Dialoguing, part 3

As this seems destined to become quite a series, I think that your last post, Susan, raises too many issues to answer in one post.  In addition, not all of my direct questions were answered, meaning that I am still at a loss understanding the position for which you debate. 

To start, I am going to review my questions and make sure that I have a grip on your responses.  What is the problem?  Incredibly, we identify the problem in similar terms, but we seem to have a different understanding of the history of the American church.  I will spend some time in this area.  The question concerning phonemes and pictographs deserves a linguistic response, and that I will give.  The question that might have been the second most important asked regarding continuing revelation was unanswered.  If your experience differs from mine, how do we know whose revelation is correct?  And then that favorite buzzword comes up, “relationship.” You have stated yourself that people do not know God.  How then can they have a relationship with One Whom they do not know?  Finally, it seems that exegesis will be a necessary part of the discussion.  My position has been articulated in the many, many posts linked to the right.  But rather than just pointing and saying read this, let’s try a couple of passages out for size and see what happens.  I’m willing to go in that direction for now.

The problem.  Historically, what was the main issue behind the Protestant Reformation?  The issue can be boiled down to one of authority.  If there can be more than one pope at a time, (there were actually three at one time in the 15^th century,) and the pope is infallible, then how do we believe this situation as mere humans?  The answer was the Wycliffe run to the authority of scripture.  Scripture is fixed.  It is an immutable authority.  While interpretation may vary, interpretation is a product of man.  Scripture is the inspired Word of God, perhaps better termed the expired or breathed Word of God.  The reason that Reformed get so bent out of shape about continuing revelation is that it smacks of popery, and we have already had enough martyrs for that cause.

You raise the question that if the Pentecostal Movement is the culprit, then why haven’t the mainline denominations given into the Pentecostal reformative process of the last century?  OK, here’s your answer: of course they have.  Beyond a shadow of a doubt, the theology of the mainline denominations has been there, and in fact, they were there before the Evangelicals got there.  The mainline denominations are to some small degree coming back towards some semblance of orthodoxy.  They have seen the logical end point of that path in horror and are warning the Evangelicals against their current course.  Let’s look at this in terms of the US historical experience before we tackle the theology.  Leaving the philosophical effects of the First and Second Great Awakenings aside for a moment, let’s look at two of the main movers and shakers of the modern American church: John Wesley and Charles Finney. 

John Wesley was an Anglican who had his Moravian boating experience and then rejected Calvinism.  Simplistic, yes, I know.  But bear with me.  He became enamored of the Arminian theology that was infecting the Church of England.  His application of this theology in a society that was individualistic and self reliant to a fault, 18^th century America, led to a practice that fit more with the Arminian theology than the liturgy of the Church of England.  Then, along comes Charles Finney, a thorough going Pelagian, who talks of excitements and a bench of expectation or some such nonsense.  It was the forerunner of the altar call. Here is one of several articles I can provide on the irony of Charles Finney as a Christian leader.  The problem when you take all of the teeth out of the Law and all of the Grace out of the Gospel is that what you have left is a religion of individualism. God helps those who help themselves, and a nation that actually believes that statement is Biblical.  When we all can have our own private revelation that is different from scripture, outside of scripture, where is the authority?  We have moved from a flawed pope to a total lack of authority.  Failure to see the Evangelical movement, the Pentecostal movement, the Wesleyan movement as effected by Finney is naïve.  Regarding the protestant liberals, those mainline denominations we were talking about, those are the very churches to whom Dorothy Sayers was referring.  They are not following the Pentecostal movement.  They were there first.  We can talk about Mechan next, if you like.  That link is actually posted to the right.

Linguistics.  One of the languages that I have studied is Sanskrit.  It is perhaps second in line of all Indo-European languages going back in its roots 5000 years.  While the Asian languages developed in a decidedly pictographic direction, the Indo-Iranian languages, e.g. Persian, evolved differently.  Sanskrit, still, is typologically unique in its absolutely phonetic alphabet.  The symbols all represent discrete sounds that have been unchanged in over 4000 years.  The reason is that the words represent ideas.  Sanskrit was involved in the holy writings of the Hindu and therefore the hope was to pass these writings down untainted through time.  By holding the phonetic quality tightly unchanged, the meanings of the words were similarly unchanged.  This extreme is not represented across the rest of the Indo-European languages, but it does serve to point out that language developed more phonetically in the West.  This is not to divorce all pictographic aspects from Western language, but it is to call into question any over reliance in that sort of system in Western language. Take the Egyptians as an example.  We assumed for decades that the “pictographs” on the temples and pyramids were of the Eastern language type.  The Rosetta Stone made clear that even the pictures of the Egyptians were used phonetically.  While there will be some overlap in our study of languages, it should not be assumed that any significant meaning can be gleaned from a pictographic interpretation of Hebrew, Aramaic, Persian, Greek or Latin.

Experience.  This is the most troubling of all the issues that we raised.  If my experience is different than all ten people in the room, who am I to say that my experience is the authentic experience?  There is no remaining authority upon which to make that judgment.  This is the logical extension of continuing revelation in the way in which it is practiced today.  No adequate discussion of that topic is ever forthcoming.  The authority of scripture is diminished by this practice.  As I said before, Luther’s writings are not a part of the Canon, not even for Lutherans.  Until there is a clear understanding of the Holiness of God and the authority of scripture, this conversation will continue to be apples and prairie dogs.

Relationship.  You ask if I testify to an active relationship with Christ?  No, I don’t.  My experience with Christ is not relevant to anyone else.  The problem is that people do not know who God is.  The Holiness of God and His absolute Holiness is not understood.  The complete sinfulness of all sin is meaningless.  The depth of our despair is unknown.  We are a vast sea of death before the feet of God.  Christ accomplished changing that situation.  As he says in John’s gospel, “It is finished.” This is news, good news, in fact.  My relationship with Him is not relevant to that news.  I proclaim the Good News of Christ Crucified (meaning that as a shorthand for Christ’s incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension.)  The Holy Spirit is responsible for the individual responses of people.  My telling of my response has little more than passing fancy to that rare interested person.  The news is the thing.  The news is the Word that saves.  It’s all about the News.  So, no, I don’t spend 2 seconds on my relationship with Christ in a discussion with others.  I just want to talk about Christ.

