Dealing with the Skeptic: WHI audios

As many of you know, I listen to the WHI weekly on their webcast.  These last two weeks have been absolutely brilliant for a particular audience.  If you have reasons to be a skeptic, particularly a scientific world view, these two programs are outstanding.  The first program is an interview by Mike Horton of Michael Shermer.  The second program is an evaluation of the interview by Greg Koukl in a conversation with Mike Horton.

I have recommended Greg Koukl's book Tactics in the past, and this is a great opportunity to do this again.  Greg's skill as an apologist are the best that I have heard.  His formula for addressing objections is simple, effective and reproducible, all wonderful attributes of a good scientific paradigm, by the way.

The target audience for these two programs is any person who believes that science is at odds with Biblical truth.  Mike and Greg demonstrate how the two should be used together, and how to prevent the diabolical dialogue of discrediting the Creator with His creation.  Click on the Program Audio button to listen.

WHI-1050 | An Interview with Skeptic Michael Shermer - White Horse Inn Blog

WHI-1051 | The Implications of Skepticism - White Horse Inn Blog

There are a couple of assumptions that you will have to have to understand this better.  First, the base theology of Mike and Greg concerning creation is called Framework, and I've posted a lengthy article on this in the past by Meredith Klein.  Second, these guys are Covenant Theology proponents, and Calvinists.  The fact that all of this works together so well is why it so appealing to me.  There are so many tangent discussions that come from this that we can talk for months.

Please, if you are a regular reader of this blog, take the hour or so to listen to both of these podcasts.  It is well worth the time.

--Troll--

Biblical Foreign Policy? - White Horse Inn Blog

Biblical Foreign Policy? - White Horse Inn Blog

Michael Horton talks about Obama, Israel and Jack Hayford. For those of you who don't know, Hayford is from California, like Horton, and is also the mentor of the pastor at the church that my family has been attending in our break from mainline Protestantism. In this week that has so spotlighted dispensational eschatology, this again brings home the point, it is really Biblical?

--Troll--

A whale of a task for Nehemiah

After another stirring week of lumberjacking, we head back to altitude.  The great opposition to the building of the wall is the topic for Nehemiah 4.  We discussed the importance of the wall, the leadership skills of Nehemiah, the implications of failure both for Israel and Nehemiah, and the reaction of the surrounding countries.  This was a lot of tactical discussion, tree top stuff to be sure.  What is happening in the whole forest?

Curses and Jealousy

I would like to focus on verses 4-5 for a moment.  It is interesting to me that Nehemiah is asking for the sort of divine intervention that Israel received in the initial taking of Jerusalem.  He is asking for curses as if these others were on the wrong side of the Sinai Covenant.  He is asking that these other nations receive the same fate as Israel received for breaking the Sinai Covenant.  But he goes farther than this.  Verse 5 is truly amazing.  Nehemiah is using a different type of imagery here.  This is the language of the sacrifice of atonement.

Nehemiah assumes that God is angry at the interference with the wall building.  We are not given any evidence of this.  The Wrath of God, in Old Testament terms, is usually a bit more stern than merely staying the hand of an enemy.  Notice the language of the first half of verse 5.  Do not cover up their sins from your sight, he says.  The implications are startling.  Nehemiah is dealing with these enemies in the context of the way that Israel deals with God.  He asks of God, do not offer the same covering up of sin that You offer to Israel.  Is Nehemiah suggesting that non-Jews have access to the Covenant relationship at Sinai?

Of course this is ridiculous.  Moses was dealing with not only a people, but a theocracy, a government and a nation.  Israel was the specific nation of the Sinai Covenant.  And yet, let’s look at Jonah for a moment.  While this book is very short, it is also very dense and Jesus Himself refers to the sign of Jonah; therefore, I don’t want to dwell on all that is here.  Let us focus on the topic of an enemy that repents and God shows mercy.  Jonah is obedient and does what God instructs for him to do, and yet when God shows mercy, Jonah is none too pleased.  Jonah wants the curse and God shows mercy.  Nehemiah wants the curse, and yet God merely stays the hand of the enemy.  Jonah, one of the twelve minor prophets, is dated 200 years prior to Nehemiah.  It is very likely that Nehemiah was familiar with the story of Jonah.  He asks God not to overlook the sin of his enemies and deliver upon them curses instead.

At this point in my scholarship, it would be premature to say how many times that the prophets hint that the Redemptive plan of Christ is greater than just genetic, ethnic or political Israel.  It should suffice to say that these two instances are not isolated.  Jeremiah and Isaiah in particular hint at such a broadening of the Redemptive plan and it can be argued that other prophets do as well.  Clearly, both Peter and Paul believe this to be the case as their sermons are always grounded in the Old Testament prophets.  Paul certainly believes that the inclusion of the Gentiles has value in creating jealousy within the ethnic entity of Israel.  This jealousy is revealed in Jonah and now we see it in Nehemiah.

Back at 20,000 feet

Remember that there is a purpose to the rebuilding of Jerusalem.  Israel may believe that it is all about them, but God does not see it this way.  God says that it is all about Him.  Without the example of the Law as played out by the Pharisees, with which foil can Jesus teach about the purposes of the Law?  Without the foil of the Sanhedrin, how can Jesus teach about the difference between Law and Gospel?  Jerusalem is the stage for the great drama.  That stage must be rebuilt, but God’s purpose for that stage is far different than the expectation of Israel.

