Hebrews 11: Saving Faith

And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect. (Hebrews 11:39-40 ESV)

Once again, I want to hit the punch line first before diving into the meat of the text.  We have seen a litany of examples that we might construe as saving faith. And then, we arrive at verse 39. All of these wonderful works accomplished by these Old Testament patriarchs, and then the writer of Hebrews tells us to wait a second, that wasn't the point.

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. (Hebrews 12:1-2 ESV)

How is it that we can simultaneously be exhorted to do great works, and yet be told that the promise was not received based upon those works? What is this faith that enables such great deeds, and yet falls short in perfecting us? What is it that God provided that was better for us? Rest assured, eager reader, that the author of Hebrews knows the answer. Remember back at the beginning of our journey through Hebrews, that we made some assumptions. A key assumption is that this letter or sermon was delivered to people who already had saving faith. Here, we see the faith of the Old Testament patriarchs set in contradistinction to this saving faith. This obviously begs the question, what is saving faith?

For my long-time readers, this will sound repetitive, because I wrote a similar post back in March. But is an important topic, one that bears repeating. Let us start from the notion that we must have faith. What is faith? Is faith tangible? Is faith itself an object? I ask this in a grammatical sense as well as a metaphysical sense. Grammatically speaking, faith is used as a noun. But more properly, we should think of faith perhaps as a gerund. Take this sentence: faith is believing. Using this construction, is quite easy to see my meaning. So I ask again, is it enough to have faith?

Is faith necessarily a Christian construct? Do you have faith in the Texans' ability to win with the third string quarterback? Is this the same faith of which we speak in a biblical context? Clearly not, therefore, it is obvious that faith must have an object. So, what is the object of our faith?

Let's start small, and build up as we need. I believe in God. For many, that is a sufficient statement of faith. Very quickly, we can argue that this is not a particularly Christian claim. In fact, statistically, most people in the United States believe in God, or a god, or some supreme being. Certainly, our Old Testament patriarchs believed in God, and yet the author of Hebrews has already declared that this was not saving faith.

I believe in Jesus, that he is the Christ, the Messiah. Certainly, that is a step farther than the Old Testament patriarchs were able to take. Does this constitute saving faith? Let's look at Matthew 4 for a moment. What is the supposition that the devil keeps making to Jesus?  And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God….” Without getting into too much of a philosophical argument about it, this is clearly a rhetorical statement by the devil. The devil knows Jesus is the son of God; he doesn't just believe it, he knows it. The point is this: if the devil knows Jesus is the son of God, and the devil isn't saved by that knowledge, can we consider this to be saving faith?

Now let's turn to 1 Corinthians 15. It's a long chapter, but I want you to read it now.  Here is just a sampling of the early part of the chapter.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. (1 Corinthians 15:3-10a ESV)

In verse 1, Paul calls this his gospel, and he exhorts us to the same perseverance as does the author of Hebrews.      Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.  (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 ESV)  

We are being saved, not by our works, but by virtue of this gospel, this news about Jesus. The whole basis of this faith, according to Paul, is the truth of the resurrection. Paul reminds us that this was an actual historical event. He tells us about witnesses, he tells us about the names of some of those witnesses, he tells us about the number of witnesses, more than 500 brothers at one time. This, my friends, is what it means to be a witness. It is a legal word, it is a word used in courtrooms. These 500+ eyewitnesses testify and witness to the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Yes, His resurrection is the basis of saving faith.

Now, let's go back to Hebrews 11:2. …looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.  Once again, saving faith is linked to the events of the cross. Once again, the New Testament links salvation to the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Once again, the New Testament declares the object of our saving faith.

Elsewhere, I have tried to help you understand how it is that these events on the cross connect directly with you. Biblical words like justification, imputation, and propitiation are used to describe how this saving faith is connected directly to you. The first 11 chapters of Romans deal with this subject, particularly Romans 3:21-31, which we have discussed many times before.

            But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

            Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. (Romans 3:21-31 ESV)

It is easy to stumble over some of the language, particularly if you are still lacking the Reformation categories of law and gospel. But whether you have a clear understanding of these two paragraphs or not, one cannot deny that Paul explicitly excludes righteousness by works, and he links righteousness, justification, and salvation to faith in Jesus Christ, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood. It's all there, and it is repeated throughout the New Testament.

In conclusion, then, saving faith is faith that gives us our eternal reward, bodily resurrection, and everlasting life with Christ our King. The link between Jesus Christ and you is His life, His death, His resurrection, His ascension, and His future coming in glory. That is the object of saving faith, nothing more and nothing less.