Exegesis.  Since you mentioned Psalms, I wanted to do one of those first, but I’m short on time this week.  So, with some indulgence, perhaps we can consider Isaiah 59.  We can try Psalm 36  or 140 or something else perhaps in the future.  And we can do Acts 2 if you like.  You mentioned Peter’s Pentecost sermon in your first post.  We’ll do that passage as well.  That will be more than plenty for a couple of posts each.  I’ll work on those for you soon.

– Ogre –

With Troll watching closely….

Defending Doctrine

With the timeliness that suggests providence, the New Reformation Press reprinted a fabulous quote from the English writer of the early 20^th century, Dorothy Sayers, that is a great starting point for tonight’s rebuttal.  Here is the link:

            The New Reformation Press: More Than a Feeling

I have already linked to the comments to which I will refer tonight at the end of the prior post.  The text is well written and on the whole more cordial than I have been.  Let us address then, with the decorum and grace of Christians, our differences, and see if I too can suggest a reading list that matches at the very least the distinguished names we encountered there. (There is almost no possibility that I will achieve what I am seeking to do with this post in terms of decorum, so I will apologize now so that I don’t miss my chance later.) Let’s begin.

While I would agree with Ogre that we may be worlds apart in theology and doctrine I do believe that we share a common goal in understanding that the Church needs reformation.

This sentence should take primacy in our discussion.  The importance of this next point is vital in our discussion.  If we both think the Church needs reformation, what do you believe is the problem?  If I am at all convicted that we might view the same problems, I am certain we have different solutions.  Our reformations would look nothing alike.  From my perspective, your reformation took place in the mid-19^th century, and you have already won the day.  Your reformation is the reason for the modern church we have today.  What more, pray tell, would you have us do to the church that we haven’t already done in the last 150 years?  We have revivals, altar calls, modern music, an abandonment of the word and sacrament means of grace, and a disdain for doctrine that would truly embarrass and disappoint Screwtape all the more.  Where else can you go to destroy the last vestiges of the Reformed tradition?

Perhaps we can find the answer to this question as we explore the next section of the post. 

I am here to testify to the power of Christ crucified and alive in me. I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God written with man’s hand and that the full meanings of Scripture are still being unlocked for us today as God reveals new truth about Himself through His Word. I believe that there are layers of meaning in Scripture when taken in the original Hebrew from both a pictographic and phonic context and that what is stated in the Bible is pertinent for today as Jesus is a fulfillment of the law as set forth in the Old Testament.

I have read this several times, and I must confess that I have no idea what it means.  As a seminary student who will soon embark upon the study of Greek and Hebrew, and as a person who has already formally studied to a limited degree four languages other than English (mastering none of them,) I have a great idea of the importance of phonemes, conjugation, inflection and grammar.  I have no idea of the pictographic or phonic context of any of those languages.  Maybe I’m just being stubborn and your meaning is the same as mine.  But there exists in this passage the insistence upon continuing revelation based upon the Word rather than as specifically and carefully recorded in the Word.  The idea of divine inspiration is being applied to the modern eye and ear receiving the Word rather than to the humans who recorded the Word.  I am here to testify to the power of Christ crucified and alive in me. This creates a situation in which there is continuing revelation.  The implication is that the revelation of redemptive history as laid out across time and as recorded in the Bible is insufficient to its stated purpose: the salvation of man.  This is a troubling perspective to me and one to which I will return in a bit.  You see, I am here to testify to Christ incarnate, crucified and arisen.  Do you see the difference?  I am not a part of the predicate of my declaration.

Not for one second do I want to challenge the experience of any person who claims the title of Christian.  I avoided that in my first post, and I shall do that now.  But I will leave this question out there on the subject: if experience is the key to conversion and ongoing revelation, and my experience is different than yours, how is the revelation the same?  How can we all call ourselves by the same label, when each has his own experience of God?  Let’s move onto the next statement I would like to discuss.

The Apostolic Reformation is not about doctrine, rules or a denomination but rather about relationships and ‘fathering’ the next generation. It is our desire to model Christ-likeness through the power of the Holy Spirit and His grace to the people around us on an intergenerational level….

My favorite line on this subject comes from Mike Horton, and he’s so well read, who knows where he found it: How can you have a relationship with someone you know little or nothing about?  Here is the problem.  If you want to go around proof texting, you are going to have to dirty your hands with some doctrine.  The two are not separable.  The Bible was not created to give us a sort of Barlett’s quotations of useful phrases to fit any occasion.  There is a story that unfolds from Genesis to Revelation, the story of the greatest rescue mission of all time.  Doctrine is the plotline of that story.  Doctrine is the story. (Paraphrasing Dorothy Sayers.) 

Rather than discussing an exegesis of Acts 2 and the Joel passage that it quotes, which I have done several times before, I want to avoid the exegesis issue with you for a while longer.  How can one at the same time as claiming not to be a theologian, nonetheless use passages towards a specific purpose or goal, the very functionality of being a theologian of one stripe or another?  We cannot debate theology when one side does not acknowledge that we are doing just that.  We are all theologians, every one of us, including the Muslims, the Buddhists and the atheists.

As a brief aside, the comparison of Martin Luther, John Knox, John Calvin and John Wycliffe to Pierce, Wagner and those others as like individuals is troubling.  Martin Luther, John Knox and John Calvin followed the example of Wycliffe who was perhaps first in articulating sola scriptura before we came to know that view of authority as such.  The others you mentioned absolutely do not hold to anything remotely resembling sola scriptura.  In my effort to keep my tone civil, I need to let this go.  The simplest thing to say so that I can move on is that Martin Luther’s writings are not a part of the Canon, not even for Lutherans.