But then, the Gospel is always unexpected.  The Gospel is external to us.  The Gospel cannot be known by natural man by natural revelation.  The Gospel is special revelation and requires that it be told to us.  The Gospel is News, not experience.  The Gospel is the indicative on which the imperative is based.

We see from Nehemiah and the behavior of his brethren that they are having a crisis of faith.  Nehemiah and Ezra seek to rebuild the old ways.  The people believe that God has forsaken them.  These are a broken people that Nehemiah exhorts to action.  At the end of this, keep in mind what will happen to the Second Temple as well.  God’s purpose is to point back to Jesus and our absolute need for Him.  Perhaps, Nehemiah suspects this, just a little, as he calls upon God not to show mercy on the enemies of Israel.

--Troll--

Heidelberg Catechism: The Second Part--Righteousness

While this may not look like much, this section is the meat of Christianity.  The passages in this section are extremely dense.  While you may not have followed all of the links in the past, and the whole Catechism should be read with an open Bible as the verses are given as a part of the catechism, this is a section that is all the more vital in that regard.  Justification is the declaration that we are righteous before God through Jesus Christ by virtue of our faith in Him, alone and apart from works.  The catechism gives you the doctrine, but the verses demonstrate beyond any doubt that the text yields the doctrine.  We are not imposing our own thought on the text, but rather, we are attempting to summarize and organize what is already there. 

21. Lord's Day

Question 54. What do you believe concerning the "holy catholic church" of Christ?

Answer: That the Son of God (Ephesians 5:26; John 10:11; Acts 20:28; Ephesians 4:11-13) from the beginning to the end of the world, (Psalms 71:17-18; Isaiah 59:21; 1 Corinthians 11:26) gathers, defends, and preserves (Matthew 16:18; John 10:28-30; Psalms 129:1-5) to himself by his Spirit and word, (Isaiah 59:21; Romans 1:16,10:14-17; Ephesians 5:26) out of the whole human race, (Genesis 26:4; Revelation 5:9) a church chosen to everlasting life, (Romans 8:29-30; Ephesians 1:10-13) agreeing in true faith; (Acts 2:46, Ephesians 4:3-5) and that I am and forever shall remain, (Psalms 23:6; 1 Corinthians 1:8-9; John 10:28; 1 John 2:19; 1 Peter 1:5) a living member thereof. (1 John 3:14,19-21; 2 Corinthians 13:5; Romans 8:10)

Question 55. What do you understand by "the communion of saints"?

Answer: First, that all and every one, who believes, being members of Christ, are in common, partakers of him, and of all his riches and gifts; (1 John 1:3; 1 Corinthians 1:9; Romans 8:32; 1 Corinthians 12:12-13, 6:17) secondly, that everyone must know it to be his duty, readily and cheerfully to employ his gifts, for the advantage and salvation of other members. (1 Corinthians 12:21, 13:1, 5; Philippians 2:4-8)

Question 56. What do you believe concerning "the forgiveness of sins"?

Answer: That God, for the sake of Christ's satisfaction, will no more remember my sins, neither my corrupt nature, against which I have to struggle all my life long; (1 John 2:2, 1:7; 2 Corinthians 5:19, 21) but will graciously impute to me the righteousness of Christ, (Jeremiah 31:34; Psalms 103:3-4, 10, 12; Micah 7:19; Romans 7:23-25) that I may never be condemned before the tribunal of God. (Romans 8:1-4; John 3:18, 5:24)

We could spend a long time discussing the implication of being of one body with Christ and the substance of the body that is implied with that statement.  The idea of substance concerning the sacrament of the Eucharist is of similar type.  The covenant context, however, is sufficient for understanding of the Body of Christ in this place.

22. Lord's Day

Question 57. What comfort does the "resurrection of the body" afford thee?

Answer: That not only my soul after this life shall be immediately taken up to Christ its head; (Luke 16:22, 23:43; Philippians 1:21, 23) but also, that this my body, being raised by the power of Christ, shall be reunited with my soul, and made like unto the glorious body of Christ. (1 Corinthians 15:53-54; Job 19:25-26; 1 John 3:2; Philippians 3:21)

Question 58. What comfort do you take from the article of "life everlasting"?

Answer: That since I now feel in my heart the beginning of eternal joy, (2 Corinthians 5:2-3) after this life, I shall inherit perfect salvation, which "eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither has it entered into the heart of man" to conceive, and that to praise God therein forever. (1 Corinthians 2:9; John 17:3)

A lot of interesting issues come from this section.  You  might be surprised to hear that there are vast numbers of professing Christians who have the very Greek idea of the soul going to heaven and the body never being reunited with the soul on the Last Day.  It is interesting how this part of the faith seems to be glossed over without much of a discussion.  The old German Lutherans understand this to the nth degree, but have little faith in God's ability to mend resurrected bodies to the perfection that we were intended in the same way that He justifies us to perfection in terms of righteousness.  

