It is an amazing thing when the pieces start to fall into place.  I learned how the Calvinism framework worked.  I learned about a new (to me) eschatology system called Amillennialism and how it dovetailed with a systematic theology called Covenant Theology.  I now had to reread everything.  Everything had to be redigested in this new context.  I had found new teachers.

The moment of revelation where you know that you have found guys who have the information that you want is tremendous.  The URL for that website is the top link on the right when I'm not under the bridge.  I have been learning at a rapid pace since.  But there was still the question of Genesis.  I was OK with Genesis 3 and 15, but the rest of the book was still problematic.  I decided to go listen to a couple of the guys on the White Horse Inn speak.  I was listening to Mike Horton talk about his 2009 book.  I decided to ask him about Genesis 1 and 2.  I don't even remember how I made the question relevant to the discussion.  He taught me another term: Framework theory.

Now my personal theological framework was complete.  I had Covenant Theology, Calvinism, Amillennialism, the Five Solas of the Reformation and now framework theory.  In the final post of this series, I'll lay out these terms and talk about their interconnection.

--Ogre--

A Physician's Journey to Faith: Part 1, the issues

One of the very real issues that faces scientists of all stripes is the notion that Christianity is necessarily contrary to modern science.  The lay press is full of examples of this.  Al Mohler and others seem to be taking these battles personally, and I am grateful for their efforts for the integrity of scripture.  What follows in this brief series is the story of my own personal reconciliation of these two seemingly divergent positions.  Shelve your sneers, dear long time reader, as I tell my story.  I will stay out of those types of stories that so irritate me.

If you read my blog, you will know that I am currently following the progress on BioLogos of a discussion of Genesis 1-2 in terms of Calvinism.  The discussion is long and convoluted, but quite interesting.  I hopefully will be able to start my rebuttal soon, when their series comes to a close.  But that is jumping to the end.  The beginning is my departure from the Episcopal church over Gene Robinson.

I am currently not proud of the reasons for which I left the Episcopal Church USA.  I believe today that the issues are of second order.  The first order issues came later, but in the beginning, there was my reading of Paul that was colored by my modern American Evangelical influences.  What happened next is important for me, but perhaps not a description of your own path.  I went to a different church.

I never felt comfortable in the style and practice of "worship" in a Pentecostal church, and the style of topical preaching always seemed skewed.  I thought that it was interesting that a group of people who sneered at Episcopalian knowledge of the Bible received almost no actual Biblical preaching.  Lists for moral or ethical improvement filled our "messages" with proof texting being the technique for grounding the messages in scripture.  The ability to quote verses by the laity was staggering.  But the ability to discuss theology was staggeringly absent.

I became aware of two truths that would need to be addressed if I were to get any clarity in this arena.  The first truth is that I knew this was important.  My understanding of this truth I would frame differently today, but at that time, I knew that I needed answers to reconcile my scientific vocation with my spritual journey.  The second truth is that the stereotype of Biblical illiteracy was true.  But it was also more true in the rest of the Christian world than they were willing to admit.  Therefore, I was at a loss for how to go about the task of filling this void.

The Bible is a daunting task.  Reading it straight through is rough work, even for a motivated man.  I felt that if I could find some guidance or framework for inquiry, I would end up reading the whole thing eventually.  I put my first toe into the blogosphere...and then I fell into it.  There is much to learn and much to read.  At the end of all of this, my best advice is use the links on a site.  If you don't like where they go, you probably won't like where they start.  Those sorts of dead ends are many, but it is surprisingly easy to get a good start.

The key words that first struck me were arguments between Calvinists and Arminians.  I had heard of John Calvin, but I had no idea why an ethnic church would be his theological opponent.  I had not heard of Jacobus Arminius at that point.  Pelagius and Arius were yet to be discovered.  The Council of Trent was unknown.  And so I started reading about John Calvin.

It is a strange thing to think you have an idea about what something is or isn't and then discover that you didn't even know the issues.  As I started to read about Calvinism, I discovered my first set of good teachers.  The Pyromaniacs blog was my first home.  I learned a lot from Phil, Dan and Frank.  I bought and read books by their mentor, John MacArthur.  And then I learned my next critical word: dispensationalism.

Next post: The Path to Covenant Theology

--Ogre--