On the topics of dominion and theocracy, we can agree that your first statement about not speaking for NAR is certainly true.  Your definition of dominion is completely different than that given by Wagner and has no significant eschatological import as his certainly does.  So we can safely avoid that discussion as I was remarking on Wagner’s position, not on your experience, which I have stated that I consider out of bounds. 

In your last paragraph, you returned to proof texting and using a verse out of context.  Again, I think it would be wonderful to do exegesis of some of these passages that you quoted, but it would require a commitment by you to stay the course.  What will you do when your understanding of a passage runs afoul of other passages?  Will you follow the thread of reason and discernment to a different path, or will you accept contradiction within the Word of God? 

If you want to be challenged, keep coming back.  I have only two rules that I will keep for myself on this thread.  First, I will not discuss your experience or mine for that matter.  Neither is contained within the Bible.  Second, although I linked to your website in the prior post, I do not use names on this blog.  I have been blessed with far too little humility and far too little knowledge, and I do have my own experience with the Holy Spirit.  Be that as it may, I believe that there is such a thing as saving faith and that faith has a specific object.  We can call each other brothers in Christ when that definition is at least preserved.  Please do return as this debate might be helpful to many others who read here.

And finally, as for that once promised reading list, and I’m sure I’ll be getting some suggestions from some of my brothers tomorrow, here are some that you yourself recommended in your post, indirectly of course, plus a couple of others.

The Institutes of Religion by John Calvin. 

The Small Catechism by Martin Luther.

Mere Christianity and The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis.

Putting Amazing Back into Grace by Mike Horton

Try the Building Blocks posts on this blog from this year.

And I leave you with Dorothy Sayers once again.

The brutal fact is that in this Christian country not one person in a hundred has the faintest notion what the Church teaches about God or man or society or the person of Jesus Christ.

…Theologically this country is at present is in a state of utter chaos established in the name of religious toleration and rapidly degenerating into flight from reason and the death of hope. 

– Ogre –

To my Pentecostal Brothers and Sisters, part 2

Before we push on into more of the scripture, I left a lot of dangling questions in the last post.  Let’s clean up a couple of those first.  I made an assertion that our health, wealth and happiness was not, and should not be, our greatest concern.  In point of fact, we hear constantly in our churches today that God wants us to be healthy, wealthy and happy, in a word, prosperous.  I know where these ideas originate.  They come from the Old Covenant discussion of blessings and curses.  They start with the idea that we can uphold the Law and obtain the blessings of those covenants.  I want to begin this post by imploding that argument.

First of all, are you ethnically Jewish?  If you answered yes, then I have some bad news for you. You have already broken the covenants.  Only two covenants were made unilaterally (arguably the Noahide as well, but that is another conversation,) and those are the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants.  The creation covenant and the Mosaic covenants were broken by the Jews.  They were conditional covenants.  If you put your faith in the Law, how are you going to claim the rewards when you have already broken the deal?  You didn’t break the deal?  Show me the Temple.  Yes, right now.  Show me the Temple.  You broke the deal.  Do you expect that you will not die?  You broke the deal.

Now, the rest of you who answered no, I’ve got some bad news for you.  The Mosaic covenant was not for you.  You were not given any of the promises made to Moses.  Even if you think you have kept Mosaic Law (Messianic Jews, who are not really Jews at all,) you haven’t really kept the Law, and it’s not your deal anyway, so let it go.  I find it absolutely astounding that preachers can tell people that they can have this and that based upon Old Covenant promises that had nothing to do with us Gentiles.  Those promises were not about us.

The arguments of Paul, in Romans 4 in particular, explain to us how the Abrahamic Covenant and then the Davidic Covenant are about us gentiles.  The fact that God made His promise to Abraham before he was circumcised allowed all of humanity access to this covenant.  Faith in the promise is the key.  That is how gentiles have access to Salvation.  Read all of Romans again.  You can do just chapters 3 and 4 for now, for time concerns, but read the whole letter.  Read it straight through, or use my link so that you can listen to it being read to you.  Each argument builds logically on the one before.  Paul anticipates your objections and deals with them as they arise.  It is amazing stuff.

The second point is that the Law offers no hope of salvation.  What I am I saying?  The Law teaches us that we need salvation.  It offers no solution to the problem.  How do we know this?  Jesus pounds on the Pharisees over this issue throughout all four Gospels.  Paul picks it up and says this in Romans 7:

What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

Paul returns to this topic over and over, but see what he says in Philippians 3:

For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh—though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ…. (Philippians 3:3-8)

So, Paul recognizes that he has no hope through the Law, that his only hope is by the atoning work of Christ Jesus.

But finally, for his first point, let me be more direct.  Read these passages from Matthew 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-13.  This is the account of the temptation of Jesus.  Now compare this with Genesis 3.         

But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:4-5 ESV)

What does Satan offer Jesus?  He offers him food.  He offers him health.  He offers him power.  Satan offers Jesus health, wealth and prosperity.  Hmmm.  Wait a second.  If Satan offers Jesus health, wealth and prosperity, and Jesus says an unhesitating NO to him, what are we to make of the prosperity gospel?  Should we think that our health, wealth and happiness are at the center of God’s concerns for us?  Really?  Let’s try this next passage from 2 Timothy.

But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.  (2 Timothy 3:1-5, 4:3-5 ESV)

Paul warns Timothy that in the last days, there will come times in which people will be lovers of self, of money and so on.  They will accumulate teachers to suit their own passions.  Health, wealth and prosperity.  I ask you again, does this fit together logically?

Today, an almost angry senior Pastor mentioned a key verse, then he paraphrased it badly.  This is the trick.  Instead of teaching the doctrine from the text, use the text to teach your message.  These are not the same thing.  The verse was Romans 12:2, and I have quoted it often.  R.C. Sproul considers this verse one of the most important in his ministry.