--Ogre--

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--

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--

Heidelberg Catechism: The Second Part--Deliverance, sub B

True Faith

To say that this section is huge would be to understate its absolute hugeness.  OK, I’ve been spending time with my teenage daughter, but the point is well given.  This section is about the definition of true faith.  Faith is a very specific and clearly defined entity in scripture.  Faith always has an object, and these questions explain what the object of faith must be, according to the Bible.  I have been promising the meat.  This is the first course.

7. Lord's Day

Question 20. Are all men then, as they perished in Adam, saved by Christ?

Answer: No; (Matthew 7:14, 22:14) only those who are ingrafted into Him, and, receive all His benefits, by a true faith. (Mark 16:16, John 1:12,3:16, 18, 36; Isaiah 53:11, Psalms 2:12, Romans 11:17, 19-20, 3:22; Hebrews 4:2-3, 5:9, 10:39, 11:6)

Question 21. What is true faith?

Answer: True faith is not only a certain knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in his word, (James 2:19) but also an assured confidence, (2 Corinthians 4:13; Ephesians 2:7-9, 3:12; Galatians 2:16;Hebrews 11:1, 7-10; 4:16; James 1:6, Matthew 16:17, Philippians 1:19, Romans 4:17,21; 5:1; 1:16; 10:10, 17; 4:16, 18-20; 3:24-25) which the Holy Ghost (Galatians5:22, Matthew 16:17; 2 Corinthians 4:13, John 6:29, Ephesians 2:8, Philippians 1:19,Acts 16:14) works by the gospel in my heart; (Romans 1:16, 10:17; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Acts 10:44, 16:14) that not only to others, but to me also, remission of sin, everlasting righteousness and salvation, (Romans 1:17, Galatians 3:11, Hebrews10:10, 38; Galatians 2:16) are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ's merits. (Ephesians 2:8; Romans 3:24, 5:19; Luke 1:77-78)

True faith is not only a certain knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word, but also an assured confidence, which the Holy Ghost works by the Gospel in my heart; that not only to others, but to me also, remission of sin, everlasting righteousness and salvation, are freely given by God, merely of Grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits.

Question 22. What is then necessary for a Christian to believe?

Answer: All things promised us in the gospel, (John 20:31, Matthew 28:19,Mark 1:15) which the articles of our catholic undoubted Christian faith briefly teach us.

Question 23. What are these articles?

Answer: 1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: 2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord: 3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary: 4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead, and buried: He descended into hell: 5. The third day he rose again from the dead: 6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty: 7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead: 8. I believe in the Holy Ghost: 9. I believe a holy catholic church: the communion of saints: 10. The forgiveness of sins: 11. The resurrection of the body: 12. And the life everlasting.

Amen.

Notably, there is the issue of Hell in article #4 that we will have to address soon; but otherwise, those articles should look awfully familiar, sort of like the Apostles' Creed.

8. Lord's Day

Question 24. How are these articles divided?

Answer: Into three parts; the first is of God the Father, and our creation; the second of God the Son, and our redemption; the third of God the Holy Ghost, and our sanctification.

Question 25. Since there is but one only divine essence, (Deuteronomy 6:4, Ephesians 4:6, Isaiah 44:6, 45:5; 1 Corinthians 8:4, 6) why speaks thou of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

Answer: Because God has so revealed himself in his word, (Isaiah 61:1,Luke 4:18, Genesis 1:2-3, Psalms 33:6, Isaiah 48:16, Psalms 110:1, Matthew 3:16-17,28:19; 1 John 5:7, Isaiah 6:1, 3; John 14:26, 15:26; 2 Corinthians 13:13; Galatians 4:6, Ephesians 2:18, Titus 3:5-6) that these three distinct persons are the one only true and eternal God.

And obviously, the next three sections have been introduced.  We will be going through specific doctrinal statements concerning each person of the Trinity.  I have made some effort both to have the citations grouped together in their original position, but also to have them linked together as a group to make for easy clicking and easy reading.  If you were ever going to follow the links to read the passages, this is the section.  At least try the references for question #21. 

In the future, if you need to find scripture on a topic, this confession is a great reference tool.  All that is required is finding the appropriate question, and there is the scripture that you need.

The next few sections will be over larger chunks of material.