23. Lord's Day

Question 59. But what does it profit you now that you believe all this?

Answer: That I am righteous in Christ, before God, and an heir of eternal life. (Habakkuk 2:4; Romans 1:17; John 3:36)

Question 60. How are thou righteous before God?

Answer: Only by a true faith in Jesus Christ; (Romans 3:21-25, 28, 5:1-2; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9) so that, though my conscience accuse me, that I have grossly transgressed all the commandments of God, and kept none of them, (Romans 3:9) and am still inclined to all evil; (Romans 7:23) notwithstanding, God, without any merit of mine, (Titus 3:5; Deuteronomy 9:6; Ezekiel 36:22) but only of mere grace, (Romans 3:24; Ephesians 2:8) grants and imputes to me, (Romans 4:4-5; 2 Corinthians 5:19) the perfect satisfaction, (1 John 2:2) righteousness and holiness of Christ; (1 John 2:1) even so, as if I never had had, nor committed any sin: yea, as if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which Christ has accomplished for me; (2 Corinthians 5:21) inasmuch as I embrace such benefit with a believing heart. (Romans 3:22; John 3:18)

Question 61. Why do you say, that you are righteous by faith only?

Answer: Not that I am acceptable to God, on account of the worthiness of my faith; but because only the satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, is my righteousness before God; (1 Corinthians 1:30, 2:2) and that I cannot receive and apply the same to myself any other way than by faith only. (1 John 5:10)

Vegan warning:  questions #59-64 are the meat!  Notice the density of the references in Question #60.  This is heavy on Romans, but really, a lot of Paul is used here.  It is interesting where the Prophets are woven into the catechism.  If you have doubts that the Old Testament testifies to Christ, these sections should put an end to that stuff.

24. Lord's Day

Question 62. But why cannot our good works be the whole, or part of our righteousness before God?

Answer: Because, that the righteousness, which can be approved of before the tribunal of God, must be absolutely perfect, (Galatians 3:10; Deuteronomy 27:26) and in all respects conformable to the divine law; and also, that our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin. (Isaiah 64:6)

Question 63. What! do not our good works merit, which yet God will reward in this and in a future life?

Answer: This reward is not of merit, but of grace. (Luke 17:10)

Question 64. But does not this doctrine make men careless and profane?

Answer: By no means: for it is impossible that those, who are implanted into Christ by a true faith, should not bring forth fruits of thankfulness. (Matthew 7:18; John 15:5)

Truly fantastic stuff.  This is outline of Romans 3-8 without mentioning Romans 3-8.  This may be a relatively brief section, but it is theologically dense.

We have seen in this section the basis of our righteousness before a Just and Holy God.  The next section is on the Sacraments.  I'll post on the definition of sacrament and Baptism in the next post, and then we'll tackle the Lord's Supper afterwards.

--Troll--

Pre-Rapture's Eve or J-Day minus 2

It would be just like Jesus to actually select the timing of His Second Coming in Judgment to be on the very day that Harold Camping has predicted for the "rapture." I posted a link this morning to a great article discussing the theological problems of the rapture and dispensationalism.  There is plenty more I can add to the pile, but let's get back to my original thesis.

The scripture says that no one will know when the day is coming, and it will come like a thief in the night.  Who will suspect the Second Coming on or just after Harold Camping's prediction?  It is the ideal time.  Personally, I think that for theological closure, it should be a Sunday.  I also think that the bursted dispensational bubbles from Saturday will be completely unsuspecting of a Sunday event.  It is perfect.

Keep in mind that I'm not talking about a rapture.  The Bible talks about a Second Coming in Judgment, not a bunch of theologically silly events leading up to a Second Coming after which there is still another revolt against the returned Christ from post judgment people, people who passed judgment.  I am talking about Judgment Day.  The big one.  The Last Day.

So, wouldn't it be cool if Jesus planned it all for Sunday?  I'm ready, but I'm not holding my breath.  OK, yes, I am.  Talk to you again on Monday...maybe.

--Ogre--

Time to Leave Behind the Rapture

Time to Leave Behind the Rapture

Enough is enough. This is a great review from Chaplain Mike, who runs the late Michael Spencer's blog at internet monk. Please read.

--Troll--

Another brick in the wall

Roger Waters of Pink Floyd wrote this song in 1977 with an entirely different meaning in mind, but here is the hook line of the chorus:  All we are is just another brick in the wall.  This morning, the approach that was decided upon was this:  We are all bricks in the wall.  I’d like to expound upon this second position.

Adam, before the fall, would have been fine offering a sacrifice of Thanksgiving to God.  Prior to the fall, he was capable of fulfilling the Law, and as such, he was in covenant relationship with the Creator.  After the fall, man had need of a different type of sacrifice.  This sacrifice was one of atonement.  The atonement in the Old Testament sense was a covering up of sin, to make us presentable.  This type of atonement was insufficient in a number of ways.  While it may cover up our sins, it failed to do anything about our condition of sin.  Therefore, when we continued to sin, we required another sacrifice of atonement.  This system, though, had the purpose of teaching us about the importance of sin and the need for atonement.  The second problem with this type of sacrifice is that while it may cover up our sin, it did nothing to reconcile us to God in the relationship to Him that we, in Adam, had so grievously damaged by sin.  Therefore, these sacrifices of atonement in the Old Testament were mere types and shadows of the great atonement to come, one that would fully wash away not only our sins, but also our condition of sin, as well as propitiate or reconcile us to God.