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

OK, then, I ask you again.  What does your transformed mind think of the arguments that have been put forth before you above?  Do you still think that health, wealth and prosperity are what living the Christian life is all about?  I will answer that question at the end of the series.  It is the crux of the problem and needs to be addressed.  But for now, let’s hit some other of the questions from the last post.

Repentance.  What is it?  Literally, it is to turn away from something, in our case sin.  Is it possible for us to stop sinning?  No.  Is it possible for us to rid ourselves of the condition of sin?  No.  We have already established that we are powerless against sin.  So, what is repentance?  Look at the Pharisees.  They believed that they fulfilled the Law.  They believed that they were righteous under the Law.  Repentance is nothing more, and nothing less, than a change of attitude towards our condition of sin.  As soon as we recognize that we are condemned under the Law from our condition of sin as well as our specific sins, then we have repented.  We have understood the problem and that we are powerless to fix it.  Repentance in reformed doctrine does not occur without the intervention of the Holy Spirit, but we will come back to that later.  For now, repentance is to stop looking to ourselves for our salvation, and to look outside of ourselves to God.  Is repentance necessary for salvation?  Of course, it is.  For as long as we look to ourselves and not outside of ourselves for salvation, we will never attain it.

And finally for today, let us discuss prophesy.  The common usage of this word is that this is to predict.  Because we have invested so much in this definition, we often lose track of the fact that, scripturally, it has at least two other definitions, both of which come into play in the Bible.  The first is to speak as if divinely inspired.  The second is to instruct or explain.  Let’s look at a typical prophet and see if these definitions all fit.  Isaiah is a typical prophet.  Some would say that Isaiah is the prophet.  Is everything that Isaiah says a prediction of the future?  Absolutely not!  Isaiah spends the vast majority of his book explaining what has already taken place in terms of the Old Covenants.  He is instructing and he is speaking through divine inspiration.  So, when a pastor stands in the pulpit and explains to you about why abortion is evil based upon scripture, citing the text and making a sound argument, that is prophesy.  Here is the key point to make on prophesy.  Go back to our three tools from the beginning and put them to the test.  Those rules must always apply.

Prophesy and rule 1.  It’s not about you, it’s not about me, it’s about Jesus.  But wait, Jesus is not mentioned in the whole book of Isaiah.  In fact, Jesus is not mentioned by name in the whole Old Testament.  Come, come.  We all know better than this.  Every time that a messianic passage is uttered, that is clearly about Jesus.  But, I want to take this a step farther. The Bible is about the greatest rescue mission of all time.  Here are the highlights: Creation, the Fall, the Law, the end of the Temple and the Diaspora, the Second Temple, the First Coming, the Life of Jesus, the sacrificial death of Jesus, the Arisen Jesus, the Ascension, the present evil age with the age to come breaking through, the Second Coming and Judgment.  That is the Bible narrative.  That is called Redemptive History.  The central figure in Redemptive History is Jesus.  That is why we can say that every word of the Bible is about Jesus.  Every word of the Bible has a redemptive historical context; therefore, we can talk about how every word of the Bible relates to Jesus in either past, present or future redemptive historical context.  Therefore, we can say that the whole book of Isaiah is about Jesus.  In fact, as Christians, we know that this is true.

Prophesy and rule 2.  The Bible never contradicts itself.  I would love to spend pages talking about Isaiah and its relationship to the New Testament.  In fact, three months ago, I did just that.  I looked very briefly and superficially at Isaiah 59 in relation to Romans 3.  In fact, the same themes are repeated throughout the Bible.  They have to be repeated because we stubbornly cling to our idolatry of self! (See rule 1.) Therefore, if there is prophesy, meaning divinely inspired instruction just as much as prediction, then it cannot contradict any other passage of the Bible.  Is there prophesy of both types in the New Testament?  Absolutely!  Paul is the most prolific of the New Testament prophets, but Jesus is clearly a prophet.  We look at the three offices of Jesus to be Prophet, Priest and King.  Not only does Jesus tell us the future, but He spends His entire earthly ministry instructing and explaining.  Jesus one ups the idea of divine inspiration; He clearly is an example of divine expiration, the breathed Word of God.  And so we will see in coming posts that rule 2 is never violated by prophesy.

One last point about rule 2, prophesy never violates rule 2 because prophesy always follows rule 1.  If prophesy is always about Jesus, if prophesy is always about redemptive history, then we can test its validity.  Prophesy is not about you and me, as much as we would like for it to be.  Prophesy must always instruct us concerning Jesus and redemptive history. Remember that there are parts of redemptive history that have not yet come to pass.  I am not excluding the future element of prophesy.  Still, prophesy will always instruct and discuss Jesus and redemptive history.

Prophesy and rule 3.   Starting in Matthew 4, Jesus starts to apply Old Testament verses to himself.  In Matthew 5, Jesus behaves as if He is the one in authority to dispense blessings and curses, i.e. God.  The whole of Jesus’ earthly ministry is explaining, first, how He fulfills all of the predictive elements of prophesy, and then, second, how He will continue in redemptive history to fulfill the salvation of the elect.  Instruction, education, always about Jesus, always about Himself.

That was my soapbox moment for today.  Relating this back to the Holy Spirit, if we believe as Christians in a triune God, that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, are Three in One, of one substance, and the Father and Son always speak and teach in terms of redemptive history, (they do always speak that way, we can do that exercise if necessary,) then what is the topic of the Holy Spirit in this present evil age?  What does the Holy Spirit do?  Go back to the first post and focus on John 16.  The Holy Spirit will always follow the same rules that God and Jesus follow, always.

One final note.  Some would say that I am putting God in a box.  Some would say that I am putting rules on God, which cannot be done.  My response is this.  The Bible makes those rules about itself.  Understanding that is the beginning of repentance.

--Ogre--

To my Pentecostal brothers and sisters in Christ: (part 1)

This week, our Church is starting a series on the Holy Spirit, entitled “The Grace Awakening: Discovering the Power of the Holy Spirit.” As you embark on this journey, I would put these few small pearls in your brains to keep your rudder under control.