--Troll--

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--

Tradition in our Pews

“Bless this food to our bodies. Amen”

I grew up saying this prayer right before dinner. Luckily, punishment was mild if caught sneaking food before the prayer. That just meant you were the one who had to pray. (This is a lot of pressure when you’re a kid, but nevertheless, no real harm done.)

Millions probably say a similar type of prayer dinner. It’s tradition. It’s just what you do, right?  When I think about it, I pray that the greasy pizza is going to bless my body, but in reality, I know it really won’t. Less saturated fat please. So I guess I’m not really praying, just acting out what I’ve been taught.  And in this case, it’s harmless.  But what’s scary is that this same human pattern can get us into big trouble. Tradition for tradition’s sake.   It’s just the way things are done.  Being completely blinded to truth, honoring tradition instead of the Lord.

Jesus’ warnings of keeping empty traditions are very real in the gospels. Over the past two days, these scriptures keep finding me. So here they are….

“This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men – the washing of the pictures and cups, and many other such things you do. All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.” Mark 7:6-9

“Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.” – Matt. 15:6

Yikes.

I’m fine with saying grace before dinner, but today I’m very aware of the ease of mistaking our traditions for “God’s will”, and missing out on God’s will all along.

I borrowed this story from a note written last week.  Here is another story. 

I was discussing forgiveness of sin with my Bible study group.  Have you noticed that in every service on every Sunday, there is a prayer of confession that is followed by an absolution by the priest?  This is done for a reason.  We need forgiveness of our sin and God provides it.  We live in a tension between being citizens of this age and the age to come, simultaneously sinners and transformed.  Because we are aware of this tension, we recognize our imperfections and continually repent throughout our Christian lives.

The first comment about this was that one person needed more forgiveness, from friends and other people, than he felt was offered through the absolution of the priest.  This part of the service was just not sufficient for him.  There had to be more than just a prayer and an absolution.

These two stories are very similar.  There is clearly a disconnection between rote responses and the theology behind them.  In the first story, the writer clearly recognizes the problem and equates the rote behavior with Law.  In the second story, the second man not only does not recognize the problem, but insists that there is no problem by running away from the issue to a human solution.  There have been several solutions to this disconnection problem proposed, and I would like to address two of them, the second being the model of what Paul always did in these situations. 

The first solution that is often proposed is that the rote practices are a part of the rabbinical law that was eliminated by Jesus.  Since we cannot ground the responses, they must not have any value any longer.  Before going in this direction, we should first discuss whether these types of rote responses are indeed the sort of behaviors referenced by Jesus in passages above or something else.  In the first example, the question is whether a prayer over dinner is Biblically correct in terms of the New Covenant.  In the second example, the question is whether a prayer of repentance that exists within the context of a service is sufficient for the forgiveness of sin. 

The prayer at meals seems to be specifically authorized by Jesus at the last supper.  However, the writer makes a very good point.  Blessing the pizza is probably not what Jesus had in mind.  As you may recall, Jesus was more interested in our remembrance of Him than in whether or not our pizza had too much saturated fat.  So, we can say that the recognition of a problem was spot on, but perhaps the diagnosis was off the mark.  Is prayer at meal time a part of rabbinical law?  Clearly, the type and shadow of this behavior is the Seder meal at Passover as set out in Leviticus.  The question becomes one of whether Holy Communion is the fulfillment of that type and shadow and whether prayer over a meal is therefore Judaizing.  That is harsh criticism it would seem to me, but it is at least worthy of discussion.

In the second example, the issue is whether the confession of sin in the house of the Lord followed by the absolution administered by the priest or pastor as the worldly representative of Christ is sufficient to do what it says that it is doing.  The doctrine in this example is completely disconnected from the prayer.  The second man does not understand the doctrine behind the prayer and absolution, and therefore he cannot take solace in these events.  Is this doctrine a part of rabbinical law?  In this case, it would be very hard to argue that point.  Jesus was in the business of forgiving sin.  He authorized his apostles to do the same.  Subsequently, elders and others were given this calling.  The problem is not rabbinical law in this case, but a lack of understanding of the system that Jesus created.

A second solution, and a better solution in my mind, is to reconnect the action to the doctrine.  All imperatives absolutely must be grounded in the indicative, or they will only turn into Law, and Law only convicts when it is not grounded in the Gospel.  The second story bothers me far more, so let’s work it out in terms of the Law and Gospel distinction and see if we can try to reconnect the rote actions to the doctrine.