Let’s say just a little more about these sacrifices of atonement.  In these ceremonies, there were actually two goats.  Notice Leviticus 16 which describes the ceremony on the Day of Atonement.  The first goat was pure and innocent.  This goat was sacrificed for the atonement of sin for all of Israel, to appease the anger of God.  His pure blood was sprinkled upon the altar.  Then the priest would take the second goat and confess the sin of all of Israel upon that goat.  The sin would be transferred or imputed to the goat.  That second goat, or escape goat, would be set free into the wilderness, banished to certain death.  Now, there are issues of mistranslation both from Hebrew to the Septuagint as well as further into the Vulgate, but the story of the two goats remains.  Perhaps a scholar versed in Hebrew can expound on this for us.  But again, this ceremony is merely a type and shadow of the ultimate sacrifice in which Christ will represent both goats in one, both fully God and fully human.  While theories of the atonement are not my intention in this post, these types and shadows we see in this part of the Old Testament should be pointed out for their value in the overarching tale of redemptive history presented in the whole Bible.

Coming forward to today’s conversation about the Temple, what is important is to understand that Jesus broke the Temple on the third day.  What is important to realize is that Jesus became the Temple.  He is the Temple and the sacrifice.  What is more, He is also the Great High Priest.  This is the Work of Jesus in His office of Priest.  We have spoken before about the three offices of Jesus: Prophet, Priest and King.  Here, we see the fulfillment of this type and shadow of the Old Testament in the Work of Jesus on the Cross.

Let’s go back to the verse I quoted in Bible study from Revelation 21.  The whole book of Revelation has been misused and misinterpreted to the political ends of man for centuries.  Again, my series on Daniel 9 is helpful in understanding my view of eschatology.  The label is amillennialism and it dovetails with covenant theology of which you have heard me speak often.  In Revelation, John is recording his vision after seeing the open Book of Life, the book that Daniel was instructed to close in his dream.  The most helpful way to read Revelation is to see the same story told from seven points of view, rather than the laborious and impractical manner of viewing it as repetitious and cyclical.  What we see described is the heavenly Jerusalem.  This is a vital point and one that I hope is not lost in all of the dispensational mindsets that we Americans have held fast for decades.

Israel in the Old Testament and the Covenants between God and Israel are given as types and shadows of the ultimate heavenly Jerusalem.  Israel was supposed to be an example in this world, in this present Age, of what Heaven would be in the future Age to Come.  Unfortunately, Israel consisted of fallen men and became a poor shadow of that which it was supposed to model for us on this world.  But Abraham knew that Jerusalem and Israel were pointing to something else, not of this world, and much greater.  Through the Covenant of Abraham, the promise is made to the remnant, and the promise is kept.  Jesus is the fulfillment of that promise.  Jesus fulfills the Law and reconciles His chosen people, the new Israel in Christ, to Himself.

Therefore, when John says this in Revelation 21:22, And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb, we can discuss this in the context of the New Jerusalem actually being in the Age to Come, in the New Heaven and the New Earth.  These places are not of this world in this present age.  The Temple is Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb, who is Jesus.  Through the Holy Spirit, that indwells all true believers, we become part of the Body of Christ.  In this way, we truly are a part of the New Temple of Jesus.  We become just another brick in the wall.  But more importantly, we should view it like this. 

We have justly become-- all of us elect, through faith alone, by His Grace alone, through Christ alone, to the Glory of God alone, as revealed generally in Scripture alone, and specifically to each of us by the work of the Holy Spirit alone-- we have justly become another of the countless bricks in the New Temple of Christ.

--Troll--

BioLogos on Calvinism, Part 15

Evolution and our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 15 | The BioLogos Forum

The first line says "Summary." I'm taking this as a good sign. Evaluation and summary to follow in a week or so.

--Ogre--

Heidelberg Catechism: The Second Part--Of God the Holy Ghost

Given the mysticism and heavy Anabaptist influence of our day, this is disappointingly brief.  The most interesting things are the references.  The passages included all ground the Spirit to the Son.  Acts 2 and 4 and 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 are all noticeably absent from the list.  Interesting how Calvin, and subsequently Heidelberg, saw this so differently than the Anabaptists.

Of God The Holy Ghost

20. Lord's Day

Question 53. What dost thou believe concerning the Holy Ghost?

Answer: First, that he is true and coeternal God with the Father and the Son; (1 John 5:7; Genesis 1:2; Isaiah 48:16; 1 Corinthians 3:16, 6:19; Acts5:3-4) secondly, that he is also given me, (Galatians 4:6; Matthew 28:19-20; 2 Corinthians1:21-22; Ephesians 1:13) to make me by a true faith, partaker of Christ and all his benefits, (Galatians 3:14; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Corinthians 6:17) that he may comfort me (Acts 9:31; John 15:26) and abide with me forever. (John 14:16; 1 Peter 4:14)

What we have instead are passage after passage that first reiterate that the Holy Ghost is an inseparable portion of the Trinity.  Next, we are given the passages that relate to us that to which the Holy Ghost will testify, named, to the truth of the Words given to us in Scripture, and in particular, to the knowledge of Jesus and His actions both in His life and in His resurrection.  Finally, we are given the means by which we are granted access to these gifts; we are given faith through the work of the Holy Ghost in us in revealing these truths.