Many of you who read this blog have children in the Noize.  What is the last song that they sing at every show?  “It’s not about you, it’s not about me, it’s about Jesus.”  Oh, that we would remember that refrain at all times, but most particularly as we read and study the Bible.  The whole Bible is about Jesus, every Word.  So, when we discuss the Holy Spirit in the coming weeks, after every “lesson,” ask yourself whether what you heard was about Jesus, or about you.  It is a simple test.  Try it.  Can you remember a time when you were taught about what Jesus did and why it matters?  Or is it always about our favorite topic, you and me?

Here is another question: does the Bible contradict itself?  If the Bible is the inspired (some would say expired or breathed) Word of God, and we believe God to be the very definition of perfection, how can His Word contradict itself?  Therefore, if we perceive a contradiction, we have interpreted one or the other passage, or both, incorrectly.  This is simple logic.  If A contradicts B, then either A is false, or B is false, or both A and B are false.  Since the Bible is not false, it must be our understanding of that passage that must be false in these instances.  This has to be the case.

Another question: can it be said that quotes from Jesus have more weight than quotes from Paul?  While I would certainly argue that not all verses have equal importance, I am not ready to make this statement.  First of all, Paul never contradicts Jesus in scripture by definition.  If it is in scripture, then by definition, it is the breathed Word of God.  Still, since there are some Red Letter Christians out there, is it reasonable to say that if Jesus voiced a view on a topic first, that Paul should be interpreted in light of what Jesus said about that topic?  Sure, that seems like a reasonable approach.  We can agree on that point as well.

Now, let us apply these three simple principles to some scripture.  To reiterate:

• 1.    It’s not about you, it’s not about me, it’s about Jesus.
• 2.    The Bible never contradicts itself.
• 3.    If Jesus says something about a topic, perhaps all of the other passages should be interpreted in light of that.

What we are going to do is look at the primary scriptural text regarding the Holy Spirit.  Here are the big ones.  John 14-16, Acts 2-4, 1 Corinthians 12-14.  That is three sections from three authors.  John is an Apostle and an eyewitness to the life of Jesus.  He gives us direct quotes from Jesus.  Luke, the author of Acts, gives us testimony from a second hand source.  We know that he received his information in this way because he tells us thus in Luke 1:2.  We also know that he was a companion of Paul, and therefore an eyewitness to much of the Book of Acts that concerns Paul.  Paul himself wrote 1 Corinthians, or at least dictated it to his scribe.  Paul is an eyewitness to the Risen Christ on the road to Damascus. 

John 14-16.

This whole section is a quote from Jesus at the Last Supper, and it actually begins in Chapter 13 and extends down into Chapter 17.  This is an amazing section of scripture.  Take a moment and read it.  I’ve linked it for you in the heading just above.  Now, let’s get down to the key sections.  John 14:15-31  Here, Jesus tells us about the Holy Spirit, whom He calls the Helper.  Verses 16-17: He is the Spirit of Truth.  Verses 25-26: He will teach us about Jesus, and give us remembrance of what Jesus said to us.  John 16: 4b-15  The rubric calls this section the Work of the Holy Spirit!  Surely, we will gain some insight here.  The Helper will not come until Jesus is gone.  He will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment.  He does not speak on His own authority but only what He hears from Jesus.  He will declare the things that are to come.  He will glorify Jesus and take what is of Jesus and declare it to us.  Heavy stuff.

And so a brief recap of this section can be stated this way.  The Holy Spirit will come to be the Helper, who will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness and judgment, then He will declare the things that are to come concerning Jesus.  The Law and the Gospel.  He will declare the Law that convicts us, and then declare the Gospel and what is to come concerning Jesus.

Now, let us apply our test.  It was all about Jesus.  Yes, the Holy Spirit always testifies about Jesus, what He has done and what He will do on the Last Day.  No internal contradiction.  The Law convicts and Jesus saves.  Now, let’s apply this section to the others for the third test.

Acts 2-4

Before we dive too deeply into Acts 2, let me say a word about Acts 1:5.  This passage is often interpreted as a second event, that we require a second Baptism.  Let me be plain.  If you accept that you require a second baptism of any type, it implies that the resurrection of Jesus was insufficient in some way.  If you do not understand the vicarious atonement and penal substitution, then, perhaps, yes, you might need something else.  But the Christian has no such need of second Baptisms!  The Christian is full of the certain hope in the resurrection, that through Christ, he will receive all of the just rewards in heaven that Christ has promised.  I have gone over some of the exegesis of this question in my last post, almost a month ago now, so let me refer you there, then, I will return to this topic again at the end here.

I want to do something that I don’t often do in these posts.  I want to go out of order.  Skip down to Acts 2:41, 47.

So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.  (Acts 2:41 ESV)      

…praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.  (Acts 2:47 ESV)

These are not small statements, indeed, these statement are the point of all that has occurred.  What does Luke say happened that day?  Did 3000 people find their best life now?  Did 3000 people find health, wealth and happiness in this present evil age, in this world?  Did 3000 people have fire dancing on their heads?  Let’s learn some grammar, shall we?  Acts 2:41 is written in passive voice.  This means that the subject of the sentence is not the 3000, nor the ones who received his word, but rather they are the object of the verb baptized.  These 3000 didn’t do anything.  They were acted upon by the Holy Spirit through the Words of Peter, who were given to him by the Holy Spirit.  The book is called the Acts of the Apostles, not the acts of all the people who received His Word.  The people received his word.  They didn’t seek it.  They didn’t go on a search party for the truth.  In fact, most of them were minding their own business being good Jews, when they happened upon this guy Peter speaking loudly in their native tongue about another Jewish guy, who they thought was dead, who turned out to be the messiah after all.