The purpose of worship is to glorify God.  I don’t’ think anyone will argue this point very much.  The issue becomes one of deciding on how to go about worship.  The doctrines that cause the components of a Eucharistic service and the order of those components come directly from the story of redemptive history as revealed in the Bible.  The doctrines line up and spell out what should happen and in what order.  The first doctrine that is important is that God is Holy.  We seem to take that for granted.  If you believe that God is the creator, regardless of how He did it, you have to believe that God is infinitely Holy as well.  The role of the creature is to worship the creator.  This was basically the only thing that was expected of Adam.  After the fall, God has to work out a rescue mission for His creatures.  His creatures have offended His infinitely just nature, and the only possible outcome is death.  This idea of original sin is so completely lost that it needs a bit more work in this brief outline.

I have already posted for your reading pleasure, Jonathon Edwards’ sermon on the Wrath of God, but I wanted to expound on the condition of sin.  We often think that our own individual sin is all that really matters.  We consider that Adam’s sin couldn’t possibly be imputed to us.  We don’t think it would be just.  Our idea of just may make some sense in a civil context, but the Bible is quite clear on what the condition of sin from Adam has done to man.  We are all dead in sin from the moment of our conception.  God knew we would be born and so we were even in sin before the moment of our parents’ conceptions.  Our situation is already dire.  This does not require that we actually do anything particularly horrible.  This situation requires a rescue, and God has that worked out already.

Next, God gives man the Law, in the form of the Decalogue, or the Ten Commandments.  He spells out the types and shadows for a temple, a priesthood, a second type of sacrifice, and He establishes a royal lineage.  He gave prophets who tell of a coming King, a messiah who will be prophet, priest and king, all three in one.  Jesus comes into the world and becomes the perfect sacrifice, sufficient for the sin of the whole world.  But His sacrifice is only efficient for the sin of His chosen people.  This elect is not at first clear, but the prophets hint at the vastness of the number and that they will come from far off, presumably in both space and time.  He sends the second Paraclete, the Holy Spirit to round up His sheep.

Here is the key.  How does salvation work?  The answers to the parts of the Eucharist are given in the answers to salvation.  This is what we call the Gospel.  The Gospel is the Good News of the Salvation plan.  So, what is that plan?  Paul tells us that we are all evil and would never take the first step.  How, then, can we get started?  We don’t.  That is the key.  The Holy Spirit gives us the gift of belief.  Our first reaction to the touch of the Holy Spirit is to realize the Awesome Holiness of God.  The second reaction is to realize the depth of our despair due to sin.  Next, we repent our sin and receive absolution through Baptism.  Upon entering into the Covenant community, we hear the Word, we hear the Word preached, we receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion.  Notice that all of our steps to justification occur because the Holy Spirit enables us to do it.  We receive the gift of that ability to recognize our sin and ask forgiveness.  Then in sanctification, it is all about receiving again.  Be still, listen and receive.  Ps 46:10.

OK, now let’s go through a Eucharist.  The service begins with an invocation.  This is where we ask God to be present.  We, as a group of believers gathered together, call His name.  The manner of invocation is in the form of praise.  We are not demanding His presence.  We are in His house and we are praising His name.  Next, we confess our sins, and then receive absolution from the priest or pastor.  We then pray for the whole world.  Next, the Word is read to us.  Then the Word is preached to us.  Then we have the prayer of consecration.  Then we receive communion.  Then we are given a blessing and our marching orders for the week.

Did you notice how the service mirrors the initial sequence of transformation?  Then, the parts of sanctification are spelled out clearly in the service.  The service has been thoughtfully laid out as a renewal of our faith and an opportunity to receive God’s grace.  Our part is to show up and receive.  God is the divine waiter who serves His Grace to us.  He gives us everything that is necessary and sufficient for our salvation.  And this is the point I would make to the second man in the second story.  God’s Grace is sufficient even for you.  My question is why you would believe that it is not sufficient for you.  There is really a limited range of possibilities.  You might not understand the faith yet.  You might understand, but not believe.  No man can give you this belief; that is the power of the Holy Spirit.

One final issue, how did we get into this situation?  The blame must fall squarely on the shoulders of our priests and pastors.  If catechesis still exists in some churches, it is the last and only time lay people are taught this sort of thing.  There is an assumption that we know the doctrine and that we know the role of each part of the service.  Clearly, this assumption is faulty.   The solution to this problem is catechesis.  We need to be taught the doctrine that makes up the faith and we need to be taught the reasons for the words that we recite.  We need a return to the Reformation.  Luther told Pope Leo that there had been many calls for reformation before him and many would come after him.  But the Catholic Church would remember Luther, because while the other calls for reformation were all about morals and deeds, Luther was about reforming doctrines and understanding creeds.  When what is lost is the understanding of doctrines and the importance of the creeds, what type of reformation do we really need today?