The next few Lord’s Days will take up a different topic, but a vitally important one: justification.  Justification and imputation are the gospel according to Paul.  Let’s see what Heidelberg does with those doctrines.

--Troll--

Context, Context, Context

On some days, Ogre just sits in awe wondering how undisciplined God’s creatures can be in the discernment of His Word.  The distraction and distortion of the Word is the favorite tool of the unholy one.  We hear the Words of the Lord from Scripture and rip them from context, applying new meaning to suit the ends of the perpetrator of lies.

A case in point follows.  We will look at two passages recently quoted.  Ogre will replace these passages in their proper context and demonstrate the value of context. The first passage is Ephesians 6:10-12.  The second is 2 Corinthians 10:3-5.  What is interesting to me is that we just studied both of these in Bible study last month.  In a room full of fairly learned men, a half dozen of whom are ordained, from backgrounds as diverse as orthodox reformed such as Ogre to Protestant Liberals such as Methodists and modern Anglicans, no one came up with the mysticism that I read recently concerning these passages.

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

Spiritual warfare.  What is it?  Although the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places is only one line item in this list, it was the one lifted from this passage.  Before we discuss the pertinent passage from the Old Testament, let’s go back through this whole passage, and the whole section of the epistle.  The Armor of God consists of three parts, according to Paul.  The model for his imagery is Roman armor.  There is a Breast plate, a Shield and a Weapon.  Notice the whole paragraph.   There is reference made in metaphoric terms to each of these parts.  The armor consists of truth, righteousness and faith.  The shield is faith and the weapon is the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God.  Therefore, knowledge of the Word of God is the cornerstone of this armor.  Truth, righteousness, faith, salvation and the Word of God are our weapons.

Who are we fighting with these weapons?  Let’s go back to the antecedent clause in the letter, Ephesians 4:11-16, but particularly verse 14.  So that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.  So, it seems bad doctrine is the problem.  We need these weapons of truth, righteousness and faith, along with salvation and the Word of God to battle bad doctrine.  The irony is just crashing down around me.

3 For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. 5 We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.

This passage is about knowledge and arguments, reasoning.  In every interior reference of this passage, the weapons are, again, truth and the Word of God.  The power is in the Word of God, truth and righteousness.  And most importantly, these things are from the Triune God. 

Finally, some eschatology for a Lord’s Day.  Genesis 3:15; Psalm 41:9; John 13:18;Jeremiah 23:19, 30:23; Ezekiel 10:9; Habakkuk 3:13; Revelation 13:3 

Genesis 3:15 talks about the spiritual battle.  The head of the serpent will be bruised by the heel of the Son of Man.  But the heel of the Son of Man will in turn also be bruised.  This imagery is present throughout scripture.  I’ve highlighted a very few of the pertinent passages.  The bottom line is this: the outcome of the battle between good and evil has already been decided.  Jesus triumphed over death.  We live in the time between the Ascension and the Second Coming in Judgment.  This present evil age remains while the Age to Come is breaking in upon us in the Word and Sacraments, through which we receive God’s Grace.  The battle is over the Word.

With what does Satan tempt Jesus?  He twists scripture.  He knows that he can’t lie directly to Jesus.  His only hope is to twist scripture to suit his ends.  Of course, twisting scripture to its author is also hopeless.  But this is the nature of the Devil’s temptations.  The battle is over the Word.  Good Doctrine is the battle.  It says this in the scripture.  Do not deny the scripture or allow it to be twisted to evil.

--Ogre--

Doctrine is defined as the substance of the faith or teachings

This gives me great pain, but enough is enough.  I have grown weary of being vilified by a person who should know better.  I’ve tried being more circumspect, but today was over the top.  This is a direct quote.

We must remember that we are called into a relationship with a Person, not a doctrine. Heb. 1:3. Jesus was the exact representation of God while here on earth. When you look at the life of Jesus, the way He treated people, you see nothing but love, kindness, and mercy. The only hard words Jesus had for anyone were for the religious leaders, who were turning people away from God. ~ Dr. James B. Richards

Thanks *** for this!  I know too many people that need to be reminded of this!!!

First, do not be mislead that this quote has anything to do with Hebrews 1:3.  Here is that verse. 

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

I will await anyone at any time showing me one verse from any place in the Bible that says, “we are called into a relationship with a Person, not a doctrine.” Any time and any place you can find this verse, email me, text me or be as openly tactless as this post.  This verse does not exist in the Bible.

So, what about Dr. Richards?  He thinks that Jesus never treated anyone except for religious leaders with anything but love, kindness and mercy.  Two things can be stated with confidence based upon this assertion.  First, Dr. Richards has never heard of the Law and Gospel distinction, has never read Martin Luther, and has no clue about the content of the Council of Trent.  Secondly, Dr. Richards believes that because he asserts something, everyone will accept it as the truth, because his word is equal to that of Jesus and His prophets and His Apostles.  What do I mean?  Let’s see.