What did most Jews in the first century think was their largest problem?  Was it righteousness?  No, they had the Law and their sacrifices; they were covered there.  Was it health, wealth and prosperity?  Certainly, Jesus and the Apostles went around healing people, but they thought that disease was a consequence of sin.  They had sin covered by the sacrifices.  No, they had bigger fish to fry than personal affluence and happiness.  It was the Roman occupation!  They believed that their largest problem was that this piece of dirt that was promised to them by God hundreds of years earlier, but that they had lost through their own disobedience, was still not their own piece of dirt again.  And we would all say about them today that they sort of missed the point.  Jesus tried to explain this to them over and over.  The pharisaical righteousness that they claimed was falling miles short of the mark.  Jesus tried to explain to them repeatedly that their biggest problem was an issue of righteousness before God on the Last Day in judgment for their sin.

Today, what do we see as our largest problem?  Is it righteousness?  No, we have Jesus for an example, and we can work out our righteousness through His example.  Is it health, wealth and prosperity?  We don’t think that misfortune is the result of sin any longer.  So, for many, yes it is the biggest problem.  Is it that Israel is now back on that piece of dirt (though not all of it, not even all of Jerusalem,) and a new enemy has arisen against them?  For many more, yes it is.  Now, you icons of proficiency in English grammar, do you see the parallel construction of these last two paragraphs?  Let me spell it out for you in table form.

First Century	Today
Righteousness by the Law	Righteousness by Works
Health, wealth and prosperity	Health wealth and prosperity
Israel occupied	Israel partially occupied

OK, do these columns look similar?  What can we say about these three Jewish opinions in the First Century?  That they were wrong?  Jesus said that they were.  Now, look at the second list.  What has changed in this list?  Did Jesus give us any reason to believe that this list is any less wrong today?  Hmmm, we’ll come back to that question.

What were the conclusions of Acts 2:41, 47?  Souls were being saved.  Salvation is the issue.  Salvation is our biggest problem.  We don’t have it.  We need it.  Jesus came to do it for us and then give it away.  So, we can agree perhaps, that according to Jesus, Peter, and Paul, that our greatest problem is Salvation.

Ok, are you with me so far?  Let’s get to another key verse. 

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” (Acts 2:37-39 ESV)

Wow!  This looks like action!  This is something for us to do!  Repent!  Wait.  What is that and what does it mean and why do we need to do it?  Be baptized!  Wait.  We just said that we cannot Baptize ourselves.  We receive Baptism from someone else.  You will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  Stop!  Another gift!  That means we have to sit and wait for someone else to do the giving!  We can’t go get it, we have to receive it.  Now, I like this next part.  It’s about a promise for me and my children and everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.  Oh, no.  God does the calling?  God does the calling to himself?  What if we don’t hear him call?  What if we do?  Then what?

My friends, this is the point.  There is a Holy Spirit.  His job is to bridge this gap that you are starting to perceive, this gap between God and man.  You know about a promise now, but to whom was it made?  You know about a gift, but you don’t know how to receive it.  The gift is about Salvation.  I hope that at least in this first part, we have made that much plain.  These first parts are the building blocks upon which we will build the rest of Acts 2-4 and Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians.

Maranatha!

--Ogre--

Women in Church, another discussion

An interesting debate was developing elsewhere on the worldwide web concerning the place of women in the church.  As always, Paul becomes a stumbling block in these discussions.  Very often, I find that we attempt to rationalize passages that say things that we don’t like.  I certainly don’t like Paul’s commentaries on the roles of women.  But as you know, I am a firm advocate of the Five Solas, and this includes Sola Scriptura.  Therefore, in applying a hermeneutic to interpret a passage, it must be consistently applied.  The following is a comment from that debate elsewhere about which I will be commenting.

This is where the understanding of the customs of the day MUST get into our Bible interpretation. It was both Jewish and Gentile custom (just like slavery, which the Bible does not condone and yet made clear allowances for in Paul's letters and the Law of Moses) for women to sit separately from their husbands in synagogues (Jews) and for women to be prohibited from the learning experience by-and-large (Sparta was virtually the only "liberated" culture among the Gentiles, allowing an agoge educational experience for women). The Jewish rabbinic tradition forbade women from even owning a copy of the Torah. The tradition actually said, "It would be better for the Torah to be burned, than to fall into the hands of a woman." Further still, Paul's use of the "Adam and Eve" example in the 1 Ti. 2 passage sets the learning/speaking experience for women in the context of marriage, not a woman's interaction with the Church. The 1 Co. passage instructs the Church on order in prophesying, how a woman should wear a head cover (which was a custom of the day), and then makes the emphatic statement in v. 16: "But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such CUSTOM, NOR DO THE CHURCHES OF GOD!" HELLO. Titus 2:1-5 has no ammunition at all for this fallacious doctrine that paralyzes church ministry in tradition that nullifies the Word of God. (Mk. 7:13)

In the discussion mentioned above, the following assertion was made.  We must understand the customs of the day in order to properly interpret passages of the Bible.  I must say at the outset, that this sets a very dangerous precedent that the reformers would absolutely pummel with abuse.  The mantra of the reformers is that scripture interprets scripture.  Never do they allow culture of that day or ours to have a higher authority over scripture than scripture itself.  The authority of scripture must remain sacrosanct.  Therefore, from the outset, we can assume that I will have grave reservations about the line of reasoning that followed.

The next assertion, which was presented as a parenthetical, was slipped in equating Paul’s view of women with Paul’s view of slavery.  First of all, this is preposterous.  Paul never condones the Roman practice of slavery, nor does he endorse it.  To be quite sure, the Roman practice of slavery was vastly different from the American version centuries later that was evil through and through.  The image of slavery is used throughout the New Testament in discussion of our active obedience to Christ in response to the gift of faith in the redeeming work of Jesus on the Cross.  You cannot understand the Gospel properly without dealing with these images and the cultural bias that we bring to the passages.  In the sense that we need to understand slavery in the context of slavery in first century Roman culture, the original assertion was correct.  However, the application of that assertion was wide of the mark.