What did Paul say to the church in Rome?  I know you are having problems, so let's talk about doctrine.  What did Paul say to Corinth?  I know that you are having problems, so let's talk about doctrine.  What did Paul say to Galatia?  I know that you are having problems, and this particular problem makes me furious, so let's talk about doctrine.  To Philippi, to Ephesus, to Thessalonia?  I know you are having some problems, so let's talk about doctrine.  That was Paul's solution.  I think it would work well here and now.

--Ogre--

What is faith?

The arguments for faith have been damaged by the Second Great Awakening.  Through Kant and Kierkegaard, we have ideas of faith that separate faith from the world of rational thought.  This legacy is in stark contrast to the Biblical idea of faith, faith of three parts that we will develop below.  The Biblical notion of faith is far from the blind leap that characterizes post awakening thinking.

The nineteenth century was to philosophy what the sixteenth century was to theology and Christology.  In large part due to Kant and Kierkegaard, philosophy headed down pathways that eventually lead to Modernity and Postmodernism.  Between Kant's idea that anything that God specifies that you can't do necessarily means that it can be done, and Kierkegaard's idea that subjectivity is separate from objectivity, philosophy eventually moved to the idea that faith was subjective and independent of objective fact.  What is interesting in reading both Kant and Kierkegaard is that at times they managed to describe Christian doctrines very well, and then would use them in bizarre manners to prove discordant theories of self.  There can be no doubt that both were very familiar with the Bible and the work of the Reformers.

Biblical faith is described in a very different way.  Old Testament faith can be seen as obedience or adherence to the Law.  In this way faith is very much tied into the idea of faithfulness, which is obedience.  This notion is expanded by the ministry of Christ in much the same way that He expanded our understanding of many things.  Jesus expanded our understanding of the Temple, of the Sacrificial system, of Law, of Obedience, of every aspect of Old Testament religion.  Therefore, the notion of faith is likewise expanded to encompass this growth in knowledge as revealed by Jesus in the scripture.

What is the faith of the Centurion in Matthew 8 and Luke 7?  Is his expectation based upon some abstract idea that Jesus is a basically good guy who teaches ethical truths?  No, his faith comes from the knowledge that Jesus is actually the Lord, that Jesus is the Word.  The Centurion equates Jesus' Word with the creative force, the healing force, of God.  This faith is completely grounded in the knowledge that Jesus is the Lord.  This is why Jesus makes such an example of this man's faith.  The Centurion recognizes the authority of Jesus.

Similarly, in the next chapter, why are the scribes so upset by this pronouncement by Jesus?  Jesus did not just say you are healed, instead He said "your sins are forgiven." This was recognized as the role of God by the scribes, which is why they considered this blasphemous.  Jesus is claiming authority in this passage.  The faith of the paralytic is equated with the knowledge of Jesus as the Son of Man, or the messiah.

In Acts 3, Peter spells it out plainly, giving the whole formula of faith.  This is an incredible passage.  Peter first gives witness to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus to the very people who had Him killed.  Next Peter places all authority in the name of Jesus.  Finally, Peter grounds the certain knowledge of the person and divinity of Jesus in the Scripture and particularly in the Prophets.  This is a knowledge based argument.  Peter is appealing to an argument that everyone who is listened that day will clearly understand.  They may not have faith, but it can not be said that their lack of faith is independent of reason.  Peter makes his appeal completely upon a rational connection of points from the prophets, through the life of Jesus and concluding in His resurrection.  This is what Peter calls faith.

And now we come to Paul.  The letter to the church in Rome is Paul's great doctrinal statement.  The whole letter is about defining faith.  The letter begins with praising the Romans for their faith, and then goes ahead and defines it for them, to be sure that there is no mistake in understanding what that faith is that Paul is praising.  Starting with the second half of Romans 3, this is the formula for the reformed understanding of faith.  Faith in Jesus unlocks all that Paul discusses in that passage.  Faith is the knowledge that Who Christ is will unlock what Christ has done for us.  We could go on with Paul, but just read Romans, all of it.