Jesus was the exact representation of God while here on earth.  I’m not sure what Dr. Richards means by this.  I thought Jesus actually was God while here on earth, as He was before and He is now.  Jesus was also wholly human.  This statement of Dr. Richards almost sounds like docetism.  But let’s move on in this statement.  In other ways, it is in error.  Let’s talk about what Jesus actually said.

Matthew 5 is commonly talked about in terms of the Beatitudes.  The second half of the chapter is the rest of the Law.  Jesus is doing what God does in Matthew 5.  He is dispensing blessings and curses.  This is what God does, and His audience in that time knew this.  He was treading on dangerous ground.  Jesus wasn’t killed because He did miracles.  He was killed because He forgave sins, openly, publicly and in no one’s name but His own.  The Jews viewed this as blasphemy.  Look at Matthew 5:48.  You must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.  Thanks, much, Jesus.  Under the Law, in order to have salvation, we must be perfect.  This is what he told people.  That is not mercy; that is justice.  Move on to John 6:60-70.  He tells His disciples that no comes to Him unless it is granted them by the Father.  Many leave Him at that moment.  Then He invites the twelve to leave as well.  Those are very hard Words in most people’s opinion.  Was the rich young ruler just a parable or did that really happen?  Were not those Words spoken to that young man very hard?  And so another comment says that the difference was that Jesus was "in relationship" with his disciples!  Really?  First, where does the Bible say that???  Second, what kind of a relationship it is when so many disciples left Him that day???  Please, please, please, read first.  Learn.  Assertion without the knowledge to back it up is just plain dangerous.  It is the tool of the enemy.

Were the Jewish leaders turning people away from God?  This is a tough question to be sure.  The answer is both yes and no.  They attempted to turn people away from Jesus, but towards the Father.  In a technical sense, I would agree with Dr. Richards on this point.  The Triune God is NOT the same god as the God of Israel that does not contain all three Persons of the Trinity.  But I wonder if Dr. Richards means the Triune God?  After his statements, is it fair to assume that his meaning of god is the same as the Biblical meaning of God?  I’m not sure.

Finally, what is doctrine?  What does the word mean?  Let’s go to wiki:  Doctrine is the set of what is taught by the Bible; doctrine is the statement of the Christian faith.  There are 28 specific references to sound doctrine in the New Testament epistles.  Perhaps this is a little more important than a relationship.  Perhaps this relationship of which you speak, that has absolutely NO references in the Bible, should stand far behind sound doctrine.  Perhaps this spiritual warfare of which you speak should be reexamined.  If your weapons do not include truth, righteousness, faith, salvation and the Word of God, then either you are not using the correct weapons, or you are fighting the wrong side of the fight.  If the target of your fight isn't bad doctrine, perhaps you need to reread Ephesians, particularly chapter 4.

I am indeed weary.  Luckily, the true sacrament of Communion through which Grace will be given me, I will once again receive in two days time.   

To deny doctrine is to deny the Bible.  To deny doctrine is to deny God.  What we are taught by the Word is called doctrine.  Doctrine is the content of the faith.  That is the definition of doctrine.  If you deny the things that Jesus, His prophets and His apostles teach, then you deny Jesus.  How much more plain can this be?

--Ogre--

Mechan on Christian Scholarship

Another fine argument, though lengthy, from J. Gresham Mechan.

Continuing our mission to get Christians to think about Christ, instead of, as CS Lewis says in The Screwtape Letters, the Gospel and....  He meant that we always want to add something of ourselves to the Gospel.  The problem of his day, Protestant Liberalism, is the problem of our day in the form of Liberalism in the Evangelical and Pentecostal world.  The shame is that the path to atheism that the Protestant Liberals took and about which they are now warning the Evangelicals, is the same path the Evangelicals and Pentecostals are Hell bent to follow.

CS Lewis also said that there would be a lot of surprises on Judgment Day, both ways.  That is our greatest fear for the Church in America.  Even Evangelicals are starting to see the problem, but they lack the direction to alter the course.  Fortunately, the confessional churches have written this stuff down for us and organized Biblical thought to assist in righting the ship, resetting the path.  It is up to us to keep hauling on the sheets until we can turn the sails and take the church on the proper tack.

And so here is another lengthy argument from Mechan concerning Christian scholarship.  It was said in a comment to me in the past concerning Mechan, from Mechan's biographical notes on my own link to the right, that Mechan was thrown out of his own denomination.  The rest of the story is that his own denomination had become infested by Liberalism.  The Liberals did through him out, at least from his position at his seminary.  He and others founded a confessional church based upon the Presbyterian tradition of good Biblical scholarship that had been abandoned by the Liberals.  Luther was excommunicated by Rome, as were all of the sixteenth century Reformers.  A Modern Reformation is what is so desperately needed today.  