The commentary went on to compare the Roman practice of slavery with the rabbinical law that dealt with men and women in synagogues.  This is problematic on many levels, apples and oranges leaps to mind.  Rabbinical Law is enscripturated.  Slavery was a social practice of the culture of the time.  The idea that because slavery was a practice that Moses and Paul did not condemn means that any aspect of rabbinical law that we deem obsolete can be disregarded is a very poor, and false, logical construct.  We have ample reason to disregard the whole of rabbinical law save the moral law from Jesus, and I will use this approach to deal with Moses.  But this is scripture interpreting scripture.  Jesus tells us that the rabbinical law is fulfilled in Him, and the New Covenant of Christ requires only the moral law as he summarizes.  Paul certainly reinforces this point in his Epistle to the Galatians.  Jesus does not deal with slavery either, by the way.  He really doesn’t need to address it, when you think about it.  The Gospel handles slavery without specifically calling it out.

The next assertion is that the 1 Timothy 2 passage is in the context of marriage.  Really?  Verse 8 says “in every place” as clearly as I can imagine.  Paul talks specifically about husbands and wives in at least two other places, Ephesians and Colossians, so why would he be so vague about his meaning here?  I’m afraid Paul’s statement is regrettably far more broad in this instance.  Paul asserts exactly that women should not teach men in church in exactly this place in 1 Timothy.  While we can argue that he states that he desires this behavior, what is unfortunate is that we now have this in scripture and it is unavoidable. 

This issue of head covering in 1 Corinthians 11 is argued quite a bit more strongly than just as a custom of the day.  Paul gives theological argument for this behavior and practice.  While one can perhaps argue that long hair on a woman is a sufficient head cover, I do not understand leaping to the notion that the meaning of verse 16 is that everything that Paul has stated in the first 15 verses he just brushes away with a word.  Here is a great place to point out that head coverings in that day in Greece signified marriage for the woman.  Therefore, actually, this passage IS about married women.  What Paul is saying in verse 16 is that no other church outside of Corinth practices differently than what he has just spelled out in the first 15 verses.  This is exactly the opposite from what was asserted.

Finally, I would state that the assertion made concerning Titus 2 is just flat wrong.  Paul says that older women should be teaching younger women how to do a lot of things in the household that end with being submissive to their husband.  That is a pile of ammunition to this fight.

Now, I want to conclude with two points.  The first is this: if you come to a theological discussion with me with mere assertions and poorly constructed logic, I will not ignore your error.  The second is this: I don’t like what Paul says, but Peter calls Paul’s words the gospel.  What am I to do?  I can choose to not like it all that I want, but there it is.

The only sound argument made in all of this against Paul is not about tradition, but about only the moral law remaining in the New Covenant, and that both men and women are now Baptized in the New Covenant rather than just men being circumcised in the Abrahamic Covenant.  But that argument was not made.

--Ogre--

What is Spiritual?

As I become a better student of Paul, I have found myself accused of not believing in anything spiritual.  Ironically, that is the same accusation that many liberals have leveled against Paul.  The reformers, on the other hand, viewed Paul as the Apostle of the Holy Spirit.  Therefore, l thought it would be helpful to look at why I consider myself spiritual.

I believe in the Trinity.  That is surely a good start.  The third person of the Trinity is the Holy Spirit.  We’ve discussed what the Holy Spirit does in the past, but for the sake of review, John 14-16, 20 are all good red letter sources on the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, testifies about the Son, and fills the disciples so that they may testify about the Son.  That is Who the Holy Spirit is and what He does.  The Holy Spirit brings true faith to the believers.  The Holy Spirit is the key to unlocking Salvation through the propitiating life, death and resurrection of Jesus.  That is a very spiritual doctrine.

Secondly, I believe that man has a spirit, a soul, a part of his existence that is completely tied to his body, and at the same time can be separated from his body.  In a way, Salvation is the eternal union of body and soul.  Without the Salvation through Jesus Christ (full formula implied,) the body will die and the soul will burn.  With Christ, first the soul is saved and then later the body is saved and reunited with the soul.  That is Biblical and that is a very spiritual doctrine.

What I don’t believe is any idea of Gnosticism or Mysticism that rips the Holy Spirit from the Trinity and has Him performing parlour tricks at the whim of man.  These ideas have been considered heretical since the first century.  The word-faith, name-it-claim-it groups do such tremendous violence to the Gospel that it is not recognizable as Gospel and constitutes heresy and false teaching in every sense of the phrase.  Paul warns constantly about false teachers, but here is what he says to the Corinthians on the subject.  This is a fairly stern warning.  Their end will correspond to their deeds.  This is a Law statement and it is true of all people at Judgment Day.  The difference is that the true Gospel gives access to a different righteousness that is external to us and given to true believers apart from any perceived merits on our part and regardless of any perceived faults on our part.  This is what Paul says in Romans 3-5 concerning justification.

Therefore, am I spiritual?  Absolutely, I am among the most spiritual people you know.  Am I a mystic?  Certainly not.  Am I a Gnostic?  Clearly not.  There is a type of spirituality apart from the magical realm of the mystic that resides within many faiths.  In Christianity, it is clearly defined in scripture.  Remember why we are not all Roman Catholics today.  Sola Scriptura is not such a bad thing, after all.

--Ogre--

God in a Box

This is the old reliable nonsense retort hurled towards the reformed, or any confessional church for that matter.  You can’t put God in a box.  What they really mean is that there has to be room for me in that box.  That is what is behind all of these protestations.  If God is in a box, there  must be room for me and my input.  What do I mean?  Let’s see.

Arius thought that Jesus wasn’t wholly God.  This was just inconceivable.  He just couldn’t wrap his mind around the idea.  If he couldn’t conceive of the thing, then the thing couldn’t be true.  His views needed room in the box.

Pelagius thought that all that Original Sin stuff was rubbish.  Adam was a bad example and Jesus was a good example.  We get to choose which example we follow.  We had to have the power over our own salvation.  Our free will needed room in the box.