So what is faith?  1.  Faith begins with the intellectual knowledge of the historical facts of Christianity as revealed by scripture.  2.  There must be intellectual agreement with these facts.  3.  Finally, through the Grace of God by the action of the Holy Spirit, there must be belief in these facts.  It has not been my purpose in this particular post to argue the Arminian-Calvinist debate.  I will come to that soon in another post.  Both sides of that debate would agree with this definition of faith.

Therefore, Biblical faith is not a blind leap.  Biblical faith is not some amorphous fuzzy feeling.  Biblical faith is not some endorphin or adrenaline laden experience.  Biblical faith is knowledge of the person and work of Jesus Christ, and belief in that knowledge.

--Troll-- 

Worth dying?

This morning, the question that was raised concerning certain Christian martyrs was: what exactly is it that would be worth your life?  I want to build up the idea from scratch until it reaches a minimum threshold to be worth my life.

The starting point was faith.  Is faith worth my life?  Well, faith in what?  Is all faith the same?  The word faith in the Bible has a very specific meaning, but that word has been usurped by the culture and stripped of its textual richness, made bland by liberals and ecumenical movements.  What faith means now is belief in something, anything.  That something could be a naturalistic view of spirituality, where divinity resides in all things, including rocks and air.  That faith could be in humanity in general or the self specifically.  The word has lost its Biblical context.  No, I would not die for faith.

Faith needs an object, so it would seem.  Let’s try this one:  Faith in Jesus.  I have faith in Jesus…to do what?  To just be there for me?  To make the sun rise?  To endow me with blessings in this world?  To be my own personal advisor?  I’m sorry, but none of those things are big enough for my life.  Jesus has to do a whole lot more than be my own personal counselor, advisor, physician and spiritual mentor.  I can get all of those things without going to Jesus; therefore, this faith in Jesus is not enough for my life.

What if Jesus were the Son of God?  I’ve read in the Bible, in the synoptics in fact, that demons and the devil himself know that Jesus is the Son of God, the second part of the Holy Trinity.  This knowledge does not seem to alter their behavior.  Is this enough to alter mine?  Let’s assume that this is true.  So, what does this mean to me?  Is this fact worth my life?  No, not yet, but at least you have my attention.

What if Jesus was the Son of God who died, was buried, and on the third day, rose from the dead, and is seated at the Right hand of the Father, reigning in heaven?  OK, that’s spectacular news.  What does it have to do with me?

What if Jesus died to save sinners?  If He died, how did He save anyone?  Is Jesus a great example that I’m supposed to follow?  Do I have to die a martyrs death for salvation?  No, I’m not buying that one either.  Christianity wouldn’t have survived for 2000 years if the only road to salvation was martyrdom.  Perhaps there is a connection between this death and resurrection of Jesus and my own salvation.

What if Jesus died for me, as a sacrifice on my behalf to a justly angry and Divine God, to expiate my sins, to reconcile me to the God of the Universe, to provide for me righteousness so that I may join Him justly on the Last Day?  What if the Holy Spirit gave me the knowledge of this transaction through the testimony of witnesses to Jesus’ life, death and resurrection as recorded in scripture, and the belief that this account was True?  What if I had faith, or belief, in this knowledge of Christ’s work on the Cross for me as revealed in the Bible, with knowledge also of all of the richness, fullness and nuance of this transaction, would that be enough for my life?  Would that be enough for your life?

Jesus is the Son of God, the second part of the Holy Trinity.  He did condescend to temporarily leave His heavenly throne and become incarnate as both fully God and fully man, thereby taking on the burden of the Law, so that He could fulfill the Law as no other man had done, and no other man could do since the fall of Adam.  By fulfilling the Law, He became a worthy sacrifice to a just God, Himself, being all parts of the drama for us.  He was the priest who made the sacrifice.  He was the sacrifice.  He was God to whom the sacrifice was made.  He sent the third part of the Holy Trinity afterwards, to reveal to His elect, to those who would belief, the truth of the knowledge contained in the scripture, the knowledge of the work of Jesus on the Cross.  He has ascended back to heaven, where He sits until He comes again in Glory to judge the living and the dead.  The only hope of me or any man for salvation is faith, faith in all of this and more as revealed in the Bible.

Yes, that is enough.  For that truth, for that faith, I would become a martyr.  When we take the shorthand instead of spelling out the whole formula, it is important that at least we know that it is shorthand, and that we know for what the word is shorthand as well.  Is this enough for you?

--Ogre--