That is why Ogre sounds so offensive to some ears.  The Gospel is offensive.  It is from outside of us.  It tells us that the Law sets a standard before us that is not of our making.  Worse, it tells us that the Law sets a standard before us that we can never attain.  Without understanding of the absolute desperation of our plight, there is no understanding of the absolutely Amazing Grace that we received as a gift.  The Gospel is not about us.  The Gospel is about Jesus and what He did for His people.

--Ogre-- 

Heidelberg Catechism: The Second Part--Of God the Son 3/3

This section contains the historical facts about which the gospel testifies.  This is the basis of the faith.  In these passages, Christianity is laid out for all to see.  It is of some interest that there are any Old Testament verses in this section, but there are a few.  Of course, 1 Corinthians 15 features prominently as do all of the Gospels and Paul.

17. Lord's Day

Question 45. What does the "resurrection" of Christ profit us?

Answer: First, by his resurrection he has overcome death, that he might make us partakers of that righteousness which he had purchased for us by his death; (1 Corinthians 15:16; Romans 4:25; 1 Peter 1:3) secondly, we are also by his power raised up to a new life; (Romans 6:4; Colossians 3:1; Ephesians2:5-6) and lastly, the resurrection of Christ is a sure pledge of our blessed resurrection. (1 Corinthians 15:12, 20-21; Romans 8:11)

As you can see, only one question for this Lord’s Day is offered.  That is probably because this is one of the more important questions.  Just guessing.  Ephesians 2 and 1 Corinthians 15 should be read once a month each in every church.

18. Lord's Day

Question 46. How dost thou understand these words, "he ascended into heaven"?

Answer: That Christ, in sight of his disciples, was taken up from earth into heaven; (Acts 1:9; Matthew 26:64; Mark 16:19; Luke 24:51) and that he continues there for our interest, (Hebrews 7:25, 4:14, 9:24; Romans 8:34; Ephesians4:10; Colossians 3:1) until he comes again to judge the quick and the dead. (Acts 1:11; Matthew 24:30)

Question 47. Is not Christ then with us even to the end of the world, as he has promised? (Matthew 28:20)

Answer: Christ is very man and very God; with respect to his human nature, he is no more on earth; (Hebrews 8:4; Matthew 26:11; John 16:28, 17:11;Acts 3:21) but with respect to his Godhead, majesty, grace and spirit, he is at no time absent from us. (John 14:17-19, 16:13; Matthew 28:20; Ephesians 4:8, 12)

Question 48. But if his human nature is not present, wherever his Godhead is, are not then these two natures in Christ separated from one another?

Answer: Not as all, for since the Godhead is illimitable and omnipresent, (Acts 7:49; Jeremiah 23:24) it must necessarily follow that the same is beyond the limits of the human nature he assumed, (Colossians 2:9; John3:13, 11:15; Matthew 28:6) and yet is nevertheless in this human nature, and remains personally united to it.

Question 49. Of what advantage to us is Christ's ascension into heaven?

Answer: First, that he is our advocate in the presence of his Father in heaven; (1 John 2:1; Romans 8:34) secondly, that we have our flesh in heaven as a sure pledge that he, as the head, will also take up to himself, us, his members; (John 14:2, 17:24, 20:17; Ephesians 2:6) thirdly, that he sends us his Spirit as an earnest, (John 14:16, 16:7; Acts 2:1-4, 33; 2 Corinthians 1:22,5:5) by whose power we "seek the things which are above, where Christ sits on the right hand of God, and not things on earth." (Colossians 3:1; Philippians3:14)

While this whole section is important, these last two questions speak specifically to a couple of ancient heresies.  The Greeks loved to separate things into this world and the spiritual world.  Question #48 points out that Jesus remains both God and human even after the resurrection.  Question #49 ties the troublesome passages in Acts 2 concerning the Holy Spirit to Jesus in His role as our Advocate.  I wrote on this topic in the word study on perichoresis and paraclete.  This is also a great link to the next section on the Holy Spirit.  BTW, the quoted version of Acts 2:4 is great:  And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

19. Lord's Day

Question 50. Why is it added, "and sits at the right hand of God"?

Answer: Because Christ is ascended into heaven for this end, that he might appear as head of his church, (Ephesians 1:20-21, 23; Colossians 1:18) by whom the Father governs all things. (Matthew 28:18; John 5:22)

Question 51. What profit is this glory of Christ, our head, unto us?

Answer: First, that by his Holy Spirit he pours out heavenly graces upon us his members; (Acts 2:33; Ephesians 4:8) and then that by his power he defends and preserves us against all enemies. (Psalms 2:9, 110:1-2; John 10:28;Ephesians 4:8)

Question 52. What comfort is it to thee that "Christ shall come again to judge the quick and the dead"?

Answer: That in all my sorrows and persecutions, with uplifted head I look for the very same person, who before offered himself for my sake, to the tribunal of God, and has removed all curse from me, to come as judge from heaven: (Luke 21:28; Romans 8:23; Philippians 3:20; Titus 2:13; 1 Thessalonians4:16) who shall cast all his and my enemies into everlasting condemnation, (2 Thessalonians1:6, 8-10; Matthew 25:41-43) but shall translate me with all his chosen ones to himself, into heavenly joys and glory. (Matthew 25:34; 2 Thessalonians 1:7)

I actually expected to find some OT prophets and some Revelation in this section.  It just goes to show you that eschatology is found throughout the New Testament, not just in the last book.