Arminius thought that our salvation was based upon grace, if we would just accept the offer of grace.  God will take 99 steps if we will just take one.  He needed room in the box for his one step.

Gnostics and mystics believe in all sorts of things.  God does this and god does that and no limits are possible.  All we have to do is ask god, and like the cosmic butler or a genie in a bottle, he will do those things because he knows us deep inside.  He might send a spirit that they will call “holy” to do some of these things for them.  They need room in the box for all of their supplications and all of their extra things they expect a god to do.

I have a box.  God fits into it nicely, because He says He fits into it.  He hasn’t told me about any parts that don’t fit.  So, I just concern myself with the parts that do fit.  Those are the only parts that I know about.  Those are the only parts He has told me about.  Someday, after I die, perhaps I’ll learn about a larger box, perhaps about more parts, if that is a part of my inheritance.

Oh, by the way, here is a picture of my box:

Everything we know about God is found here.  Everything that He has revealed about Himself is found here.  If it isn’t found here, well, it isn’t God, is it?

--Ogre--

It’s the Only way….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more on this topic, try this link.

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

--Troll--

The ThirtyNine Articles: 6-8, Holy Scripture and the Creeds

In this next section, the 39 articles turn to scripture as the sole volume of information sufficient for salvation.  A very important distinction should be made at this point.  The scripture is not intended to reveal all things about all subjects.  God does keep some of His secrets to Himself.  What it does mean is that all of the information required for salvation is contained within scripture.

VI. Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for salvation.

Holy Scripture  contains  all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite as necessary to salvation.

   In the name of Holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. 

   Of the names and number of the Canonical Books. 

Genesis.  Exodus.  Leviticus.  Numbers.  Deuteronomy.  Joshua.  Judges.  Ruth. 
The .1. book of Samuel.  The .2. book of Samuel.
The .1. book of Kings.  The .2. book of Kings.
The .1. book of Chronicles.  The .2. book of Chronicles.
The .1. book of Esdras.  The .2. book of Esdras.
The book of Hester.  The book of  Job.  The Psalms.  The Proverbs.
Ecclesiastes. or preacher.  Cantica, or songs of Solomon.
4. Prophets the greater.  12. Prophets the lesser. 

   And the other books, (as Jerome said) the Church does read for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet does it not apply them to establish any doctrine. Such are these following. 

The third book of Esdras. The fourth book of Esdras. The book of Tobias. The book of Judith. The rest of the book of Hester. The book of Wisdom. Jesus the son of Sarah. Baruch, the prophet. Song of the .3. Children. The stone of Susanna. Of Bel and the Dragon. The prayer of Manasses. The .1. book of Machab. The .2. book of Macha. 

   All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and accept them for Canonical. 

It is not my purpose to review the arguments for the Canon.  There are a couple of basic principles that can be applied.  First, the author of a particular New Testament book must either be within the original twelve, or a first circle around those twelve, such were Luke and Paul.  Clearly, other documents existed from these same sources that are not included in the Canon for whatever reason.  Some were lost to antiquity.  Some were deemed to be superfluous duplications of other Canonical material.  Still others were felt to be of dubious authorship and authority.  The point for me is that there is a specific Canon spelled out here. 

VII. Of the Old Testament.

The Old Testament is not contrary to the New, for both in the Old and New Testament, everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only mediator between God and man, being both God and man. Wherefore they are not to be heard in a manner that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the law given from God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the civil precepts thereof, ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth:  yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever, is free from the obedience of the commandments, which are called moral.

The first sentence here is absolutely huge.  The Church of England states unequivocally an adherence to a Christocentric hermeneutic.  It goes on to say that the rabbinical law does not apply, but that the Decalogue, which is moral law, is absolutely binding.  While there is nothing particularly earth shattering about the second portion, there is our first infusion of the political structure of man in this section.  The idea of commonwealth is a worldly discussion of manmade political divisions.  While no distinction is drawn in this article, it is interesting that there is being made a distinction between the theocracy of ancient Israel and the absence of rabbinical law under the New Covenant of Grace.  And at the same time, the Old Testament still informs us about Jesus.  This is truly remarkable and a good lesson for dispensationalists who came to prominence three to four centuries hence. 

VIII. Of the three Creeds.

The three Creeds: Nicene Creed, Athanasius Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed; for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.

Going back to the previous post on the issue of the Creeds and article 3, we have to question whether Holy Scripture does in fact support all of the components of the Creeds.  Certainly, the Nicene Creed seems to hold up better from our first inspection, but what of the rest of these creeds.  On the right column near the bottom are my favorite reference websites.  CRTA contains all of the creeds in a link on the left column of its home page called Historic Church Documents.  On that page, the creeds are at the top.

The first 27 points of the Athanasian Creed have to do with the Trinity.  The next several through 39 have to do with Christ.  40-42 are much to discuss.  40 talks about rising with our bodies.  I’ve often wondered about this section.  First, we know that some of the early martyrs were dismembered and taken asunder.  Others were burned at the stake.  Surely, this resurrection body can account for this dishonoring of the body.  When we say that we believe in a resurrected body, and the first example is an empty tomb, these parts must be gathered and reunited and healed.  I’m not taking issue with this, but rather I’m pointing out the extent of what this must mean.

However, 41-42 are more controversial.  These sound on the surface as a statement of works righteousness.  I don’t think that anyone would argue that righteousness at Judgment is based upon works, only it is the works of Jesus that matter to us, His elect.  But, this is the end of the creed.  Dangling the works righteousness theology at the end of the creed without any grounding in the vicarious nature of the atonement seems at odds with the next section of the 39 articles, wherein the Pelagian heresy is directly confronted.  This is a particularly difficult section and it would be of interest to hear where thoughts on this creed went during the Reformation.  It’s inclusion in so many of the Reformation documents remains incredible to me based upon this last section.

In the next post, we will be tackling articles 9-14, concerning sin, free will, justification and works.  In other words, the next post will cover the meat of the Gospel.

--Troll--