We have now covered the first two parts of the Trinity.  In the next section, we will be looking at the Holy Spirit.

--Troll--

Heidelberg Catechism: The Second Part--Of God the Son 2/3

In this second section on the Son, we end up with that controversial topic of Hell.  But before that excitement, we go through the incarnation, the passion, the death and burial.

14. Lord's Day

Question 35. What is the meaning of these words "He was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary"?

Answer: That God's eternal Son, who is, and continues (Romans 1:4,9:5) true and eternal God, (1 John 5:20; John 1:1, 17:3; Romans 1:3, Colossians1:15) took upon him the very nature of man, of the flesh and blood of the virgin Mary, (Galatians 4:4, Luke 1:31, 42-43) by the operation of the Holy Ghost; (John 1:14; Matthew 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35) that he might also be the true seed of David, (Psalms 132:11; Romans 1:3; 2 Samuel 7:12; Luke 1:32; Acts 2:30) like unto his brethren in all things, (Philippians 2:7; Hebrews 2:14, 17) sin excepted. (Hebrews 4:15)

Question 36. What profit do you receive by Christ's holy conception and nativity?

Answer: That he is our Mediator; (Hebrews 7:26-27, 2:17) and with His innocence and perfect holiness, covers in the sight of God, my sins, wherein I was conceived and brought forth. (1 Peter 1:18-19, 3:18; 1 Corinthians1:30-31; Romans 8:3-4; Isaiah 53:11; Psalms 32:1)

This section was clearly about the incarnation.  The importance of God becoming human is perhaps lost.  In order to fulfill the Law, a human had to do it, a human under the covenant curse of Adam.  This was the first reason that Jesus condescended to become man.

15. Lord's Day

Question 37. What do you understand by the words, "He suffered"?

Answer: That he, all the time that he lived on earth, but especially at the end of his life, sustained in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sins of all mankind: (Isaiah 53:4; 1 Peter 2:24, 3:18; 1 Timothy 2:6) that so by his passion, as the only propitiatory sacrifice, (Isaiah 53:10, 12;Ephesians 5:2; 1 Corinthians 5:7; 1 John 2:2, 4:10; Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:28,10:14) he might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, (Galatians3:13, 1:13; Hebrews 9:12; 1 Peter 1:18-19) and obtain for us the favor of God, righteousness and eternal life. (Romans 3:25; 2 Corinthians 5:21; John 3:16,6:51; Hebrews 9:15, 10:19)

Question 38. Why did he suffer "under Pontius Pilate, as judge"?

Answer: That he, being innocent, and yet condemned by a temporal judge, (John 18:38; Matthew 27:24; Acts 4:27-28; Luke 23:14-15; John 19:4) might thereby free us from the severe judgment of God to which we were exposed. (Psalms 69:4; Isaiah 53:4-5; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13)

Question 39. Is there anything more in his being "crucified", than if he had died some other death?

Answer: Yes there is; for thereby I am assured, that he took on him the curse which lay upon me; (Galatians 3:13) for the death of the cross was accursed of God. (Deuteronomy 21:23)

While most of this section is about His passion, the word propitiating appears in the answer to question #37.  While the four places in the New Testament that this word appears I have documented in the past, there is one Old Testament reference as well.  The Isaiah 53 passage you will have noticed has been cited multiple times already.

16. Lord's Day

Question 40. Why was it necessary for Christ to humble himself even "unto death"?

Answer: Because with respect to the justice and truth of God, (Genesis2:17) satisfaction for our sins could be made no otherwise, than by the death of the Son of God. (Romans 8:3-4; Hebrews 2:9, 14-15)

Question 41. Why was he also "buried"?

Answer: Thereby to prove that he was really dead. (Matthew 27:59-60;Luke 23:52-53; John 19:38-42; Acts 13:29)

Question 42. Since then Christ died for us, why must we also die?

Answer: Our death is not a satisfaction for our sins, (Mark 8:37, Psalms49:7) but only an abolishing of sin, and a passage into eternal life. (John 5:24,Philippians 1:23, Romans 7:24)

Question 43. What further benefit do we receive from the sacrifice and death of Christ on the cross?

Answer: That by virtue thereof, our old man is crucified, dead and buried with him; (Romans 6:6) that so the corrupt inclinations of the flesh may no more reign in us; (Romans 6:6-8, 11-12; Colossians 2:12) but that we may offer ourselves unto him a sacrifice of thanksgiving. (Romans 12:1)

Question 44. Why is there added, "he descended into hell"?

Answer: That in my greatest temptations, I may be assured, and wholly comfort myself in this, that my Lord Jesus Christ, by his inexpressible anguish, pains, terrors, and hellish agonies, in which he was plunged during all his sufferings, (Psalms 18:5-6, 116:3; Matthew 26:38 Hebrews 5:7 Isaiah 53:10Matthew 27:46) but especially on the cross, has delivered me from the anguish and torments of hell. (Isaiah 53:5)

This is a great section up to Question #44.  I'll be posting on Hell soon.

The next post will be on the remainder of the questions concerning the Son.

--Troll--